[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 95 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8275-S8281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S8275]]
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 3172

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wanted to briefly speak to this 
amendment, as well, and I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I 
don't know ultimately how we will dispense with this. I understand 
there has been some change in the language from the original amendment 
that was brought to the floor.
  By the way, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the 
Senator from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson.
  In addition, I would like to say to my colleague, Senator Grassley 
from Iowa, a colleague for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect, 
that there are some provisions in this amendment I just don't quite 
understand. The idea of most farmers right now being able to put money 
in IRAs just doesn't make a lot of sense. If I go to northwest 
Minnesota this weekend and I say, ``We have a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution that talks about your being able to put all the extra money 
you are making into IRAs, tax free,'' they are going to look at me like 
I have been living on the Moon. What good does it do for farmers who 
are going under to have a provision talking about IRAs--that you can 
take all the extra money you have and put it into savings?
  For the last several days we have been talking about a farm crisis. 
We have been talking about 20 percent of the farmers in Northwestern 
Minnesota in economic trouble. We have been talking about people not 
being able to cash-flow. Why are we talking about IRAs, tax-free 
savings, for people who not only can't save but can't cash-flow on the 
record low prices they are getting?
  Second, we can talk about trade and fast track and all the rest. Our 
farmers can compete with anybody, anywhere, anytime, if we have fair 
trade. But in all due respect--and my colleague from North Dakota 
talked about this the other day--if I was to take a look at the United 
States-Canadian Free Trade Agreement, which was the precursor to NAFTA, 
which then superseded that agreement, and asked the wheat farmers in 
northwest Minnesota, ``How are you doing on the basis of that trade 
agreement?'' they would say, ``What are you all talking about? You cut 
an agreement that did great for intellectual property rights, that did 
well for all the big grain companies, but left us completely out in the 
cold. Why in the world would you want to extend or expand that trade 
agreement that never gave us a fair shake or level playing field in the 
first place?''
  Maybe the wording of this amendment has changed, and maybe everybody 
can agree, but I only saw the original version; I was down here on the 
floor listening to my colleague from Iowa. I have to say, maybe we hear 
what we want to hear. Maybe we talk to different kinds of farmers. 
Maybe there is something else that explains this. But I have been to a 
fair number of farm gatherings, now called ``farm crisis meetings.'' 
When you walk into a school in northwest Minnesota, there is a sign 
outside ``Farm Crisis Meeting.''
  When people start talking about what is happening to them, there are 
two things that I hear: No. 1, we need some direct assistance; this is 
a disaster. In northwest Minnesota, that means scab disease, wet 
weather, and low prices.
  My colleague, Senator Conrad, I think, will have an amendment on the 
floor talking about indemnity payments. People are saying, ``In the 
here and now, please get that payment to us.'' It is like in Ada, 
Minnesota, I say to my colleague from North Dakota. We got hit with the 
flooding. It destroyed the high school. FEMA, the Federal Emergency 
Management Assistance, came in with direct grant money that enabled the 
communities to rebuild their school. That is what we are talking 
about--some direct assistance to family farmers so that they can 
rebuild their lives, so they at least have a chance to go on and don't 
go under.
  The other thing that I hear farmers talking about over and over and 
over again is price. In all due respect, this Freedom to Farm 
legislation which my colleague, Senator Grassley from Iowa, talks 
about, and I have heard other colleagues talk about staying the course, 
is a disaster. When prices were up, yes, people were for it--some 
were--when there were the transition payments. But we cut out the 
safety net; we took away from farmers their ability to have any 
leverage and get a fair price in the marketplace. Farmers can't cash-
flow on less than $2 a bushel of corn and $2.58 a bushel of wheat. It 
is that simple. I think I am pretty good at arithmetic. If on every 
bushel of corn and every bushel of wheat you continue to lose a lot of 
money because it costs you far more to produce it than the price you 
get, then just producing more bushels of corn and more bushels of wheat 
will put you further into debt.

  The way it works, colleagues, vis-a-vis trade, is we should go with 
the trade, go with the exports. But if you don't get the loan rate up, 
the family farmers have no leverage with the grain companies, and the 
grain companies make the money on the trade; it is not the family 
farmers. The loan rate is what is key to the price. We are talking 
about price. It is like when I was teaching in Northfield, MN, at 
Carleton College, I remember one evening bringing in a bunch of farmers 
from the community so they could teach the class. Many of the students, 
even though Rice County, where they lived, was very much an 
agricultural county, hadn't had a chance to learn that much about 
agriculture. I remember one farmer coming in and he came up to the 
blackboard and he wrote down ``price,'' and then underneath it 
``price,'' and then underneath it ``price.''
  I just want to say one more time, since we had this discussion on the 
floor here today, that if we don't do something about the loan rate and 
get it up to give the farmers a price, they can't cash-flow. The 
exports will be great for the grain companies, but the farmers aren't 
going to get the fair price. Do you think that farmers, when they are 
dealing with the big grain companies, are dealing with Adam Smith's 
invisible hand, some small businesses? They are dealing with a few 
large companies that dominate. They are facing an oligopoly. They need 
to have some leverage in the marketplace, so we need to get the loan 
rate up.
  So, with all due respect, I am in profound disagreement about staying 
the course on Freedom to Farm. It has become freedom to fail. It is 
great for the grain companies and terrible for family farmers. If you 
don't get the price up, all the speeches and rhetoric in the world will 
not help, and the surest, quickest, most efficient, fairest way to get 
the price is to at least take the cap off of the loan rate.
  We lost that amendment yesterday. We are going to come back to it 
because, in the fall, this situation could be even worse. In the short 
run, to lead up to my colleague from North Dakota speaking, who is 
about to lay down an amendment, I fully support this effort by my 
colleague from North Dakota, which at least will get some indemnity 
payments out there and give farmers some assistance so our families can 
stay on the land and they can have a chance at least to dream about a 
better tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I must comment on Senator Grassley's 
sense-of-the-Senate. While I unequivocally support many of the 
provisions within the amendment, I must voice my concern over the 
provision regarding extending most-favored-nation trading status to 
China.
  For more than 20 years, the Pacific Northwest has been unable to 
break China's ban on our wheat. In addition, China has consistently 
barred imports of our apples and other high quality commodities. With 
these obvious barriers to American agriculture, I question the wisdom 
of extending MFN to China when it refuses to open its agricultural 
markets to our produce.
  I have serious reservations regarding extending MFN status for China, 
but because of the dire situation facing the family farm in America, I 
will support Senator Grassley's sense-of-the-Senate.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Grassley amendment that is before us 
today expresses the sense of the Senate about a

