[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 138 (Wednesday, October 13, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12469-S12474]
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--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to address the second issue before 
us, and one which is of grave concern in my home State of Illinois. It 
is the Agriculture appropriations bill.
  It has been my high honor to serve on the agriculture appropriations 
subcommittee in both the House and the Senate. I have been party to 
some 13 different conferences. That is where the House and Senate come 
together and try to work out their differences.
  I want to say of my chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cochran, 
that I respect him very much. When I served in the House and he was a 
conferee, I believe that we always had a constructive dialog. There are 
important issues involving American agriculture. I was honored to be 
appointed to the same committee in the Senate, and I have respected him 
again for the contribution he has made as chairman of the committee.
  But what happened to Senator Cochran in this conference shouldn't 
happen to anyone in the Senate. He was moving along at a good pace, a 
constructive pace, to resolve differences between the House and the 
Senate. Unfortunately, the House leadership turned out the lights, 
ended the conference committee, and said we will meet no more. What was 
usually a bipartisan and open and fair process disintegrated before our 
eyes. That is no reflection on the Senator from Mississippi. I have no 
idea what led to that. It occurred. It was clear that the problem was 
on the House side. We were making progress. We were making bipartisan 
decisions. The process broke down.
  But with that said, I will vote for this bill, and reluctantly. I 
believe it will provide some relief for struggling farmers in our 
fragile farm economy.

  The Illinois Department of Agriculture estimates that $450 million 
from the $8.7 billion agricultural relief package will directly benefit 
Illinois producers through receipt of 100 percent of the 1999 AMTA 
payments. I agree with the Senator from North Dakota. Using an AMTA 
payment is fraught with danger. I think it is an open invitation for 
every one of these investigative television shows to have fun at the 
expense of this bill and this decision process. When they find people 
who haven't seen a tractor in decades but have ownership of a farm 
receiving payments upward of $.5 million, they are going to say: I 
thought you were trying to help struggling farmers, not somebody with a 
trust account who has never been near a farm.
  That may occur because we have chosen these AMTA payments. We should 
have done this differently. I think we are going to rue the day these 
payments are made and the investigations

[[Page S12470]]

take place. But these AMTA payments will be in addition to the more 
than $450 million already received by Illinois farmers this year to 
help them through this crisis.
  I voted for the Freedom to Farm Act. I have said repeatedly that I 
did not believe when I voted for that farm bill that I was voting for 
the Ten Commandants. I believed that we were dealing with an 
unpredictable process. Farming is unpredictable. Farm policy has to be 
flexible. We don't know what happens to weather or prices. We have to 
be able to respond.
  You have to say in all candor as we complete this fiscal year and 
spend more in Federal farm payments than ever in our history that the 
Freedom to Farm Act, as we know, has failed. It is time for us, on a 
bipartisan basis, to revisit it, otherwise we will see year after weary 
and expensive year these emergency payments.
  Look at the Illinois farm economy. My State is a lucky one. We 
usually aren't the first to feel the pain. God blessed us with great 
soil and talented farmers and a good climate. But we are in trouble.
  Farm income in Illinois dropped 78 percent last year to just over 
$11,000 a year. That is barely a minimum wage that farmers will 
receive. That is the lowest net income on farms in two decades.
  Incidentally, if you are going to gauge it by a minimum wage, as the 
Presiding Officer can tell you, farmers don't work 40-hour workweeks. 
When they are out in the fields late at night and early in the morning, 
they put in the hours that are necessary. Yet they end up receiving the 
minimum wage in my State of Illinois. That is down from $51,000 in 
1997. That was the net farm income per family in that year. Lower 
commodity prices and record low hog prices in particular are primarily 
to blame for this net farm income free fall in my home State.
  The Illinois Farm Development Authority recently noted that the 
financial stress faced by Illinois farmers today is higher than it has 
been for 10 years. Activity in the authority's Debt Restructuring 
Guarantee Program is four or five times higher than last year. They 
have approved 7 to 10 loans per month in 1998. In 1999, the authority 
has been approving 30 to 40 debt restructuring loans per month--a 300-
percent increase. This is a record level unmatched since the 1986-1987 
farm crisis.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture has predicted that prices for 
corn, soybeans, and wheat will remain well below normal, and that farm 
income may drop again next near. Nationally, farm income has declined 
16 percent since 1996.

