[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19119-19152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000--Continued


                           Amendment No. 1500

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered 
on this side of the aisle because I think it meets all the income 
deficiency needs of American agriculture pretty much in the same way as 
the Democrat proposal does, but it also does not spend money in a lot 
of other areas that do not meet the immediate needs of agriculture.
  I have always thought of agriculture and the needs of food production 
and the process of food and fiber production in America as kind of a 
social contract between the 2 percent of the people in the United 
States who earn their livelihood in farming and the rest of the 98 
percent of the people, as well as a social contract of the last 60 
years of some Government involvement and some Government support of 
agriculture, particularly in times when income was very low.
  Thinking of it as a social contract, then, I do not like to believe 
there is a Democrat way of helping farmers or a Republican way of 
helping farmers. I like to think of our being able to work together on 
this social contract pretty much the same way we work together on 
Medicare and Social Security--to get agreements when there are changes 
made in those programs.
  In those particular programs--and, thank God, for most agricultural 
programs--there have not been dramatic changes over the years unless 
there has been a bipartisan way of accomplishing those changes. So, 
here we are, with a Democrat proposal and a Republican proposal. People 
watching this throughout the country, then, have their cynicism 
reinforced about how Congress does not cooperate.
  While this debate has not been going on just today and yesterday but 
over the last 2 or 3 months, there was an assumption that there would 
be help for agriculture under almost any circumstances; it was just a 
question of how to do it and exactly how much. While this debate was 
going on, we have had different approaches, and it has brought us to a 
point where we

[[Page 19120]]

have a Republican proposal and a Democrat proposal and we are talking 
past each other. I am hoping sometime before this debate gets over 
today and we have a final document to vote on, that we are able to get 
together in a Republican and Democrat way and have a bipartisan 
solution, at least for the essential aspects of the debate today, which 
is to have an infusion of income into agriculture considering that we 
have the lowest prices we have had in a quarter century.
  I think there are two stumbling blocks to this. I think on the 
Democrat side the stumbling block to bipartisan cooperation is a belief 
among some of those Members that some of the money should find its way 
to the farmers through changes in the LDP programs as opposed to the 
transition payments. On our side, the stumbling block seems to be that 
we are locked into no more than $7 billion to be spent on the 
agricultural program.
  So I hope somewhere along the line we can get a compromise on this 
side and a compromise on that side of those two points of contention. 
Hopefully, we on this side could see the ability to go some over $7 
billion--and that the Democrats would see an opportunity to use the 
most efficient way of getting all the money into the farmer's pocket 
through the AMTA payments.
  The reason for doing it that way is because we do have a crisis. The 
best way to respond to that crisis is through that mechanism because 
within 10 days after the President signs the bill, the help that we 
seek to give farmers can be out there, as opposed to a convoluted way 
of doing it through the LDP payment.
  I do not know why we could not get a bipartisan compromise with each 
side giving to that extent--Republicans willing to spend more money and 
the Democrats willing to give it out in the way that most efficiently 
can be done.
  So I see ourselves right now as two ships passing in the night, not 
speaking to each other. We ought to be able to get together to solve 
this. That is my hope. I know there are some meetings going on about 
that now. I'm part of some of those meetings. I hope they can be 
successful.
  In the meantime, talking about helping the family farmer, I think it 
is very good to have a description of a family farm so we kind of know 
what we are talking about. I am going to give it the way I understand 
it in the Midwest, and not only in my State of Iowa.
  But it seems to me there are three factors that are essential in a 
family farming operation: That the family makes all the management 
decisions; that the family provides all or most of the labor--that does 
not preclude the hiring of some help sometimes or maybe even a little 
bit of help for a long period of time; but still most of the labor 
being done by the family--and, thirdly, that the capital, whether it is 
self-financed or whether it is borrowing from the local bank or from 
another generation within the family, is controlled by the family 
farmer--the management by the family, the labor by the family, and the 
capital controlled by the family.
  Some people would say: Well, you have a lot of corporate farms. I do 
not know what percent, but we do have corporate family farms. But that 
is a structure they choose to do business in, especially if they have a 
multigenerational operation to pass on from one generation to the other 
and want to with a little more ease.
  In addition, some people would say: Well, you have a lot of corporate 
agriculture. You might have a lot of corporate agriculture in America, 
but I do not see a lot of corporate agriculture, at least in grain 
farming in my State of Iowa--mainly because most corporate people who 
want to invest their money do not get the return on land and labor 
through grain production that they normally want for a return on their 
money. Of course, that strengthens the opportunity to family farm. But 
at least when I talk about the family farmer, that is the definition 
that I use.
  In my State, the average family farm is about 340 acres. We have 
about 92,000 farming units in my State. By the way, if we do not get 
this agricultural economy turned around, we are going to have a lot 
less than 92,000 in a few months, as well.
  Nationwide, there are about 2 million family farming operations with 
an average acreage of about 500 acres. So the average family farm size 
nationally is bigger than in my State. But remember, whether you farm 
10,000 acres as a cattle farmer in Wyoming or 2,000 or 3,000 acres as a 
wheat farmer in Kansas or 350 as a corn, soybean, or livestock 
operation in my State of Iowa, it still is one job or maybe two jobs 
being created with all that capital investment.
  Let me tell you, it takes a tremendous amount of capital--both 
machinery as well as land--to create one job in agriculture compared to 
a factory, and many times more than for a service job. So those are the 
family farmers I am talking about whom I want to protect.
  Earlier in this debate there was some hinting about the problems of 
the farmers being related directly to the situation with the 1996 farm 
bill. I am not going to ever say that a farm bill is perfectly written 
and should never be looked at, but I think when you have a 7-year 
program, to make a judgment after 3\1/2\ years that it ought to be 
changed, then what was the point in having a 7-year program in the 
first place?
  It was that we wanted to bring some certainty for the family farmer 
without politics meddling in their business. A 7-year program was 
better than a 4- or 5- or 6-year program. So we wanted to bring some 
certainty to agriculture. Obviously, a 7-year program does that more so 
than a shorter program. So a family farm manager would not have to 
always be wondering, as he was making decisions for the long term: 
Well, is Washington going to mess this up for me as so many times 
decisions made by bureaucrats in Washington have the ability to do?
  So I am saying some people here are hinting at the 1996 farm bill 
being that way. Others of us are saying that the trade situation is the 
problem because farmers have to sell about a third of their product in 
export if they are going to have a financially profitable situation.
  I want to quote from Wallaces Farmer, January 1998, in which there 
were tremendous prospects, even just 18 months ago, before the 
Southeast Asia financial crisis was fully known, for opportunities for 
exports to Southeast Asia. That situation for the farmer was further 
exacerbated by the problems in Latin America. So I want to quote, then, 
a short statement by a person by the name of John Otte: ``World 
financial worries rock grains.''

       ``Expanding world demand, particularly in Asia, is the 
     cornerstone of the case for continued strength in corn, wheat 
     and soybean prices,'' points out Darrel Good, University of 
     Illinois economist.

  Quoting further from the article:

       Asian customers bought 57% of our 1995-96 corn exports, 66% 
     of our 1996-97 corn exports and almost 50% of our wheat 
     exports in both years. They [meaning Asian markets] are 
     important markets. No wonder Asian currency and stock market 
     problems bring grain market jitters.
       ``Signs of stability in Asian financial markets as central 
     banks intervened to support currency values brought a sigh of 
     relief to U.S. commodity markets,'' says Good.
       ``Whether late fall problems represent an economic hiccup 
     or the beginning of more serious problems is still unknown. 
     However, the developments underscore the importance of Asian 
     markets for U.S. crops.''

  We know the end of that story. The end of that story is that we did 
have that collapse of markets. And it very dramatically hurt our 
prosperity in grains in the United States last year, and more so this 
year.
  Now, just to put in perspective the debate today, because there is so 
much crepe-hanging going on, particularly from the other side of the 
aisle, there is a quote here by Michael Barone of the August 28, 1995, 
U.S. News and World Report. One sentence that will remind everybody 
about the greatness of our country and our ability to overcome some of 
the problems we face comes from an article called ``A Century of 
Renewal.'' It is a review of the 1900s. He says:

       There is something about America that makes things almost 
     always work out very much better than the cleverest 
     doomsayers predict.


[[Page 19121]]


  So for my colleagues, particularly those on the other side of the 
aisle who want to hang crepe and want to talk about the disastrous 
situation we are in right now, I do not want to find fault with their 
bringing to the attention of our colleagues the seriousness of that 
problem. But they should not leave the impression that there is no hope 
because this is America. We have gone through tough times before. All 
you have to do is remember 1985 and 1986 in agriculture and the 1930s 
in agriculture. Yet the American family farm that was the institution 
then--probably on average back in those days of only about 150 acres 
nationwide; today that is 500 acres nationwide--was a smaller 
operation, but remember, it was still run by the family farmer, the 
family making the management decisions, the family controlling the 
capital, and the family doing the labor.
  Please remember that, even the most cleverest of doomsayers here 
today: Don't give up on America. Don't give up on American agriculture. 
Don't give up on the family farmer. We are in a partnership during the 
period of time of this farm bill. We have to meet our obligations, and 
that is what this debate is about. But this debate ought to be about 
hope for the family farmer as well.
  I rise in support of our family farmers. Agriculture producers are in 
desperate need of immediate assistance. We need to find the best 
options available in these trying times. The Democrat proposal attempts 
to address the problems confronting our family farmers but, I think, 
falls short of our most important goal, which is providing assistance 
as quickly as possible.
  I realize this disaster affects farmers all across the Nation, but at 
this moment I am most concerned about my friends and neighbors back 
home. I am concerned that the Democrat alternative, by tying revenue 
relief to the LDP payments, will delay the efficiency of delivering the 
payment, unlike the transition payment which is more efficient.
  The Democratic alternative offers provisions that would have a long-
term effect upon agriculture. I don't want anyone to misunderstand me 
on that point. There are many things we can do to improve the 
agricultural economy, but the task before us today is to develop and to 
pass a short-term relief package that we can get out to those in need 
as quickly as possible.
  According to the Farm Service Agency's estimate, the transition 
payments provided to corn growers this year will pay out at a rate of 
36 cents per bushel. The supplemental transition payment Republicans 
are offering will equal an additional 36-cent increase on every bushel 
of corn produced this year. That is 76 cents in assistance for Iowa 
family farmers, before you figure in any income through the loan 
deficiency payment.
  As a Senator from my State of Iowa, I believe it is also particularly 
important to include language providing relief for soybean growers who 
are not eligible for the transition payments. That is why our proposal 
also contains $475 million in direct payments to soybean and other 
oilseed producers. I am proud to say that Iowa is No. 1 in the Nation 
in the production of soybeans, but our growers have been hard hit by 
devastatingly low prices. Prices for soybeans are the lowest they have 
been in nearly a quarter of a century, down from the $7-a-bushel range 
just a couple of years ago to less than $4 today, which is way, way 
below the cost of production. That is why I and other Senators 
representing soybean-producing States wanted to make sure that soybean 
growers were not left out of any relief package.
  Finally, the Democrat proposal falls short in another very important 
area. I think it undermines our U.S. negotiating objectives in the new 
multilateral trade negotiations that the United States will launch 
later this year. It will sharply weaken, and perhaps destroy, our 
country's efforts to limit the enormously expensive European Union 
production subsidies that make it impossible for our farmers to sell to 
the 540 million European consumers.
  I will say a brief word on that point. First, the United States just 
presented four papers to the World Trade Organization in Geneva 
outlining U.S. objectives for the new agriculture negotiations starting 
this fall. The first of these papers deals with domestic support. It 
states that the United States negotiating objective with regard to 
domestic support is a negotiation that results in ``substantial 
reductions in trade-distorting support and stronger rules that ensure 
all production-related support is subject to discipline.''
  Production-related payments are by definition trade distorting. They 
are exactly the kind of payments that we want the European Union to get 
rid of. I don't know how we can enter into tough negotiations with 
Europeans, with their production payments our No. 1 negotiating target, 
while we boost our production-related payments at the same time, which 
is what is done with part of the money under the Democrat proposal. 
This would undermine our negotiators and give the Europeans plenty of 
reason to hang tough and to not give an inch.
  My second point is closely related to the first. We will measure 
success at the new world trade talks based on how well we do at 
creating an open global trading system. The European Union's common 
agricultural policy nearly torpedoed world trade negotiations as early 
as 1990. The European Union later said it was reforming its common 
agriculture policy, but farm handouts this year in the European Union 
will reach $47 billion, nearly half of the entire European Union 
budget. Moreover, the largely production-based European Union subsidies 
still help those who least need help. Twenty percent of the European 
Union's richest farmers receive 80 percent of the common agriculture 
policy handout.
  World farming is sliding deeper into recession with prices of some 
commodities at historic lows. Now is not the time to give up on 
pressing the European Union hard to truly reform this vastly wasteful 
subsidy program in their continent. But that is exactly what we would 
end up doing if we go down the same road of tying part of these 
payments to production, as the Democrat alternative would do.
  There are many enemies of agriculture market reform in the European 
Union who are just looking for any circumstance to justify their 
special pleading and to combat and counteract United States negotiators 
in order for the European Union to keep their production subsidies 
going. I am afraid that is exactly what the Democrat plan would do. I 
think as chairman of the International Trade Subcommittee, I have a 
responsibility to tell my colleagues this.
  We should not hand the European Union an excuse to back away from 
real reform that opens the European Union's huge agricultural markets 
to American farmers.
  The proposal that we pass today should be the fastest and most 
efficient option available to help our family farmers. The most 
important thing we can do today is to work towards providing emergency 
revenue relief to our farmers as quickly as possible.
  It is for that reason I urge my colleagues to vote for our Republican 
alternative, to provide ample and immediate relief for hard-hit 
farmers, assuming we are not able to work out some sort of bipartisan 
agreement between now and that final vote.
  I only ask, in closing, for people on the other side of the aisle who 
are criticizing the 1996 farm bill to remember that what we call the 
1996 farm bill relates mostly to agricultural programs and totally to 
the subject of agriculture. We need to look beyond that basic 
legislation and realize there were a lot of things promised in 
conjunction with that farm bill through public policy that we have not 
given the American farmer, which makes it difficult to say we have 
fully given the American farmer--the family farmer--the tools he or she 
needs to manage their operation in the way they should.
  Yes, we have given them the flexibility to plant what they want to 
plant without waiting for some Washington bureaucrat to do that. We 
have given them the certainty of a certain transition payment every 
year, from 1996 through the year 2002. We have told them, with the 7-
year farm program, that they have 7 years where we are

[[Page 19122]]

going to have some certainty, political certainty, in Washington of 
what our policies are. But we also promised them more trading 
opportunities.
  We have not made the maximum use of the Export Enhancement Program so 
that we have a level playing field for our farmers. We have not given 
the President fast track trading authority so that in the 24 agreements 
that have been reached around the world among other countries we could 
have been at the table, and haven't been at the table, and that there 
is no President of the United States looking out for U.S. interests in 
those negotiations; and for the sake of the American farmer, we should 
be at some of those tables--at least those tables where agriculture is 
being talked about.
  We have not given the farmer the regulatory reform that has been 
promised. And from the standpoint of taxes, we haven't given the farmer 
the opportunity, through the farmers savings account, to level out the 
peaks and valleys of his income by being able to retain 20 percent of 
his income to tax in a low-income year, so that he is not paying high 
taxes one year and no taxes another year. We haven't given him the 
ability to do income averaging without running into the alternative 
minimum tax. We haven't reduced the capital gains tax enough. And we 
still have the death tax, the estate tax, which makes a lot of family 
farmers who want to keep the farm in the family sometimes have to sell 
the farm to pay the inheritance tax, instead of keeping the family farm 
and passing it down from one generation to another. Sometimes, if they 
can't afford to do that, they either make their operation so 
inefficient that they close down business or else they have a terrific 
tax burden over them as well.
  So here we have an opportunity to--in the spirit of the 1996 farm 
bill, when we told the farmers of America we were going to have a 
smooth transition over the next 7 years, we said to them we are going 
to set aside $43 billion for each of those next 7 years--not for each, 
but cumulative for those 7 years. This year, it is $5.6 billion. Well, 
we look back now, and in 1996 we did not anticipate the dramatic drop-
off in exports because we could not have predicted the Southeast Asian 
financial crisis and the contagion that caught on in Latin America. So 
we are going back now, unapologetically, on keeping a promise to the 
family farmers that we are going to keep this smooth transition we 
promised them, and that is what the amount of money we are talking 
about here on the floor is all about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have waited some while to be able to 
speak on these disaster bills and on this general issue. I am very 
pleased to have the opportunity for my colleague from New York who 
asked if I would yield for a minute for a question. I am happy to do 
that.
  Mr. SCHUMER. First, I thank the Senator from North Dakota and 
Senators Harkin and Daschle for the farm aid amendment, and for their 
hard work. This measure will help farmers across the country, including 
the farmers of New York State, who were hard hit by drought and last 
year's storms.
  We are in the midst of the worst drought since the Dust Bowl in my 
State. There is not a penny of relief for farmers with drought 
assistance. This drought is affecting farmers throughout the Eastern 
United States. When I meet with farmers in New York who tell me they 
are facing unprecedented losses, they are now pointing to letting 
fields die off to conserve water, or other fields. We can't do anything 
about the rain, but the Democratic amendment would increase section 32 
funding to give farmers some relief from the devastation on the farm 
and would increase funding for the disaster relief fund--something that 
would help New York's apple and onion farmers who faced tens of 
millions in losses last year.
  In urging my colleagues to support the Democratic amendment, I simply 
ask the Senator from North Dakota, am I correct in assuming that the 
Democratic amendment does have this kind of drought relief, which is 
not in the other bill?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from New York is correct. That is one of the 
distinctions between these two pieces of legislation. As the drought 
spreads across the eastern seaboard and other parts of the country and 
begins to devastate producers there, there needs to be some disaster 
relief. We have two pieces of legislation proposed today, one of which 
has no disaster relief at all, even in the face of this increasingly 
difficult drought.
  So the Senator from New York, speaking on behalf of producers who are 
hard-hit in New York, is certainly accurate to say that the amendment 
we have offered provides drought relief and the alternative does not.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for his generosity.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is not about Republicans and 
Democrats. I start by saying to my colleague from Iowa that I hope, 
whatever comes from all of this debate, at the end of the time we can, 
as Republicans and Democrats, find a way to provide appropriate relief 
to people who are hurting. There is not a Republican or a Democratic 
way to go broke on the family farm. The destruction of hopes and dreams 
on the family farm is something that is tragic and something to which 
we need to respond.
  This is not of the family farmers' making. They didn't cause prices 
to collapse or the Asian economies to have difficulty, and they didn't 
cause a wet cycle or crop disease. It is not their fault. We must, it 
seems to me, respond to it. But it is appropriate, I think, for there 
to be differences in the way we respond. There is a philosophical 
difference in the way we respond. Also, there has been a difference in 
the aggressiveness and interest in responding. I know that if this kind 
of economic trouble were occurring on Wall Street or in the area of 
corporate profits, we would have a legislative ambulance, with its 
siren, going full speed in trying to find a solution. It has not been 
quite so easy because it is family farmers.
  Darrel Sudzback is an auctioneer from Minot, ND. Blake Nicholson, an 
Associated Press writer, wrote a piece the other day. He said:

       Darrel Sudzback likens farm sales to funerals. He said, 
     ``If you don't know the deceased, you are not likely to get 
     emotional.'' But more often than not these days, auctioneers 
     must help a friend or a neighbor sell off a lifetime of hard 
     work. Marvin Hoffman says, ``It just hurts me to do this. 
     When they hurt, I hurt.'' With many families [Mr. Nicholson 
     writes] sliding deeper into an economic nightmare, the number 
     of farm sales in North Dakota continues to rise. ``It used to 
     be,'' one auctioneer said, ``that a farm auction was kind of 
     like a social event, a joyful event when somebody was 
     retiring.'' Julian Hagen said that he conducted auction sales 
     for 43 years, but he said, ``Now there is a different 
     atmosphere at auction sales. If people know that a man is 
     forced out, that is not a good feeling. It is tough to deal 
     with when you have known a family farmer for quite a few 
     years, and now they have to give up a career or property they 
     have had in the family for generations. I try to stay as 
     upbeat as I can. Bankers in north-central North Dakota say 
     that area has been hit by 5 years of flooding and crop 
     disease, and many farmers have been forced off the land.

  People need to think of this problem in terms of not only lost 
income, but assume you are on a farm and you have a tractor; you have 
some land; you have a family; you have hopes and dreams. You put a crop 
in the ground and see that this is what has happened to your income--to 
your price.
  Then on top of that, add not only collapsed prices, but add the worst 
crop disease in this century--the worst in a century in North Dakota. 
On top of that, add a wet spring so that 3.2 million acres--yes, I said 
3.2 million acres--of land could not be planted. It was left idle. Add 
all of those things together, and you have a catastrophe for families 
out there struggling to make a living.
  Will Rogers was always trying to be funny. He used to talk about the 
difference between Republicans and Democrats. He said on April 6, 1930, 
``Even the Lord couldn't stand to wait on the Republicans forever.''
  He was talking about the farm program.

[[Page 19123]]

  There is a difference, it seems to me. There is a difference between 
Republicans and Democrats in how we construct a solution to the 
disaster and the crisis, and how we feel the underlying farm bill 
should be changed.
  Will Rogers also said, ``If farmers could harvest the political 
promises made to them, they would be sitting pretty.''
  I want to talk a bit about those political promises--the political 
promises given farmers early on to say that we want to get rid of the 
farm program as we know it in this country, get rid of the safety net 
as we know it, and create something called ``transition payments'' 
under the Freedom to Farm bill.
  I mentioned yesterday that the title was interesting to me. Sometimes 
titles can change how people perceive things notwithstanding what might 
be the real part of a proposal. Early on when people began to sell 
insurance in this country, they called it death insurance. You know, 
death insurance didn't sell too well. So they decided that they had 
better rename it. So they renamed it life insurance, and it started 
selling. It was a better name. It is a product that most Americans need 
and use.
  It is interesting. What is in a name. The name for the farm bill a 
few years ago was Freedom to Farm. We passed a Freedom to Farm bill. 
The wheat price slump on this chart may be unconnected, or maybe not to 
Freedom to Farm.
  Here are the wheat prices before--Freedom to Farm--and wheat prices 
since. Chance? Happenstance? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe we face a 
circumstance in this country where the underlying farm bill was never 
designed to work and allowed for collapsed prices. Maybe that is the 
fact.
  I want to begin with a bit of history.
  About 40 years ago, a biologist by the name of Rachel Carson wrote a 
book that in many ways changed our country. It was called ``The Silent 
Spring.'' The book documented how the products of America's industrial 
production were seeping into our country's food chain. The modern 
environmental movement was also from Rachel Carson's book, ``The Silent 
Spring.''
  Today we face another ``silent spring'' in this country. Like the 
first, it is of a human making. But it is not about birds, and it is 
not about fish. It involves our country's independent family farmers 
and producers. It involves our social habitat--the farm communities of 
which family farmers are the base.
  We know that family farmers are hurting. In fact, many would consider 
it an extraordinary year if they had any opportunity at all to meet 
their cost of production. I know of cases that break my heart--people 
who have fought for decades, and now are losing everything they have. 
What is worse is that some opinion leaders are starting to throw in the 
towel. They say, well, maybe family farming is a relic of the past. 
Maybe it is not of value to our country anymore. Maybe it is time to do 
something else.
  I don't buy that at all. I think one thing we can say about the 
future is that people will be eating. The world's population is growing 
rapidly. Every month in this world we add another New York City in 
population. Every single month, another New York City in population is 
added to our globe. We know there is no more farmland being created on 
this Earth. It doesn't take a genius to put those two together.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to underscore the point the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota is making.
  Yesterday, I had the opportunity to go with Secretary Glickman and 
Governor Glendening to visit one of the farms that has been affected by 
the drought in our State. It is devastating to see. Of course, it is a 
compound of two things: The low commodity prices, which the Senator is 
demonstrating with his charts--this is not only wheat but the same 
thing applies to other basic commodities as well--and the drought, 
which is crippling certain parts of the country.
  We talked to this farmer who has been farming ever since he was a 
young boy. His father was a farmer. His grandfather was a farmer. He 
doesn't know whether he will be in farming next year because of what 
has hit them--the combination of the low commodity prices and the 
drought which is now desperately affecting our country.
  He is not alone. Farmers across Maryland and indeed, the nation, are 
finding themselves facing similar circumstances. Nearly one fourth of 
Maryland's corn crop is in poor to very poor condition. Likewise, 55 
percent of pastures and hay fields are in poor or very poor condition. 
Milk production has decreased because of the high temperatures. And 
because pastures and field crops are in such bad shape, cattle and 
dairy farmers are now faced with a dilemma, whether or not to sell 
their animals or begin feeding them hay which should be utilized over 
the winter.
  Maryland has suffered extensive drought damage for three consecutive 
years. However the drought this year is by far the worst since the 
depression. Yesterday, the United States Geological Survey reported 
that we may be in the midst of what could become the worst drought of 
the 20th century. Rainfall throughout Maryland is currently between 40 
and 50 percent below normal. Throughout Maryland, counties are 
reporting losses as high as 100 percent for certain crops. Most 
alarmingly, there is no end in sight.
  But the crisis affecting agriculture is about more than the drought. 
The dramatic drop in commodity prices, since the enactment of the 
Freedom to Farm Act, has had its affect on farmers throughout the 
country and the State of Maryland. The poultry industry, which is 
Maryland's largest agricultural producer, has witnessed a 45-percent 
decrease in exports. The situation for farmers is bleak and many are 
losing their businesses.
  Mr. President, Maryland depends on agriculture. Agriculture is 
Maryland's largest industry contributing more than $11 billion annually 
to our economy. More than 350,000 Marylanders--some 14 percent of our 
State's workforce--are employed in all aspects of agriculture from farm 
production of wholesaling and retaining. Forty percent of our State's 
land is in agriculture--more than 2 million acres. So when our family 
farmers and the farm economy start hurting--everyone suffers.
  Our farmers are in trouble and they deserve our assistance. This 
measure provides that assistance in the form of direct payments and low 
interest loans. It gives nearly $11 billion in emergency assistance to 
farmers and ranchers who have been affected by natural disaster and 
economic crisis. $6 billion of that amount will deliver income 
assistance to farmers hit hard by the economic disaster. And more than 
$2.6 billion will be used to address natural disasters such as the 
drought. Within the disaster funds, nearly $300 million in section 32 
and disaster reserve funds has been included to specifically address 
the Mid-Atlantic drought.
  Mr. President, the need for this amendment is real. Until we are able 
to reform the Freedom to Farm Act or manufacture rain, these funds are 
vital to the preservation of the farm industry throughout the State of 
Maryland and the United States.
  In my judgment, it is imperative that we pass this legislation.
  I very much appreciate the Senator from North Dakota yielding. I want 
to underscore the crisis nature of the situation to which he is 
referring.
  I want to acknowledge the consistent and effective leadership which 
he has exercised on many of these farm issues. He and others of us 
expressed concerns and questions at the time the 1996 act was passed. 
Much of that now seems to have come around to hit us--compounded, of 
course, by these serious weather circumstances which exist not in all 
parts of the country but in certain parts of the country.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from Maryland. He is talking about a 
drought which is devastating part of our country even as collapsed 
prices have been devastating wheat farmers and the grain farmers in my 
part of the country.