[[Page S8276]]

wide array of issues, about nine different issues in all. I agree with 
some of the ideas expressed in the amendment, but I have serious 
reservations about others.
  Mr. President, among the ideas I favor are the provisions of the 
amendment that express support for additional capital-gains and death-
tax relief.
  Although it is unclear from the language of the amendment what form 
that relief should take, I hope Senator Grassley would agree with me 
that a good approach on capital gains would be something like the 70-
percent exclusion that would be allowed by S. 73, the Capital Gains 
Reform Act, which I introduced last year. That is the same exclusion 
proposed by President John Kennedy some 35 years ago.
  Preferably, death-tax relief would mean outright elimination of the 
death tax, as proposed in S. 75, the Family Heritage Preservation Act. 
That bill, which I introduced last year, is cosponsored by 30 other 
Senators.
  Fast-track trade authority is something that I have voted for in the 
past, and I will vote for it again. Hopefully, we will have the chance 
to do that before the year is out.
  And I have long supported legislation that would provide full 
deductibility for health insurance for the self-employed. There is no 
good reason why people who are self-employed are singled out for 
disparate treatment when full deductibility is allowed for all other 
employees. We ought to provide 100 percent deductibility, and do it 
now, not several years from now.
  Unfortunately, there is more to the amendment than capital-gains and 
death-tax relief, health insurance, and fast track. There are other 
issues, too, and some of them are quite controversial. For example, the 
amendment expresses the support of the Senate for full funding for the 
International Monetary Fund (IMF). But what does full funding mean? Is 
it $3.5 billion or $18 billion--or will it be more, now that the IMF 
and Russia are talking about another bailout? Will the funding be 
conditioned on meaningful reform of the way the IMF does business?
  We do not know the answers to these questions from the language of 
the amendment. It is not designed to answer them, because it is merely 
a sense of the Senate amendment. But without knowing the answers, I 
believe it would be imprudent to go on record in support of ``full 
funding for the IMF.''
  In fact, many of us have serious reservations about providing more 
money for the IMF, particularly it if is not accompanied by meaningful 
reform of the way the international agency does business. Many of us 
question the fundamental wisdom of having taxpayers bail out bad 
business practices and bad investment decisions abroad. Therefore, I 
would have to object to the IMF-related provisions we are considering 
here.
  There is also language in this amendment on economic sanctions. We 
addressed that issue yesterday when we considered the Lugar, Dodd, and 
Torricelli amendments, so I am not sure why we are considering it 
again, particularly since the amendment does not specify what kind of 
sanctions reform is in order.
  Most Favored Nation status for China is another controversial issue, 
and I believe we need to focus on it separately, more deliberately. 
There are far too many issues at stake this year to be considering MFN 
status along with myriad others in this sense of the Senate amendment.
  Mr. President, as I said at the outset, this is only a sense of the 
Senate amendment. It has no force of law, no effect, regardless of 
whether it passes.
  But I think it does cloud the record when issues like the IMF, 
economic sanctions, and MFN status for China are coupled with things 
like capital-gains and estate-tax reform, fast track, and health 
insurance. I would not want support for the latter set of issues to be 
construed as support for the former set.
  Since we will still need to act on separate legislation to accomplish 
the things raised by the Senator from Iowa in his amendment, and since 
there are some key elements of the amendment to which I object, I am 
going to vote against the amendment. It accomplishes nothing, and it 
adds confusion by suggesting that members either oppose or support 
everything in it. My ``no'' vote should be construed as a vote against 
this irrelevant and confusing procedure.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, although I have great respect for the 
Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and I recognize that he is one of the 
Senate's foremost experts on matters that affect the Nation's farmers, 
I nevertheless strongly oppose the pending amendment. The amendment 
merely expresses the ``Sense of the Senate,'' and in so doing would 
not, if adopted, result in any legislative action in any of the areas 
addressed by the amendment. Nevertheless, in my years of service in 
this body, I cannot recall having seen an amendment that attempted to 
address so many diverse issues at one time. It amounts to a virtual 
smorgasbord, a Dagwood sandwich, a grab bag, a hodgepodge designed to 
enable one to issue a zillion press releases rolled into one. It is 
intended to be all things to all people. It is analogous to wearing a 
pinstripe suit, a plaid tie, paisley trousers, and a polka-dotted shirt 
at the same time.
  The amendment raises ten very important matters and expresses the 
Sense of the Senate that each of these ten matters should be enacted or 
undertaken by the President and Congress in short order. I will not 
take the time of the Senate to address in detail each of the areas 
contained in the amendment. But, for the interest of the viewers who 
may be following this debate, it urges the President and Congress to 
pass fast track trading authority--which authority, in my view, would 
grossly undermine the constitutional prerogatives of the Legislative 
Branch to oversee trade agreements; it states that Congress should pass 
and the President sign S. 2178, the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act; 
it calls for full funding of the International Monetary Fund--some $18 
billion--over which there is substantial controversy at this time as to 
how much funding should be given to IMF and what reforms should be 
undertaken by that organization in order to be able to access any 
appropriations that may be provided to them; it states that Congress 
should pass and the President should sign sanctions reform legislation 
so that the agricultural economy is not harmed by sanctioned foreign 
trade; it urges Congress to uphold the Presidential waiver of the 
Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Act relating to normalizing 
trade relation status to China; it calls on the House and Senate to 
pursue a package of capital gains and estate tax reforms; it calls on 
the President to pursue stronger oversight on all international trade 
agreements affecting agriculture; it then shifts to the question of 
providing full deductibility of health care insurance for self-employed 
individuals--urging the President to sign such legislation; it then 
calls on Congress and the Administration to pursue efforts to reduce 
regulations on farmers--never mind what regulations, it just says to 
reduce regulations on farmers; and finally the tenth matter in the 
amendment calls on the President to use administrative tools available 
to him to use Commodity Credit Corporation and unused Export 
Enhancement funds for humanitarian assistance.
  Mr. President, this is an amendment which is ill-conceived and should 
not be attached to this Agriculture Appropriation Bill. It is a very 
far-reaching resolution, basically outlining an ambitious agenda for 
the Senate on a number of very contentious issues. I do not want to 
prematurely endorse action on all the items on this list, particularly 
before I have had a chance to study the actual language on which he 
proposes we act. I remind my colleagues of the old adage, ``Act in 
haste, repent at leisure.'' Each of these matters in the amendment is 
very important and deserves extensive consideration and debate by the 
Senate. We should not attempt to address them in this manner at this 
time.
  I urge Senators to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me briefly rise in opposition to the 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment that has been offered. While I think 
there is much in that amendment to commend--and I support some parts of 
it--the first provision in that amendment is to suggest that Congress 
should bring up and pass fast-track trade authority. I could not 
disagree more with