  On Saturday night in Springfield, IL, I went to a wedding reception 
and sat next to a friend of mine. I said: What is a bushel of corn 
going for now? He said $1.51. If you follow this, as they do every day 
in farm country, that is a disaster--$1.51 a bushel.
  I said: How is your yield this year?
  He said: It is up a little, but I can't make up for that decline in 
price.
  That is what is coming together. That is the disaster in Illinois and 
in many places around the Nation.
  The USDA is facing the largest farm assistance expenditure in its 
history. The Department of Agriculture processed 2,181 loan deficiency 
payments in 1997, about 2.1 million in 1998--1,000 times more--and they 
will work through a projected 3 million this year. Unfortunately, it 
appears that this crisis is going to drag on in the foreseeable future 
further draining USDA's resources and reserves.
  I am going to address separately the whole question of the Ashcroft-
Dodd amendment because I think it is one that deserves special 
attention. But I want to say that though I did not sign this conference 
report because of the procedures that were followed, I hope that we 
don't repeat this process in the future. It really undermines the 
credibility of Congress and of the good Members such as the Senator 
from Mississippi and others who really do their best to produce a good 
bill when they turn out the lights and send us home, and then circulate 
a conference report that has never been seen until they put it before 
you for signature.
  Once the Senate acts on the conference report, sends it to the 
President, our role in helping improve conditions in rural America does 
not end. We should explore other ways to help our farmers.
  Let me say a word about the Ashcroft-Dodd amendment.
  You may recall during the Carter administration when the Soviets 
invaded Afghanistan. President Carter announced an embargo on the 
Soviet Union--an embargo that became one of the single most unpopular 
things that he did. President Carter and the Democratic Party wore the 
collar for a decade or more that we were the party of food embargoes, 
of agricultural embargoes. Our opponents and critics beat it like a tin 
drum to remind us that it was our party that did that.
  I think it should be a matter of record that a strong bipartisan 
suggestion from Republican Senator John Ashcroft of Missouri, and 
Senator Chris Dodd, a Democrat of Connecticut, that we stop food 
embargoes once and for all passed the Senate with 70 votes and then was 
defeated in that very same conference committee to which I referred. 
The bill we now have before us continues food embargoes. The sticking 
point apparently was that of the countries exempted from embargoes on 
food and medicine, specifically Cuba was to be excluded.
  There are some Americans, many Cuban-Americans, who hate Castro with 
a passion for what he did to their country, their family, and their 
business, and believe we should punish him. He has been in power for 
over 40 years, and we imposed embargoes on his nation for food and 
medicine.
  I have said on the floor and I will repeat again, in the 40 years I 
have seen photographs of Mr. Castro since we have embargoed exports of 
food to Cuba, I have never seen a photo of Mr. Castro where he appeared 
malnourished or hungry. The bottom line is, somehow he is pretty well 
fed. I bet he has access to good medicine. The people who are suffering 
are the poor people in Cuba and a lot of other countries. The people 
are suffering because we don't have the trade for American farmers. It 
is a policy that has not worked.
  How did we open up eastern Europe? We opened it up by exposing the 
people who were living under communism to the real world of the West--
free markets and democracy. They fled Moscow and that Soviet control as 
fast as they could. We have always thought we could isolate Cuba. I 
think exactly the opposite would end Castro's totalitarian rule--when 
the people in Cuba get an appetite for what is only 90 miles away in 
the United States, through trade, through expanded opportunities.
  The Governor of the State of Illinois, George Ryan, a Republican 
Governor, has said he will take a trade mission to Cuba. I support him. 
I think the idea of opening up that kind of trade is the best way to 
quickly bring down any control which Castro still holds in that 
country.
  When that amendment to end the embargo on food and medicine in six 
countries went to conference, the Republican leadership in the House of 
Representatives stopped it in its tracks. After we had voted on a 
bipartisan basis on the Senate side to move it forward, they stopped it 
in its tracks.
  That is a sad outcome not just for the poor people living in the 
countries affected but for the United States to still be using food as 
a weapon with these unilateral embargoes on food and medicine. Yes, in 
the case of Cuba and many other countries, it is a policy which does 
harm a lot of innocent people. In Cuba, it is very difficult to get the 
most basic medicines. Are we really bringing Castro down by not 
providing the medicines that an infant needs to survive? Is that what 
the U.S. foreign policy is all about? I hope not.
  Senator Ashcroft is right. Senator Dodd is right. We have to revisit 
this. I am sorry this bill does not include that provision. It is one 
that I think is in the best interests of our foreign policy and our 
future.
  I hope the President will sign this conference report quickly and 
work with Congress to submit a supplemental request, taking into 
account the devastating financial crisis that continues in rural 
America. To delay further action on this would be a great disservice to 
the men and women who have dedicated their lives to production 
agriculture, a sector of the economy in which I take great pride in my 
home State of Illinois, and I am sure we all do across the United 
States.