[[Page 19124]]

  I want to respond to some things that were said earlier today that 
somehow we are not as efficient as we need to be as family farmers.
  In my judgment--and I think the evidence supports this--the family 
farmer in our country is as productive as any in the world. It supports 
our rural communities in ways that corporations never will and never 
can.
  Family farmers have faced hard times before. This is not something 
new. The history of farming is a history of difficulty. But never 
before has the Federal Government done so little to help and so much to 
push the producer off the edge.
  On top of the floods that we have talked about and the drought and 
the slump in the foreign markets, our farmers are facing a plague of 
deliberate public policies--yes, established here in Washington--that 
undermine their economic interest. They face trade agreements designed 
for the convenience of food processors rather than food producers. They 
face a ``see-no-evil'' posture toward antitrust enforcement that has 
left family farmers selling into controlled markets that dictate the 
terms to them. On top of that, they face a 1996 farm bill that 
fundamentally doesn't and can't work.
  There is a larger issue than dollars and cents; namely, the kind of 
country we are going to be.
  It is not fashionable to raise all of these issues. We are supposed 
to keep our mouths shut and cash in on the stock market which has done 
quite well. But the Founding Fathers didn't create this country 
primarily to be an engine of stock market riches or rising gross 
domestic product. They created this country to promote a way of life 
based on freedom and democracy and independent producers in contrast to 
the aristocracy they left behind in Europe.
  The concept of independence and freedom was rooted in the land, and 
they couldn't conceive of these things being separate.
  Wendell Berry, a farmer, testified recently in Washington at a 
hearing that I chaired. He said:

       Thomas Jefferson thought the small land owners were the 
     most precious part of state, and he thought government should 
     give priority to their survival. But increasingly, since 
     World War II our government's manifest policy has been to get 
     rid of them. This country is paying a price for this. That 
     price doesn't show up on the supermarket shelves but rather 
     our Nation's spirit and our character.

  Independent family-based agriculture produces more than wheat, beef, 
and pork. It produces a society and a culture, our main streets, our 
equipment dealers, our schools, our churches, and our hospitals. It is 
the ``culture'' in agriculture. Take away family-based producers and 
all that is left are calories. That is a radical change in our country. 
I am not talking about rural sentimentalism or nostalgia. It is 
something we know from experience. Rural communities work. They have so 
many of the things the Americans all over this country say they want, 
including stable families, low crime rates, neighborliness, a volunteer 
spirit.
  In my hometown of Regent, ND, they still leave the keys in the car 
when they park on Main Street. Try doing that here. Many Americans have 
plenty of food on their tables, but what they feel is a growing dearth 
of the qualities that they want most are the qualities that farm 
communities represent. It would be insane, in my judgment, to stand by 
and let these communities wither on the vine by neglecting the economic 
base that sustains them.
  Yes, the Nation's financial establishment is enthused about that 
prospect. It can't wait to turn hog barns into agrifactories and more. 
However, that will not advance this country's interests. We can't stop 
bad weather and we can't stop unruly markets, but we can change Federal 
policies that turn adversity into quicksand for family farmers.
  I listened to a ringing defense of the current farm program. I 
listened to one of my colleagues who was an economist, and I mentioned 
before I used to teach economics but was able to overcome that and go 
on to think clearly. There is an interesting debate among economists 
about all of these issues. First, is there a crisis? Listening to part 
of the debate this morning one would think there is nothing wrong on 
the family farm. Is there a crisis? Would anyone in this country be 
feeling there is a crisis if this is what happened to their income? If 
any sector of the American economy had this happen to their income, 
would they consider it a crisis? The answer is, of course.
  I had a farmer come to a meeting who farmed the lands that his 
granddad farmed, his dad farmed, and he farmed. He stood up and said: 
For 23 years, I farmed this land. His chin began to quiver and his eyes 
began to water. He could hardly speak. He said: I'm going to have to 
leave this farm.
  Anyone could tell he loved what he did. He was going to lose the farm 
that his granddad, dad, and he had farmed for those many decades. Is 
that a crisis? I think so.
  In my State, add to the fact that incomes have collapsed because of 
price collapses, 3.2 million acres were not planted because of wet 
conditions in the spring--3.2 million acres. A young boy wrote some 
while ago and said: My dad could feed 180 people and he can't feed his 
family.
  Is that a crisis? Of course.
  Why the crisis? I mentioned collapsed prices and a wet spring and the 
worst crop disease in the century in our part of the country. This 
notion of a farm bill that says the free market shall determine what 
happens in agriculture, by cutting the tether and turning it all loose, 
finds you scratching your head and wondering, gee, why didn't this work 
out the way we thought? Because the market isn't free. It never has 
been free and never will be free.
  That bill that says we will transition farmers out of any help, over 
7 years that bill transitions farmers into a marketplace that is fixed. 
Does anybody know what kind of tariff we have putting beef into Japan 
at this moment? I guess it costs $30 or $35 a pound to buy T-bone steak 
in Tokyo. Does anybody know what tariff exists on beef going into 
Japan? Very close to 50 percent. That is a failed free market by any 
definition anywhere. That is after we reached an agreement with them 10 
years ago.
  How about China? They consume half the world's pork. Are we 
delivering a lot of hogs into China? No, we have a $50 billion to $60 
billion trade deficit with China and we are not exporting enough hogs 
into China.
  What about wheat in Canada? No. I drove to the border of Canada with 
a truck and couldn't get the wheat into Canada. I stopped at the 
border, and all the way to the border, semitruckload after 
semitruckload after semitruckload was coming into this country, hauling 
Canadian grain into our country and undercutting our farmer's prices. 
We sit at the border trying to go north, you can't. The border coming 
south is flooded by millions of wheat acres, unfairly subsidized, sold 
to us by a Canadian wheat board. It is a state monopoly and would be 
illegal in this country, with it's secret prices. Our trade officials 
downtown wouldn't lift a finger--never have and never will--to deal 
with the unfair trade practices.
  I mention Japan, China, and Canada. I could list other countries for 
an hour, but I won't. Then we say to the family farmers, operate in a 
free marketplace. That is what we have created, a marketplace that is 
fundamentally corrupt with respect to fairness to our family farmers.
  My colleague this morning, Senator Conrad, talked about the Europeans 
subsidizing exports to the tune of ten times our subsidies. Is that 
fair competition? I don't think so.
  Over and over and over, if it is not just unfair competition in 
selling, selling into our marketplace with products that ought not be 
allowed, produced with growth hormones or produced with chemicals that 
we wouldn't allow to be used in this country on animals or grains--that 
happens every day in every way.
  We produce canola in this country and we are prevented from using a 
chemical on the canola that we would purchase from Canada because that 
chemical can't be allowed into the country. However, the Canadians can

[[Page 19125]]

use that chemical on their canola, plant the canola, harvest it, and 
ship it into Belfield, ND, to put it at a crushing plant, crush it, and 
put it into our food chain.
  My farmers say: Why is that the case? What is going on here?
  What is going on here is family farmers have been set up in every 
single way, set up for failure.
  I heard this morning what was being proposed here was socialism. I 
heard what was being proposed here was being proposed by a bunch of 
leftists. I heard what was being proposed here was being proposed by 
people who don't believe in the principles of economics. I sat here and 
thought, that is novel; an interesting, pithy new political debate 
calling people socialists or leftists. Or maybe it isn't so new. Maybe 
it is just a tired, rheumatoid, calcified debate by people who can't 
think of anything else to say.
  Deciding to stand up and help family farmers in a time of crisis and 
trouble is socialistic? Are you kidding me? It is everything that is 
right about the instincts of this country.
  When part of this country is in trouble, the rest of the country 
moves to help. I wasn't there, but in the old wagon train days when we 
populated the western part of this country with wagon trains, one of 
the first lessons learned was don't move ahead by leaving somebody 
behind. That is an indelible lesson. The same is true with this country 
and its economy. Don't move ahead by leaving some behind. When family 
farmers are in trouble, we have a responsibility to help, not crow 
about socialism and leftists. What a bunch of nonsense.
  The fact is, the same kind of debate includes this: We are no longer 
the most efficient in farming. I heard that this morning. We are no 
longer the most efficient in farming. Nonsense. Show me who is better. 
Tell me who is better. I am sick and tired of this ``blame America 
first'' notion. We lose because we are no longer the most efficient. 
Tell me who is more efficient anywhere else in the world. Stop blaming 
this country first for everything.
  If we had a free market, if we had open markets, if we had fair 
competition, if we didn't have policymakers setting up family farmers 
for failure, and if they paid as much attention to the family economic 
unit--which apparently has no value to a lot of folks in this country--
as we do for the corporate economic unit, maybe we would see some 
policies that would say to family farmers, you matter in this country's 
future and we want to keep you.
  I do not understand much of this debate, except we face the 
requirement to do two things, and we need to do them soon. First, we 
must respond to a farm crisis. That is the purpose of the two bills on 
the floor of the Senate today. We do it in very different ways.
  As my colleague from New York mentioned, the majority party bill 
doesn't even respond to any part of the disaster; there are no disaster 
provisions at all. Of course, we have a substantial part of this 
country now facing a serious drought, so it is a very serious problem. 
We have very different ways in which we provide income support to 
family farmers. The majority party follows the Freedom to Farm bill, 
which of course is a total flop, total failure. It gives payments to 
people who are not producing. It says: You are not producing; you are 
not in trouble; you don't have any crop; here's some money. What kind 
of logic is that? It doesn't make any sense.
  We propose a mechanism by which we provide help to people who are 
producing and are losing money as a result of that production, trying 
to provide help to shore up that family farm. Our position is simple. 
When prices hit a valley, we want a bridge across that valley so family 
farmers can get across that valley. We want to build a bridge, and 
other people want to blow up the bridge. But if we don't take the first 
step to provide some crisis and disaster relief and then follow it very 
quickly in September and October, as I discussed with my colleague from 
Iowa and others, with a change in the underlying farm bill, we will not 
have done much for farmers.
  Farmers say to me: We very much appreciate some disaster help, but it 
will not provide the hope that is necessary for me to plant a crop and 
believe that I can make it. We need a change in the farm bill. We need 
a safety net that we think has a chance to work for us in the future.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. First, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his 
statement, which is exemplary in its clarity. The arguments the Senator 
has made, the point he made, this should crystallize clearly what this 
debate is all about, what is happening, what we are all talking about.
  I picked up on one thing the Senator said--that under the 
Republican's proposal the payments would go out without regard to 
whether someone was producing anything or not; it could actually go out 
to absentee landlords, people who are not on the farm, hadn't even 
planted anything.
  As the Senator knows, the AMTA payments that are in their bill go out 
without regard to whether they are planting anything or not. It is 
based upon outdated, outmoded provisions of base acreages and proven 
yields. It goes back as far as 20 years.
  I wonder if it occurred to the Senator from North Dakota--I heard a 
couple of Republicans this morning talk about the failed policies of 
the past. Yet they are basing their payments on a policy that goes back 
20 years, base acreages and proven yields, which any farmer will tell 
you has no basis in reality as to what is going on in the farm today.
  I am curious. Does the Senator have any idea why they would want to 
make payments based on something that is not even happening out there 
today? It is not even based on production, not helping the family 
farmer. I am still a little confused as to why they would suggest that 
kind of payment mechanism rather than what we are suggesting, which 
goes out to farmers based on the crops they bring in from the fields.
  Mr. DORGAN. The payment mechanism is called an AMTA payment or a 
transition payment. This would actually enhance the transition payment. 
The purpose of a transition payment, by its very name, is to transition 
family farmers out of a farm program. It said: Whatever your little 
boat is, let it float on whatever marketplace exists out there. The 
problem is, they declare it a free market when in fact it is a market 
that is totally stacked against family farmers. So family farmers 
cannot make it in this kind of system.
  This farm bill that provides transition payments is a faulty concept. 
Yet even for disaster relief, they cling to this same faulty concept of 
moving some income out largely because, I think, they are worried, if 
they do not cling to that, somehow they will be seen as retreating from 
the farm bill. I would say: Retreat as fast as you can from a farm bill 
that has put us in this position on wheat prices.
  You may think it is totally unfair to say wheat prices have anything 
to do with the farm bill. I don't know. Maybe this is pure coincidence. 
Maybe it is just some sort of a cruel irony that we passed a new farm 
bill and all these prices collapsed. But the point is, I was hearing 
this morning discussions from people who were standing up to say things 
are really good on the family farm. I did not look closely at their 
shoes to see whether they had been on a family farm recently. They 
looked as if they were wearing pretty good pants and shirts and so on. 
It occurred to me, if things are so good on the family farm, why are we 
seeing all these farm auctions and all this misery and all this pain 
and agony with family farmers losing their lifetime of investment? Why? 
Because prices have collapsed. Things are not good on the family farm. 
The current farm bill doesn't work.
  People stand here--I guess I can listen to them--they stand here for 
hours and tell us how wonderful things are and how much income the 
current farm bill is spreading in rural America. I would say, however 
much income that is, it does not make up for the radical, total 
collapse of the grain markets. What has happened is, we have a payment 
system that says, under Freedom

[[Page 19126]]

to Farm, when prices are high, you get a payment that you do not need, 
and when prices are low, you don't get a payment that is sufficient to 
give you the help you need.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield further, the Senator has stated 
it absolutely correctly. I was interested in the chart there of wheat 
prices. I ask the Senator if he would put it back up there again, on 
wheat prices. It just about mirrors corn and soybeans, all the major 
production crops in the Southwest.
  I have an article from the Wichita Eagle, from 1995, I believe. It is 
an article written by the distinguished Senator from Kansas. I think he 
was a House Member at the time, Senator Roberts. So this article says:

       Good Bill for Farm Reality, by Pat Roberts.

  The first sentence says:

       My Freedom to Farm legislation now before Congress is a new 
     agricultural policy for a new century.

  ``My Freedom to Farm. . . .'' That is by Pat Roberts, now Senator 
Roberts. I want to read to the Senator from North Dakota this paragraph 
in there. He says:

       Finally, Freedom to Farm enhances the farmer's total 
     economic situation. In fact, the bill results in the highest 
     net farm income over the next seven years of any proposal 
     before Congress.

  He says:

       The AMTA payment cushions the Nation's agriculture economy 
     from collapse during the 7-year transition process.

  I have to ask my friend from South Dakota, are your farmers receiving 
the highest net farm income that they have received ever in any farm 
program? Are they receiving the highest farm income? And are your 
farmers being cushioned by the Freedom to Farm bill?
  Mr. DORGAN. I say to the Senator from Iowa, the answer to that 
question is, clearly, farm income is collapsing. It is collapsing with 
grain prices, with commodity prices generally, and family farmers are 
put in terrible trouble as a result of it. Many of them are facing 
extinction.
  I have here a report from the Economic Policy Institute that 
describes the almost complete failure of the current farm bill and 
current strategy. It is written by Robert Scott. It is about an eight-
page report. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me make one final point, and then I will relinquish 
the floor. I know my colleagues wish to speak.
  This is a map of the United States. This map shows in red the 
counties of our country that have lost more than 10 percent of their 
population. It shows where people are moving out, not coming in. We 
have cities growing in various parts of America, but in the center of 
our country, in the farm belt of our country, we are being depopulated. 
People are leaving. My home county, which is about the size of the 
State of Rhode Island, was 5,000 people when I left, in population. It 
is now 3,000. The neighboring county, which is about the same size, the 
size of the State of Rhode Island, had 920 people last year. The fact 
is, people are moving out. Why? Because family farmers cannot make a 
living.
  We have had other farm policies that have not worked. I mean we have 
had Democratic and Republican failures. Both parties have failed in 
many ways in farm policy.
  It is just the circumstance today where we have farm prices, in 
constant dollars, that are at Depression level; and we have a farm 
program that, like it or not, was offered by the majority party that 
does not work. It does not work at all in the context of what our needs 
are to try to save family farmers.
  We will have two votes today: One on a disaster package or a price 
relief package that offers more help, and one that offers less; one 
that offers some help for disaster relief, and one that does not.
  A whole series of differences exist between these proposals. My hope 
is that at the end of this day the Senate will have agreed to the 
proposal that Senators Daschle, Harkin, Conrad, myself, and others have 
helped draft and that we will be able to send a message of hope to 
family farmers, to say, we know what is happening, we know we need 
change. This is the first step. The second step, in September or 
October, will be to force a fundamental change in our underlying farm 
policy.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                           Exported to Death


                the failure of agricultural deregulation

                          (By Robert E. Scott)

       In 1996, free market Republicans and budget-cutting 
     Democrats offered farmers a deal: accept a cut in farm 
     subsidies and, in return, the government would promote 
     exports in new trade deals with Latin America and in the 
     World Trade Organization (WTO) and eliminate restrictions on 
     planting decisions. In economic terms, farmers were asked to 
     take on risks heretofore assumed by the government in 
     exchange for deregulation and the promise of increased 
     exports.
       This sounded like a good deal to many farmers, especially 
     since exports and prices had been rising for several years. 
     Many farmers and agribusiness interests supported the bill, 
     and it was in keeping with the position of many farm 
     representatives and most members of Congress from farm states 
     who already supported the WTO, the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement (NAFTA), and the extension of fast-track trade 
     negotiating authority, usually in the name of supporting 
     family farmers.
       But for family farmers, the Omnibus Farm Bill--and the 
     export-led growth strategy upon which it was based--has been 
     a massive failure. The U.S. farm trade balance declined by 
     more than $13 billion between 1996 and 1998, and prices have 
     plummeted. August U.S. corn prices fell from $4.30 per bushel 
     in 1996 to $1.89, or 56%. Wheat prices fell from $4.57 per 
     bushel in 1996 to $2.46 in 1998, a drop of 46%.
       The combination of export dependence and deregulation have 
     left increased numbers of family farmers facing extinction. 
     At the same time, U.S. agriculture becomes more centralized 
     in the hands of large farms and national and multinational 
     companies.
       Contrary to the Department of Agriculture's rosy 
     predictions, the plight of farmers is likely to get worse 
     under current policies. Expanding supplies are likely to 
     outpace the growth in demand for U.S. farm products; 
     restricted access to foreign markets will continue; and the 
     strong dollar, actively supported by the U.S. Treasury, will 
     further depress the prices farmers receive for their goods.
       It is time to end this cruel hoax on the American family 
     farmer. The U.S. government should: reduce the value of the 
     dollar in order to boost farm prices; shift subsidies away 
     from large farms and corporate farmers to independent, 
     family-run farms; increase expenditures for research, 
     development, and infrastructure; and support new uses for 
     farm products.


              freedom to fail: the omnibus 1996 farm bill

       For more than a half-century after the Great Depression, 
     government policies helped create a highly successful U.S. 
     agricultural sector by reducing risks to family farmers. Crop 
     insurance and disaster programs reduced production risk, and 
     a variety of price and income support programs, plus set-
     aside programs that paid farmers to remove excess land from 
     production, reduced price risks. But the Omnibus 1996 Farm 
     Bill eliminated price and income supports and replaced them 
     with annual income payments, to be phased out, on a fixed 
     declining schedule, over seven years (Chite and Jickling 
     1999, 2). The 1996 farm bill also eliminated the set-aside 
     program, thus giving farmers, in the words of one 
     commentator, ``the freedom to plant what they wanted, when 
     they wanted. . . . With prices rising and global demand 
     soaring, lawmakers and farmers were happy to exchange the 
     bureaucratic rulebook for the Invisible Hand'' (Carey 1999).
       The rapid growth in U.S. agricultural exports--they more 
     than doubled between 1985 and 1996--encouraged many farmers 
     to buy into the deregulation strategy. But rising exports 
     have not translated into rising incomes. Due to globalization 
     and relentless declines in the real prices of basic farm 
     products, the structure of American agriculture has been 
     transformed, and, as a result, real U.S. farm income has been 
     steady or declining for many years despite the long-run trend 
     of rising exports.
       In the two decades from 1978 to 1997, real grain prices 
     were slashed in half. Then, in 1998, prices fell an 
     additional 10-20%, pushing many family farmers to the brink 
     of bankruptcy.\1\ In this environment, only the largest and 
     most capital intensive farms are able to survive and prosper.
     Growing concentration throughout the food chain
       There are about 2 million farms in the U.S., but three-
     quarters of those generate minimal or negative net incomes 
     (USDA 1996). Since farms with less than $50,000 in gross 
     revenues tend to be primarily part-

[[Page 19127]]

     time or recreational ventures, this section analyzes working 
     farms that generate gross revenues in excess of $50,000 per 
     year.
       Within this group, the number of large farms is growing 
     while small farms are disappearing at a rapid pace, as shown 
     in Table 1. There were 554,000 working farms in the U.S. in 
     1993. More than 42,000 farms with revenues of less than 
     $250,000 per year disappeared between 1994 and 1997, a 
     decline of about 10%. Nearly 20,000 farms with revenues in 
     excess of $250,000 per year were added in this three-year 
     period, an increase of about 17%. Thus, the U.S. experienced 
     a net loss of about 22,000 farms between 1994 and 1997 alone.

                                             TABLE 1.--CHANGES IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF WORKING FARMS, 1993-98
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Size class (annual sales)
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        $1,000,000
                                                         or more    $500,000-$999,999  $250,000-$499,000  $100,000-249,999  $50,000-$99,999     Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993.................................................       14,980          30,876             70,982            224,823          212,531        554,192
1997.................................................       18,767          34,764             82,984            207,058          187,831        531,404
Percent change.......................................        25.3%           12.6%              16.9%              -7.9%           -11.6%          -4.1%
Number gained or lost................................        3,788           3,888             12,001            -17,765          -24,700        -22,788
Number lost with gross incomes of $50,000-250,000....  ...........  .................  .................  ................  ...............      -42,465
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA, Farm Business Economics Briefing Room, Farm Structure Reading Room, A Close-Up Of Changes in Farm Organization (http://
usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/).

       Corporate influence is growing throughout the U.S. food 
     supply system. While the share of farms owned by individuals 
     and families (operating as sole proprietors) was roughly 
     constant between 1978 and 1992, at about 85% of all farms, 
     the output share of such farms declined during this period 
     from about 62% to 54% (USDA 1996). Corporations absorbed most 
     of this production lost by sole proprietors between 1978 and 
     1992. Moreover, an increasing number of family farmers are 
     raising crops under contract for big purchasers.
       Corporate control is becoming much more concentrated both 
     upstream and downstream from farmers. On the input side, 
     considerable consolidation is taking place among firms that 
     supply farmers with seeds and chemical inputs. A small number 
     of companies are assuming control of the seed production 
     business, including Monsanto, Dupont, and Novartis (Melcher 
     and Carey 1999, 32).
       The story is similar on the distributional side. Grain 
     distribution, for example, which has been tightly controlled 
     by a handful of companies since the 19th century, is becoming 
     even more concentrated. Recently, Cargill has proposed to 
     purchase Continental's grain storage unit, which would result 
     in a single firm that would control more than one-third of 
     U.S. grain exports (Melcher and Carey 1999, 32).


                 international trade: the siren's song

       The growth in agricultural exports, especially in the first 
     half of 1990s, suggested to small farmers that sales to 
     foreign markets were the key to solving their problems. 
     However, export markets have proven to be more volatile than 
     domestic ones, and globalization has increased the 
     vulnerability of farmers to sudden price swings.