[[Page S8277]]

that recommendation. I cannot support a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
that includes it.
  I want to just demonstrate for my colleagues with some numbers where 
we have been with fast-track trade authority. I know some people don't 
want to talk about the details; they want to talk about the theory. The 
theory is that if you have expanded trade around the world, that is 
good for everybody. I am all for expanded trade. Put me down as a 
``yes'' checkmark on the line for expanded trade. Yes, this country 
ought to be a leader in expanding trade. But this country also ought to 
be a leader in saying that we demand and insist on fair trade 
agreements with our trading partners. And when we have trading partners 
that don't treat us fairly, this country ought to say, stop, wait, we 
won't allow that to continue to happen. We ought to say to the Chinese, 
Japanese, Canadians, Europeans and, yes, others that I could mention 
but have not, when we have a relationship with you, it must be 
different than the relationship we used to have just after the Second 
World War.
  Just after the Second World War, almost all of our trade 
relationships were foreign policy issues. How do you treat this 
country? Well, this country is weak and rebuilding, so let's give them 
concessions here and concessions there, and we will open our market up 
to their products, and they can close their market to ours, because we 
are bigger and better and stronger and tougher and we can beat anybody 
with one hand tied behind our back, and that is fine. For a quarter of 
a century after World War II, that is the way we thought and behaved, 
and it didn't matter because we succeeded anyway. Income in this 
country had increased, economic growth was substantial, and we were 
just fine.
  The second 25 years, post-Second World War, have been different. Our 
trading partners are now stronger, better, shrewder. We still have the 
softheaded notion that our trade policy ought to be foreign policy. We 
say to the Chinese, you can ratchet up in one decade a $50 billion or 
$60 billion trade surplus with the United States, or put the United 
States in a trade deficit position with China, and it is OK. Let the 
United States be your cash cow for your hard currency needs. That is 
OK. We are willing to do that. With Japanese trade, as far as the eye 
can see, there are $40 billion, $50 billion and $60 billion deficits 
every single year that we experience.
  We are urged to pass fast track authority. Now, fast track--which is 
the reason I am objecting to this amendment--is a specific, unusual 
procedure that says, let's have the American trade negotiators go 
somewhere and negotiate a trade agreement. Almost always, it will be in 
a closed room, and almost always, behind a closed door. They negotiate 
the agreement and then bring it back. Here is the catch: Fast track 
means that when it is brought back to the floor of the House and the 
Senate, there are no amendments--no democracy here--just up or down. 
There are no suggestions for improvement, no objections, no amendments. 
You must vote up or down, yes or no, and that is fast-track authority.
  Mr. President, let me just review a couple of the fast-track 
agreements we have had. Well, our folks went off and negotiated with 
Canada a fast-track trade agreement. At the time, we had about an $11 
billion trade deficit with Canada. So our negotiators got involved and 
got behind those doors. I don't know whose ``jerseys'' they were 
wearing. I kind of wish we could buy them jerseys and they would say 
``U.S.A.,'' indicating that they represent the good old U.S.A., that 
they are on our team, that they are negotiating for us. I kind of wish 
we could put jerseys on them and send them into the room. I expect that 
the people wear white shirts, and they have all the theories in mind, 
and they talk back and forth about trade theory.
  In any event, when they did it with Canada, here is what happened. We 
had an $11 billion trade deficit with Canada. They went in and talked 
about their theories and did their little deal behind closed doors, and 
they brought it back to the Congress and said, OK, there's no chance 
for amendments. So the Congress passed it--not with my vote; I voted 
against it--Congress passed it, and guess what? The trade deficit with 
Canada doubles. It doubles. And the people that negotiated the 
agreement say, gee, didn't we do a good job? This is really working 
well. Well, what school did they go to? They do a trade agreement and 
our deficit doubles, and they think we are making progress? I don't 
know of any schools that teach that.
  So they say, well, that is not enough. Now let's do a deal that 
includes Canada and Mexico and call it NAFTA, and we will do it under 
fast track. So we get them all at the table, close the room, bring more 
chairs to the table and negotiate some more. Still no jerseys, I 