[[Page S12471]]

  I am extremely disappointed that this conference agreement removed 
the Ashcroft amendment that would have allowed food and medicine to be 
exported to countries against which we have sanctions. This amendment 
passed the Senate overwhelmingly after language was worked out 
carefully and on a bipartisan basis. I am especially disturbed that, 
after the conference stalled on this issue, just a few decided to 
withdraw this provision behind closed doors.
  The sticking point was the idea of selling food and medicine to the 
people of Cuba--not to Iran, Iraq, or Libya. Cuba remains a Communist 
country whose leaders repress their people and commit serious abuses of 
human and political rights. We all agree on the goal of peaceful change 
toward democracy and a free market economy in Cuba. But continuing the 
restrictions on sending food and medicine to Cuba is the wrong way to 
accomplish this goal.
  The report issued 2 years ago by the American Association for World 
Health, Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the U.S. Embargo on 
Health & Nutrition in Cuba concluded that ``the U.S. embargo of Cuba 
has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of 
ordinary Cubans.'' The report went on to say:

       The declining availability of foodstuffs, medicines and 
     such basic medical supplies as replacement parts for 30-year-
     old X-ray machines is taking a tragic toll. . . . The embargo 
     has closed so many windows that in some instances Cuban 
     physicians have found it impossible to obtain lifesaving 
     machines from any source, under any circumstances. Patients 
     have died.

  I would like to read part of a letter I got from Bishop William D. 
Persell from the Diocese of Chicago who relates his experiences in 
visiting villages outside of Havana. He says:

       I was especially struck by the impact of the American 
     embargo on people's health. We saw huge boxes of expired pill 
     samples in a hospital. Other than those, the shelves of the 
     pharmacy were almost bare. We talked with patients waiting 
     for surgeries who could not be operated upon because the X-
     ray machine from Germany had broken down. A woman at the 
     Cathedral was chocking from asthma for lack of an inhaler. At 
     an AIDS center, plastic gloves had been washed and hung on a 
     line to dry for re-use. The examples of people directly 
     suffering from the impact of our government's policy after 
     all these years was sad and embarrassing to see.