                 TABLE 2--U.S. AGRICULTURAL TRADE BALANCE WITH INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES,\1\ 1990-98
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Changes:
                 Country/region                      1990         1996       1998 \2\  -------------------------
                                                                                          1990-96      1996-98
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World..........................................       17,292       27,994       14,756       10,702      -13,238
Europe.........................................        5,228        4,835          606         -393       -4,229
NAFTA..........................................        1,488        1,787          691          299       -1,096
    Canada.....................................        1,587          133         -781       -1,454         -914
    Mexico.....................................          -98        1,654        1,472        1,752         -182
Asia...........................................       14,147       22,249       14,655        8,102       -7,594
Rest of world..................................       -3,572         -877       -1,196        2,695         -319
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Census basis; foreign and domestic exports, f.a.s.
\2\ Estimated--incomplete data for all countries.
 
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Foreign Trade Highlights, Internet: http://www.ita.doc.gov/cgi-
binotea_ctr?task=readfile&file=hili; and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Trade of the
  U.S., Internet: http://www.econ.ag.gov/db/FATUS/.

     Unreliable export markets
       The U.S. agricultural trade balance with the rest of the 
     world increased by almost $11 billion between 1990 and 1996 
     (Table 2), then declined by $13.2 billion between 1996 and 
     1998. This drop in the volume of exports, which was equal to 
     a 6% decline in farm revenues, was compounded by a sharp 
     decline in domestic commodity prices (discussed below). These 
     two factors combined in 1997 and 1998 to severely depress 
     farm incomes.
       Closer examination of regional trends in U.S. farm trade 
     shows that only a limited number of markets were open to U.S. 
     farm products. The U.S. agricultural trade balance with 
     Europe declined sharply between 1990 and 1998, as shown in 
     Table 2. During that time exports to Europe fell by about $2 
     billion while U.S. imports increased by $3 billion (U.S. 
     Department of Commerce 1999; USDA 1999b).
       U.S. trade problems with Europe result from continued high 
     subsidies to European farms and European resistance to 
     certain U.S. farm products, such as hormone-treated beef. The 
     Uruguay Round trade agreements were designed, in part, to 
     reduce agricultural subsidies, but European farm spending 
     actually increased from $46.0 billion in 1995 (the year 
     before the agreements went into effect) to $55 billion in 
     1997.\2\ During the same period, U.S. government payments to 
     farmers were $7 billion, less than 13% of the European 
     level.\3\
       Under NAFTA and the earlier U.S.-Canada Free Trade 
     Agreement (which went into effect in 1989), the volume of 
     farm trade has significantly increased throughout the region. 
     However, the net result has been a small but significant 
     decline in the U.S. farm trade surplus with Mexico and 
     Canada. This fact contradicts the U.S. Trade Representative's 
     statement that ``NAFTA has been a tremendous success for 
     American agriculture'' (Huenemann 1999).
       NAFTA has also resulted in a massive shift in the structure 
     of trade and production within North America. U.S. exports of 
     corn and other feed grains (such as sorghum) have increased, 
     but U.S. imports of fruits, vegetables, wheat, barley, and 
     cattle have all increased much more. For example, U.S. grain 
     exports to Canada (primarily corn and other feed grains) 
     increased by 127% between 1990 and 1998, but at the same time 
     U.S. imports of wheat from Canada increased by 249%, from $79 
     million in 1990 to $278 million in 1998. Similarly, U.S. corn 
     exports to Mexico increased by 47% during that period, while 
     cattle and calf imports from Mexico soared by 1,280%.\4\
       Since the trade balance with Europe and North America was 
     relatively flat from 1990 to 1996, what was the source of 
     strongly growing demand for U.S. farm products in the 1990s? 
     Answer: the trade balance with Asia increased by $8 billion 
     (Table 2). Unfortunately for U.S. farmers, though, the demand 
     that pulled in U.S. farm exports to Asia was driven by the 
     same inflationary bubble that ultimately caused the world 
     financial crisis. An unprecedented inflow of short-term 
     capital into Asia stimulated a huge growth in consumption. 
     When this capital flowed out even more quickly in the wake of 
     the Thai financial crisis in July 1997, the U.S. agricultural 
     trade balance with Asia collapsed back to its 1990 level.\5\
       Thus, the boom in U.S. agriculture in the early 1990s, 
     which convinced farmers that trade liberalization was the 
     solution to their problems, was built on the false foundation 
     of a speculative bubble. Increased trade has certainly 
     increased the volatility of farm incomes, but it has yet to 
     improve their average level. Globalization has also stacked 
     the deck against family farmers, since they tend to be under-
     capitalized and more vulnerable to financial cycles in 
     comparison to large and diversified corporate farms.
     Globalization and future farm prices
       The U.S. Department of Agriculture has fueled expectations 
     that global demand for U.S. agricultural products will 
     increase in the future. Its most recent baseline forecasts 
     predict that commodity prices, net farm income, and U.S. 
     exports will all recover rapidly in 2000 and climb steadily 
     thereafter.\6\ The USDA has also forecast that U.S. 
     agriculture would benefit from further trade liberalization. 
     For example, it estimated that the proposed Free Trade 
     Agreement of the

[[Page 19128]]

     Americas (FTAA) ``that includes the United States would cause 
     annual U.S. farm income (in 1992 dollars) to be $180 million 
     higher than it otherwise would be'' (Raney and Link 1998, 2).
       This forecast is particularly surprising because the same 
     report also predicts that the FTAA will reduce the U.S. trade 
     balance. Specifically, it predicts that the FTAA will have a 
     larger impact on U.S. farm imports than on exports (Raney and 
     Link 1998, 2), thus increasing the current U.S. agricultural 
     trade deficit with Latin America. The reported income effects 
     include only ``efficiency gains'' from the shift of resources 
     from one crop to another, and exclude the losses from 
     declining demand for U.S. farm products and from rising 
     imports resulting from deregulated trade. The report does 
     acknowledge that the reported gains ``are very small changes 
     in U.S. farm income'' and that:
       ``. . . the short-run adjustment costs for some farm 
     households could be large. Hence, the debate on the 
     acceptability of an FTAA may hinge on its distributional 
     consequences rather than on the gains to the entire economy 
     or to the agricultural sector as a whole.'' (Raney and Link 
     1998, 38)
       The FTAA report further assumes that the economy will be at 
     full employment and that there are no adjustment costs due to 
     changes in trade. Moreover (as the author note), the impacts 
     of agricultural trade deficits and structural change on the 
     farm sector are excluded from the study.
       Similar predictions were made about the benefits of NAFTA 
     and the Uruguay Round trade agreements that created the WTO. 
     U.S. farmers were supposed to benefit because they are the 
     world's low-cost producers of many types of grain and 
     livestock. As we have seen, it did not turn out that way.
       Are the USDA's predictions that rising exports will cause 
     farm prices to increase in the future likely to be any more 
     accurate now? An economic analysis (see the Appendix for 
     methodological details) of the various forces that influence 
     U.S. commodity prices--namely, (1) U.S. income (in terms of 
     gross domestic product, or GDP), (2) the real (inflation 
     adjusted) U.S. exchange rate, and (3) worldwide average crop 
     yields (which reflect the influence of technology on crop 
     supplies)--shows that U.S. farm prices are unlikely to rise 
     in the future unless U.S. agricultural policies are 
     substantially revised.
       Looking at U.S. corn and wheat over the past 26 years, 
     income, somewhat surprisingly, seems to have only a weakly 
     significant effect on price. Furthermore, the changes in U.S. 
     income associated with the Asian crisis have not reduced 
     grain prices, but this result is not strong, statistically 
     speaking.\7\
       Exchange rates, on the other hand, have large and 
     statistically significant effects on farm prices. Each 1% 
     increase in the value of the dollar generates a 1.1% decline 
     in the price of corn and a 1.5% decline in the price of 
     wheat. Thus, the 16% appreciation in the value of the U.S. 
     dollar that occurred between 1995 and 1997 is responsible for 
     17 to 24 percentage points of the decline in U.S. corn and 
     wheat prices, respectively.\8\
       World commodity yields also have a large and significant 
     effect on prices. As yields per acre rise, prices fall. The 
     expansion in world supplies of each commodity depresses its 
     price. While the growth in income has only a weak effect on 
     prices, technology and the growth in world agricultural 
     productivity has a strong, negative impact on prices over 
     time.\9\
       These results show why farmers have been misled about the 
     benefits of trade liberalization. Previous rounds of trade 
     negotiations have failed to generated sustained, reliable 
     growth in demand for U.S. farm products. In addition, the 
     diffusion of advanced agricultural technologies (the ``green 
     revolution'') around the globe has had a depressing effect on 
     U.S. farm prices, despite, or perhaps because of, the 
     benefits generated for farmers and consumers throughout the 
     developing world.


                       Time for a new farm policy

       There is nothing wrong with expanding trade in agriculture 
     as long as it can be accomplished in ways that benefit U.S. 
     farmers. However, unless the U.S. government is willing to 
     address such fundamental problems as global excess crop 
     supplies and rising currency values, then pushing for freer 
     trade in agriculture will be counterproductive. It is time to 
     stop artificially expanding trade without regard for the 
     consequences.
       The Omnibus 1996 Farm Bill was a complete failure. It 
     failed to generate export-led growth, and it transferred 
     substantial risks to farmers with no visible benefits. Given 
     the diffusion of technology to the rest of the world, and 
     because other countries seek to maintain their own food 
     security, agriculture will never be a substantial growth 
     industry for the U.S. However, for the same reason, the U.S. 
     needs a viable farm sector, one that can deliver a high and 
     rising standard of living for family farmers and consumers. A 
     number of policies could help achieve these goals, including:
       Carefully managed reductions in the value of the dollar;
       The shift of agricultural subsidies away from large farms 
     and corporate farmers to independent, family-run farms;
       An increase in expenditures for research and development, 
     and the construction of infrastructure and distribution 
     systems for new, higher-valued products that can be produced 
     with sustainable technologies and that meet consumer demand 
     for high-quality, niche, and specialty foods such as organic 
     products and humanely raised livestock; and
       The exploration of other possibilities for stimulating 
     agricultural consumption (such as the conversion of biomass 
     to energy) to build domestic demand for agricultural 
     products.

  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                    Amendment No. 1500, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I asked the Senator to yield so I can 
send a modification of my amendment to the desk. I do send the 
modification of my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Beginning on page 1, line 3, strike all that follows 
     ``Sec.'' to the end of the amendment and insert the 
     following:
       __. Emergency and Market Loss Assistance.--(a) Market Loss 
     Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Agriculture (referred to 
     in this section as the ``Secretary'') shall use not more than 
     $5,544,453,000 of funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to provide assistance to owners and producers on a farm that 
     are eligible for payments for fiscal year 1999 under a 
     production flexibility contract for the farm under the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
       (2) Amount.--The amount of assistance made available to 
     owners and producers on a farm under this subsection shall be 
     proportionate to the amount of the contract payment received 
     by the owners and producers for fiscal year 1999 under a 
     production flexibility contract for the farm under the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act.
       (3) Time for payment.--The assistance made available under 
     this subsection for an eligible owner or producer shall be 
     provided not later than 45 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Specialty Crops.--
       (1) Assistance to certain producers.--The Secretary shall 
     use not more than $50,000,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to provide assistance to producers of 
     fruits and vegetables in a manner determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Payments to certain producers.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall use such amounts as 
     are necessary to provide payments to producers of quota 
     peanuts or additional peanuts to partially compensate the 
     producers for continuing low commodity prices, and increasing 
     costs of production, for the 1999 crop year.
       (B) Amount.--The amount of a payment made to producers on a 
     farm of quota peanuts or additional peanuts under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be equal to the product obtained by 
     multiplying--
       (i) the quantity of quota peanuts or additional peanuts 
     produced or considered produced by the producers under 
     section 155 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7271); by
       (ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of the loan rate 
     established for quota peanuts or additional peanuts, 
     respectively, under section 155 of that Act.
       (3) Condition on payment of salaries and expenses.--None of 
     the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act or any other Act may be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel of the Department of Agriculture to 
     carry out or enforce section 156(f) of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272(f)) through fiscal year 
     2001, if the Federal budget is determined by the Office of 
     Management and Budget to be in surplus for fiscal year 2000.
       (c) Limitation on Marketing Loan Gains and Loan Deficiency 
     Payments.--Notwithstanding section 1001(2) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308(1)), the total amount of 
     the payments specified in section 1001(3) of that Act that a 
     person shall be entitled to receive under the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) for 1 or more 
     contract commodities and oilseeds during the 1999 crop year 
     may not exceed $150,000.
       (d) Upland Cotton Price Competitiveness.--
       (1) In general.--Section 136(a) of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7236(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or cash payments'' and 
     inserting ``or cash payments, at the option of the 
     recipient,'';
       (B) by striking ``3 cents per pound'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``1.25 cents per pound'';
       (C) in the first sentence of paragraph (3)(A), by striking 
     ``owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation in such manner, 
     and at

[[Page 19129]]

     such price levels, as the Secretary determines will best 
     effectuate the purposes of cotton user marketing 
     certificates'' and inserting ``owned by the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation or pledged to the Commodity Credit Corporation as 
     collateral for a loan in such manner, and at such price 
     levels, as the Secretary determines will best effectuate the 
     purposes of cotton user marketing certificates, including 
     enhancing the competitiveness and marketability of United 
     States cotton''; and
       (D) by striking paragraph (4).
       (2) Ensuring the availability of upland cotton.--Section 
     136(b) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 
     7236(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Establishment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The President shall carry out an import 
     quota program during the period ending July 31, 2003, as 
     provided in this subsection.
       ``(B) Program requirements.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (C), whenever the Secretary determines and 
     announces that for any consecutive 4-week period, the Friday 
     through Thursday average price quotation for the lowest-
     priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling (M) 1\3/
     32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe, adjusted 
     for the value of any certificate issued under subsection (a), 
     exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 1.25 cents per 
     pound, there shall immediately be in effect a special import 
     quota.
       ``(C) Tight domestic supply.--During any month for which 
     the Secretary estimates the season-ending United States 
     upland cotton stocks-to-use ratio, as determined under 
     subparagraph (D), to be below 16 percent, the Secretary, in 
     making the determination under subparagraph (B), shall not 
     adjust the Friday through Thursday average price quotation 
     for the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for 
     Middling (M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern 
     Europe, for the value of any certificates issued under 
     subsection (a).
       ``(D) Season-ending united states stocks-to-use ratio.--For 
     the purposes of making estimates under subparagraph (C), the 
     Secretary shall, on a monthly basis, estimate and report the 
     season-ending United States upland cotton stocks-to-use 
     ratio, excluding projected raw cotton imports but including 
     the quantity of raw cotton that has been imported into the 
     United States during the marketing year.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Limitation.--The quantity of cotton entered into the 
     United States during any marketing year under the special 
     import quota established under this subsection may not exceed 
     the equivalent of 5 week's consumption of upland cotton by 
     domestic mills at the seasonally adjusted average rate of the 
     3 months immediately preceding the first special import quota 
     established in any marketing year.''.
       (3) Removal of suspension of marketing certificate 
     authority.--Section 171(b)(1) of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7301(b)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (G); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (H) through (L) as 
     subparagraphs (G) through (K), respectively.
       (4) Redemption of marketing certificates.--Section 115 of 
     the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1445k) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by striking ``rice (other than negotiable marketing 
     certificates for upland cotton or rice)'' and inserting 
     ``rice, including the issuance of negotiable marketing 
     certificates for upland cotton or rice'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (iii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) redeem negotiable marketing certificates for cash 
     under such terms and conditions as are established by the 
     Secretary.''; and
       (B) in the second sentence of subsection (c), by striking 
     ``export enhancement program or the marketing promotion 
     program established under the Agricultural Trade Act of 
     1978'' and inserting ``market access program or the export 
     enhancement program established under sections 203 and 301 of 
     the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623, 5651)''.
       (e) Oilseed Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary shall use not less than $475,000,000 of 
     funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make payments to 
     producers of the 1999 crop of oilseeds that are eligible to 
     obtain a marketing assistance loan under section 131 of the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7231).
       (2) Computation.--A payment to producers on a farm under 
     this subsection shall be computed by multiplying--
       (A) a payment rate determined by the Secretary; by
       (B) the quantity of oilseeds that the producers on the farm 
     are eligible to place under loan under section 131 of that 
     Act.
       (3) Limitation.--Payments made under this subsection shall 
     be considered to be contract payments for the purposes of 
     section 1001(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1308(1)).
       (f) Assistance to Livestock and Dairy Producers.--The 
     Secretary shall use $325,000,000 of funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation to provide assistance to livestock and 
     dairy producers in a manner determined by the Secretary.
       (g) Tobacco.--The Secretary shall use $328,000,000 of funds 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make distributions to 
     tobacco growers in accordance with the formulas established 
     under the National Tobacco Grower Settlement Trust.
       (h) Sense of Congress Regarding Fast-Track Authority and 
     Future World Trade Organization Negotiations.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that--
       (1) the President should make a formal request for 
     appropriate fast-track authority for future United States 
     trade negotiations;
       (2) regarding future World Trade Organization 
     negotiations--
       (A) rules for trade in agricultural commodities should be 
     strengthened and trade-distorting import and export practices 
     should be eliminated or substantially reduced;
       (B) the rules of the World Trade Organization should be 
     strengthened regarding the practices or policies of a foreign 
     government that unreasonably--
       (i) restrict market access for products of new 
     technologies, including products of biotechnology; or
       (ii) delay or preclude implementation of a report of a 
     dispute panel of the World Trade Organization; and
       (C) negotiations within the World Trade Organization should 
     be structured so as to provide the maximum leverage possible 
     to ensure the successful conclusion of negotiations on 
     agricultural products;
       (3) the President should--
       (A) conduct a comprehensive evaluation of all existing 
     export and food aid programs, including--
       (i) the export credit guarantee program established under 
     section 202 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 
     5622);
       (ii) the market access program established under section 
     203 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 5623);
       (iii) the export enhancement program established under 
     section 301 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 5651);
       (iv) the foreign market development cooperator program 
     established under section 702 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 5722); 
     and
       (v) programs established under the Agricultural Trade 
     Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et 
     seq.); and
       (B) transmit to Congress--
       (i) the results of the evaluation under subparagraph (A); 
     and
       (ii) recommendations on maximizing the effectiveness of the 
     programs described in subparagraph (A); and
       (4) the Secretary should carry out a purchase and donation 
     or concessional sales initiative in each of fiscal years 1999 
     and 2000 to promote the export of additional quantities of 
     soybeans, beef, pork, poultry, and products of such 
     commodities (including soybean meal, soybean oil, textured 
     vegetable protein, and soy protein concentrates and isolates) 
     using programs established under--
       (A) the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 
     714 et seq.);
       (B) section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
     1431);
       (C) titles I and II of the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (D) the Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o).
       (i) Emergency Requirement.--The entire amount necessary to 
     carry out this section and the amendments made by this 
     section shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for the entire amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided, That 
     the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of 
     such Act.

  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Madam President.
  For the last 20 minutes, I have listened to my colleague from North 
Dakota with some degree of clarity discuss the issue that is true in 
his State today and true in most areas of American agriculture. I will 
in no way attempt to modify or suggest any different kind of impact on 
the family farm, but I suggest that most family farms in Idaho today 
are multimillion-dollar operations, and we should not attempt to invoke 
the image of a small farm, a husband and wife, struggling to stay 
alive.
  A husband and wife and family team in production agriculture today 
are struggling to stay alive in an industry that recognizes their 
investment in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

[[Page 19130]]

  There is no question that the character of American agriculture has 
changed. While some are still caught up in the rhetoric of the family 
farm--and there are still some small farming units--most of those who 
farm small units today recognized some years ago that their life could 
not be made there unless they supplemented it with outside income. 
That, of course, has been the character of the change in production 
agriculture for the last good number of decades--true in Idaho, true in 
North Dakota, true in Mississippi, true in almost every other 
agricultural State in our Nation.
  How do I know that? That is what the statistics show.
  But in 1965 and 1966, as a young person, I was given a unique 
opportunity to travel through our Nation on behalf of agriculture as a 
national officer of FFA, Future Farmers of America. I was in almost 
every agricultural State in this Nation speaking to young farmers and 
young ranchers.
  I happened to have had the privilege of staying on many of those 
farms and ranches. For the course of 1 year, I saw American agriculture 
like few are given the opportunity to see it. I must tell you, it was 
an exciting time because I met wonderful people, I saw a unique 
lifestyle that is true in many instances today, and I did see and feel 
the heartland of America as few get the opportunity to experience.
  While I was traveling, I gave many speeches. The speech oftentimes 
started like this: That a family farmer or a farmer in American 
agriculture today produces enough for him or herself and 30 other 
people. That was 1965.
  Today, if I were that young FFA officer traveling the Nation, my 
speech would have to change, because I would say that that farmer or 
rancher produces enough for him or herself and 170 to 180 additional 
Americans.
  Has the family unit changed? Oh, very significantly. In almost all 
instances, it is four or five times larger than it was in 1965 and 
1966. But it is phenomenally more efficient and much more productive. 
Because of those efficiencies, instituted by new technology or 
biogenetics, we have seen great productivity. So it isn't just a 
measurement of crops produced against prices for those crops; it is a 
combination of the whole.
  I think it is very important that we portray American agriculture 
today for what it is and for what it asks from us.
  In 1965 and 1966, it was not just Government and politicians that 
suggested farm policy in this country ought to change; it was American 
agriculture itself that came to us in 1965 and 1966 and said: Get 
Government off our backs. American agriculture has changed. We don't 
want to farm to a program. We want to farm to a market. We don't want 
to be restricted in limited acreages. We don't want to be restricted in 
limited markets. We want the ability to be flexible to move with the 
market.
  Congress listened. Out of that listening came the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, which is now called Freedom to 
Farm. The Senator from North Dakota said it is a failure. The Senator 
from North Dakota is wrong. It has met every objective it was intended 
to meet--expanded markets, expanded production, with flexibility for 
the individual producer. All of those goals that were a part of Freedom 
to Farm have been met today.
  Today, before the Ag Committee, we heard about a comprehensive study 
that said agricultural income in the decade of the 1990s will surpass 
any other decade, at a time when the number of farmers has gone down 
and productivity has gone up dramatically. That is all part of the good 
news of the story.
  So it is not an abject failure, unless you did not vote for it 
because you did not believe in it in the first place, and you really do 
want Government controls, and you really do want a Government plan to 
which farmers farm instead of the market. My guess is, that is part of 
what the Senator from North Dakota was talking about. That is not what 
I am here to talk about today. That is where we differ substantially.
  But we do not differ on the other issue. That is the issue of the 
current commodity price crisis in production agriculture across our 
Nation and across the world. That is very real today. Many of our 
commodities are finding their price in the marketplace at or below 
Depression-era prices. That in itself is a crisis, and that we should 
respond to.
  Last year, we did not cast a deaf ear on production agriculture in 
this country. The taxpayers of this country, recognizing the plight the 
American producer in agriculture was in, gave handsomely. Billions of 
dollars flowed into production agriculture, and directly through to the 
farmer, and to the rancher in some instances. As a result of that, farm 
income was substantially buoyed. That will happen again this year. But 
it will happen in the context of Freedom to Farm.
  We are not going to go in and start changing long-term farm policy 
until the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Idaho can 
agree that Freedom to Farm was an abject failure--when, in fact, I do 
not believe it was; and I think the Senator from North Dakota would be 
hard pressed, looking at the facts and the intent, to argue that it was 
either.
  So we are here today not to talk about a long-term policy change but 
to talk about the current crisis. It is a crisis that is not just 
taking place within this country; it is a commodity crisis that is 
worldwide.
  Let's talk about 1996, 1997, and part of 1998. That is when we 
crafted a new farm bill. That is when commodity prices were higher than 
they had ever been around the world, and we drained all of our 
reserves, and we were told never again would we see low prices. But 
there were some things missing from that ``never again'' argument. We 
didn't anticipate a general downturn in world economies, especially the 
Asian economy, an Asian economy that had increased its overall import 
of agricultural foodstuffs from the United States by nearly 27 percent 
in the period of a 5- to 6-year span. Those imports are down by 11 
percent today. Those are the facts. Is that a direct result of Freedom 
to Farm policy failing? I suggest that it isn't. I don't think the 
Senator from North Dakota would disagree.
  Now, what has that caused? It has plummeted commodity prices in our 
country. We agree that there is a current farm crisis, and we agree 
that that crisis could extend itself for some time to come. We agree 
that Congress ought to respond to it so we don't lose those production 
units and the families and the human side of it that is so critical 
across our country and to smalltown Idaho just as much as smalltown 
North Dakota.
  The difference, at least in the current situation of the moment, is 
the heavy hand of politics, tragically enough. Last year we were able 
to agree, and we worked at crafting a bipartisan package. This morning, 
while we were there in the Ag Committee holding a hearing with the 
Secretary, all of a sudden the committee room emptied. I wondered where 
they had gone. The chairman said: Well, they have gone out to hold a 
press conference with the Vice President. The heavy hand of 
Presidential politics now tragically plays at this issue. It shouldn't 
have to be that way and, in the end, it won't be that way, if we are to 
craft the right kind of policy to deal with a crisis that isn't 
Democrat or isn't Republican, but it is at the heartland of America's 
fundamental production unit, American agriculture.
  The chairman of the Ag Subcommittee of Appropriations has struggled 
mightily over the course of the last several weeks to try to see if we 
couldn't arrive at a package that would respond. Our goal is not to add 
hundreds of billions of dollars to programs that don't have any sense 
of immediacy or any sense of getting money directly through to the 
farmer. Our bill is substantially smaller in that regard than the bill 
offered by the minority leader of the Senate. But our bill, when it 
comes to money to production units, money to farmers, and money to 
ranchers, is there. It is real and it is the same dollar amount.
  I am willing to talk farm policy, and I am willing to debate it, but 
not in the

[[Page 19131]]

short-term and not in the immediate sense of an emergency, because it 
is awfully hard to argue that the emergency at hand was produced by 
Freedom to Farm.
  Let me read briefly from a report called ``Record and Outlook,'' put 
together by a very responsible group called the Sparks Company out of 
McLean, VA. This report is called ``Freedom to Farm, Record and 
Outlook,'' prepared for the Coalition for Competitive Food in the 
Agricultural System.
  Here is their analysis. Most people say that the Sparks Company is 
widely recognized as reputable and is nonpartisan in its analyses of 
those issues that it examines.
  Here is what they say:

       The recent slowing of the farm economy primarily reflects 
     two major factors: Farmers response worldwide to mid-decade 
     record high prices. . .