expect. But they negotiate and negotiate, and they come back. Now, we 
had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico as we started negotiating.
  They come back with a trade agreement, and they say to Congress, 
``Gee, you've really done a good job this time.'' And Congress votes on 
no amendments with no opportunity to change it. I didn't vote for it. 
But Congress supports it, because fast-track trade authority prevents 
anybody from making any adjustments or changes. And the Congress then 
passes NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. At the time, we 
had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico. Guess what happened. The $2 
billion trade surplus evaporates, and the $2 billion trade surplus we 
had with Mexico now becomes a $14 billion to $15 billion trade 
deficit--$14 billion to $15 billion deficit--and the same people who 
told us we ought to do it say, ``Gee, this is working really well.'' 
Apparently they went to the same school and took the same classes.
  Let me give you some numbers with respect to Mexico, just as an 
example. This is how they describe these trade agreements. They say, 
``From 1993 to 1996, do you know that we increased our exports from the 
United States to Mexico by $14 billion?'' Why, give them a blue ribbon 
at the county fair--$14 billion increase in exports from the United 
States to Mexico. They don't read what is on the other page, do they? 
The other page says, ``Oh, yes, we did increase our exports to Mexico 
some''--$14 billion. But imports from Mexico into the United States 
increased nearly double, from $39 billion to $73 billion--$34 billion 
increase in imports from Mexico. In fact, we now import more 
automobiles from Mexico into the United States than the United States 
exports to all the rest of the world.
  We were told with NAFTA, by the way, ``If you pass NAFTA, guess what 
will happen. The products of low-skilled labor will come into the 
United States. That is what will happen with Mexico.''
  What are the three largest imports from Mexico? The products of high-
skill labor: Automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics.
  But my point is simple. With Canada, with Mexico, the two most recent 
examples, they are saying: Take fast track, let us negotiate it, and we 
will essentially shove it down your throat with no opportunity for 
amendment, and things will work out just fine. If history is any guide, 
we ought to understand things don't work out fine. The NAFTA agreement 
was not a good agreement for this country. It is not working. It has 
increased this country's trade deficit. The agreement with Canada has 
not worked.
  My colleague from Minnesota and I know other people get tired of me 
saying this and referencing the Canada agreement. And I am going to say 
it again. The Senator from Iowa acknowledges that he either heard it 
before or is tired of perhaps hearing it. But there is virtually a 
flood of grain coming into this country from Canada. Mr. Clayton 
Yeutter, good enough fellow, was trade ambassador at the time. He went 
up to negotiate this. I was on the Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. 
House at the time. I have in writing from the trade ambassador a 
representation that the trade agreement between the United States and 
Canada would not result in the increase in quantity of grain being 
shipped across the border either way--in writing, a guarantee from the 
trade ambassador. That is what the two sides agreed to. It wasn't worth 
the paper it was written on.
  The agreement was passed. The fact is, we had this flood of unfairly 
subsidized grain coming in. We tried to enforce our laws and get the 
information that we ought to get from the Canadian Wheat Board.

[[Page S8278]]

  By the way, in the negotiations with Canada, we said, ``We will allow 
your state monopoly trading enterprise to ship into this country.'' It 
would be illegal in this country, by the way, to have a state monopoly 
trading enterprise like the Wheat Board. But we will allow that 
Canadian Wheat Board to ship into our country and unfairly compete with 
United States farmers and refuse to disclose information about the 
shipping costs and the cost of acquisition.
  So we finally decided to push really hard on this, and file 
complaints, and so on. Then we discovered a secret deal had been made 
with the Canadians by the trade ambassadors, and which had not been 
disclosed to any of us, which said in terms of antidumping, and so on, 
in the United States that we agree that certain payments under the GRIP 
payment system by the Canadian Wheat Board to Canadian farmers will not 
be included as acquisition costs for their grain, which means you would 
never be able to prove antidumping because, by definition, they 
excluded part of the cost of acquisition of the grain. It just 
essentially sold out American farmers.