  Many religious groups in the United States have called for the end of 
these restrictions, which the U.S. Catholic Conference, for example, 
has termed ``morally unacceptable.'' During Pope John Paul II's visit 
to Cuba last year, he noted that it is the poorest and most vulnerable 
that bear the brunt of these policies.
  Hurting everyday people is not what this country is about. Such 
suffering attributed to our great nation is unconscionable. Even in 
Iraq, where stringent international sanctions have been imposed, there 
is an international ``oil for food'' program, which aims to be sure the 
Iraqi people have adequate nutrition. That program has not always been 
as successful as I had hoped, but we have not even tried similar relief 
for the Cuban people.
  The burdensome and complex licensing procedures that Americans have 
to go through to get food and medicine to Cuba essentially constitute a 
ban on such products because of the long delays and increased costs. I 
applaud and welcome the changes the Clinton administration made 
following Pope John Paul II's visit to streamline the licensing 
procedures for getting these products to Cuba, but I'm afraid these 
changes are not enough. Although agricultural and medical products 
eventually have been licensed to go to Cuba through this lengthy and 
cumbersome process, much of it has not been sent. The licensing 
procedure itself discourages many from even trying to use it.
  I believe that the suffering of the Cuban people because of these 
restrictions on food and medicine is counterproductive to our shared 
goal of democratization in Cuba. Castro gets to blame the United 
States, and not his own failed Communist policies, for the suffering 
and hardships of the Cuban people. The policy encourages a ``rally 
'round the flag'' mentally, where people who otherwise might oppose 
Castro's regime hunker down and support the government in such trying 
economic circumstances portrayed as the fault of the United States.
  There seems to be a consensus developing that food and medicine 
should not be used as a weapon against governments with which we 
disagree. Congress has supported lifting such sanctions against India, 
Pakistan, and even Iran. The people of Cuba should be treated no 
differently.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator 
from Mississippi who has managed this Agriculture appropriations bill 
through the high winds and difficult seas over the last few weeks. Some 
of that was acknowledged this morning. We started out dealing with 
agriculture, and we have now been dealing with the Comprehensive Test 
Ban Treaty and other important things. I am grateful for his patience, 
leadership, and diligence to get to this point.
  This is a very important conference report we take up today. I rise 
to support the Agriculture appropriations conference report.
  As has been noted on the floor of the Senate this morning that 
American agriculture is in trouble. Our American agricultural producers 
are struggling. I think it is worthy that we examine briefly what has 
caused this difficulty.
  Good weather over the last 3 years has led to worldwide record grain 
yields, which has created a large oversupply and significantly reduced 
grain prices. Other important causes for these difficult times facing 
our agricultural producers are: The 2-year Asian economic crisis which 
has spread throughout the world; the high value of the American dollar 
versus other currencies; export subsidies and unfair trade practices by 
our foreign competitors; the lack of meaningful trade and sanctions 
reform; the lack of real tax and regulatory reform; and, for the last 5 
years, the lack of fast-track trade authority for the President. All of 
these and more are directly responsible for the current situation in 
American agriculture.
  I might add, they have nothing to do with our current farm policy, 
which is known as Freedom to Farm. What I have just registered, what I 
have just cited--those unpredictables, those uncontrollables--would be 
here regardless of America's farm policy. It is important to point that 
out because I have heard some suggest it is America's Freedom to Farm 
policy that this Congress enacted and this President signed in 1996 
that is at the root of this disastrous agricultural situation in which 
we find ourselves. In fact, it is not.
  This $69.3 billion bill will assist agricultural producers by 
providing, among other things, short-term assistance. It includes an 
$8.7 billion emergency package, and it is important we work our way 
through this so the American people understand what is included in this 
package:
  There is $5.5 billion in agricultural market transition assistance 
payments that are paid directly to our agricultural producers, to the 
farmers and the ranchers. This equates to a 100-percent increase from 
the producers' 1999 payment and puts the money directly in the hands of 
our producers and certainly does it much faster than supplemental loan 
deficiency payments.
  There is $1.2 billion for disaster relief; $475 million in direct 
payments to soybean and minor oilseed producers; $325 million in 
livestock feeder assistance; $325 million for livestock producers; $200 
million is in the form of assistance to producers due to drought or 
other natural disasters; $400 million to assist producers in purchasing 
additional insurance for crops coming up that they will plant early 
next year for fiscal year 2000; and mandatory price reporting to assist 
livestock producers in their marketing decisions.
  While the Agriculture appropriations conference report and emergency 
assistance package are important and they are very helpful in the short 
term, we need to look at the long-term solutions: How do we fix this 
for the long term so we don't keep coming back to Congress year after 
year after year for more supplemental appropriations? That is what we 
must stay focused on. We find those long-term solutions in opening up 
more opportunities for our farmers and our ranchers to sell the 
products.
  Our producers need more open markets. While we need to adjust parts 
of

[[Page S12472]]