  In other words, what they are saying was those prices in 1996 and 
1997 sent a message to American agriculture: Gear up your production. 
They sent a message to world agriculture: Gear up your production. 
Consumption and prices are here to stay. And that is what happened, and 
worldwide production is at an all-time record. They go on:

       . . .and the downturn in the economic and financial health 
     of one region of the world, Asia, which also is the largest 
     market for U.S. farm and food products.

  I have already mentioned the tremendous ramp up in the increase in 
purchases of agricultural foodstuffs in Asia and now the dramatic 
decline.
  The study concludes that both the high record prices of 1995, 1996, 
and part of 1997, and the more recent readjustments, are the result of 
``ordinary market developments and reactions, with some unusually good 
weather patterns helping boost output, while the economic downturn in 
Asia and elsewhere has weakened the prices. As a result, the current 
market downturn reflects temporary, rather than fundamental market 
changes.''
  Temporary problems, but a real crisis. Permanent problems? They say 
not so. So if you are going to change permanent policy, you ought to be 
able to determine that there is first a permanent problem. That is what 
I think the Senator from North Dakota has failed to argue, while he and 
I would agree on the sense of immediacy to the current crisis.
  The report goes on to talk about modest shortfalls in harvests and 
yields during 1993 through 1995, during the time when these markets 
were ramping up. Output fell below the 10-year trend and stocks 
plummeted. In other words, storage and surplus. Strong world economic 
growth then stimulated demand and record high grain and oilseed prices; 
world planting and harvests above trends in the United States and 
worldwide during 1996 through 1998; also good weather and high grain 
and oilseed yields, especially in the United States, rapidly rebuilt 
depleted stocks in spite of significantly above-trend consumption 
during that period. In other words, we were pushing production, but the 
world was consuming. Significant increases in non-U.S. production 
competing for growing world markets largely in response to record high 
prices of the mid-1990s. For example, all of the very considerable 
above-trend wheat production has been outside the United States, while 
the share of increased production outside the United States has been 44 
percent for corn and 35 percent for soybeans.
  Lastly, they point out that the downturn in economic and financial 
health of key world markets, especially Asia, the largest U.S. export 
market, has increased pressure on U.S. prices, although world grain and 
oilseed use has been well above trend during the last 3 years.
  What is the point of those comments? The point is that no matter how 
we would have designed the policy, we were working against a world 
situation, both economically and climactically, and productionwise that 
would have been very difficult to foresee. We did not foresee it, nor 
was it debated in 1995 and 1996, as we were crafting Freedom to Farm. 
We didn't recognize it in 1997. Toward the tail end of 1997, it became 
an indicator of problems to come. By 1998, it was very clear, and 
Congress responded. It is now 1999 and Congress will respond again, 
with a multibillion-dollar direct aid package to production 
agriculture.
  I said before the Ag Committee today and before Secretary Glickman 
that I am willing, starting next year, to review Freedom to Farm. I 
don't think production agriculture is going to walk away from the 
freedoms and the flexibility it has. Is there a way of crafting a 
safety net or something that causes some adjustments over time? It is 
possible. I would not suggest that it isn't. But the rest of the story 
of Freedom to Farm that we have not successfully matched yet, but 
something that Congress, Democrat and Republican, agreed with and 
promised production agriculture with the passage of Freedom to Farm in 
1996, were two other elements.
  One was a risk management practice, better known as crop insurance. 
We have placed that money in the budget, but we can't yet agree on a 
package that is bipartisan in character, that meets the regional 
differences within our country, certainly the regional differences 
between the Midwest and Idaho or the Midwest and the South or the 
Northeast. If we had had a comprehensive risk management crop insurance 
package today, the very real drought that Washington, DC, and States 
east of the Alleghenies are in at this moment would have been 
dramatically offset if farmers had had that kind of risk management 
tool. But we have not yet agreed as to how to make it flexible and 
diversified in a way that meets those kinds of needs of specialty crops 
and the uniqueness of agriculture across this country. So a promise 
made; we have not fulfilled it yet.
  The other area, of course, is the expansion of world trade. The 
Senator from North Dakota is right. We are not trading in world markets 
like we should. Let me tell you, Bill Clinton and company have been 
asleep at the switch now for many years. Do they have a division down 
at the Department of State that goes out and aggressively markets on a 
daily basis American agricultural surpluses? No, they don't. We offered 
them and provided them the tools to move aggressively in the markets. 
There was a bit of a yawn down at the Department of Agriculture, and 
that yawn has continued for the last good number of years. So point the 
finger, I am; but I am pointing the finger at the very agencies of our 
Government that are responsible for breaking down those political 
barriers between a consuming market somewhere else in the world and a 
production unit here in the United States. We have not done that well, 
and we should. We promised it, in part.
  Last year, I and Senators from the other side of the aisle stood 
together and were able to knock down the sanctions against Pakistan and 
India to move markets. This year, at our urging--and I applaud the 
President; now that I have criticized him, let me applaud him for 
bringing forth an Executive order that said that foodstuffs and medical 
supplies would not be subject to sanction. That was 3 months ago, and 3 
months later, in the time of an agriculture crisis, they are just 
getting the regulations out.
  Well, now, give me a break, Mr. President. You mean your bureaucracy 
takes 3 months to write a regulation that says farmers can supply a 
world market that they were denied? There is a lot of blame to be 
shared here, but, Mr. Vice President, you were on the Hill today 
talking about a farm crisis. Last I checked, the Department of 
Agriculture and State Department were under your watch, and for 3 long 
months you have sat and watched as the bureaucracy ground out 
regulations that allow access to world markets. I am sorry, Mr. 
President and Mr. Vice President, there is blame to be shared all 
around.
  Let me shift just a little of it to you, Mr. Vice President, and you, 
Mr. President. The spirit is in the right place, but couldn't you have 
cut to the chase? Couldn't we be moving grains, rice, and food 
commodities, and lentils into mid-Asian and the Central Eastern markets 
today like we should be? Well, we will be by fall and into the winter, 
thanks

[[Page 19132]]

to a policy you put in place, Mr. President. But 3 months later, we are 
finally beginning to see its regulations. Late is better than none at 
all. I will accept that and we will move on. But, again, open the world 
markets.
  It is political barriers that are out there, not market barriers. 
Those are political barriers that only governments can knock down. When 
it is nation-to-nation, our Government at the Federal level has to be 
responsible, and we fail to be.
  My credit goes to the chairman of our Senate Agriculture Committee 
who, for several years, has been pushing legislation to pull down those 
barriers. Last year, he offered it on the floor. It passed. This year, 
it will pass this Senate again, and I hope it passes the Congress. I 
hope the President can deal with it, and I hope he will sign it. Those 
are long-term provisions, but once in place, they are a legitimate and 
responsible role for Government to participate in.
  Manipulating the market, shaping the price? Absolutely not. We have 
to let the marketplace work its will. But it is very important that 
Government play the role it should play, and that is in dealing with 
the political barriers of trade, most assuredly in times of need, 
providing some safety nets. We did that last year, and we are going to 
do it again this year. I hope in the end we can craft a crop insurance 
plan that will provide the risk management tools that we have said to 
production agriculture we would provide.
  Well, those are the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. 
In the course of the next few hours, the Senate will have an 
opportunity to vote on two very different measures, in the sense of a 
total package. They are very similar in the dollars and cents that go 
directly to production agriculture. I hope that, in the end, out of 
this can come a bipartisan package. There is a great deal in the 
Daschle-Harkin package that may be OK at some point down the road; but 
my guess is not without hearings held and no understanding of some 
broad policy changes that are at this moment not necessarily 
justifiable in this time of dealing with crises, both a price crisis 
and the situation that deals with weather disaster.
  Those are the circumstances as I see it. I hope my colleagues will 
vote with the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 
in supporting his amendment and not allowing it to be tabled, so we can 
get at a clear vote and finalize this work today. If that can't be 
done, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join 
with us in seeing if we can make some adjustments in a final package. 
But I believe that the package offered up by the chairman is certainly 
in good faith and responds in an immediate way to need, and that the 
money can move directly to production agriculture, sending a very 
critical message to the families and the men and women engaged in 
agriculture in our economy that we care and we understand the 
importance of them and what they do for all of us as Americans, and 
Americans are responding by a substantial ag package of nearly $7 
billion.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, a lot of us have listened quite 
intently, and some of us not very intently, to the debate. Very simply, 
cutting to the chase, the question before us is whether to adopt an 
agriculture emergency assistance bill in the amount of roughly $10 
billion--$10.6 billion, I think--that is proposed by Members 
essentially on this side of the aisle, or, in the alternative, a bill 
that is about half that much.
  The main difference between the two is not only the amount, but also 
the failure, in my judgment, of the bill on the other side to provide 
drought assistance. It is emergency drought assistance. We have all 
watched on television in the last several days how dry so much of 
America is and how farmers' crops are not growing and are not going to 
be harvested. In some parts of the country, it is not only drought; 
paradoxically, strangely, it is flooding. There is too much moisture in 
some parts of the country, making it impossible for farmers to grow a 
productive crop.
  Compounding that, there is a very low price. According to the wheat 
producers and barley producers, livestock, hogs--you name it--the 
prices are just rock bottom, and they have been very low for a long 
time. So it is a combination of very low prices, historically low 
prices, for some commodities, and the weather.
  The outlook is not good. The outlook for increased prices in the 
basic commodities we are talking about, as well as livestock, is grim. 
Nobody can project or foresee a solid, sound reason why prices 
necessarily are going to go up in the next several years.
  What conditions are going to cause prices to go up? What is going to 
change or be different? To be truthful, there isn't much we can see 
that is going to be much different. Producers are going to still 
produce. Other countries, particularly emerging and developing 
countries, are going to try to produce more agricultural products than 
they now are producing. On top of that, there is the phenomenon of a 
growing concentration of economic power in the beef packing industry, 
or in the grain trade, where the middlemen, if you will--that is, the 
traders, the packing plants, and retailers--are making money but the 
producers are not. That is not going to change in the foreseeable 
future. At least I don't see anything that will cause that change.
  So, essentially, we are here today because farmers are getting deeper 
and deeper and deeper in trouble. Their prices are continually falling. 
I hope my colleagues took a good look at the chart presented by my good 
friend, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan--the one that showed 
in current dollars what the price of wheat was in 1930, 1940, 1950, and 
1960. The current price of wheat in today's dollars is roughly $2 a 
bushel. Back in 1930, in current dollars, adjusted for inflation, it 
was about $7.50 a bushel. In 1940 and in 1950--I have forgotten the 
chart, but I think it was as high as maybe $13 or $14 a bushel.
  You can see how the price generally has declined over the years for 
farmers, and it has declined greatly. This is not just a minor drop in 
price. It is a precipitous drop in price. It is steady. It is constant.
  As I said, I can't see much that is going to cause a significant 
difference unless we in the Congress and in the country make the 
changes, which I will get to in a few minutes.
  On the other hand, the prices that farmers pay for their products 
over the same period of time have risen dramatically-- whether it is 
the prices the farmers pay for fertilizer, for gasoline, for tractors 
or combines, for fencing, or for labor costs. You name it.
  All of the costs that farmers pay have continually risen to a very 
steep trend over the past 20 or 30 years since the Depression, and at 
the same time prices that farmers get for their products generally have 
fallen, although there was a period several years ago where prices were 
high--$5, $6, or $7 a bushel. That was about 5, 6, 7, or 8 years ago, 
as I recall. But generally the trend is down.
  Why has this happened? It has happened for a couple of reasons: One, 
many more countries are producing products--wheat, barley, and so on 
and so forth. Second, as I mentioned, the concentration of economic 
power in the retail industry, in the wholesale industry, and in the 
packing industry, but not a concentration of power for the farmers.
  On top of that, recently there is the Asian downturn where the Asian 
economies a couple of years ago began to deteriorate. Their purchasing 
power dropped dramatically. They devalued their currencies in order to 
try to prop themselves up. As a consequence, American exports to Asia 
fell dramatically--in combination with the low demand, particularly 
from Asia, and the higher supply, particularly in countries producing 
and, on top of that, the drought and too much rain in some parts of the 
country.
  So we are here today to try to decide what the size of the emergency 
assistance should be.

[[Page 19133]]

  I submit that we should not only make the direct payments to farmers 
but we also should accommodate the drought. We should accommodate the 
farm disaster that has beset the farmers in addition to the economic 
disaster.
  That is just a short-term, immediate solution. We should get on it 
right away, and we should get it passed this week, lock, stock, and 
barrel--all of it passed this week to give farmers a little bit of 
hope.
  Then, to begin to give farmers a little more hope for the future, we 
have to pass a modification to the so-called Freedom to Farm bill. We 
have to pass a new farm bill.
  I remember when Freedom to Farm was debated. Most farmers I talked to 
in my home State of Montana were very leery and very nervous about this 
Freedom to Farm bill. A lot of them--I daresay a majority of them--went 
along with it because at that time prices were a little higher. As I 
recall, it was about one-plus a bushel. The so-called AMTA payments 
were a little higher. There was more money in farmers' pockets. But 
farmers knew--the ones I talked to, and I talked to a whole bunch of 
them--that we would get on with it then, but on down the road there was 
going to be a real problem, and probably times were not going to be 
nearly as good as they were then. But we kind of swept that problem 
under the rug and thought we would cross that bridge when we got there.
  We are there. It has happened. We are in trouble. Farmers know it. So 
let's just get this thing passed. But we very quickly have to begin to 
address the peaks and the valleys in the prices that farmers face.
  I would like to remind folks in the cities that farmers are in a much 
different situation from most any other business person because farmers 
cannot control their price. The price is determined by the vagaries of 
the market, the vagaries of weather, and it is international; it is an 
international price in most cases. They have virtually no control over 
their prices. Take any other businessperson. He or she can raise or 
lower their prices to sell to retailers or to sell to consumers. There 
are ways to adjust to help maximize their return.
  Moreover, farmers cannot control their costs. They have to pay what 
that farm implement dealer charges. They have to pay what that 
fertilizer costs. They just have to pay that price. They have virtually 
no control over their costs. Any other businessperson has a lot of 
control over his or her costs--either by downsizing, laying a few 
people off here or there, making other adjustments, or cutbacks. Big 
businesses can certainly make big adjustments to costs, and have, with 
major downsizing. The farmer can't do that. The farmer has no control 
over costs and virtually no control over prices.
  That is why we have to have some kind of legislation that evens out 
the peaks and valleys and gives farmers a modicum of a safety net. We 
need that desperately, and, for the sake of farmers, we need to get 
that passed.
  One final point: This is a subject for a later day. But we need a 
level international playing field. We do not have it today. I give a 
lot of credit to our USTR, to the administration, and to others who 
have worked to try to make it more level. They have worked harder, if 
the truth be known, than other administrations have. We are nowhere 
close to the position where we have to be.
  I will mention two subjects, and then I will close. One is export 
subsidies. We need an end to world export subsidies for agriculture. 
They have to be eliminated.
  Today the European Union accounts for about 86 percent of all the 
world's agricultural export subsidies. We Americans account for about 1 
to 2 percent.
  Europeans have 60 times the agricultural export subsidies that we 
have. That is a very great distortion of the market. Agricultural 
export subsidies are paid to European farmers if they export. What is 
the farmer going to do in Europe? He exports. He gets a subsidy for 
it--and a big, healthy subsidy for it. That is to say nothing about all 
the internal price supports the Europeans have that are much greater 
than ours.
  The ministerial in Seattle begins at the end of this year. As we 
approach the next WTO, one of our main objectives, one of our main 
goals should be the total elimination of agricultural export subsidies. 
That is going to help. That is going to help reduce the worldwide 
supply just a little bit. And every little bit helps. I have a lot of 
other ideas about what we can do as well, but that is one that is very 
critical.
  Point No. 2: In general, on the WTO, there are a lot of things we 
have to do to level the playing field so that Americans are no longer 
suckers and taken for granted to the degree that we have been.
  But to sum it all up, let's pass this agriculture emergency aid bill 
immediately. Let's pass the bill that makes sense, the one that helps 
farmers. And that is the one that not only puts some money back into 
farmers' pockets for the short term but also addresses the drought, 
which the other bill does not address. It addresses the disaster caused 
in some parts of the country by excessive flooding and rain.
  Really, what is happening is that the farmer is in intensive care. 
The farmer needs an oxygen mask, and the farmer needs a blood 
transfusion. That is where we are. We have to give the farmer the 
oxygen mask. We have to give the farmer the blood transfusion so that 
the farmer is no longer in intensive care.
  That oxygen mask and that blood transfusion is this bill. It is the 
bill that is sponsored by the Democratic leader and the Senator from 
Iowa. That is the bill that is going to take care to get that patient 
back out of intensive care. The next step, which we have to take very 
soon, is to get that patient rehabilitated and get that patient some 
physical therapy. It will take some other procedures in the hospital so 
that the farmer can compete in the real world as a real person again. I 
hope we get to that point very quickly.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I urge my colleagues, on both sides 
of the aisle, to vote for the Harkin-Daschle farm crisis aid amendment. 
This legislation is the desperately needed response for many thousands 
of American farmers and their families whose survival is threatened. 
This is precisely the situation that obligates us to use our authority 
to enact emergency spending, and to provide enough funding to save our 
farmers and their livelihoods. This is a crisis that demands the 
Senate's immediate approval of emergency spending, and the Harkin-
Daschle amendment is the step we must take now to respond to a genuine 
and severe crisis.
  My plea is for the farmers I represent in West Virginia. Yesterday, 
the President declared all 55 counties of West Virginia a federal 
drought disaster area, along with over 30 counties from neighboring 
states. In West Virginia, the relentless drought has dried up our 
crops, drained our streams, and brought death to livestock and despair 
to thousands of farmers suffering these horrendous losses.
  Yesterday, with the senior Senator of West Virginia and Agricultural 
Secretary Glickman, I visited the farm of Terry Dunn in Charles Town, 
West Virginia. We witnessed the tragic effects of the drought on his 
farm, and sat down with farmers across the state to hear their similar 
stories. The drought has devastated agricultural production in West 
Virginia in a way that even old-time farmers have never seen.
  Because of the desperate situation, Senator Byrd has once again 
stepped in to ensure that help will be on the way. Through his dogged 
efforts working with the sponsors of the Harkin-Daschle amendment, 
there are various sources of funds that will be available for West 
Virginia's farmers--and, I emphasize this point, funds that will also 
be available to farmers in similar straits in Kentucky, Ohio, Maryland, 
Virginia, and Pennsylvania. There is nothing partisan or parochial 
about voting for this amendment and the drought assistance included. 
All of us have a responsibility to respond to crises like the one 
created by the drought.
  I share the feelings of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who 
have risen to extol the virtues of family

[[Page 19134]]

farmers and rural America. I truly believe that farmers may be the 
hardest working people--day in, day out, morning, noon and night--in 
all the land.
  Now, these farmers are being hurt by acts of nature totally beyond 
their control. We have a choice to make today that will decide just how 
willing we are to help our farmers when they are in such dire need. We 
can decide that we owe it to our farmers to stand with them in this 
time of severe crisis, and adopt the Harkin-Daschle amendment that will 
truly address their needs. Or we can settle for the far smaller level 
of funding provided by the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, that won't be nearly 
enough help.
  For anyone who represents a drought-stricken state, there really is 
no choice. The Harkin-Daschle amendment is the humane and right thing 
to do. And for anyone who represents states and counties that have 
received disaster assistance after a tornado or hurricane or sweeping 
fires have struck, or following a crippling flood, this is the time to 
extend the same kind of immediate help to a different but very real 
disaster.
  We have heard for some time that rural America is in crisis. I doubt 
that many people in this body think of West Virginia when agriculture 
and farming are the topic. But in fact, in West Virginia thousands of 
farmers and their families labor hard to grow a variety of crops and 
raise livestock. They are farmers who have rarely asked for help from 
anyone, but today they are facing the crisis of a lifetime, and they do 
not want to give up the life and work they love.
  I am asking my colleagues to vote for the Harkin-Daschle amendment 
because it will help the West Virginia farmers who have been the victim 
of two years of historic drought conditions that have ravaged their 
fields, orchards, and herds. Some of these families have run the same 
farms since before West Virginia was admitted to the union, and now 
they are in danger of losing everything.
  Farmers in my state and many others need the Senate to act and to 
provide a level of assistance that matches the magnitude of the crisis. 
We have the means to do that today--in the form of the Harkin-Daschle 
amendment. We have the authority to do that today--by voting for 
emergency funding in a time of real crisis. We have the obligation to 
respond, not along partisan lines and not only if we represent farmers 
in need--but because a disaster has struck that requires the entire 
Senate to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I commend the distinguished Senator 
from Montana for his powerful statement and for the empathy that he 
again demonstrates for the people in rural America. He has been an 
extraordinary leader on the agriculture issue, as well as on so many 
issues relating to the farmer over the years. Again, his eloquence this 
afternoon clearly illustrates the degree to which he understands their 
problem and the degree to which he is committed to solving it.
  There is a silent death in rural America today--a death that is 
pervasive, a death that increasingly is affecting not only farmers but 
people who live in rural America, whether it is on the farm or in the 
town. Thousands upon thousands of family farmers and small businessmen 
and people who run the schools and run the towns are being forced to 
change their lives--are being forced to leave their existence in rural 
America in large measure because it isn't economically viable.
  The situation we have all called attention to over the course of the 
last 24 months has worsened. Just in the last 12 months, more than 
1,900 family farmers have left the farm in South Dakota alone.
  So there can be no question, this situation is as grave as anything 
we will face in rural America at any time in the foreseeable future. 
The question is, what should we do about it? Our response is the 
amendment that Senator Harkin and I have offered. I will have more of 
an opportunity to discuss that in a moment.
  Let me say, regardless of what legislation I have offered, and what 
legislation may have been offered on the Republican side, I think there 
are five factors that should be included, five factors that ought to be 
considered as we contemplate what kind of an approach we in the Senate 
and in the Congress must subscribe to if we are going to respond to the 
disastrous situation we find in rural America today.
  The first is that this must be immediate. We cannot wait until 
September, or October, or November, at least to take the first step. I 
realize the legislative process is slow and cumbersome, but if we don't 
start now, we will never be able to respond in time to meet the needs 
created by the serious circumstances we face today. First and foremost, 
in an emergency way, this has to be responsive to the situation by 
allowing the Senate to work its will and do something this week.
  Second, it has to be sufficient. The situation, as I have noted, is 
already worse than it was last year. Last year, we were able to pass a 
$6 billion emergency plan. I believe $6 billion this year is a drop in 
the bucket, given the circumstances we are facing in rural America 
today. Our bill recognizes the insufficiency of the level of commitment 
we made in emergency funding last year. Our bill is sufficient. Our 
bill recognizes the importance and the magnitude of this problem and 
commits resources to it: $10.7 billion. Groups from the Farm Bureau to 
the Farmers Union to virtually every farm organization I know have said 
we cannot underestimate how serious this situation is. We recognize 
that, provide the resources, and provide the sufficient level of 
commitment that will allow Members to address this problem.
  So, No. 2, it has to be sufficient.
  No. 3, it has to be fair. Our country is very diverse. I heard 
Senator Sarbanes talk about the disastrous circumstances we are facing 
right now in Maryland. Maryland is different. We don't have a drought 
in South Dakota, we have floods. We have low prices. We have 
commodities that cannot be sold because they cannot be stored. We have 
agricultural situations, regardless of commodity, that are the worst 
since the Great Depression in terms of real purchasing power. 
Southerners have different crop problems. We have to recognize that 
there are regional differences and there are differences in 
commodities. Our emergency response has to address them all.
  We also have to recognize that we must respond to the disaster that 
is out there. Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have drafted 
legislation that, at least in its current form, does not respond at all 
to the disaster. There is no disaster commitment in that legislation. 
For a lot of reasons--its insufficiency, its lack of fairness to 
commodities, its lack of appreciation of the problems within regions, 
the fact that it doesn't respond to the disaster--this side is 
convinced that if we were to pass the Republican bill today, it would 
not do the job.
  I congratulate my colleagues for joining in responding to the 
situation, but I don't think it is broad enough. I don't think it is 
sufficient enough. I certainly don't think it is fair enough, given the 
circumstances we are facing today.
  The final factor is simply this: As my colleague from Montana said, 
emergency assistance alone will not do it. We passed emergency 
assistance last year and here we are, back again, less than a year 
later, with an urgent plea on the part of all of agriculture to provide 
them with additional assistance. Why? Because the market isn't working. 
Why is the market not working? There are a lot of reasons, but I argue 
first and foremost it is not working because we don't have an 
agricultural policy framework for it to work.
  Freedom to Farm is not working. We can debate that on and on and on, 
but there are more farm organizations, there are more economic experts, 
there are more people from all walks of life, and there are more policy 
analysts who are arguing today that we have to change the framework, 
that we have to reopen the Freedom to Farm bill. That is a debate for 
another day.