  I will never go for fast track--never--under these circumstances. It 
is not in this country's interests.
  Is it in this country's interest to increase the Federal trade 
deficit? If so, how? Someone explain that to me. Is it in this 
country's interest to do another trade agreement that increases the 
deficit? I don't think so. Yet, what trade agreement have we in recent 
years negotiated that has not resulted in a substantial increase in 
this country's trade debt or trade deficit? Name one. No one in this 
Chamber can name one trade agreement that has turned out in recent 
years. That is because, as I have said before, our trade policies in 
this country are soft-headed and weak-kneed. And, yes, that is strong 
language, but it describes exactly what is happening to trade.
  We have negotiators that negotiate fundamentally incompetent 
agreements because they don't have the nerve and will, it seems to me, 
to stand up for this country's interests. I have even thought that 
maybe on an appropriations bill I would offer an amendment that says 
let's add at least four or five employees down at USTR, and we will 
name them ``Backbone,'' ``Nerve,'' and will add a couple other names, 
and see if we can't inject some kind of passion to stand up for this 
country's interests and to say that we care about America's farmers, 
that we care about America's jobs, and we are willing to compete with 
anybody in the world--anybody. But the competition must be fair with 
respect to farmers. It is not fair.
  If a state monopoly pushes the flood of unfairly subsidized grain 
across our border, it drops the prices for American farmers. It is not 
fair. It is not fair that factory workers in this country are told: 
``You compete against 14-year-olds that work 14 hours a day for 14 
cents an hour somewhere on the other side of the globe.'' That is not 
fair competition. Yet, that is precisely what is negotiated in these 
trade agreements.
  My only point is--I will simplify it because others want to speak. I 
was going to offer a second-degree amendment to strip out the first 
provision which would push for fast-track trade authority. But in 
deference to time--Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers are gallantly 
trying to run this bill through the Senate in a way that is thoughtful 
and favorable to everybody--in deference to that, I will not offer a 
second-degree amendment. I will just oppose the amendment that has been 
offered. I want to cooperate. I think other Members do as well.
  I do just want to say that while there is some in this amendment to 
commend it--some provisions to commend it, the first provision that 
says let's start doing again that which has failed us so badly, let's 
begin anew to stimulate trade policy that has resulted in such 
substantial increases in our Federal trade deficits, let's try once 
again and see if we can't do more trade agreements that have resulted 
in such unfairness to American farmers, I say there is no sense in that 
at all.
  Let me complete my statement by just showing a couple of charts. This 
is the trade deficit. If this isn't an avalanche of red ink, I don't 
know what is. Those who say this is a successful strategy, I say get me 
the names of the people who negotiated these trade agreements and let's 
make sure they do not negotiate again for this country.
  Let me just provide the one that shows what is happening with China. 
Our trade deficit with China is $50 billion and getting worse yearly. 
We don't get enough wheat into China. They displaced us as a major 
wheat supplier to China, as you know. We don't get enough pork into 
China. They consume half the world's pork. Our trade agreement with 
China, or the agreement by which we trade with China, is fundamentally 
unfair with us. If we take your trousers, shoes, shorts, and shirts, 
you take our beef and wheat, and don't tell us when you need to buy our 
airplanes from us, that you will only buy our airplanes from the United 
States if they come and manufacture them in China.
  That is not fair trade.
  Let's stand up for this country's interest.
  There are some who say, ``Well, when you talk like that, you are a 
protectionist.'' I am not a protectionist. I am for expanded trade. But 
I am darned sure for insisting that this country demand fair trade.
  Let me just, with one final chart, describe graphically what I have 
talked about now for a few minutes.
  In 1993, when we negotiated the trade agreements with Canada and 
Mexico, we had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico and an $11 
billion trade deficit with Canada. Two years later, three years later, 
that trade deficit went from $11 billion to $23 billion with Canada, 
and it went from a surplus of $2 billion with Mexico to a nearly $16 
billion deficit with Mexico.
  If that is progress, you give them the names of people who call it 
progress, and I think they ought to be banned from further trade 
negotiations.
  So I cannot support the amendment that is offered because it calls 
for fast-track trade authority and the renewal of that authority. And 
while I will not offer a second-degree amendment to strip that, I will 
simply vote against the amendment for the reasons I have stated.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for just a few moments I would like to 
agree with the Senator from North Dakota on a couple of points that he 
just made. But I would also like to disagree with him on a few other 
points.
  He, like I, voted against the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, and we 
both voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement because we 
felt they were not properly negotiated. We felt both agreements had 
loopholes in them. The Senator from North Dakota has pointed out some 
of those loopholes.
  What we disagree on is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that is 
before us now which clearly outlines what a lot of farm and commodity 
groups in this country feel they need this Congress and this 
administration to do to improve the situation down on the farm. The 
Senator from North Dakota is right. The situation down on the farm is 
not very good right now. There are a lot of farmers losing money. But 
the Government should not dictate rules to farmers, and the Government 
should not be the total safety net. In a free enterprise system, such 
as ours, there should be an element of risk. In the 1996 FAIR Act, 
Congress have offered farmers flexibility along with that risk. Today, 
the Senate must decide how to shape that flexibility in a way to assure 
that farmers can make a safe transition to Freedom to Farm. This is 
where the Senator from North Dakota and I disagree.