Freedom to Farm and we need to do that to make it work better, the 
basic underlying principle of Freedom to Farm should be preserved. And 
the basic underlying principle of Freedom to Farm is plant to the 
market, let the market decide.
  In order to become more efficient and to produce for a growing 
market, we must give the producers the flexibility to grow what they 
want when they want: Grow for the market, not what the Government 
dictates or what the Government manipulates.
  We need to adjust transition payments to make them more useful in 
times when cash flows are tight, when they are needed, not just 
arbitrary: Another supplemental appropriation. Payment levels may need 
to be adjusted annually, that is the way it is, to take into account 
such things as the value of the U.S. dollar, export opportunities, 
natural disasters, actual production levels, and other factors.
  Loan deficiency payments have proven a useful tool for farmers, but 
we need to build into that more flexibility so producers can quickly 
respond to changes in the market.
  The Crop Insurance Program is critical to the future of our ag 
producers. The Crop Insurance Program needs to be expanded and reformed 
so producers can be more self-reliant during economic downturns. We 
need to focus on private-sector solutions rather than public-sector 
solutions.
  The United States needs a relevant and a vital trade policy that 
addresses the challenges of the 21st century. We need WTO accession for 
China, trade and sanctions reform, and more international food 
assistance programs. WTO negotiations also need to address unfair 
manipulation and other trade barriers that hurt America's farmers and 
ranchers. We are currently working our way through the beef hormone 
issue. The WTO has consistently come down in favor of the American 
producer, yet we still find the Europeans throw up artificial trade 
barriers. These are big issues, important issues. Trade must be a 
constant. It must be elevated to a priority in the next administration. 
The next President must put trade on the agenda, and he must lead 
toward accomplishment of that agenda.
  As my friend, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, noted earlier, 
I, too, am disappointed this conference report does not contain the 
Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd sanctions reform language, which passed this body, 
as noted by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, 70 to 28--70 votes 
in favor of lifting unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. I am 
confident we can move forward on this legislation. We will come back to 
it when it soon comes, again, to the Senate floor for consideration. 
The Ashcroft-Hagel-Dodd bill would exempt food and medicine from 
unilateral sanctions and embargoes. It is supported by the American 
Farm Bureau and the entire American agricultural community.
  This reform also strengthens the ties among peoples and nations and 
demonstrates the goodness and the humanitarianism of the American 
people. It sends a very strong, clear message to our customers and our 
competitors around the world that our agricultural producers will be 
consistent and reliable suppliers of quality products. The American 
agricultural producer can compete with anyone in the world. Passing 
sanctions reform legislation will open up new markets, and it will 
allow our agricultural producers to compete in markets around the 
globe. I am hopeful we will move forward on comprehensive sanctions and 
trade reform legislation early next year. This must be a priority. It 
should be a priority. It is a priority, and it is a bipartisan 
priority.
  As Senator Durbin mentioned earlier, if you look at those 70 Senators 
who voted in favor of lifting sanctions on food and medicine, they 
represented the majority of both the Republican and the Democratic 
Parties in this body. That is a very clear message that this is a 
bipartisan issue. We should capture the essence of that bipartisanship 
and let that lead us next year as we should, and we will, make 
considerable progress in trade and sanctions reform.

  Regulations continue to add to the cost of production to farmers and 
ranchers. Regulatory reform is critical. We need to look at all the 