[[Page 19135]]

  Today, this week, the debate must be: can we provide sufficient 
emergency assistance to bridge the gap to that day when we can achieve 
better prices, a better marketplace, more stability, and greater 
economic security?
  In just a moment I will move to table the Republican plan. This is in 
keeping with an understanding I have with the majority leader and the 
distinguished chair of the Appropriations Committee. It would be my 
hope, once it is tabled, we can have a debate on the Democratic 
alternative and have a vote on that at some point in the not-too-
distant future, once people have had the chance to be heard. Then, 
hopefully, we will find some resolution.
  I think it is important at the end of the day, or no later than the 
end of the week, for the Senate to have agreed on something. I don't 
think it is enough to simply have a Republican vote and a Democratic 
vote and leave it at that. It is my hope that we can work together to 
resolve the deficiencies in the Republican bill and listen to them as 
they express themselves on what it is about the Democratic bill with 
which they are uncomfortable. At the end of the week, we simply cannot 
close and leave without having acted successfully on this issue. It is 
too important. It sends the wrong message if we simply walk away 
without having accomplished anything.
  I am very hopeful we can accomplish something, that as Republicans 
and Democrats we can come together to send the right message to farmers 
that we hear them, to send the right message to rural America that we 
understand, and that we are prepared to respond.
  As I noted, we have two versions that have not yet been reconciled. 
Because I don't believe the Republican plan is sufficient, because I 
don't think it is fair, because it doesn't respond to all regions and 
all commodities, I believe today we can do better than that and we must 
find a way with which to do better than that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the leader for yielding before he makes a motion. 
I will not take more than a couple of minutes. I didn't get a chance to 
make a couple of points earlier in the day.
  I want to say a few words about the great work of the Senator from 
West Virginia. I opened the New York Times this morning and saw his 
picture. He was standing in a drought-stricken cornfield in West 
Virginia yesterday with the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary 
Glickman. He called me on the phone yesterday before the Secretary had 
gotten there. We talked about the terrible drought situation facing the 
farmers in West Virginia. Senator Byrd wanted to make sure that we 
addressed that situation, which we have in our bill, to address the 
severe drought situation not only in West Virginia but on the entire 
east coast. I also heard personally from Senator Byrd on the great 
problem facing our livestock farmers. So we have placed in this 
amendment an amount of $200 million to be added to Section 32 funds to 
be used for assistance to livestock producers who have suffered losses 
from excessive heat and drought in declared disaster areas.
  Again, I commend Senator Byrd from West Virginia for bringing this to 
our attention so we were able to put this amount of money into the bill 
for livestock producers. I also want to mention a couple of other 
things that were not said earlier.
  We have some situations where crops have suffered damage, some in 
1998 and some in 1999, where the existing farm programs are not 
adequately addressing the situation and the problems. So we provided 
$500 million in our amendment to respond to these situations, in other 
words, to take a comprehensive view of the disasters that have struck 
many farmers around the country. We have problems with the citrus crop 
in California, with apples and onions in New York, that I understand is 
a $50 million problem. We expect the Secretary to also address that 
situation with crops in New Jersey, New Mexico, and I know in other 
States.
  We have done all we can in our bill to accommodate the request to 
address these issues in a comprehensive manner in disaster payments. 
Again, I point out we take care of those disasters in our bill. Those 
are not addressed in the bill put forward by the other side.
  Last, I point out that Section 32 funding is also available to 
purchase commodities to reduce surpluses in a lot of different areas. 
That is why Section 32 funding is so important. I expect at least $3 
million would be available to make up the existing shortfall in the 
TEFAP funding under our proposal.
  I thank Senator Daschle again for his great leadership on this bill. 
We may have to continue to do some work, but I agree with our leader, 
we have to do something before we leave here this week. I thank him for 
his leadership and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me reiterate my admiration and gratitude to the 
Senator from Iowa. It has been his effort on the floor. He has managed 
our side in this regard. He has led us in working to come up with a 
comprehensive approach. No one has put more effort and leadership and 
commitment into this than has Senator Harkin. I am grateful to him.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the minority leader.


                         emergency farm relief

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Daschle amendment 
to provide relief to the farmers of this nation who now suffer from the 
irony of an economic crisis in rural America at a time when the rest of 
the nation is enjoying one of our history's greatest period of economic 
prosperity. Senator Daschle's amendment will bring much needed relief 
to America's farmers who face the real threat of a failed market and, 
in some cases, farmers who are caught in the grips of one of the worst 
droughts of this century.
  Last year, Congress provided similar relief to farmers totaling 
nearly $6 million. The amendment offered by Senator Daschle is in the 
$10 billion range. Without question, these are huge sums of money and 
this Congress should not recommend their expenditure without serious 
consideration of the need and the consequences. However, I would like 
to remind my colleagues that during the farm crisis of a decade ago, 
farm spending for commodity price support programs in some years 
exceeded $25 billion. By comparison, the Daschle amendment when coupled 
with USDA farm outlays under current law, especially when adjusted for 
inflation, are modest by comparison.
  Ask any farmer across America, including dairy farmers in Wisconsin 
who a few months ago witnessed the greatest drop in milk prices in 
history, and you will learn just how serious the current farm crisis 
is. The Daschle amendment is necessary to protect our farmers and their 
ability to protect our national food security. We can point to many 
different reasons why the farm economy is now suffering. But more 
importantly, action is needed to deal with the immediate problem. 
Farmers now suffer from a failed safety net and Senator Daschle's 
amendment will help patch the holes in that safety net until one of 
greater substance and success can be put in place.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at this point I move to table the 
amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 1500, as modified.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah 
(Mr. Hatch) would vote ``no.''

[[Page 19136]]

  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 249 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Domenici
     Hatch
       
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 1500, Withdrawn

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I now withdraw the amendment I offered on 
behalf of Senator Cochran, amendment No. 1500.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 1506 To Amendment No. 1499

     (Purpose: To provide emergency and income loss assistance to 
                        agricultural producers)

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

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], for himself, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
     Baucus, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. 
     Sarbanes, proposes an amendment numbered 1506 to amendment 
     No. 1499.

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to table the pending amendment and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur on 
the motion to table that I just made at 5 p.m., with the time between 
now and then equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader, for the 
purpose of scheduling, as I understand it, this will be the last vote 
and we will return to the dairy debate following this, is that correct?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can respond, I understand that, 
depending on how this vote goes, there may be a second-degree amendment 
that would be offered perhaps by Senator Ashcroft. But after that is 
dispensed with, that would be the final vote of the day, I believe, 
once we dispense with this whole process. Then we can go on to debate 
dairy, and the vote on dairy cloture will occur in the morning. We 
would have time for debate on cloture tonight.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, time is equally 
divided, so we have about 7 minutes on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, who controls time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The two leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from Iowa is recognized on the Democrats' time.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is less than 15 minutes remaining before 
the 5 o'clock vote.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we just had a vote on a package that was 
proposed by the other side which would have gone out in direct payments 
to farmers as sort of income support for the low prices this year. The 
motion to table was unsuccessful. But I note that the vote was 51-47, a 
very close vote, to be sure. So now, under the previous arrangement, 
the first-degree amendment offered by Senator Daschle and I, and others 
on this side, is now the pending amendment.
  I would like to explain for a couple of minutes the differences 
between what we have proposed and what was previously voted on. The 
package that was previously voted on was basically direct payments to 
farmers, AMTA payments, transition-type payments, which would go out.
  Our package is a lot more comprehensive in that it addresses not only 
the income loss of farmers this year because of disastrously low 
prices, but our proposal also has $2.6 billion in there for disaster 
assistance. It covers such things as the 30-percent premium discount 
for crop insurance, so we can get farmers to buy more crop insurance 
all over America. We have money in there for 1998 disaster programs 
that were not fully compensated for with money from last fall's 
disaster package. We have some livestock assistance programs, Section 
32 funding, related to natural disasters, and flooded land programs. I 
might also point out that because of the disastrous drought affecting 
the East Coast, we have money in our proposal that would cover disaster 
payments to farmers up and down the Middle Atlantic because of the 
severe drought that is happening.
  I might also point out that because of the need to get this money out 
rapidly to farmers, we have adequate funds in our disaster provision 
for staffing needs for the Farm Service Agency, so they can get these 
funds out in a hurry to our farmers.
  I also point out that in the proposal now before us, we have an 
emergency conservation program for watershed and for wetlands 
restoration. We have some trade provisions that I think are eminently 
very important. They include $1.4 billion that would go for 
humanitarian assistance. This would be to purchase oilseed and 
products, and other food grains that would be sent in humanitarian 
assistance to starving people around the world. That was not in the 
previous amendment we voted on.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HARKIN. In one second, I will.
  Also, we have some emergency economic development because the 
disasters that have befallen our farmers and the low grain prices have 
affected many of our people in the smaller communities. We have funds 
for those problems also.
  I yield for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator can emphasize 
disaster relief. As the Senator indicated--and I knew this--the 
previous initiative we voted on by the majority party, and was not 
tabled, that did not include disaster relief. We know disaster is 
occurring. Drought is spreading across the country. Disaster relief is 
necessary. Is it the case that the proposal we just voted on had no 
disaster relief and the proposal we will vote on at 5 o'clock, which 
you and I and so many others helped draft, does include disaster 
relief; is that not a significant difference?
  Mr. HARKIN. The Senator from North Dakota is absolutely right. There 
was no disaster assistance in the other bill. There is disaster 
assistance in ours--$2.6 billion that would cover the droughts, cover 
the floods, and

[[Page 19137]]

cover a lot of the natural disasters that have befallen farmers all 
over America. That is a big difference in these two bills. That is 
encompassing the bill that we now have before us.
  Lastly, I would like to say that the payments that go out under our 
bill go out to producers and go out to actual farmers. Under the bill 
that we just voted on, some of the payments would go out to people who 
maybe didn't even plant a thing this year. They may not have even lived 
on a farm. This has to do with 20-year-old base acreages and program 
yields. So a lot of money can go out to people who aren't farming any 
longer. Our payments go out to actual farmers and people who are 
actually out there on the land.
  I yield to my friend from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator from Iowa.
  I ask the Senator to yield for a question.
  I want to underscore the point about disaster relief in the 
Northeast. We have farmers who are hurting in my State of New York. 
Further south, in the middle Atlantic States, the drought is probably 
the worst it has been in this century. It is awful. In my State, it 
goes from county to county. Some have had some rain. Many have not. In 
other States, it is the whole State.
  The fact that this proposal has money for disaster relief and the 
other doesn't is going to mean a great deal for the Northeast, I would 
presume.
  Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely. In response to my friend from New York, 
absolutely for New York and all the States in the upper Northeast. It 
is not only just the price problem that you have. You have some 
disasters hitting you up there, and no money to help those farmers is 
included in their bill. That is why it is so important that this bill 
is passed and not tabled.
  I hope Senators will recognize that in this bill it is not only 
income support, but it is also disaster payments to farmers.
  Mr. President, how much time do we have left on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 19 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. I reserve that time in case our leader wants to use it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If neither side yields time, 
it will be equally to both sides.
  The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that a couple of 
other colleagues wish to speak. I don't see them. There is only a 
minute left. We are not going to delay this vote.
  I again compliment the distinguished Senator from Iowa and my other 
colleagues for their effort to get us to this point. I think for rural 
America this is one of the most important votes we are going to cast 
this session. Whether or not we send a clear message about the 
seriousness of this situation, the breadth and the depth of this 
situation, whether we really understand the magnitude of the problem 
will be determined by how this vote turns out.
  If I had my way, we would do a lot more. But at the very least, we 
must do this. There are millions of people who are going to be watching 
to see whether or not the Congress gets it --whether or not the 
Congress understands the magnitude of the problem, whether or not we 
can fully appreciate the fact that people are being forced off the 
farms and ranches today, whether or not that happens, and whether or 
not we understand how serious this situation is will be determined in 
the next 20 minutes.
  I must tell you, Mr. President, that this is a very critical vote. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to table this 
amendment. Join with us in support. Let's send the right message to 
American agriculture.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for the proponents of the amendment 
has expired.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know of no Senator who is seeking 
recognition on this side. The issue has been debated fully. I think we 
are prepared to go to vote.
  I yield the time on this side on the amendment.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Democratic Emergency Relief Package for Agriculture. I am pleased to be 
a cosponsor of this critical amendment. American farms are struggling 
to survive. This package creates a safety net for our farmers who are 
facing a devastating drought.
  I support this amendment for three reasons. First it will help our 
farmers in Maryland who are suffering through an extreme drought. 
Second, it will help us maintain our agri-economy in the United States. 
Third, it is comprehensive because it helps farmers in all regions of 
the country.
  My state of Maryland is suffering from the most severe drought in the 
State's history. Last week, Governor Glendening declared a state-wide 
drought emergency. This is the first time in Maryland's history that 
the Governor has had to take such drastic measures. Up to this point, 
water conservation efforts have been voluntary. Now, Marylanders will 
be required by law to conserve water. The United States Geological 
Survey officials are calling the drought of 1999 possibly the century's 
worst in the Mid Atlantic region. We can't stand by and let our farmers 
face this drought on their own. These are hard working, tax paying 
Americans who are facing a crisis. If we don't help them, we all lose.
  Maryland has now been plagued by drought for the third consecutive 
year. The drought has destroyed between 30 percent and 80 percent of 
the crops in nineteen counties in Maryland. Loss of soybean, tobacco, 
wheat and corn crops is making this a very tough season for Maryland 
farmers. Our farmers need our help. Our farmers are losing crops and 
they are losing money--without help, they might lose their farms. 
Couple the drought with the record low prices, high costs and a glut in 
the market and that spells disaster for Maryland farmers.
  I am already fighting with the rest of the Maryland delegation to 
designate Maryland farmland as disaster areas because of the drought. 
This means the Department of Agriculture will provide emergency loans 
to our farmers. But we need to do more. Loans need to be paid back. 
Loans do not provide any real long term assistance for our farming 
community. We must also provide grants for these farmers who are 
suffering most from the drought. The Democratic package contains direct 
payments to help our farmers. These grants could mean the difference 
between saving the family farm or selling out to the highest bidder.
  Mr. President, the second reason I support this package is because it 
supports our family farms. Agriculture is a critical component of the 
U.S. economy. Our country was built on agriculture. Agriculture helps 
us maintain our robust economy. It is what fills our grocery stores 
with fresh, plentiful supplies of safe food for our families. It allows 
us to trade with other countries and build global economies and 
partnerships. It allows us to assist other countries whose people need 
food. Agriculture is the number one industry in the State of Maryland. 
We need to make sure U.S. agriculture is strong. We cannot allow 
natural disasters to ruin this crucial sector by putting farms out of 
business for good. These are good farmers who, through no fault of 
their own, have been put in devastating situations. These are farmers 
we need. I will not stand by and allow them to go under. We must pass 
this farm package to save our farmers.
  Finally, Mr. President, I support this package because it supports 
farmers in all regions of the country. The combination of low prices, 
lack of adequate crop insurance and natural disasters has made it a 
challenge to draft a package that helps everyone. Different areas of 
the country suffer from one or all of these contingencies. As I 
mentioned, Maryland suffers from all three. This makes it especially 
hard for us. It also makes it especially vital that we pass this farm 
relief package today.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote to help our American farmers 
and to save our farms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to voting at this time?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the amendment. On

[[Page 19138]]

this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and 
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 250 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Domenici
     Hatch
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 1507 To Amendment No. 1499

(Purpose: To provide stability in the United States agriculture sector 
     and to promote adequate availability of food and medicine for 
  humanitarian assistance abroad by requiring congressional approval 
    before the imposition of any unilateral agricultural or medical 
         sanction against a foreign country or foreign entity)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, it is my intention to send an amendment 
to the desk.
  Mr. HARKIN. May we have order, please. This is an important 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair. And I am grateful to the Senator for 
asking for order in the Chamber.
  I intend to send an amendment to the desk relating to something that 
I think is very important to the members of the agricultural community 
in the United States of America.
  This is an amendment that relates to farmers because it relates to 
their ability to sell the things they work hard to produce. Currently, 
it is possible for the President of the United States to sanction--
meaning, to curtail--the right of farmers to export and sell that which 
they produce on their farms.
  The farmers work hard, they get a bumper crop, and then, because the 
President would decide that he wanted to make some foreign power or 
another respond to his interests or his requirements, or our interests 
or our requirements, the President would impose an embargo, a trade 
embargo, which would forbid our agriculture community to export corn or 
wheat or soybeans--agricultural products--to these other countries.
  Sanctions do play an important and vital role in the U.S. foreign 
policy. But I think when you talk about unilateral sanctions that the 
Government of the United States enters into alone, and you talk about 
food and medicine as the subject of sanctions, you have to ask yourself 
a variety of different questions that I think really result in sort of 
a different conclusion about food and medicine type sanctions than a 
lot of other sanctions.
  Put it this way. I think it is important that we make sure we do not 
provide countries with the wrong kind of hardware, the wrong kind of 
commercial assets. But it makes very little sense, in most 
circumstances, to say to other countries: We are not going to let you 
spend money on food; we are not going to let you spend money on 
medicine.
  This amendment, which I will be offering, is an amendment that is 
designed to involve the Congress in the important decision about 
whether or not we should have sanctions that relate to food and 
medicine that are unilaterally imposed by the United States of America, 
not in conjunction with any other powers.
  To summarize the kind of regime that would be specified in this 
amendment, the bill would not tie the hands of the executive by making 
it necessary for the President to get the consent of Congress. The 
President's hands wouldn't be tied. He could still get sanctions. He 
would simply have to have the agreement of the Congress so that while 
the President would need the agreement of Congress, his hands would not 
be tied. He would literally have to shake hands with Congress before he 
embargoes agriculture or medicine. The amendment would not restrict or 
alter the President's current ability to impose broad sanctions with 
other nations. It certainly does not preclude sanctions on food and 
medicine. It simply says the President may include food and medicine in 
a sanction regime, but he must first obtain congressional consent.
  We did add a special provision to this amendment with regard to 
countries that are already sanctioned. For the seven countries under a 
broad sanctions regime, we want to afford the President and the 
Congress some time to review the sanctions on food and medicine on a 
country-by-country basis. Therefore, the bill would not take effect 
until 180 days after it is signed by the President. This gives both 
branches of Government enough time to review current policy and to act 
jointly, as would be necessary if jointly they were to decide that 
sanctions against food and medicine should be maintained.
  There are some exceptions. If Congress declares war, there is no 
question about it; the President should have the authority to sanction 
food and medicine without congressional approval. The President's 
authority to cut off food and medicine sales in wartime obviously 
should exist and would continue to exist.
  The bill specifically excludes all dual-use items and products that 
could be used to develop chemical or biological weapons. There are not 
many agricultural or medicinal products that have military 
applications, but the bill provides safeguards to ensure our national 
security is not harmed.
  We made sure that no taxpayer money could be used to subsidize 
exports to any terrorist governments. We specifically exclude any kind 
of agricultural credits or guarantees for governments that are sponsors 
of international terrorism. However, we do allow credit guarantees to 
be extended to private sector and nongovernmental organizations. This 
targeted approach helps us show support for the very people who need to 
be strengthened in these countries, and by specifically excluding 
terrorist governments, we send a message that the United States will in 
no way assist or endorse the activities of nations which threaten our 
interests.

[[Page 19139]]

  Just last week, the American Farm Bureau and all State farm bureaus 
across the Nation released an ag recovery action plan. It requested $14 
billion in emergency funding. I think it is a serious request. It is 
not a request that I take lightly. We are now considering proposals in 
the Congress from about $7- to $11 billion. We need to be addressing 
the emergency needs of farmers, but we also need to reduce our own 
barriers that our own farmers suffer under such as unilateral 
agricultural embargoes.
  The USDA estimated that there has been a $1.2 billion annual decline 
in our economy during the mid-1990s as a result of these kinds of 
embargoes. The National Association of Wheat Growers estimated that 
sanctions have shut U.S. wheat farmers out of 10 percent of the world's 
wheat market. The Washington Wheat Commission projects that if 
sanctions were lifted this year, our wheat farmers could export an 
additional 4.1 million metric tons of wheat, a value of almost half a 
billion dollars to the United States and to American farmers. American 
soybean farmers could capture a substantial part of the soybean market 
in sanctioned countries. For example, an estimated 90 percent of the 
demand for soybean meal in one country, 60 percent of the demand for 
soybeans in another. Soybean farmers' income could rise by an estimated 
$100- to $147 million annually, according to the American Soybean 
Association.
  For us to raise barriers for the freedom of our farmers to market the 
things they produce and hold them hostage to our foreign policy 
objectives would require that we could get great foreign policy benefit 
from these objectives. And there isn't any clear benefit.
  One of the most ironic of all the case studies about agricultural 
sanctions was the study of our grain embargo against the Soviet Union 
in the late 1970s. Indeed, there we were upset about activities in the 
Soviet Union, so we indicated we wouldn't sell to the Soviet Union the 
grain we had agreed to sell to them. It was something like 17 million 
tons.
  It turns out that by canceling our agreements, the Soviets went to 
the world market, according to the best studies I know of, and they 
saved $250 million buying grain on the world market instead of buying 
it from us. So our embargo not only hurt our own farmers but aided the 
very country to which we had directed our sanction. It seems to me we 
should not be strengthening our targets when we are weakening American 
farmers through the imposition of unilateral sanctions on food and 
medicine--the idea somehow that we allow foreign governments to starve 
their people and to spend their resources on things that destabilize 
regions of the world, telling their people: We can't have food in this 
country, the U.S. won't sell us food, when I think we should be glad 
for any country to buy things like soybean and wheat and rice and corn 
so that they are not buying things that are used to destabilize their 
neighbors or weaponry and the like. I believe it is important for us to 
say to our farmers that we are not going to make them a pawn in the 
hands of people for international diplomacy. The rest of America 
continues to go merrily forward, and they are bearing the brunt because 
they operate in a world marketplace where there are markets for these 
commodities that, in the event the foreign powers want them, they get 
them and replace them very easily.
  It is with that in mind that this amendment has been constructed, 
carefully constructed, and designed to respect the need for sanctions 
where they are appropriate. When we engage in sanctions multilaterally, 
this does not come into play. This is designed to affect unilateral 
sanctions on food and medicine, and it doesn't prohibit them. It simply 
says that in order for the President to impose them, he would have to 
gain the consent of the Congress.
  I am pleased that there is a long list of individuals who have been 
willing to cosponsor this amendment with me. Frankly, this amendment is 
a combination of provisions that were in a measure Senator Hagel of 
Nebraska and I had proposed. We have come together to work on it. 
Senator Baucus, Senator Roberts, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska, Senator 
Dodd of Connecticut, Senator Brownback of Kansas, Senator Grams of 
Minnesota, Senator Warner of Virginia, Senator Leahy of Vermont, 
Senator Craig of Idaho, Senator Fitzgerald of Illinois, Senator Dorgan, 
Senator Sessions, Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, Senator Landrieu, 
Senator Harkin, Senator Conrad, Senator Inhofe and others have been 
willing to cosponsor this amendment. I think it is an important 
amendment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to offer the 
amendment.
  I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft], for himself, Mr. 
     Hagel, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Dodd, Mr. 
     Brownback, Mr. Grams, Mr. Warner, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Craig, Mr. 
     Fitzgerald, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. 
     Landrieu, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Chafee, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1507 to amendment No. 1499.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that James Odom 
of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during today's 
session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as 
a cosponsor of the Ashcroft amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pending 
amendment regarding agricultural sanctions reform. One only has to run 
a search for legislation regarding sanctions to see that economic 
sanctions reform has become a key issue for the 106th Congress. I am 
pleased to be the cosponsor of several pieces of legislation that seek 
to address the problem of current U.S. sanctions policies.
  In particular, I am pleased to be the cosponsor of Senator Lugar's 
bill, S. 757, which seeks to create a more rational framework for 
consideration of future U.S. sanctions. While I strongly support the 
amendment currently pending before the Senate, this is only the first 
step in addressing economic sanctions reform. It is my hope Congress 
will continue to work in a bipartisan manner to make our sanctions 
policy more focused and effective.
  I am sure it comes as no surprise to my colleagues from farm states 
that there is a crisis in rural America. It is a crisis that is 
threatening the very foundations of family-based agriculture. Export 
markets have shrunk, commodity prices have plummeted, and rural incomes 
have decreased at an alarming rate. Yet while this is occurring, both 
Congress and the President have continued to pursue a foreign policy 
that places restrictions on our agricultural producers, closes off 
markets, and lowers the value of commodities.
  Too often, we have used the blunt instrument of unilateral economic 
sanctions--including restrictions on the sale of U.S. agricultural 
products--as a simple means to address complex foreign policy problems. 
These agricultural sanctions end up hurting the most vulnerable in the 
target country, eroding confidence in the United States as a supplier 
of food, disrupting our export markets, and placing an unfair burden on 
America's farmers.
  Mr. President, I do not mean to suggest we will bring relief to rural 
America by simply reforming our sanctions policy. The crisis in 
agriculture is principally a result of the failure--not of our foreign 
policy--but of our farm policy. It is time to rewrite the farm bill to 
safeguard producer incomes and to stop the outmigration from our rural 
communities. Those who argue sanctions are the sole cause of the 
problems in agriculture fail to realize the challenges we are facing 
require a more comprehensive solution. However,