  Yesterday I talked to the Governor of North Dakota, the president of 
the North Dakota Farm Bureau, and representatives from the North Dakota 
Wheat Growers. I left that meeting with the impression that these folks 
from North Dakota don't agree with the Senator from North Dakota 
either. They told me North Dakotans don't want to see Freedom to Farm 
reversed. They don't want Congress to lurch back into the failed 
policies of the past. They don't want the Government to be the largest 
provider of income to American agriculture, to be the one that holds 
the hand of the farmer and

[[Page S8279]]

tells the farmer what to farm, how to farm, and when to farm. They 
agree that these choices ought to be made by the individual, as a free 
person in a free market.
  Now, Government has a role. The Senator from North Dakota is right 
when he states that the Government has not been fulfilling that role 
well. However, that role is not to be a safety net. It is not to be a 
caretaker. The proper role of the Government is to be the force which 
opens the door at the border. Government is to be a facilitator.
  I agree with the Senator from North Dakota on that point. Our 
negotiators ought to put jerseys when they go into trade talks. I want 
it to be Team America working for America and America's farmers. But I 
don't want a government check to be the sole source of income to 
America's farmers. Past administrations tried it and farmers became 
victims of an agricultural system design by Government. It did not 
work.
  Now agriculture is in transition. Times are not easy. And all of us 
are trying to sort out what can be done to help agriculture through 
that transition. But a step back into the past is not the route to 
take. I believe what the resolution before us today is exactly what 
American agriculture is looking for.
  What I want to know is why was this administration asleep at the 
switch for 12 long months while commodity prices slid and never used 
the tools Congress have given them to make a difference? Was it 
politics or was it simply ignorance of what was going on? Did they not 
know what they could do and what they should have been doing?
  What we heard from the commodity groups is very simple: Keep Freedom 
to Farm. Give us the flexibility and trade, trade, trade. They don't 
want crops stored on the farm--not for 1 year, not for 2 years, not for 
3. They do not need a huge surplus hanging over the market. Let's move 
the grain. Let's sell the product.
  Yet, what has this administration done? They haven't used one tool to 
make a difference, and they don't know how to do it. That is what is 
frustrating to me.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I can't yield. We have a time limitation. Let me close, 
and then the Senator from North Dakota can speak if he wishes, because 
there is a lot that we agree on but there is also a lot that we 
disagree on.
  I do not want to look into the past. I want to look into the future. 
I want American agriculture to modernize and develop the flexibility 
that it ought to have. I want to help them when they need help. That is 
what we are on the floor discussing.
  The Senator from North Dakota talks about trade deficit. Trade 
deficits have occurred, and I do not like it either. But I have also 
watched our ability to trade expand with every agreement that we have 
struck. We know that in American agriculture today, if you don't sell 
40 percent of the crop you raise in a foreign market, you are in 
trouble financially. That is why they are in trouble financially 
today--because this Government, this administration, this USDA, didn't 
help them sell the product at a time when markets were collapsing and 
other governments were aggressively pursuing those markets.

  So there are things we can do, but I hope this Senate will not step 
backwards into a dark age of government programs, farming controlled by 
Government, forcing farmers to live with a government check arriving in 
the mailbox as their only source of income. My farmers don't want that. 
Most farm groups don't want that.
  That is what this resolution is about--to craft a sense of the Senate 
in the area of trade, in the area that deals with taxes, to offer 
farmers the flexibility so that they won't be injured like they where 
when a Democrat controlled Congress in 1986 rolled back the ability of 
farmers to use income averaging. Congress ought not make those same 
mistakes again. I don't think we will.
  So let me conclude by saying this. There is a lot that the Senator 
from North Dakota and I agree on. We agree on the Government's 
inability to negotiate good trade agreements. Our trade negotiators 
need to be out there, working for agriculture.
  I voted yesterday and I will vote today and probably again next week 
for programs to help American agriculture out during this transition, 
but they have to be compatible with Freedom to Farm. We can't go back 
to all kinds of on-farm programs that store the wheat and store it and 
store it and store it for another year. Let's sell it, move it through 
the market, so we can get on with the business of transition. That is 
what I think this resolution represents. I hope the Senate will support 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will take just a couple minutes, but I must respond to 
the Senator from Idaho. There is no time agreement here. I wish the 
Senator would have allowed me to ask a question and he had responded to 
it.
  Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to respond to a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would like us to have a debate. In fact, the Senator 
from Idaho was winning a debate we weren't having a few minutes ago. So 
that is the easiest debate to win. We weren't having a debate a couple 
minutes ago about price supports. We were having a debate about this 
amendment. But we did have a discussion yesterday about price supports, 
and the Senator from Idaho described the Democratic Congress previously 
that did so and so, and the President, and USDA.
  This is not about which party has forsaken farmers. This is about, 
after all, what can be done to help farmers survive in the future. I am 
all for this nation to say to farmers, ``Get your money from the 
marketplace.'' I would love for a farmer to load up a truck and drive 
that truck to the country elevator and raise that hoist and drop that 
grain and sell it and get a decent price for it. But I will you this: 
that farmer loses money on every load of grain and loses big money, not 
because of something they have done but because of a whole range of 
other reasons--because, first of all, we have bad trade agreements, we 
have unfair grain coming in undercutting their markets, we have trade 
sanctions that mean 10 percent of the international wheat market is 
outside of their ability to sell, when they market up into the neck of 
a bottle against grain trade firms that hold an iron fist around the 
neck of that bottle when they buy farm machinery and equipment--guess 
what. They pay for it. They pay through the nose because those prices 
are going up.
  When they try to get their grain to a flour miller, four milling 
firms own over 60 percent of the milling capacity in this country. The 
same thing with wet corn milling. The same thing with meatpackers.
  If the Senator from Idaho can tell me that a family farmer driving on 
that lonely road in an old truck, in most cases a 10- or 12- or 15-
year-old truck, trying to get those few bushels of grain to market, 
hoping above hope that they will be able to get something for that 
grain that meets their cost of living and meets their cost of 
production--if the Senator from Idaho can tell me that the deck isn't 
stacked against those farmers, that we don't have virtual monopolies in 
every area they turn around, that they don't show up at a railroad 
track and find that there are not two or three railroads ready to serve 
them, there is one (and in my State they will double-charge because 
there is no competition)--if the Senator from Idaho can tell me that 
that farmer driving that truck is driving down the road towards free 
and open and fair competition, then I say that is just fine, then we 
ought to butt out.
  But if the Senator can't say that--and I do not think he can say that 
in a million years--then somebody, somebody, had better say that family 
farmers matter and the future of this country will be benefited and 
enhanced if we decide that family farming has value and merit.
  I said it yesterday, and I am going to say it again. There is 
something so fundamentally wrong with what is happening in this country 
with respect to agriculture. We have people starving on the other side 
of the world, people trying to eat leaves on trees because they don't 
have food, and we have people driving their trucks to the elevator, 
sweating all year and risking everything they have in life to plant a 
crop