regulations currently on the books and make sure they are based on 
sound science and, lo and behold, common sense.
  We need to look at tax reform. In 1996 when the Congress passed and 
the President signed Freedom to Farm, two promises were made by 
Congress to our agricultural producers: We would comprehensively deal 
with the important dynamics of tax reform and regulatory reform. We 
have failed to do so. We have failed to address comprehensive tax 
reform and regulatory reform, aside from what we have discussed, not 
dealing with sanctions and trade reform either. We need to look at tax 
reform. For example, farm and ranch risk management accounts, FARRM 
accounts, reduction in capital gains rates, elimination of estate 
taxes, income averaging, and other constructive actions are all 
measures that take us, move us, get us to where we want to be.
  This conference report includes an important new provision we have 
not seen in past Agriculture appropriations bills, the mandatory price 
reporting provision. This is important for livestock producers. It 
allows for market transparency, it levels the playing field, and 
ensures fairness. We also need to look hard at other issues like 
industry concentration and meat labeling to ensure that markets remain 
free, fair, and competitive.
  While we deal with short-term crises, we also need to work 
consistently, diligently on the long-term improvements focused on 
trade, and sanctions, and taxes, and regulatory reform, and 
agricultural policy.
  This is important legislation we debate today and will vote on this 
afternoon. It provides much needed assistance at a very critical time 
in the agricultural community. I hope we will pass this conference 
report today and the President will sign it, so we can get our farmers 
and ranchers the assistance they need. Then this body can move on to do 
the important business of our Nation and the important business of our 
agricultural community, connected to the total of who we are, as a 
nation and as a global leader, and that is paying attention to the 
issues of trade and foreign policy, sanctions reform, and all that is 
connected to the future for our country and the world as we enter this 
next millennium.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I compliment and thank my good friend from 
Nebraska for his statement on this Agriculture conference report.
  Nebraska is an agricultural State. As my colleague from Montana, the 
Presiding Officer, knows, Montana is also an agricultural State. I see 
on the floor the chairman, my good friend from Mississippi. Mississippi 
is also an agricultural State. Every State is an agricultural State--
some more than others, of course.
  But I must say about the statement the Senator made--in most respects 
I agree with him--it was a good one.
  Essentially it comes down to this. A lot of farmers and ranchers are 
suffering very dire economic consequences because of low prices in the 
main but also because of bad weather, because of disaster, droughts, or 
in many cases floods. The hurricane, for example, that came up the east 
coast not too long ago has devastated a lot of eastern American 
farmers. Those States are not part of the farm program but, 
nevertheless, have heavy agricultural segments in their economy and 
have been damaged significantly. We have a conference report in front 
of us which provides about $8.7 billion in emergency aid. Most of that 
goes to Midwest farmers, western farmers, and not enough goes to the 
northeastern farmers. That is regrettable.
  There is not enough in this conference report that takes care of 
Eastern and Northeastern agriculture. There should be. I hope we can 
figure out a way to provide for those in agriculture in the Eastern and 
Northeastern parts of the United States because they are not 
sufficiently provided for in this bill.
  Nevertheless, for most of America, this bill does help. It just 
helps. It does not do much more, but it helps relieve a lot of the pain 
that farmers--when I say farmers, I mean grain producers and livestock 
producers--are facing.
  It is an old story. It has not changed. Agriculture is in a special 
situation; namely, it suffers the vagaries of weather; it suffers the 
vagaries of the market price. Most businesses today do