[[Page 19140]]

while we work to improve farm legislation, we cannot continue to ask 
our farmers to bear the brunt of U.S. foreign policy decisions.
  The amendment we are currently considering would be a positive first 
step in addressing sanctions reform. Under current law, agricultural 
and medicinal products may be included under a sanctions package 
without any special protections against such actions. However, if this 
amendment is adopted, agricultural products and medicine would be 
precluded from any new unilateral sanctions unless the President 
submits a report to Congress specifically requesting these products be 
sanctioned. Congress would then have to approve the request by joint 
resolution. Furthermore, should an agricultural sanction be imposed, it 
would automatically sunset after two years. Renewal would require a new 
request from the President and approval by the Congress.
  This amendment undoubtedly sets a high standard for the imposition of 
unilateral economic sanctions for food and medicine. It is a standard 
that seeks to end the practice of using food and medicine as a foreign 
policy weapon at the expense of our agricultural producers.
  Mr. President, the strong support we are receiving from commodity 
groups is a testament to the importance of this amendment to our 
agricultural producers. Organizations such as the American Soybean 
Association, the National Corn Growers Association, and the National 
Association of Wheat Growers--groups that represent America's farmers--
support this amendment because they understand the costs and 
consequences associated with unilateral economic sanctions.
  Mr. President, this measure will help our agricultural producers by 
returning some common sense to the imposition of U.S. sanctions. I urge 
my colleagues to join with the cosponsors of this amendment to take the 
first step toward economic sanctions reform.
  Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Ashcroft 
amendment. As every other Member of this institution, I understand the 
hardship in American agriculture. I know the suffering of American 
families, and I know something of the problem of the policy. This 
amendment is based on a false promise. We are telling the American 
farmer that with all of his problems, a significant difference in his 
life can be made if only we can stop these sanctions.
  It is a false promise. All of these countries combined, their total 
importation of agricultural products is 1.7 percent of agricultural 
imports.
  So even if they bought nothing from Canada, nothing from Argentina, 
nothing from Australia, and nothing from Europe, altogether it would be 
1.7 percent of these imports. What is the potential of these countries 
that we are being told markets will open by the Ashcroft amendment? How 
much money is it that these people have to spend to help the American 
farmer? In North Korea, the total per capita annual income of a North 
Korean is $480. In Cuba, it is $150.
  Mr. President, the American farmer is being told: There is a rescue 
here for you. Rather than deal with the substantive problems of 
American agriculture at home, we have an answer for you. We are going 
to open up importation and export to all these terrorist nations, and 
that will solve the problem. Really? With $150 in purchasing power in 
Cuba? The purchasing power of the North Koreans?
  The fact of the matter is, to the extent there is any potential in 
these countries to purchase American agricultural products, the 
administration has already responded. There may not be much of a 
potential, but what there is, we have responded to.
  Last week, the administration permitted the limited sale of food and 
agricultural commodities to these countries by licenses on a country-
by-country basis. We did so for a responsible reason. If the North 
Koreans are going to import American agricultural products, we want to 
know who is importing them and who is getting them--in other words, 
that they are going to go to the people of North Korea and not the 
military of North Korea. If they are going to Cuba, we want to know the 
Cuban people are getting them, not the Cuban military. The same goes 
for Iran and Libya.
  The potential of what Mr. Ashcroft is asking we have already done but 
in a responsible way. Indeed, potentially, with Iran, Libya, and Sudan, 
this could be $2 billion worth of sales to those countries--but 
ensuring that they go to people--not militaries, not terrorist sects, 
but the people. Here is an example of the policy the administration has 
had since May 10 with regard to Cuba. Regulations permit the license 
and sale of food and commodities on a case-by-case basis if they go to 
nongovernment agencies, religious organizations, private farmers, 
family-owned businesses. If your intention is to sell food to any of 
those entities, you can get a license and you can do it. To whom can't 
you sell? The Communist Party, the Cuban military for re-export by the 
Cuban Government for Fidel Castro.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri solves no problem 
and simply contradicts the administration's policy of ensuring that 
this goes to the people we want to be the end users. The same is true 
in North Korea. Today, the United States is in a humanitarian 
assistance program to North Korea. Over $459 million worth of food has 
been donated to North Korea through the World Food Program. UNICEF has 
done the same. But we send monitors. When the food arrives in North 
Korea, we monitor that it is going to the people of North Korea, not 
the military. We want to know the end users.
  The amendment by the Senator from Missouri will be a wholesale change 
in American foreign policy. Sanctions that have been in place since the 
Kennedy administration, through Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan, 
will be abandoned wholesale--a radical change in American foreign 
policy.
  What are the nations and what are the policies that would be changed? 
I want my colleagues to walk down memory lane with me. Before you vote 
to end the policy of 30 years of American administrations, I want you 
to understand who will be getting these food exports, without licenses, 
which are not required to ensure the end users. I cannot be the only 
person in this institution who remembers Mr. Qadhafi, his destruction 
of an American airliner, his refusal to bring the terrorists to justice 
who did so to Pan Am 103. We are now in an agreement with Libya to 
bring those terrorists to trial. Now, in the middle of the trial, while 
there is an agreement, this amendment would lift the sanctions and 
allow the exportation of those products.
  The Sudan. Sanctions have not been in place long. In an act I am sure 
my colleagues recall, Mr. bin Laden's lieutenants plotted and executed 
the destruction of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 
1998; 224 people were murdered. The administration appropriately 
responded with sanctions, prohibiting the exportation of products of 
any kind to the Sudan. The amendment of the Senator from Missouri would 
lift those sanctions.
  North Korea. The intelligence community and the Japanese Government 
have put us on notice that, in a matter of weeks or months, the North 
Korean Government may test fire an intermediate to long-range missile 
capable of hitting the United States. We are in discussions with the 
North Koreans urging them not to do so. We have entered into a limited 
humanitarian food program to convince them not to engage in the design 
or testing of an atomic weapon. The amendment of the Senator from 
Missouri would negate that program, where we already sell food, knowing 
its end use and end sanctions.
  Iran. The administration has already entered into a program where we 
can license the exportation of food to Iran if we know its end use. But 
only this year, the administration again noted that Iran supports 
terrorist groups responsible for the deaths of at least 12 Americans 
and has funded a $100 million program to undermine the Middle

[[Page 19141]]

East peace process, giving direct bilateral assistance to every 
terrorist group in the Middle East, undermining Israel and American 
foreign policy.
  Cuba. In October 1997, the United States found that the Cuban 
Government had murdered four Americans and found them guilty of gross 
violations of human rights. Last year, 12 Cubans were indicted in 
Florida for a plot to do a terrorist act against American military 
facilities in Florida. The United States already licenses food to Cuba, 
where we know the end use. The amendment of the Senator from Missouri 
would allow the wholesale exportation of food to Cuba despite these 
indictments, gross human rights violations, and 30 years of American 
foreign policy.
  I respect the concern of the Senator from Missouri for the American 
farmer. I understand the plight. But let's deal truthfully with the 
American farmer, his family, and his plight. The Cuban family who earns 
$150 a year, through their purchasing power, is not going to salvage 
American agriculture. If Cuba was capable of importing food today, they 
would do so from Argentina, Canada, or Europe. They don't because they 
can't, because they have no money. The same is true of North Korea. If 
North Korea had the money to import food, they would do so from every 
other nation in the world that does not have sanctions on them. They 
don't because they can't, because they can't afford it, because they 
have no money. You are making an offer no one can accept--an answer to 
the American farmer that has no substance. I don't believe there is a 
single farmer in America who either believes this argument or, even if 
it would be successful, even if they did have money, would want to 
profit off the misery of others who are victims of this kind of 
terrorism.
  I, too, represent an agricultural State. Farmers in the State of New 
Jersey--the Garden State--are also suffering.
  I have yet to find one American farmer--good Americans, patriotic 
Americans--who believes the answer to their problem is selling Qadhafi 
products, or the Iranians. American farmers--all of the American 
people--have long memories.
  These people are outlaws. Every one of these nations is on the 
terrorist list. Is our policy to put nations on the terrorist list 
because they kill our citizens, bomb our embassies, destroy our planes, 
and then to say: It is outrageous but would you like to do business? 
Can we profit by you? We know our citizens have been hurt. But, you 
know, that was yesterday; now we would like to make a buck.
  Please, my colleagues, don't come to this floor and argue that you 
are contradicting the foreign policy of Bill Clinton. You are. And you 
are undermining his negotiations as to the North Korean missile tests 
and atomic weapons, and you are undermining our efforts to bring people 
to justice in Libya and for human rights in Cuba. But don't come to 
this floor and just claim you are undermining Bill Clinton. Half of 
these sanctions were put in place by Ronald Reagan and George Bush. 
This is 30 years of American foreign policy with a single vote, with a 
stroke of a pen, that you would undermine.
  Some of you may be prepared to forget some of the things through all 
of these years. Maybe some of these acts are distant. But my God. 
Saddam, the destruction of American embassies? Some of those families 
are still grieving. We haven't even rebuilt the embassies. We are still 
closing them because of terrorist threats. The man who masterminded it 
is still being hunted.
  The Sudan?
  This is our idea of how to correct American foreign policy? My 
colleagues, I want to see this amendment defeated. But, indeed, that is 
not enough.
  If from North Korea to the Sudan to Iran there is a belief that you 
can just wait the United States out, that we are the kind of people who 
will forget that quickly, who will profit in spite of these terrible 
actions against our people, what a signal that is to others. What a 
signal it is to others who engage in terrorism.
  I do not hold a high standard with whom we do business. Business is 
business. Politics is politics. But there is a point at which they 
meet. These rogue nations, identified after careful analysis of having 
engaged in the sponsoring of international terrorism, deserve these 
sanctions. On a bipartisan basis, we have always given them these 
sanctions. Don't desert that policy.
  Bin Laden in his cave in Afghanistan, Abu Nidal in the Middle East 
are even now plotting against Israel and the peace process.
  I don't know whether the American farmer will know of or appreciate 
this vote. But I know that in those capitals in those countries where 
the people committed these acts it will be noted.
  This is not a partisan affair. I am very proud that from Connie Mack, 
who has joined this fight for some years, to the distinguished chairman 
of the committee, Chairman Helms, to Bob Graham, to our own leadership 
in Harry Reid, to, indeed, the majority leader, Senator Lott, they have 
all joined in defeating this amendment because it is right for American 
foreign policy.
  Let's do justice to the American farmer by dealing with the 
substantive problem--not dealing with excuses, and not dealing with 
other matters. We do nothing by fooling the American farmer. The 
American farmer stands shoulder to shoulder with every other American 
against terrorism and the defense of our country and its interests.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise to strongly support this amendment. I am a 
cosponsor. As Senator Ashcroft noted, it is the blending of Senator 
Ashcroft's bill and my bill that produced this amendment.
  This amendment establishes a basic principle: Food and medicine are 
the most fundamental of human needs and should not be included in 
unilateral sanctions.
  The rate of change in today's world is unprecedented in history. 
Trade, and particularly trade in food and medicine, is the common 
denominator that ties together the nations of the world. American 
exports of food and medicine act to build bridges around the world. It 
strengthens ties between people and demonstrates the innate goodness 
and humanitarianism of the American people.
  This amendment recognizes that there could be reasons to restrict 
food and medicine exports and recognizes that, in fact, sometimes 
unilateral sanctions are in the best interests of this Nation's 
security. We do not take that ability away from the President of the 
United States. That is not what this amendment does. We all recognize 
that there are times when unilateral sanctions should, in fact, be in 
the arsenal of our foreign policy tools, but it also recognizes that 
the Congress should have a role in that decision.
  This amendment recognizes that there are circumstances where export 
controls may be necessary, such as in times of war, if it is a dual-use 
item controlled by the Commerce Department, or if the product could be 
used in the manufacture of chemical or biological weapons. That is not 
the debate here. That is not the debate.
  But we have had a long and sad history in understanding what 
unilateral sanctions do to those who impose them. We don't isolate 
Cuba. We don't isolate China. We don't isolate any nation other than 
our own interests when we say: We will not sell you our grain, our 
medicines.
  Do we really believe that in the world we live in today a nation 
cannot get wheat from Australia, from Canada, or cannot get soybeans 
from Brazil? The fact is that the world is dynamic. It has always been 
dynamic. The challenges change. The solutions to those challenges, the 
answers to those challenges, must be dynamic as well.
  We need to send a strong message to our customers and our competitors 
around the world that our agricultural producers are going to be 
consistent and reliable suppliers of quality and plentiful agricultural 
products.

[[Page 19142]]

  I heard the discussion on the floor of the Senate today about this 
amendment--talking about, well, my goodness, are we trying to fix the 
problems of farmers with this amendment with sanctions reform? No. No, 
we are not.
  But I think it is important we understand that this is connected. 
This is linked. Trade reform and sanctions reform were, in fact, part 
of the commitment that this Congress made to our agricultural community 
in 1996.
  We need to lead. We need to be creative. We need to be relevant. We 
need to connect the challenges with the policy. USDA, for example, 
reports that the value of agricultural exports this year will drop to 
$49 billion. That is a reduction from $60 billion just 3 years ago. 
American agriculture is already suffering from depressed prices and 
reduced global markets, as we have heard very clearly today, making 
sanctions reform even more important. Again, let's not blur the lines 
of this debate.
  I noted as well the debate today on the floor regarding the Iranian 
piece of sanctions reform.
  Let's not forget that when America broke diplomatic relations with 
Iran, Iran was the largest importer of American wheat in the world. I 
think, as has been noted, Iran this year will import almost $3 billion 
worth of wheat. Are we talking about just the commercial interests and 
the agricultural interests of America and national security interests 
be damned? No, we are not talking about that.
  This amendment gives the President the power, when he thinks it is in 
our national security interests or in our national interests as he 
defines those through his policy, to impose unilateral sanctions. 
However, he does it with the Congress as a partner; the Congress has a 
say when we use unilateral sanctions.
  This is not just about doing what is right for the American farmer 
and rancher, the agricultural producer. This amendment also makes good 
humanitarian and foreign policy sense. Our amendment will say to the 
hungry and oppressed of the world that the United States will not make 
their suffering worse by restricting access to food and medicine.
  I have heard the arguments; I understand the arguments. I don't 
believe I live in a fairyland about where the food goes, where the 
medicine goes. We understand there always is that issue when we export 
food, sell food, give food to dictators, to tyrants. We understand 
realistically where some of that may be placed.
  To arbitrarily shut off to the people, the oppressed masses of the 
world, food, medicine, and opportunities is not smart foreign policy. 
It is not smart foreign policy. It will make it harder for an 
oppressive government, the tyrants and dictators, to blame the United 
States for humanitarian plights of their own people. In today's world, 
unilateral trade sanctions primarily isolate those who impose them.
  For those reasons and many others that Members will hear in comments 
made yet this afternoon on the floor of the Senate, I strongly 
encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at what we are doing, what 
we are trying to do, to make some progress toward bringing a unilateral 
sanctions policy into a world that is relevant with the borderless 
challenges of our time. I believe we do protect the national interests 
of this country, that we sacrifice none of the national interests on 
behalf of American agriculture. In fact, this amendment accomplishes 
both.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HAGEL. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I am struck with some of the inconsistencies within this 
amendment. I appreciate my colleague's elucidation as to their 
significance.
  Under ``New Sanctions,'' it states:

       . . .the President may not impose a unilateral agricultural 
     sanction or a unilateral medical sanction against a foreign 
     country or a foreign entity for any fiscal year, unless--

  And there are certain exceptions. In terms of ``new sanctions,'' we 
are speaking as to presidentially imposed.
  Under ``Existing Sanctions'' it says:

       . . .with respect to any unilateral agricultural sanction 
     or unilateral medical sanction that is in effect as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act for any fiscal year. . . .

  As my colleague knows, some of the sanctions that would be covered by 
this existing sanctions language are congressionally imposed, not 
presidentially imposed.
  The question I have is, Why make the distinction for new sanctions, 
that they must be presidentially imposed, assumedly reserving to 
Congress the right to impose a new sanction? Yet with old existing 
sanctions, the amendment wipes out both those that were presidentially 
as well as those which had been sanctioned by action of Congress. What 
is the rationale?
  Mr. HAGEL. I will yield to Senator Ashcroft. That is in his part of 
the bill. Our two bills were melded together.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. May I respond to the question of the Senator from 
Florida?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator from Florida for his question.
  This bill is to harmonize the regime of potential sanctions and 
basically requires an agreement by the President and the Congress for 
any unilateral sanction that would be expressed by this country against 
exporting agricultural or medicinal commodities to other countries.
  This results in having to come back to reestablish any existing 
sanctions, and that has been considered in the drafting of this bill. 
This bill is not to go into effect for 180 days after it is signed by 
the President, to give time for the consideration of any sanctions that 
exist in the measure, and if the President and Congress agree that 
there are additional sanctions to be levied unilaterally against any of 
these countries, then those can in fact be achieved.
  The intention of the bill is to give the Congress and the President 
the ability to so agree on those issues.
  Mr. GRAHAM. To continue my question, I don't think that was quite 
responsive to the issue I am raising.
  In the Senator's opening statement, the principal argument was that 
we should not allow the President to unilaterally be imposing these 
sanctions, and in terms of new sanctions as outlined on page 4, you 
clearly restrict the application by the President of the prohibition to 
those that are unilateral.
  As it relates to existing sanctions, this language appears to sweep 
up both sanctions that were unilaterally imposed by the President, such 
as the one against Sudan last year, as well as those that were imposed 
by action of Congress, such as the legislation that bears the name of 
the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee which was adopted some 
time ago. That was an action which had the support of the Senate, the 
House of Representatives, and was signed into law by the President of 
the United States.
  Who else does the Senator want to have sanctioned in order to be an 
effective statement of policy of the United States of America?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, in response to the inquiry of the 
Senator from Florida, it is clear that the intent of this bill and the 
language which would be carried forward is that sanctions should be the 
joint agreement between the Congress and the President. This bill does 
set aside existing sanctions and establish a singular regime in which 
sanctions would exist unless another bill or enactment changed that.
  Now, a Congress in the future could impose, with the agreement of 
sanctions, sanctions in a regime that was contradictory to this bill 
because Congress always has the capacity to change the law. One law we 
pass today doesn't bind future Congresses from changing that law and 
future enactments.
  I think the Senator from Florida is correct that this measure sets 
aside existing sanctions and requires that future sanctions, be they 
initiated by the Congress or by the President of the United States, 
involve an agreement between the executive and the legislative 
branches. There is a timeframe

[[Page 19143]]

during which that is to happen provided for in this amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Continuing with the questions, would the Senator from 
Missouri be amenable to a modification of this amendment to make the 
existing sanctions provision on page 5 consistent with the new 
sanctions standards on page 4?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am willing to consider and would like 
to have an opportunity to discuss that. I am pleased during the course 
of the debate this evening to see if something can be worked out. If 
the Senator from Florida believes there is progress to be made in 
addressing that, we would be pleased to talk about those issues.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If I could move to another provision, which is beginning 
at line 12, we have the ``Countries Supporting International 
Terrorism'' section, which reads:

       This subsection shall not affect the current prohibitions 
     on providing, to the government of any country supporting 
     international terrorism, United States government assistance, 
     including United States foreign assistance, United States 
     export assistance, or any United States credits or credit 
     guarantees.

  What is missing from that set of prohibitions is prohibitions against 
direct, unaided commercial sales. As I gather from the Senator's 
earlier presentation of this amendment, it is his intention that a 
nonassisted commercial sale between a U.S. entity and one of these 
terrorist states would be acceptable, i.e., would not be subject to 
continued prohibitions?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. It is our intention, absent an agreement by the 
President of the United States and the Congress, to so embargo such 
sales. Such entities would be able to use their hard currency to buy 
from American producers, agricultural or medicinal products. Our 
underlying reasoning for that is that when these governments invest in 
soybeans or corn or rice or wheat, they are not buying explosives; they 
are not repressing their population. As a matter of fact, if we could 
get them to use all of their currency to buy American farm products 
instead of buying the capacity to repress their own people or 
destabilize other parts of the world, we want them to do that. The 
conspicuous absence here, obviously, is we will not provide credit for 
them which would release them to spend their hard currency in these 
counterproductive ways.
  So the philosophy of this measure is such that we think any time 
these people will spend money on food and medicine, they are not 
spending their resources on other things which are much more 
threatening, not only to the United States but to the community of 
nations at large.
  Mr. GRAHAM. The concern I have is that what essentially we have, or 
what the Senator proposes to do--I hope we do not follow this 
suggestion--is to say, if you are a sufficiently rich terrorist state, 
you can afford to buy the products without any of the credit or other 
assistance that is often available in those transactions. If you are 
rich enough to be able to make the purchase without depending upon 
that, then these prohibitions that are currently in place--by action of 
the Congress or action of the President or, in the case of several of 
these, by action of both the Congress and the President--will not 
apply. But if you are a poor terrorist country and cannot afford to buy 
the food unless you have one of these subsidies, then you are 
prohibited. Is it that a rich terrorist state gets a preference over a 
poor terrorist state?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. No, I do not think so. I really think what we are 
saying is no matter how much money you have, if you are a terrorist 
state we would rather have you spend that money on food and medicine 
than we would have you spend that money on weaponry or destabilizing 
your surrounding territory. No matter how much money you have or you do 
not have, we are willing and pleased to have you spend that to acquire 
things that will keep you from oppressing individuals.
  I suppose you could argue rich terrorist states are going to be 
better off than poor terrorist states. I think that is something that 
exists independent of this particular proposal of this particular 
amendment. Rich nations, be they good, bad or indifferent, generally 
are better off than poor ones. But I think it is pretty clear that we 
do not have an intention of saying we are going to take a regime which 
is in power and we are going to sustain it by allowing it to displace 
what would otherwise be its purchases of food by providing credit so 
they can then use their hard currency to buy arms or other things that 
would be repressive.
  Our intention is to make sure, if the money is spent, they spend it 
on food and medicine to the extent we can have them do so.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Is it a fair characterization of subsection 4 that 
commercial sales of food and medicine to a rich terrorist state are 
acceptable; i.e., would be exempt from the current licensing provisions 
but humanitarian sales, that is, sales that qualify for one of the 
various forms of U.S. Government assistance to a poor terrorist state, 
would continue to be subject to those licensing requirements?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I think one of the things we have sought to do in this 
legislation is to indicate we are not at war with the people of many of 
these regimes. As a matter of fact, these regimes are at war with their 
people. Our intention is to be able to provide food and medicine to 
those people because we are not at war with them. As a matter of fact, 
too frequently their government is.
  That means we are willing to sell it to them. We are willing to sell 
it to nongovernmental organizations, to commercial organizations, even 
to governments, if the governments will put up the money for it. I find 
that to be an acceptable indication that we are not against the people 
of these countries; we are against these countries' repressive, 
terrorist ways.
  The terror is worse on their own people, in most of these cases. When 
we align ourselves with the people, align ourselves with the population 
in terms of their food and in terms of their health care and in terms 
of their medicine, that is good foreign policy. It shows the United 
States, while it will not endorse, fund or sustain, creditwise, a 
terrorist government, is not at war with people who happen to have to 
sustain the burden of living under a terrorist government.
  So, yes, this allows people in those settings to make purchases if 
they have the capacity to do so. But it does not allow the government 
to command the credit of the United States, and in our view it should 
not.
  Mr. GRAHAM. So I think the answer to the question is yes. That raises 
the question: I notice before the amendment was sent to the desk there 
was a handwritten insertion in the title of the amendment. The original 
title had said, ``to promote adequate availability of food and medicine 
abroad by requiring congressional approval. . ..'' In the handwritten 
insertion, the prepositional phrase was added so it now reads ``promote 
adequate availability of food and medicine for humanitarian assistance 
abroad by requiring congressional approval. . ..'' It seems actually 
the substance of the amendment does quite the opposite of the 
prepositional phrase.
  The substance of the amendment says if you are rich enough to be able 
to buy at commercial standards, you can avoid the necessity of 
licensing and all of the constraints that have been imposed by action 
of Congress, action of the President, or both on terrorist states. But 
if you are a poor terrorist state and have been sanctioned by Congress 
or the President, or both, and would require some assistance in order 
to be able to get food, then you are still subject to all of these 
licensing requirements.
  So the actual substance of the amendment is inconsistent with the 
modification that was made in the title. I suspect I know why that was 
done.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Let me just say, if it is permissible for me to 
respond, I thank the Senator from Florida for his careful questioning 
and the opportunity to make a response. I think this is a very 
constructive way to handle this.
  I do not think there is anything that is not humanitarian about 
allowing nongovernmental organizations, commercial organizations, to 
buy food so