[[Page S8280]]

and harvest it, and they are told when they get to the elevator that 
their grain doesn't have value, their crop doesn't have value. That is 
a situation we must find a way to correct and change.
  So, while we agree on some things, the Senator from Idaho and I, one 
thing we don't agree on is suggesting, as he has suggested, that, 
``Gee, it is the Democrats here, Democrats there.'' All of us, 
Republicans and Democrats, have a stake in whether there are family 
farmers in the future.
  I wish very much that we never again have to have a farm program that 
provides support prices. But I will say this, when grain prices 
collapse and crops are ravaged by disease, if someone is not available 
to step in to say to family farmers, ``We are here to help; you 
matter,'' if someone isn't around to say, ``We are not going to pull 
the safety net out from under you because we want you in our future,'' 
then they are not going to survive and we will have corporate 
agrifactories farming America from the west coast to the east coast. 
And some might be fat and happy about that, thinking it is good for the 
country, but it won't be me, because we will have lost something very 
important in rural areas of our country.
  I know the majority leader wishes to be recognized. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I 
know the issue is very important. I know Senators had wanted to be 
heard on it. But we have now been in session for 1\1/2\ hours and we 
have been on a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I wonder if the Senate 
is not prepared to vote here momentarily. I know Senator Cochran has 
been working on that. Senator Harkin will use just a couple of minutes, 
and Senator Daschle--did the Senator want to comment on this?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with the majority leader. There 
is no reason why we can't bring this to closure. I think there is going 
to be a strong vote for it. We ought to just get on with it.
  I will be prepared to go to a vote immediately. I know Senator Harkin 
had a couple of minutes he wanted to speak. Then we can hold it open, 
if we have to accommodate a Senator. So we can get on with the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I would like to do that, because someone else will come in 
and say, ``Could you delay it a little longer?'' Or, ``Do it quicker?'' 
I would like to accomplish it quickly, but it is impossible to 
accommodate everybody.
  I want to make this point. We have had some good debate on this. I 
know there are some important issues out there. But we need to get on 
with it and we need to complete this bill this afternoon. I would say 
to my colleagues, we are going to have to finish it today because we 
have other votes.
  I hope everybody would recognize that this afternoon at some point we 
should just start, on both sides of the aisle, moving to table all 
amendments. If we had a vote right now on this bill, it would get over 
90 votes. So I hope the Senate would cooperate. I know Senator Daschle 
and the managers on both sides are trying to do that. But I am a little 
nervous that the tempo is not there yet to get this completed so we 
could go on to other appropriations bills and so Senator Daschle and I 
can continue to work to try to get agreement on other important issues.
  So please let's cooperate. Let's bring this to a conclusion by the 
middle of the afternoon. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I agree with the majority leader. We have 
had a good debate. We have had some very important issues debated. We 
were on the Lugar amendment most of the day yesterday, for good reason. 
It was a very controversial issue that I think was important. We had a 
good opportunity to discuss it. We have had some good amendments on 
this side.
  But there comes a time when we have to bring this matter to a close. 
I hope my Democratic colleagues can work with the leadership here in an 
effort to come to a finite list that is narrower than the one that 
currently exists, in an effort to accommodate our schedule. I am 
hopeful we can do that in the next couple of hours so we have a very 
definitive list of what needs to be done and we can finish this bill 
sometime tonight or this afternoon.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not 
present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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. The 
Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have been listening, of course, to the 
last couple of days of debate. I sympathize with the majority leader 
and minority leader on the issue of moving ahead with the legislation. 
I think we should. There are some very important issues here on 
agriculture. We have a crisis looming for our farmers, ranchers, and 
our rural economies all over America.
  Maybe it has not hit with full force and effect yet, as it has in 
North Dakota, and maybe a couple of other places, but we are on the 
cusp of it in Iowa. I had an Iowa farmer call me yesterday. The corn 
price in northwest Iowa is down to $1.89 a bushel, and it is dropping 
every day. It doesn't look like it is going to get any better. There is 
nothing out there, nothing out there that is going to do anything 
between now and harvesttime.
  I was checking the figures a little bit, with what we had in the 
1980s. We had corn priced in the 1980s--about 1985, it was down to 
$1.50 a bushel, and after that we had a whole wave of foreclosures and 
farm bankruptcies. Those of us who have been around remember that in 
the 1980s. The corn price in Iowa is getting down to that same level 
again, when you consider the increase in the cost of inputs and 
everything like that. So we are back where we were, right before the 
wave of foreclosures and bankruptcies in 1985, 1986, 1987, and 1988.
  You would think we would learn from history not to repeat that, not 
to wait too long before we respond to this crisis. But that looks like 
what we are going to do here. We are just going to jaw it around and 
talk about it and not do anything.
  I had a sense-of-the-Senate resolution a couple of days ago that 
basically said there is a crisis out there. There are problems out 
there. There is a sense of the Senate that the President and the 
Congress should immediately respond to this farm crisis out there. Mr. 
President, 99 Senators voted for it.
  Yesterday, we really had a chance to do something about it by lifting 
the caps on the loan rates, at least for 1 year, and giving farmers 
more flexibility in being able to market their crops, and giving them 
15 months rather than 9 months to pay it back in a marketing loan 
procedure--which would not leave grain hanging over the market. I heard 
that debate around here. Obviously, people don't understand marketing 
loans if they say that. So we had a good debate on that. And we lost, 
56 to 43. Not one Member of the Republican side voted for it--not one. 
Not a single one. Yet the day before they said there was a crisis there 
and we have to do something about it.
  Now we have another sense-of-the-Senate resolution by my colleague 
from Iowa. It has a lot of good language in there. There are a lot of 
good things we ought to do. Funding IMF, I am all for that; China; 
capital gains and estate tax reforms, I am all for that. That is good. 
Oh, yes, the Farm and Ranch Risk Management Act, which allows farmers 
to have IRAs. That is fine, too. But before you can have an IRA, you 
have to have some money. They don't have any money.
  So, while my colleague's sense-of-the-Senate resolution sounds very 
nice, it doesn't do anything. So, once again, I guess the Senate is 
going to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. We will 
deliberate it but we won't do anything. So that is basically what we 
have here in this resolution.
  I must say that I have one serious reservation about this amendment 
the Senator from Iowa offers. It says:

       Congress should pass and the President should sign S. 1269, 
     which would reauthorize fast-track trading authority for the 
     President; . . .

  There may be a fast-track bill that I could support, but I cannot 
support that one. While I might vote for this amendment, I want to be 
clear on the

[[Page S8281]]

Record that I do not support S. 1269. I had an amendment to that bill 
that I thought had a good chance of being adopted if we ever got it on 
the floor. We never did. But I could never vote for S. 1269 as it is 
drafted.
  Some of the other things in here are pretty good. I would say 
probably about 70 percent of this amendment is pretty good, and 30 
percent is not too good. You have to weigh those around here.
  We can all vote for it. It might make you feel good, but it doesn't 
do anything. This resolution doesn't do a thing to get the price up for 
our farmers. Why don't we just have sense-of-the Senate resolutions 
around here forever, then we won't have to do anything, but it will 
make you feel good. If you want to feel good, you can go ahead and vote 
for the Grassley amendment, but I don't think it is going to do one 
single thing to get the price up for our farmers that is going to help 
them get through this next year, not one single thing. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3172. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. 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 PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Ashcroft
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Graham
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Glenn
       
  The amendment (No. 3172) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. CONRAD. 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. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, it is 12:15 and we have had one vote. We 
have dispensed with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on the agriculture 
appropriations bill. Now the managers are having difficulty getting 
Senators to come to the floor and offer amendments. This is beyond 
ridiculous.
  If we don't get going in the next 15 minutes or so, we are going to 
go live on a quorum. I am going to look, then, for the next serious 
action to take, because we should be through with this bill. If 
Senators are serious, they should be here offering their amendments. If 
they are not, then we are going so start having votes of another 
nature. We are not just going to stand in a quorum for the next hour, 
hour and a half. It is not fair to the managers. We will be here at 
midnight tonight, and I don't think anybody wants that.
  So again, I call on Senators to come to the floor. Surely a Senator 
has an amendment, out of the 40 amendments we have pending, that could 
be offered. Let's dispose of it.
  We will wait 15 minutes, or so, to get one going and then we will go 
to a live quorum.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am in the majority leader's corner on 
this. This is unforgivable. Maybe there is some forgiveness in the 
order because most Members on our side are in a meeting with the 
President right now. I am hoping that somebody will have the nerve to 
walk out of that meeting to come over here and offer an amendment and 
get this show on the road.
  The other thing that is mildly encouraging is that we have been going 
over the list of Democratic amendments, and an awful lot of them are 
folding, and some are going to be accepted. I only know about three or 
four fairly controversial amendments that are probably going to require 
a rollcall vote--in the vicinity of three or four. The rest, I think, 
are either not going to be offered, or we are going to be able to 
accept them. Hopefully, we can get through here by sometime in the 
middle to late afternoon.
  I certainly appreciate the majority leader's frustration, with all of 
these amendments lying around and nobody here to offer them. In all 
fairness, the reason nobody is over here is because they are all in a 
meeting with the 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. KYL. 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. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in 
morning business for not to exceed 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________