[[Page S12473]]

not have that to worry about. Most businesses today can control the 
prices they pay for their products. To some degree, they can control 
the prices for which they sell their products. There is a lot more 
stability in most other industries compared to agriculture.
  Because of the instability in agriculture, again because farmers and 
ranchers have virtually no control over the price they get for their 
products and because the costs they pay for all of their supplies and 
implements keep rising--and they have virtually no say about that--
agriculture is getting squeezed more and more each year. That is the 
problem, particularly when there is a natural disaster on top of it.
  This Senate has not done a very good job in addressing this problem. 
There are a lot of fancy speeches about we have to do this and we have 
to do that. I have made some of them. All Senators in this Chamber at 
the present time have made some of them. I am not blaming us all, but I 
am giving us all a little bit of a reminder that we have not followed 
up our speeches enough with action. It is hard. It is very hard to know 
what the solutions should be, but we still have not found the 
solutions. We are elected to find the solutions. That is why we run for 
these jobs, and that is theoretically why people elect us. They think 
we are going to do something about some of the problems our people 
face.

  Why haven't we done more? I submit in large part because this place 
is so partisan. It has become very partisan in the last several years. 
I am not going to stand here and blame one side or the other. I am 
going to say it is a fact. Because it is so partisan, there is very 
little trust, and because there is very little trust not much gets 
accomplished. There is not much trust between the majority party and 
the White House. When that happens, not much gets accomplished.
  Our Founding Fathers set up a form of government of divided powers. 
We are not a parliamentary form of government. We are a divided 
government. We have the executive branch and the legislative branch, 
the two Houses of Congress, and people have to get along if we are to 
get something accomplished; people have to work together if we are 
going to get something accomplished.
  Too often, people in the House and the Senate, and probably the 
executive branch as well, run to the newspapers, they run to the press 
back home and they make all these high-sounding statements to make 
themselves look good and the other side to look bad. They are trying to 
claim credit for doing the good things and basically saying the other 
guys are doing the bad things.
  That is where we are. There is not a person listening to my remarks 
who does not disagree with that. That is exactly where we are.
  The question is, How do we get out of this? How do we start to regain 
some lost trust? How do we begin to regain, in some sense--some are 
going to dispute a little of this--those times in the older days when 
there was a little more cooperation? How are we going to do that?
  Basically, it takes leadership. It takes leadership by Senators; it 
takes leadership by the leadership. It means standing above matters a 
little bit, standing back and getting a perspective, remembering why we 
are here, remembering what really counts. And what really counts is 
serving our people without a lot of fanfare rather than trying to make 
a lot of big fancy statements.
  I am reminded of a former Senator from Montana, Mike Mansfield. Mike 
Mansfield, who was majority leader for 17 years --he was leader longer 
than any other Senator has ever been leader in this body--was the kind 
of person--and that is probably why he was leader for so long--who 
basically worked to get things done but did not crow about it and did 
not try to take a lot of credit for it. He was a guy who wanted to get 
things done to serve the people and to serve the right way, not play 
politics, not play partisan politics. In fact, there is a new book 
coming out about Mike Mansfield. If you page through it, you can get a 
sense of what he was about, and we can take a lesson from it.
  I am going to list a couple of things I know we have to do in the 
hope that--knowing that most agree we have to do these things--we 
somehow get together and start doing something about them.
  One is to get this conference report adopted. It is going to help. It 
is not going to solve all the problems, but it is going to help. As I 
mentioned, it does not do enough for the Northeastern United States or 
Eastern United States. I very much hope we can find the time and way to 
do that.
  In addition, we do need to address the longer term; that is, some 
kind of a safety net. There has been a lot of debate--most of it has 
been ideological--over Freedom to Farm. It is basically an ideological 
debate. Most farmers and ranchers do not give two hoots about ideology. 
Most farmers and ranchers just want some basic program, structure, or 
something that addresses the bottom so there is some kind of a safety 
net.
  We are not talking about a handout. Nobody is talking about a 
handout. We are not talking about some solution where farmers are given 
an absolute guarantee they are going to make money or absolute 
guarantee they are going to make a profit. But we know because of 
weather conditions--sometimes it rains too much, sometimes not enough, 
sometimes there are floods, sometimes droughts, sometimes the market 
falls to the bottom--we need a floor to basically prevent people from 
going out of business--not to make a profit but prevent them from going 
out of business because we know how important agriculture is to our 
country.
  Let's get over the ideology of Freedom to Farm, the ``freedom to 
fail.'' Those are nice sounding words. All of us have heard them 
hundreds of times. I say let's forget the words and figure out a way to 
design a safety net. It is not going to happen this year because there 
is not enough time. I ask us all, when we are home during the recess, 
to be thinking about this and thinking about a way to get a square peg 
in a square hole or a round peg in a round hole and find a solution. I 
guarantee, the best politics is really the best policy; that is, if we 
enact something that makes sense, then all the Republicans and all the 
Democrats can say: Yes, we did something good. And the people at home 
are going to be very happy for that. They care much more about that 
than who is blaming whom for not getting the job done.
  I do not know why I have to say that. It is so obvious. I guess I say 
it because it is still not done.
  We, obviously, have to address crop insurance. We want a Crop 
Insurance Program essentially so farmers and ranchers can make their 
own decisions and know how much they should be insured. We want a 
program that works and covers a lot more than the current program does.
  As you well know, Mr. President, because you and I have spent a lot 
of time on these issues, we have to have a much better international 
trade regime. American farmers and ranchers are being taken to the 
cleaners. They are being taken to the cleaners compared with farmers 
and ranchers worldwide.
  One example is this beef hormone matter. The Europeans for 12 years 
have said they are not going to take a single ounce of American beef. 
Why? Because they say our feed lots with growth hormones cause disease 
and people who eat American beef--Americans eat it all the time and 
other people do, too--has an adverse health effect on European 
consumers. It is a totally bogus issue, totally. Europeans know it; we 
know it. But for 12 years, they still have not taken any beef.
  What do we do? We bring an action before the World Trade 
Organization. What happens? The World Trade Organization agrees. They 
sent it to an international scientific panel which concluded the 
Americans are right and the Europeans are wrong. They sent it to a 
second scientific panel. It came to the same conclusion. All the 
scientific panels came to the same conclusion. Europe still says no.

  The WTO says that we have a right, as Americans, to impose tariffs on 
European products, on the value of the beef that is not going into 
Europe, so we do. Europeans say: Fine, we will just pay; we still won't 
import any beef. That is one of many examples where we are getting 
stiffed because there is not a way, there is not leverage, there is not 
a regime for us to stand up for what is right for American farmers.