[[Page 19144]]

people can eat. I think that is humanitarian. I do not find that to be 
inconsistent with the title. I do not think in order to have the 
character of being assistance and humanitarian, they have to be gifts 
or they have to be credit guarantees. The mere fact that Americans 
would make possible the sale of vital medicinal supplies and vital food 
supplies in a world marketplace to people who are hungry and people who 
need medicinal care is humanitarian.
  We do make it possible for certain kinds of nongovernmental 
organizations and commercial organizations to get credit, but we simply 
draw a line in extending credit to governments which have demonstrated 
themselves to be unwilling to observe the rules of human decency and 
have been perpetrators of international terrorism and propagators of 
the instability that such terrorism promotes in the world community.
  So it is with that in mind that we want people to be able to eat, 
understanding that the United States is not at war with the people of 
the world but has very serious disagreements with terrorist 
governments. We want people to be able to get the right kind of 
medicinal help, understanding that we are not at war with people who 
are unhealthy and who need help medicinally, and understanding that 
when people get that kind of help, and understand that the United 
States is a part of it, it can be good foreign policy for the United 
States.
  But we do not believe that addressing the needs of the Government 
itself, especially allowing them to take their hard currency to buy 
arms, by our providing them with credit guarantees for their purchase 
of foodstuffs, would be appropriate.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the answers to the questions, 
and I think the summary of those answers is that we have established an 
inconsistent policy as between actions of the Congress relative to new 
sanctions and to existing sanctions.
  Second, we have established a policy that, if you are a rich 
terrorist state and have the money to buy food at straight commercial 
standards, you can do so; if you are a poor terrorist state that would 
require the access to some of these various trade assistance programs, 
then you cannot buy American food.
  I do not believe this is an amendment that, once fully understood, 
the Members of the Senate will wish to be associated with.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Florida, 
Mr. Mack.
  Mr. MACK. I thank the Chair.
  First, I want to address a point that was made a few moments ago, an 
argument that went something like this: If we were to open up our 
markets, that action would, in essence, allow terrorists or countries 
to buy more food products. I just think that is fundamentally wrong. I 
think in fact they are buying all of the product that they can afford 
to buy now. And I would make the case that if they buy the product from 
us at a cheaper price because of it being subsidized, we are in fact 
subsidizing terrorist states.
  So I just fundamentally disagree with where the proponents of this 
amendment are going.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MACK. Sure.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Is it the Senator's belief that somehow all our 
agricultural products are subsidized; therefore, it would be cheaper 
than the world market price?
  Mr. MACK. Again, I say to my colleague who has raised this question 
that I do find it strange that at just the time when Members are coming 
to the floor and asking the American taxpayer to come to the aid of the 
American farmer, they are at the same time asking us to lift sanctions 
to allow them to sell products to terrorist states.
  I think, in fact, there is a connection between what is happening 
today--that is, some $6-$7 billion, depending on what this bill finally 
turns out to produce, $8-$9 billion in aid to American farmers, just 
after a few months ago with the additional aid to the American farmer--
that you would find it appropriate to say to the American taxpayer: Now 
that you have given us this aid, we would like to have permission to 
sell our product to terrorist countries. I just find that 
unsupportable.
  I thank the Senator for raising the question.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. That is not the question I raise. But if I may ask, the 
Senator's answer, then, is that he thinks what we are talking about in 
disaster assistance to farmers in this aid is a subsidy that would 
allow us to sell below world market prices, and that is why we will not 
do that?
  Mr. MACK. It clearly is a subsidy to the American farmer. What kind 
of effect it will have on the world price I do not think I am qualified 
to say. But it seems to me it is clear that if in fact there is a 
subsidy being received by the American farmer, that farmer could sell 
the product at a lower price.
  I thank the Senator for his question.
  Mr. President, I oppose trade with tyrants and dictators, and I 
emphatically oppose subsidized trade with terrorist states. Again, make 
no mistake, that is exactly what this amendment does. Specifically, 
with my colleagues from Florida, New Jersey, and the distinguished 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, we oppose the amendment to 
prevent any action by this body to limit the President of the United 
States' ability to impose sanctions on terrorist states.
  We had a similar vote last year, in which 67 Senators voted to oppose 
trade with terrorists. At the risk of stating the obvious, let me try 
to explain once again why the Senate should not change this position.
  Freedom is not free. I know my colleagues understand this simple 
axiom--this self-evident truth. But today we hear from our colleagues 
that the farmers of our Nation are undergoing a difficult time. So 
today, they have put before us a fundamental question: Does this great 
Nation, the United States of America, support freedom, or do we support 
terror?
  A few weeks ago, as I was preparing a statement on another issue, I 
came across a letter from His Holiness, the Dalai Lama of Tibet. In 
this letter the Dalai Lama says, and I quote, ``America's real strength 
comes not from its status as a `superpower' but from the ideals and 
principles on which it was founded.''
  How may times have my colleagues been with me when a visiting head of 
state delivered to us the same message as the Dalai Lama's? I will 
provide one example.
  Last summer, the President of Romania addressed a joint session of 
Congress. He began his remarks by reminding us that Romania considered 
the United States the country of freedom and the guardian of 
fundamental human rights all over the world. He went on to say:

       Throughout its history, your country has been a beacon of 
     hope for the oppressed and the needy, a source of inspiration 
     for the creative, the courageous and the achieving. It has 
     always been, and may it ever remain, the land of the free and 
     the home of the brave.

  We are a nation founded on principles--the principles of freedom, 
liberty, and the respect for human dignity. And our commitment to these 
principles gives us our real strength today. It is that simple.
  I began this statement by posing a question on freedom versus terror. 
We know, even take for granted, the answer to that question--the United 
States opposes terror. But what about the strength or our commitment to 
these principles? On occasion, a short-term crisis can blind us--cause 
us to lose sight of our values and their importance to who we are and 
from where we derive our strength.
  Today's debate typifies one such moment. The poster which has been 
shown on this floor indicates the issue before us with respect to 
terrorist nations and their leaders--Qadhafi, Castro, and others.
  In exchange for very limited market expansion, some would take away 
the President's authority to restrict trade with six terrorist 
regimes--six countries whose combined markets represent a mere 1.7 
percent of global agricultural imports; yet these minor importers 
perpetrate or harbor those who

[[Page 19145]]

commit the world's greatest acts of terror.
  Some would have us open trade in agricultural products with these 
terrorists--in effect placing our principles up for sale. So what is 
the strength of our commitment to these principles? If we are to choose 
freedom over terror, what price should we expect to pay? There can be 
no doubt in anyone's mind the value of our commitment to freedom 
certainly exceeds the U.S. share of 1.7 percent of the world's 
agriculture market.
  But for those who may actually find this less clear than I do, it 
gets easier. The request by those who wish to trade with terrorists 
gets more extreme. With this amendment to language providing subsidies 
of U.S. agriculture, we are in effect being asked to subsidize global 
terrorism. The supporters of this amendment are asking the taxpayers of 
the United States to subsidize American farmers, who will then sell to 
terrorist states.
  The United States must not subsidize terrorist regimes. I find it 
unconscionable that we would even consider such a proposal. When two 
countries engage in a trade, even if just one commodity is being 
exported, both countries benefit from the exchange. So by opening 
agriculture exports to Iran, Sudan, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea, 
we are offering direct support to the regimes in power. If they chose 
to purchase from the United States, they would be doing so because they 
see it as being in their best interest. Their benefit would be greater 
in this case because the products sold to terrorists would be 
subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer.
  Terrorism poses a direct threat to the United States. The terrorist 
threat was considerable during the cold war when the Soviet Union and 
its allies often backed movements or governments that justified the use 
of terror. The threat is even greater today, when chemical or 
biological weapons, no bigger than a suitcase, can bring death and 
devastation to tens of thousands of people. The deaths in the World 
Trade Center bombing or in Pan Am 103 remind of us what terrorism can 
produce. Another important reminder is the image of American 
humanitarian aircraft being blown out of the sky by Cuban Air Force MiG 
fighters in the Florida Straits. We are moving from a world where 
terrorists use dynamite or rifles to one where they may use a weapon of 
mass destruction. The world today is more dangerous in many ways than 
it was 10 years ago, and the form of that danger is terrorism, which 
makes it even more dangerous for the United States to engage in trade 
with terrorist states.
  So where does this leave us? With this simple principle--the United 
States must not trade with any nation that supports terrorism in any 
way, direct or indirect. We must insist that there can be no business-
as-usual approach to nations that threaten our national security and 
national interests. We are well aware of the counterarguments. If we 
don't sell, some other country will, so what is the point? Or why not 
sell food? You can't turn wheat into a bomb, can you? Well, maybe not, 
but it is possible for a government that supports terror to use our 
food exports to win popular support, and it is possible to use the 
money saved by purchasing subsidized American goods for yet more 
terror.
  We can all agree that the United States must stand for freedom and 
against terror, and I hope the strength of our commitment to this 
principled stand runs deep. Today we are being asked how deeply are we 
committed to opposing terrorism. Make no mistake, our principles 
provide the real source of America's strength. If we are serious about 
battling terrorism, there can be no compromise with terror and no trade 
with terrorist nations.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FITZGERALD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of Senator Ashcroft's 
amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. Before getting into the specifics 
of Senator Ashcroft's amendment, I want to lay the table a little bit 
by describing what I have heard in the agricultural community in my 
State and to talk for a moment about a farm rally that I attended last 
Saturday in Plainfield, IL. At that rally, which was held on the 
Schultz farm in Plainfield, IL, there were more than 500 farmers, not 
just from Illinois but from all over the country. There were farmers 
from as far away as Washington State and from Oklahoma and from the 
Southern and Eastern States as well.
  The one message I heard, talking to the farmers, not just those from 
Illinois but those from all across the country, was that there is a 
severe crisis in agriculture right now. Crop prices are at almost 
record low levels, if you consider the effects of inflation. The prices 
are low not just for corn and soybeans but also for hogs and wheat, and 
the list goes on.
  On top of that, we are seeing a trade situation now in which the 
countries in the European Union, to whom we used to export large 
amounts of our grain and livestock products, are, with increasing 
frequency, raising not just tariff barriers to the importation of 
American agricultural goods but also nontariff barriers, 
pseudoscientific trade barriers, objections to the safety of our food, 
objections for which very few in the scientific community have said 
there is any basis.
  Also we have seen a slump in the economy in Asia. The near depression 
in Asia in the last year has caused a severe drop-off in the amount 
they are importing from the United States and from our farmers in this 
country. On top of that, as was said earlier today, some parts of our 
country are experiencing drought, other parts floods. Farmers have 
complaints, as we all know, about the tax code and its consequences 
that are particularly felt by family farmers who can't deduct health 
insurance, for example, who have a very hard time meeting the 
obligations of the death tax, which taxes their family farms at 55 and, 
in some cases, 60 percent of their value when a farmer dies.
  I am very pleased that Senator Cochran and the Agriculture 
Appropriations Committee have come up with some short-term relief that 
I think most of us agree is needed. I think Senator Cochran's bill will 
be adequate to meet the challenges we now have in the short term.
  I am concerned that we not just address the short term, Mr. 
President. I think it is very important that we think about long-term 
solutions for the farm crisis in this country so that we don't have to 
come back every year and face ongoing crises year after year. Perhaps 
the best thing we can do for the long-term survival and success of our 
American farmers is to improve the trade climate.
  Several years ago, we passed the Freedom to Farm Act. The farmers in 
my State of Illinois frequently say: You gave us the freedom to farm, 
but you didn't give us the freedom to trade. What good is that freedom 
to farm, that freedom to plant all the acres we wish, if we don't have 
the freedom to sell our products abroad as we need?
  So I think it is very important that we work on a variety of fronts 
in the trade area. I favor fast track trade negotiating authority for 
our President. I think that normal trade relations with China would 
help our farmers. Accession of China into the WTO would be helpful. 
Agriculture needs a seat at the trade table next fall in the 
negotiations for the Seattle round of the multilateral trade 
negotiations. We need to have representatives from the USDA right there 
with Charlene Barshefsky when we are negotiating trade issues next 
fall. We also need strong enforcement of WTO trade disputes and, of 
course, open access for our GMO food products in Europe.
  One step toward improving the trade climate for our Nation's farmers 
is the pending amendment that Senator Ashcroft and I and a number of my 
colleagues have cosponsored. I am rising today to support that 
amendment to exempt food and medicine from unilateral sanctions. 
Unilateral sanctions on food and agricultural products clearly hurt 
American agriculture

[[Page 19146]]

more than anyone else. The target country simply buys its food from 
some other country, leaving less money in our farmers' pockets. When 
the U.S. Government decides to sanction food and agriculture, it simply 
tells our international competitors to produce more to meet the excess 
international demand. Once American agriculture loses these markets to 
our foreign competitors, our reputation then as a reliable supplier is 
tarnished, making it difficult for us to regain these markets for 
future sales.
  Our agricultural trade surplus totaled $272 billion just 3 years ago 
in 1996. But this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects 
that our ag trade surplus will have dwindled to approximately $12 
billion. Reversing this downward trend in the value of our exports 
through effective sanctions policy reform should be a top priority of 
this Congress. America's farmers demand it and they deserve it. We 
should be responsive.
  The current slump in commodity prices makes significant sanctions 
policy reform even more timely and necessary. In fact, recent estimates 
calculate the cost of U.S. sanctions at $15 to $19 billion annually. 
These potential sales could give a significant boost to our rural 
economy, if only they were allowed by the Federal Government. Free and 
open international markets are vital to my home State. Illinois' farm 
products sales generate $9 billion annually, and Illinois ranks third 
in this country in agricultural exports.
  In fiscal year 1997 alone, Illinois agricultural exports totaled $3.7 
billion and created 57,000 jobs for the State of Illinois. Needless to 
say, agriculture makes up a significant portion of my State's economy, 
and a healthy export market for these products is important to all my 
constituents. For this reason, I am proud to cosponsor Senator 
Ashcroft's amendment.
  The amendment simply exempts food and medicine from unilateral 
sanctions, unless the President submits a report to Congress requesting 
that agriculture be sanctioned and the Congress approves the request by 
joint resolution. With commodity prices where they are, and with the 
Seattle round of trade negotiations looming on the horizon, we must act 
quickly to unbridle the farm economy from the tight reins of current 
U.S. sanctions policy.
  Mr. President, I note that Senator Ashcroft has crafted this 
amendment so that there are escape hatches that, in severe cases, the 
President, working with Congress, can, if he absolutely believes it 
necessary, go forward and maintain sanctions in a particular case and 
perhaps, in some cases, we in Congress will deem that advisable.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kim Alexander 
be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I stand in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft. I have listened to 
the arguments of both sides to this point and have found them 
interesting. I certainly join Senator Fitzgerald in noting that 
Illinois is a great agricultural State. I have visited that State 
regularly over the past several months, including most recently on 
Monday, in Lincoln, IL, meeting with farmers who are, in fact, 
suffering from perhaps one of the worst price depressions that they 
have witnessed in decades. They need help. That is why the underlying 
bill, the Agriculture appropriations bill, and the emergency bill that 
is part of it, is so important.
  It has been portrayed during the course of this debate that 
addressing the question of unilateral sanctions involving food and 
medicine exports from the United States will be of some assistance to 
the farmers. I think that is possible. But I have to concede that the 
countries we are talking about are generally so small as to not have a 
major impact on the agricultural exports of the United States.
  I believe the Senator from New Jersey, who opposes this amendment, 
mentioned that we are talking about a potential export of 1.7 percent 
of our entire agricultural export budget. That is not the kind of 
infusion of purchasing in our agricultural economy that will turn it 
around. So I don't believe this amendment, in and of itself, is a major 
agricultural amendment, although it clearly will have some impact on 
agriculture. But I do believe it stands for a proposition that is worth 
supporting. Let me tell you why.
  First, I believe that we have learned over the course of recent 
history that unilateral sanctions by the United States just don't work. 
When we decide on our own to impose sanctions on a country, it is 
usually because we are unhappy with their conduct, so we will stop 
trade or impose some sort of embargo to show our displeasure. You can 
understand that because some of the actions we have responded to were 
horrendous and heinous. The bombings of embassies and other terrorist 
acts raise the anger of the American people, and through their elected 
representatives, we respond with sanctions. That is understandable, and 
it is a natural human and political reaction.
  I think we would have to concede that over time those unilateral 
sanctions have very little impact on the targeted country. In the time 
I have served on Capitol Hill, for about 17 years, I can only think of 
one instance where the imposition of sanctions had the desired result, 
and that, of course, was in the case of South Africa. It was not a 
unilateral sanction by the United States. We were involved in 
multilateral sanctions with other countries against the apartheid 
regime in South Africa, and we were successful in changing that regime.
  But as you look back at the other countries we have imposed 
unilateral sanctions on, with the United States standing alone, you can 
hardly point to similar positive results. So I think we have learned a 
lesson well that merely imposing those sanctions alone seldom 
accomplishes the goals that we seek.
  I do note, in reviewing this amendment by Senator Ashcroft, as has 
been noted by others, he makes allowances for the United States to 
continue to impose unilateral sanctions under specific situations. Of 
course, if there is a declaration of war, and certainly if the 
President comes to Congress and asks that we impose sanctions for 
products which may in and of themselves be dangerous, such as high 
technology and the like, products which have been identified by the 
Department of Commerce as being dangerous to America's best interests.
  I applaud the Senator from Missouri for making those provisions. It 
gives any administration the wherewithal to impose unilateral sanctions 
in extraordinary cases. But I understand this amendment to suggest that 
if we are not dealing with extraordinary cases, we should basically be 
willing to sell food and medicine to countries around the world.
  I have found it interesting that my colleagues who oppose this 
amendment have come to the floor to describe these potential trading 
partners as tyrants, dictators, and terrorist states. One of the 
Senators came to the floor with graphic presentations of some of the 
dictators in these countries. Not a single person on the floor this 
evening would make any allowance for the terrible conduct by some of 
these terrorist regimes. But I must remind my colleagues during the 
course of this debate that, after World War II, we were engaged in a 
cold war that went on for almost five decades, which involved the 
Soviet Union and China. During that cold war, some terrible things 
occurred involving those countries and the United States.
  We expended trillions of dollars defending against the Soviet Union 
and trying to stop the expansion of communism. We decided they were our 
major target, and so many debates in the Senate and in the House were 
predicated on whether or not we were stopping, or in any way aiding, 
the growth of communism.

[[Page 19147]]

  Despite this cold war's intensity, which more or less monopolized 
foreign relations in the United States for half of this century, we 
found ourselves during that same period of time trading and selling 
food to Russia, the Soviet Union, and selling foodstuffs to China and 
other countries. I guess we adopted the premise that former Senator 
Hubert Humphrey used to say should guide us when it comes to this 
economy. We asked him whether he would sell food to the Communists and 
he said, ``I will sell them anything they can't shoot back at me.'' I 
think it was a practical viewpoint that, when it gets down to it, we 
are not the sole suppliers of food in the world. For us to cut off food 
supplies to any given country is no guarantee they will starve. In 
fact, they can turn to other resources.
  So those who would say to us we should impose unilateral sanctions on 
a country such as Cuba, I think, have forgotten the lesson of history 
that, not that long ago, we were selling wheat to Russia at a time when 
we were at the height of the cold war. I think that is a lesson in 
history to be remembered.
  The second question is whether or not we should, as a policy, exempt 
food and medicine when it comes to any sanctions. I believe that is the 
gravamen of the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri. I think 
he is right. I say to those who believe that by imposing unilateral 
sanctions involving the sale of food and medicine from the United 
States on these dictatorial regimes we will have some impact, please 
take a look at the pictures of the dictators that you presented for us 
to view this evening.
  Now, I have been watching Mr. Castro in the media for over 40 years 
and I don't see him thin and emaciated or malnourished. He seems to be 
finding food somewhere, as do many other people in states where we have 
our differences. But I do suspect that when you get closer to the real 
people in these countries, you will find they are the ones who are 
disadvantaged by these sanctions on food and medicine.
  Let me tell you, there was a 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 and Nutrition in Cuba.'' It 
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 human toll. The embargo 
     has closed so many windows that, in some instances, Cuban 
     physicians have found it impossible to obtain life-saving 
     machines from any source under any circumstances. Patients 
     have died.

  I quote from a letter I received from Bishop William Purcell from the 
Diocese of Chicago who told me his experience in visiting villages.
  He said:

       I was especially struck by the impact of the American 
     embargo on people's health. We saw huge boxes of expired bill 
     samples in a hospital. Other than those, the shelves of the 
     pharmacy were almost bare. We talked with patients waiting 
     for surgeons who could not be operated upon because their X 
     ray machines from Germany had broken down. A woman was 
     choking from asthma from lack of inhaler.

  I hope you will pay particular attention to this. The bishop says:

       At the AIDS center, plastic gloves had been washed and hung 
     on a line to dry for reuse. The examples of people directly 
     suffering from the impact of our government's policy after 
     all of these years was sad and embarrassing to see.

  That was in the letter he sent to me. But many other religious groups 
in the United States have reached the same conclusion. The U.S. 
Catholic Conference and others have termed our policy with Cuba 
``morally unacceptable.''
  I don't come to the floor today to in any way apologize or defend the 
policies of Fidel Castro in Cuba or for shooting the plane down in 
1997. That was a savage, barbaric act. No excuse can be made for that 
type of conduct. But when we try to focus on stopping the conduct of 
leaders such as Castro by imposing sanctions that embargo food and 
medicine, I don't think we strike at the heart of the leadership of 
these countries. Instead, we strike at poor people--poor people who 
continue to suffer.
  Many folks on this floor will remember the debate just a few weeks 
ago when we were shocked to learn that India and Pakistan had detonated 
nuclear devices. This was a dramatic change in the balance of power in 
the world, with two new entries in the nuclear club. Countries which we 
suspected were developing nuclear weapons had in fact detonated them to 
indicate that our fears were real.
  Under existing law, we could have imposed sanctions on India and 
Pakistan at that time to show our displeasure. We did not. We made a 
conscious decision to vote in the Senate not to do that. We concluded, 
even at the risk of nuclear war in the subcontinent, that it was not in 
our best interests or smart foreign policy to impose these sanctions.
  So you have to ask yourself, why do we continue to cling to this 
concept when it comes to Cuba, that after some 40 years this is the way 
we are going to change the Cuban regime?
  I think the way to change the regime in Cuba and many other countries 
has been demonstrated clearly over the last decade. Think about the 
Berlin Wall coming down and the end of communism in Eastern Europe. It 
had as much to do with the fact that we opened up these countries after 
years of isolation. Finally, these countries saw what the rest of the 
world had to offer. They understood better what lifestyle and quality 
of life meant in the Western part of the world, and when they compared 
that to the Communist regime, they started racing for democracy.
  That, to me, is an indication of what would also happen in Cuba. If 
we start opening up trade in food and medicine and other relations with 
that country, I predict that we would have much more success in 
bringing down an objectionable regime than anything we have done over 
the past four decades.
  We have learned the lesson from the cold war. We know you cannot 
bring a country to its knees by denying export of food and medicine. We 
should also know that the best way to end dictatorial and totalitarian 
regimes is to open trade, open commerce, and open channels of 
communication.
  The amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Missouri is 
an attempt to address not only the agricultural crisis that faces 
America but, from my point of view, a much more sensible approach to a 
foreign policy goal which all Americans share.
  Let us find ways to punish the terrorists and punish those guilty of 
wrongdoing. But let us not do it at the expense of innocent people, 
whether they are farmers in the United States or populations overseas 
which are the unwitting pawns in this foreign policy game.
  I support this amendment. I hope my colleagues will join in that 
effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I join with my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, and others in urging the 
adoption of this amendment with respect to exempting exports of food 
and medicine from U.S. sanctions regimes.
  Mr. President this amendment is quick, simple, and straight forward--
it would exempt donations and sales of food, other agricultural 
commodities, medicines and medical equipment from being used as an 
economic weapon in conjunction with the imposition of unilaterally 
imposed economic sanctions.
  Since last year, we have heard about the serious economic crisis that 
confronts America's heartland and is bankrupting American farm 
families. Not only do American farm families have to worry about 
weather and other natural disasters which threaten their livelihood. 
They also must worry about actions of their own government which can do 
irreparable harm to the farm economy by closing off markets to American 
farm products because we happen to dislike some foreign government 
official or some policy action that has been taken. Time and time again 
unilateral sanctions on agricultural products have cost American