[[Page S12474]]

  And take the state trading enterprises, the Canadian Wheat Board, the 
Australian Wheat Board. We still have not solved that problem.
  We will face a huge problem, too, in the coming years with respect to 
Europe. Europeans are getting on their high horse about genetically 
modified organisms. It is going to be a huge problem with Europe. To 
make matters even worse, Europe is starting to feel its oats. I think 
it is kind of upset with the United States because they see the United 
States as this big country. I think the war in Yugoslavia has 
exacerbated things a little bit because the European defense 
establishment did not provide the sophisticated materiel that was 
needed there. So now they want to build up their defense establishment. 
It is wrapped up in an awful lot of issues.
  And it is OK for Americans to criticize the Europeans for their 
failure to be straight and have a level agricultural playing field. I 
might add, for example, their export subsidies are out of this world. 
European export subsidies are about 60 times American export subsidies 
for agriculture--60 times. Our EEP is about $300 million, $200 
million--I do not think it is ever used--whereas their export subsidies 
are gargantuan.
  Do you think Europeans, out of the goodness of their heart, are going 
to lower their export subsidies? No way. No way. We know that no 
country altruistically, out of the goodness of its heart, is going to 
lower their trade barriers. The only way to lower trade barriers is 
when there is a little leverage. So we have to find leverage in the 
usual way.
  What I am saying is we have a huge challenge ahead of us; that is, to 
try to figure out--hopefully, in a noncombative way --how to deal with 
Europe. There are many issues with Europe, and they are just getting 
more and more complicated--whether it is Airbus or whether it is air 
pollution rules. They will not take our planes now because they say our 
airplanes pollute Europe. They are just huge issues. Basically, they 
are economic issues. And the economic issues are also very heavily 
agricultural.
  We have to figure out a way. It takes leadership from the President. 
It takes some cool-mindedness in the House and the Senate, on both 
sides of the aisle, to try to figure out some way to crack this nut. It 
is going to be a very difficult nut to crack, but it has to be if it is 
going to help our farmers because right now our farmers are being taken 
advantage of by the Europeans--pure and simple. Nobody disputes that.
  It is up to us to try to figure out a way to solve that one. I know 
that the more we criticize Europe, the more it makes us feel good, but 
it probably causes Europeans to dig their heels in a little more, and I 
do not know how much it will get the problem solved. We have to find 
leverage and some commonsense way to go about it and deal with this 
issue.
  The leverage I suggest is the WTO ``trigger,'' as I call it, the 
export subsidy trigger. This legislation I have introduced essentially 
provides that if the Europeans do not reduce their agricultural 
subsidies by 50 percent in a couple years, then the United States is 
directed to spend EEP dollars in a like amount. If they do not 
eliminate them in another year, then the United States is directed to 
spend several billion dollars in EEP directed and targeted exactly at 
European producers, the European countries. So that is one bit of 
leverage.
  I am also going to introduce legislation soon. It is agricultural 
surge legislation, to prevent farmers from suffering so much from 
import surges from other countries to the United States. We need action 
such as that and then to sit down calmly and coolly to talk with the 
Europeans, talk with the Chinese and the Japanese and the Canadians, to 
find a solution.
  There are a lot of other things we need to do to help our farmers. 
Many have talked about the concentration of the beef packing industry, 
and they are right; there is way too much concentration of the beef 
packing industry, which is hurting our producers. There is labeling in 
this bill that helps.
  There is one big omission. Seventy Senators voted to end the 
unilateral sanctions on food and medicine. The conferees disregarded 
the views of 70 Senators. They took that out. I do not know why. It 
does not make any sense why the conferees took that out of this 
conference report, particularly when 70 Senators, on a bipartisan 
basis, said, hey, we should not have unilateral sanctions on medicine 
and food; it should not be there. I wish they had not done that. 
Clearly, we have to find a way to get that passed.
  I will stop here, Mr. President, because I see a lot of other 
Senators on the floor who wish to speak. But I strongly urge a heavy 
vote for this conference report and in a deeper sense--because 
obviously it is going to pass--calling upon us to back off from the 
partisanship. Let's start to think as men and women, as people. We are 
supposed to be educated. We are supposed to be smart. We are supposed 
to be leaders in a certain sense. Let's do it. Let's act as grownups, 
adults, problem solvers. That is all I am asking. It is not a lot. Over 
the recess, I hope we think a little bit about that, so when we come 
back next year, we can start to solve some problems.

                          ____________________