[[Page 19148]]

farmers important export markets. Time and time again the offending 
official remains in power or the offensive policy remains in effect.
  On July 23 of last year, President Clinton stated that ``food should 
not be used as a tool of foreign policy except under the most 
compelling circumstances.'' On April 28 of this year, the Clinton 
Administration took some long overdue steps toward bringing U.S. 
practice in this area into conformity with the President's 
pronouncement. It announced that it would reverse existing U.S. policy 
of prohibiting sales of food and medicine to Iran, Libya, and Sudan--
three countries currently on the terrorism list.
  In announcing the change in policy, Under Secretary of State Stuart 
Eizenstat stated that President Clinton had approved the policy after a 
two-year review concluded that the sale of food and medicine ``doesn't 
encourage a nation's military capability or its ability to support 
terrorism.''
  I am gratified that the administration has finally recognized what we 
determined some time ago, namely that ``sales of food, medicine and 
other human necessities do not generally enhance a nation's military 
capacities or support terrorism.'' On the contrary, funds spent on 
agricultural commodities and products are not available for other, less 
desirable uses.
  Regrettably, the Administration did not include Cuba in its announced 
policy changes. It seems to me terribly inconsistent to say that it is 
wrong to deny the children of Iran, Sudan and Libya access to food and 
medicine, but it is all right to deny Cuban children--living ninety 
miles from our shores, similar access. The administration's rationale 
for not including Cuba was rather confused. The best I can discern from 
the conflicting rationale for not including Cuba in the announced 
policy changes was that policy toward Cuba has been established by 
legislation rather than executive order, and therefore should be 
changed through legislative action.
  I disagree with that judgement. However, in order to facilitate the 
lifting of such restrictions on such sales to Cuba, and to prevent such 
sanctions from being introduced against other countries in the future, 
I have joined with Senators Ashcroft, Hagel, Roberts, Leahy and others 
in offering the amendment that is currently pending. Not only would it 
codify in law the administration's decision with respect to Iran, 
Libya, and Sudan, it would also create a politically viable way for 
such sanctions to be lifted from Cuba, unless the President and the 
Congress both take the affirmative step of acting to keep them in 
place.
  What about those who say that it is already possible to sell food and 
medicine to Cuba? To those people I would say, ``if that is what you 
think, then you should have no problem supporting this legislation.''
  However, I must tell you, Mr. President, that the people who say that 
are not members of the U.S. agricultural or pharmaceutical industries. 
Ask any representative of a major drug or grain company about selling 
to Cuba and they will tell you it is virtually impossible.
  The Administration's own statistics speak for themselves. Department 
of Commerce licensing statistics prove our point:
  Between 1992 and mid-1997, the Commerce Department approved only 28 
licenses for such sales, valued at less than $1 million, for the entire 
period. In 1998, following the introduction of procedures to ``expedite 
license reviews'' Commerce reported that, three licenses valued at $19 
million were approved, however no exports occurred because of 
difficulties with on-site verification requirements.
  Even if these three exports had occurred, the assistance being 
provided to the Cuban people would be minuscule. To give you some 
perspective: prior to the passage of the 1992 Cuba Democracy Act which 
shut down U.S. food and medicine exports, Cuba was importing roughly 
$700 million of such products on an annual basis from U.S. 
subsidiaries.
  Moreover, since Commerce Department officials do not follow up on 
whether proposed licenses culminate in actual sales, the high water 
mark for the export of U.S. medicines to Cuba over a four and one half 
year period doesn't even represent roughly .1% of the exports of U.S. 
food and medicines that took place prior to 1992.
  For these reasons we feel strongly that the complexities of the U.S. 
licensing process, coupled with on-site verification requirements, 
serve as de facto prohibitions on U.S. pharmaceutical companies doing 
business with Cuba. Do we really believe that aspirin or bandaid are 
possible instruments of torture that mandate the U.S. companies have in 
place a costly on-site verification mechanism to monitor how each 
bottle of aspirin is dispensed?
  I cannot come up with a rationale for arguing that we are on strong 
moral grounds in barring access to American medicines and medical 
equipment. American pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment 
manufacturers are dominant in the international market place with 
respect to development and production of state of the art medicines and 
equipment. In some cases there are no other foreign suppliers that make 
comparable products--particularly in the case of the most life 
threatening diseases such as cancer.
  How can we justify denying innocent people access to drugs that could 
save them or their children's lives. How can we justify prohibiting 
access to vaccines that ensure the protection of the public health of 
an entire country or large segments thereof, simply because we disagree 
with their government leaders? I don't believe we should.
  Food sales to Cuba continue to be prohibited as well, despite the so 
called January measures promulgated by the Clinton Administration. At 
that time, the outright prohibition on the sale of food was modified to 
provide a narrow exception to that prohibition. With the change in 
regulations, the Commerce Department will now consider licensing, on a 
case-by-case basis, sales of food ``to independent non-government 
entities in Cuba, including religious groups, private farmers and 
private sector enterprises such as restaurants.''
  For those of my colleagues who have any knowledge about the Cuban 
economy they will immediately know that this translates into virtually 
zero sales of food to Cuba. Yes, there are some private restaurants in 
Cuba--so called paladares--but they are run out of family homes serving 
at most ten to twelve people at lunch and dinner on a daily basis. 
These small operations are hardly in any position logistically or 
financially to contract with foreign exporters, navigate U.S. and Cuban 
customs in order to arrange for U.S. shipments to be delivered to their 
restaurants--shipments that are otherwise barred to the Cuban 
government. Who are we kidding when we say it is possible to sell food 
in the current regulatory environment.
  I don't believe except in the most limited of circumstances that we 
should deny food and medicine to anyone. I take strong exception to 
argument that we are doing it for the good of the Cuban people or the 
Libyan people--that we are putting pressure on authorities to respect 
human rights in doing so.
  The highly respected human rights organization, Human Rights Watch--a 
severe critic of the Cuban government's human rights practices--
recently concluded, that the ``(U.S.) embargo has not only failed to 
bring about human rights improvements in Cuba,'' it has actually 
``become counterproductive'' to achieving that goal.
  America is not about denying medicine or food to the people in Sudan, 
in Libya, or in Iran, and it shouldn't be about denying food and 
medicine to the Cuban people either, certainly not my America.
  Let me be clear--I am not defending the Cuban government for its 
human rights practices or some of its other policy decisions. I believe 
that we should speak out strongly on such matters as respect for human 
rights and the treatment of political dissidents. But U.S. policy with 
respect to Cuba goes far beyond that--it denies eleven million innocent 
Cuban men, women and children access to U.S. food and medicine.

[[Page 19149]]

  That is why I hope my colleagues will support this amendment and 
restrict future efforts to water down its scope.
  The United States stands alone among all of the nations of the world 
as an advocate for respecting the human rights of all peoples 
throughout the globe. In my view denying access to food and medicine is 
a violation of international recognized human rights and weakens the 
ability of the United States to advocate what is otherwise a very 
principled position on this issue. It is time to return U.S. policy to 
the moral high ground.
  Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft, 
and Senator Hagel, Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Craig, Senator Lincoln, 
Senator Conrad, Senator Brownback, the Presiding Officer, Senator 
Warner, and all of the others who are cosponsors of this amendment.
  It is a very solid, thoughtful, precise amendment that principally, 
of course, allows us to be involved as a legislative branch if 
unilateral sanctions are going to be imposed. That is not a radical 
idea. We have seen the effects of the importance and the significance 
of unilateral sanctions.
  Certainly those who represent the farm community can speak not just 
theoretically about this but in practice as to the damage that can be 
done. It certainly is hard enough to have to face weather conditions, 
drought, and floods. But when you have to also face unilateral 
decisions that deny your community the opportunity to market in certain 
areas, that can make the life of a farm family even more difficult.
  I happen to agree with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, 
and others who have made the case that if we are truly interested in 
creating change, it is not in the interest of our own Nation to take 
actions which would deny innocent people--be they the 11 million 
innocent people who live 90 miles off our shore in Cuba, or in other 
nations--the opportunity to benefit from the sale of medicine and food 
supplies that can improve the quality of their life.
  It is radical, in my view, to impose that kind of a sanction, 
particularly unilaterally. That is not my America. My America says we 
will do everything we can to get rid of dictators and to change 
governments which deny their people basic rights. But my America 
doesn't say to the innocents who live in these countries that if we 
have food that can make you stronger, if we have medicine that can make 
you healthier, we are going to deny the opportunity for the average 
citizens of these countries to have access to these products through 
sale. That is not my America.
  I live in a bigger, a larger country, which has stood as a symbol of 
understanding, of human decency, and of human kindness, even with 
adversaries that have taken the lives of our fellow citizens--in a 
Vietnam, in a Germany, in other nations around the globe. My America, a 
big America, at the end of those conflicts has reached out to people in 
these nations to get them back on their feet again.
  Today, I say to you that in these countries around the globe that 
still, unfortunately and regretfully, use the power of their 
institutions to impose human rights violations, we will do everything 
in our power to change these governments but we will not deny these 
people food and we will not deny them medicines through sale.
  That is what Senator Ashcroft, Senator Hagel, and others are trying 
to achieve. I think it is a noble cause and one we ought to bring 
Democrats and Republicans together on in common effort and in common 
purpose to change the system that is fundamentally wrong and a denial 
of the fundamental things that we stand for as a people.
  That does not suggest in any way that we applaud, or agree with, or 
back, or in any way want to sustain the policies of Fidel Castro, or 
the leader of Sudan, or Iran, or Lybia. It says that when unilateral 
sanctions are being imposed, we ought to have some say in all of that, 
and we don't believe generally that the imposition of unilateral 
sanctions, except under unique circumstances which the Senator from 
Missouri and his cosponsors have identified in this bill, ought to deny 
people in these countries--the average citizen--the benefit of our 
success in food and medicine. I applaud them for their efforts. I am 
delighted to be a cosponsor of their amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the Ashcroft food and 
medicine sanctions reform amendment. While I would prefer this 
amendment addressed all unilateral sanctions, not just food and 
medicine, I support the amendment as a good start to reforming our 
sanctions policy. As a cosponsor of the Lugar Sanctions Reform Act, I 
believe it is long overdue that the administration and the Congress 
think before we sanction.
  It makes no sense to punish the people of a country with which we 
have a dispute. Denying food and medicine does nothing to penalize the 
leaders of any country. Government leaders can always obtain adequate 
food and medicine, but people suffer under these sanctions, whether 
they are multilateral or unilateral. Those two areas should never be a 
part of any sanction.
  At the same time our farmers suffer from the lingering effects of the 
Asian financial crisis as well as those in other areas of the world, we 
either have, or are debating, sanctions that further restrict markets 
for our farmers and medical supply companies. And denys that food and 
medical supplies to some of the worlds most needy.
  Since most of our sanctions are unilateral, it makes no sense to deny 
our farmers and workers important markets when those sales are being 
made by our allies.
  I need not remind any of you that we are still experiencing the 
aftermath of the Soviet grain embargo of the late 1970's when the 
United States earned a reputation as an unreliable supplier.
  Another example of how we have harmed our farmers is the Cuban 
embargo. For 40 years this policy was aimed at removing Fidel Castro--
yet he is still there. This is a huge market for midwestern farmers, 
yet it is shut off to us. Because Cuba has fiscal problems, many of its 
people are experiencing hardship. Those who have relationships with 
Cuban-Americans receive financial support, but those who don't need 
access to scarce food and medical supplies. This bill does not aid the 
government, as U.S. guarantees can only be provided through NGO's and 
the private sector not armies, not to terrorists. Currently, donations 
are permitted, as well as sales of medicine, but they are very 
bureaucratically difficult to obtain, and they don't help everyone. Our 
farmers are in a good position to help and they should be allowed to do 
so.
  I applaud Senators Aschroft and Hagel for their work to ensure 
farmers and medical companies will not be held hostage to those who 
believe sanctions can make a difference. Any administration would have 
to get congressional approval for any food and medicine sanction. This 
is our best opportunity to help farmers and provide much-needed food 
supplies to the overage people in these countries, and to show the 
world we are reliable suppliers. I urge the support of my colleagues 
for this long overdue amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my intention to raise a point of 
order. Before I do so, I will provide some context.
  We have entered into a unanimous consent agreement to govern the 
disposition of this legislation. That unanimous consent agreement 
states that during the consideration of the agricultural appropriations 
bill, when the Democratic leader or his designee offers an agricultural 
relief amendment, no rule XVI point of order lie against the amendment 
or amendments thereto relating to the same subject.
  The question is, Does this amendment to the amendment offered by the 
Democratic leader on agricultural relief constitute an amendment 
relating to the same subject? Let me anticipate what might be 
considered by the Parliamentarian.

[[Page 19150]]

  In the underlying amendment, there is reference made to two 
agricultural programs: The Agricultural Trade Development and 
Assistance Act of 1954 and section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949. 
Both of those statutes are again referenced in the amendment that has 
been offered by the Senator from Missouri.
  Where are they offered in the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Missouri? They are offered in the section of the amendment which is the 
definitions, so they are stated to be agricultural programs and then 
listed in the definition section.
  I can find no other reference to those specific statutes other than 
in the definition section, raising the question as to whether they were 
inserted in the definition section in order to attempt to overcome what 
was the clear purpose of the unanimous consent agreement, which was to 
provide a narrow exception to the rule XVI prohibition against 
legislating on an appropriations bill.
  Even beyond that, I point out on page 6, in one of the most 
significant provisions of this amendment, the provision that relates to 
countries supporting international terrorism, the only potential 
relevance of defining those pieces of legislation is to exclude them 
from the operation of this amendment. So they are put in the definition 
section so they can be removed from the operation of this amendment on 
page 6. Clearly, in my opinion, that is a specious attempt to gain the 
advantage of the unanimous consent agreement.
  One final point. During the colloquy I had with the Senator from 
Missouri, I think he was quite candid in saying that the purpose of 
that support for the international terrorism section was to draw a 
distinction between commercial sales of agricultural and medical 
products, which were approved under this amendment, could be made 
without any of the existing conditions such as a license, and sales 
that were made on a humanitarian basis through one of these various 
U.S. trade or export of agricultural products provisions which 
continued to be prohibited.
  We have the ironic circumstance that the humanitarian provision is 
prohibited but commercial sales are rendered acceptable by this 
amendment.
  Yet in the headline, the footnote, the summary of this amendment, by 
a handwritten insertion, the prepositional phrase is inserted which 
says ``for humanitarian assistance.'' The purpose of inserting that 
specific reference is clearly just to establish the most tenuous 
connection to the underlying bill and to attempt to create the facade 
that this amendment has something to do with humanitarian assistance, 
where, by the very description of the Senator from Missouri, it is for 
commercial, not assisted humanitarian agricultural, sales.
  Mr. President, with that description of what I think the amendment 
is, what the underlying amendment and what the purpose of the unanimous 
consent agreement was, which was a narrow exception for agricultural 
relief amendments and amendments to that amendment which related to the 
same subject, since this fails to meet that standard, I raise the point 
of order under rule XVI that this amendment constitutes, clearly, 
explicitly, legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore, under 
rule XVI, is out of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement precludes making a point of 
order for an amendment that is considered relevant. This is considered 
a relevant amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, inasmuch as the amendment of the Senator 
from Missouri, however well intentioned, would have the effect of 
lifting restrictions on trade with terrorist states or governments and 
would allow trade with the coercive elements of these repressive, 
hostile, regimes, I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 70, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Bryan
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Coverdell
     DeWine
     Graham
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Helms
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Reid
     Robb
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli

                                NAYS--70

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Domenici
     Kennedy
       
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today as an individual who has spent 
his entire life involved in agriculture. I am extremely concerned about 
the current state of the agricultural economy. Farmers and ranchers in 
my state of Montana and across America cannot afford another year of 
zero profit. Price declines for agricultural commodities have had a 
devastating impact on agricultural producers in Montana and the economy 
of the entire state, which depends so heavily on agriculture. The 
farmers and ranchers in Montana have suffered too much already. With 
continued low prices, many agricultural producers have been forced to 
sell the farms and ranches many have spent their entire lives working.
  They seem to have all the cards stacked against them. Agricultural 
producers face high numbers of imports as well as a downward trend in 
demand for their product. Further, the world market is not providing 
adequate opportunities for international trade. The European Union 
continues to place non-scientific trade barriers on U.S. beef as well 
as bans on Genetically Modified grain products. Asia, usually a strong 
export market, continues to recover from the economic flu and many of 
our other trade partners have been subjected to sanctions by this 
administration. Additionally, the value of beef and grain imports have 
decreased dramatically as a percent of the world market.
  Montana may not be able to survive another year of this economic 
plight. If market prices continue to go down as they have, I am fearful 
that more farmers and ranchers will be forced out of business. If a 
drastic measure is not passed in Congress this year, I don't know how 
much longer the agricultural community can persevere.
  As I said before, the impact is not limited to those working the 
fields or raising livestock. Look at Main Street, Rural America. The 
agricultural economy is so bad that other businesses are failing as 
well. And not just agri-business. No longer is it just the livestock 
feed store or seed companies that are failing due to the economic 
crunch. It reaches much further. All kinds and types of businesses are 
feeling the depressed agricultural economy. Montana

[[Page 19151]]

is ranked in the bottom five per capita income by state, in the nation.
  Ironically, I also read recently that Montana is rated in a 
nationwide poll as the 7th most desirable place to live in America. 
That won't be the case much longer if we can't return more of the 
economic dollar to the agricultural producer. Montana is a desirable 
place to live because of agriculture. Without the wheat fields and 
grazing pastures, Montana loses its very being. Without the return of 
more of the economic dollar to the agricultural producer there will be 
no more farming or ranching and consequently no more wheat fields or 
pastures to graze livestock.
  I have used the comparison before of the agricultural producer 
drowning. I believe he is. The way I see it, the farmer is drowning in 
a sea of debt and many in Congress want to continue to send lifeboats. 
The problem is, that once the producer makes it into the boat he never 
makes it to shore. He just keeps paddling trying to keep his head above 
water, and waiting for the next boat.
  I want the farmer to get back to land and on his feet. We have to 
provide them the oars to get to shore and then keep them out of the 
water. I would like to see a strong agriculture assistance package 
passed and then a base for long-term benefits, in the form of laws on 
country of origin labeling, crop insurance reform and mandatory price 
reporting.
  My Montana farmers and ranchers need help now. They need a package 
that provides solid short-term assistance. They need AMTA payments at 
100% to bring the price of wheat per bushel to a price that will allow 
them to meet their cost-of-production. Additionally, they need funding 
for specialty crops, sugar and livestock.
  I don't agree with many of the provisions included in the Democratic 
package. Funding for cotton and peanuts does not help my agricultural 
producers. Neither does $300 million for the Step 2 cotton program. 
These provisions bump the price tag up significantly and seem to help 
other areas of the country more than the Northwest.
  However, all agriculture is in dire straits. Montana needs funding 
and they need it fast. Thus, I will vote for the package that gets that 
money to my producers as quickly as possible.
  I believe that AMTA is the most effective way to distribute the 
funding that grain producers need. The Republican package contains 100% 
AMTA payments, which will bring the price of wheat up to $3.84. It also 
contains important provisions for specialty crops, lifts the LDP cap 
and encourages the President to be more aggressive in strengthening 
trade negotiating authority for American agriculture.
  Freedom to Farm needs a boost. It is a good program, but simply 
cannot provide for the needs of farmers and ranchers during this kind 
of economic crunch. From 1995 to 1999, $50.9 billion have been 
distributed as direct payments. This tells us that commodity prices are 
not going up. Farmers and ranchers are not doing better on their net 
income sheets.
  We need to let Freedom to Farm work. I believe it will. When more of 
the economic dollar is returned to the producer and when the farmer or 
rancher receives a price for commodities that meet the cost-of-
production. For now, we must keep the agricultural producer afloat. An 
assistance measure which will provide them a means to stay in business 
at a profitable level is the only way to do that this year.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as I travel around the country, I see the 
devastation caused by the ongoing drought in many sections of the 
country. Crops are stunted and dying, fields are dusty, streams and 
lakes are drying up. Many farmers are still reeling from the effects of 
last year's Asian economic crisis. Clearly, some form of assistance is 
needed to prevent the demise of more of America's family farms, and I 
support efforts to provide needed government aid to farmers and their 
families.
  Both pending proposals specify that aid to farmers is to be 
considered emergency spending, which is not counted against the budget 
caps. Mr. President, again, I recognize the dire circumstances that 
have many Americans in the agriculture industry facing economic ruin. 
However, already this year, the Senate has approved appropriations 
bills containing $7.9 billion in wasteful and unnecessary spending. 
Surely, among these billions of dollars, there are at least a few 
programs that we could all agree are lower priority than desperately 
needed aid for America's farmers.
  My colleagues should be aware that every dollar spent above the 
budget caps is a dollar that comes from the budget surplus. This year, 
the only surplus is in the Social Security accounts, so this farm aid 
will be paid for by further exacerbating the impending financial crisis 
in the Social Security Trust Funds. And every dollar that is spent on 
future emergencies comes from the surplus we just promised last week to 
return to the American people in the form of tax relief. It is the same 
surplus that we have to use to shore up Social Security and Medicare, 
and begin to pay down the national debt.
  Unfortunately, though, it seems to be easier to slap on an emergency 
designation, rather than try to find lower priority spending cuts as 
offsets.
  Once again, Mr. President, Congress is taking its usual opportunistic 
approach to any disaster or emergency--adding billions of dollars in 
non-emergency spending and policy proposals to the emergency farm aid 
proposals.
  The competing amendments pending before the Senate contain provisions 
that provide special, targeted relief to certain sectors of the 
agricultural community. For example, in addition to the billions of 
dollars of assistance payments for which all farmers would be eligible:
  Both proposals single out peanut producers for special direct 
payments to partially compensate them for low prices and increasing 
production costs.
  The Republican proposal also provides $50 million to be used to 
assist fruit and vegetable producers, at the Secretary of Agriculture's 
discretion.
  Both proposals give the Secretary of Agriculture broad authority to 
provide some kinds of assistance to livestock and dairy producers, the 
only difference being the amount of money set aside for this 
unspecified relief. The Democrats set aside $750 million, the 
Republicans $325 million.
  Both proposals set up more restrictive import quotas and new price 
supports for cotton producers.
  Both proposals provide $328 million in direct aid for tobacco 
farmers.
  The Republican proposal also specifically targets $475 million for 
direct payments to oilseed producers, most of which is to be paid to 
soybean producers.
  The Democrat proposal, which is about $3 billion more expensive than 
the Republican proposal, expands to address non-agricultural disaster-
related requirements, such as wetlands and watershed restoration and 
conservation, short-term land diversion programs, and flood prevention 
projects. It also establishes a new $500 million disaster reserve 
account, in anticipation of future disasters, I assume. But the 
proposal then adds a number of very narrowly targeted provisions and 
provisions wholly unrelated to the purposes of aiding economically 
distressed farmers, including:

       --$40 million for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service 
     Agency, apparently to administer $100 million in new loan 
     funds;
       --$100 million for rural economic development;
       --$50 million for a new revolving loan program for farmer-
     owned cooperatives;
       --$4 million to implement a new mandatory price reporting 
     program for livestock;
       --$8 million for a new product labeling system for imported 
     meat;
       --$1 million for rapid response teams to enforce the 
     Packers and Stockyards Act; and
       finally,
       --$15 million for a Northeast multispecies fishery.

  These provisions have no place in a bill to provide emergency 
assistance to America's farmers. There is an established process for 
dealing with spending and policy matters that are not emergencies. It 
is the normal authorization and appropriations process, where each 
program or policy can be assessed as part of a merit-based review. Many 
of the provisions I have

[[Page 19152]]

listed above may very well be meritorious and deserving of support and 
funding, but the process we are following here today does not provide 
an appropriate forum for assessing their relative merit compared to the 
many other important programs for which non-emergency dollars should be 
made available. I think even some of the potential recipients of these 
non-emergency programs would agree that they should be considered in 
the normal appropriations and authorization processes.
  There is one special interest provision of the Republican proposal 
that I would like to discuss further and that I intend to address 
directly in an amendment later in the debate. The Republican proposal 
gives the already heavily subsidized sugar industry one more perk--
relief from paying a minuscule assessment of just 25 cents on each 100 
pounds of sugar. This tiny tax raised just $37.8 million last year, and 
was supposed to be the sugar industry's sole contribution to reducing 
annual budget deficits. Thanks to their successful lobbying, for the 
next three years, big sugar will not have to pay this assessment if the 
federal government has a budget surplus. While the assessment was 
initially imposed to help reduce annual budget deficits, which 
fortunately have been eliminated as a result of the Balanced Budget 
Act, what about the $5.6 trillion national debt?
  This little bit of targeted tax relief for big sugar comes on top of 
a $130 million per year government-subsidized loan program for sugar 
producers, and price supports that cost American consumers over $1.4 
billion a year in higher sugar prices at the store. The sponsors of the 
proposal make no claim that this provision is in any way related to a 
disaster or drought-related economic crisis in the sugar industry that 
would merit its inclusion in this emergency farm aid bill. Its 
inclusion simply adds one more perk to the already broad array of 
special subsidies for big sugar companies.
  I intend to offer an amendment later during the debate on this bill 
to terminate taxpayer support of the sugar industry. If the Republican 
farm aid proposal is adopted, as I expect it will be, I will include in 
my amendment a proposal to strike this newly created perk for big 
sugar.
  Mr. President, I am going to support the more modest Republican 
proposal, regardless of the outcome of my amendment to eliminate the 
inequitable and unnecessary sugar subsidies. But I do so only because 
of the real economic hardship faced by many of our nation's farmers and 
their families.
  I abhor the continuing practice of attaching pork-barrel spending to 
any and every bill that comes before the Senate, especially when real 
disasters are cynically exploited to designate pork as emergency 
spending. This kind of fiscal irresponsibility undermines the balanced 
budget and hinders debt reduction efforts, exacerbates the need to 
preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare, and threatens 
efforts to provide meaningful tax relief to American families.
  Once again, I can only hope that the final farm aid proposal will be 
targeted only at those in need--America's farmers. I urge the conferees 
on this legislation to eliminate the provisions that solely benefit 
special interests who have once again managed to turn needed emergency 
relief into opportunism. I also urge the conferees to seek offsets for 
the additional spending in this bill, to avoid again dipping into the 
Social Security surplus and putting our balanced budget at risk.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there 
will be no further votes this evening. The discussion regarding the 
dairy issue will occur from 9 a.m. until 9:40 a.m. on Wednesday, with 
the cloture vote occurring at approximately 9:45 a.m.
  Assuming cloture is not invoked on Wednesday morning, I anticipate 
the Senate will resume consideration of the pending Ashcroft amendment, 
which is an amendment to the disaster amendment by Senators Harkin and 
Daschle.
  Also, if an opportunity does present itself, I understand that there 
will be another disaster-related amendment by Senator Roberts and 
Senator Santorum. Of course, that will be in line behind the other 
amendments because of procedure. But at the appropriate time there is a 
plan by those two Senators, and others, to offer another amendment.

                          ____________________