[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26925-26944]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 434, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 434) to authorize a new trade and investment 
     policy for sub-Sahara Africa.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
Senate's consideration of the trade bill, all first-degree amendments 
must be relevant to the trade bill or the filed amendment No. 2325, and 
any second-degree amendment be relevant to the first-degree it proposes 
to amend.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I object.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.
  Mr. LOTT. I truly regret the objection to a reasonable consideration 
of this very important pending trade bill. This is obviously a vital 
piece of trade legislation. As I indicated last week on the floor, this 
is something in which the President has been very interested.

[[Page 26926]]

He discussed it with me personally last week on, I think, Tuesday and 
twice since we have discussed it in telephone conversations. I am not 
doing it just because the President asked for it. I am doing it because 
I think it is the right thing to do.
  I think it would be good for our country, help to create jobs. This 
is very carefully crafted legislation that the chairman of the 
committee and ranking member have worked on. I think it would be just 
vitally important to our friends in Central America and the Caribbean, 
as well as a major step symbolically and other ways to have African 
free trade.
  I want to get this bill done. There are legitimate objections to it. 
The Senator from South Carolina is going to use every rule in the book 
that he has access to, and there are lots of them. He has staff members 
who will make sure he knows them all. I understand that. But I am sure 
everybody can understand I have to take advantage of the rules 
available to me also because I do not want this to become a debate 
about farm policy, sanctions policy--one Senator just suggested we 
should offer fast track on this bill. I agree; I think fast track 
should be done. That is another very important trade policy. But it 
will completely bog down this bill.
  I think we need to be serious about this bill. I plan now to fill up 
the tree and file cloture. The cloture vote will be Friday. We will see 
if the Senate wants this trade bill or not. If we do not get cloture, 
then it is clear what is going on and we will just have to move on to 
something else.
  My consent would simply keep the Senate on the subject of the African 
trade and trade benefits for the Caribbean Basin countries. Obviously, 
with objection from the Democrats, they do not want this subject matter 
to be the pending issue. I think it is unfortunate, but I understand.


                           Amendment No. 2325

              (Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Roth and others, I call 
up amendment No. 2325 and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment and begin 
reading the text.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for Mr. Roth, for 
     himself, and Mr. Moynihan, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2325.

  Mr. LOTT. 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 ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 2332 to amendment No. 2325

             (Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment.)

  Mr. LOTT. I send a first-degree amendment to the substitute to the 
desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment and begin 
reading the text.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2332 to amendment No. 2325.

  Mr. LOTT. 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 ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 2333 to Amendment No. 2332

             (Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment.)

  Mr. LOTT. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment and begin 
reading the text.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2333 to amendment No. 2332

  Mr. LOTT. 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.'')


                   Motion To Commit With Instructions

  Mr. LOTT. I now move to commit the bill with instructions and send 
the motion to the desk.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2334

              (Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

  Mr. LOTT. I send an amendment to the desk to the motion to commit 
with instructions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report and begin reading the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2334 to the motion to commit with 
     instructions.

  Mr. LOTT. 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 ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Amendment No. 2335 To Amendment No. 2334

              (Purpose: To provide a substitute amendment)

  Mr. LOTT. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2335 to amendment No. 2334.

  Mr. LOTT. 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.'')


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. LOTT. I now send a cloture motion to the desk to the pending 
amendment No. 2325.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the substitute 
     amendment to Calendar No. 215, H.R. 434, an act to authorize 
     a new trade and investment policy for sub-Sahara Africa.
         Trent Lott, Bill Roth, Mike DeWine, Rod Grams, Mitch 
           McConnell, Judd Gregg, Larry E. Craig, Chuck Hagel, 
           Chuck Grassley, Pete Domenici, Don Nickles, Connie 
           Mack, Paul Coverdell, Phil Gramm, R.F. Bennett, and 
           Richard G. Lugar.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think it is unfortunate we have to take 
this step. I have discussed it with the Democratic leader. Let me 
emphasize he did not agree with this at all, but we did discuss our 
situation and our mutual concerns and our mutual desires to try to find 
a way to move this trade legislation forward. Filling up the tree is 
not a new practice. It is one I haven't used, I don't think, this 
year--maybe once. It is a practice that has been used in the past by 
majority leaders when it is necessary to try to get to a conclusion.

[[Page 26927]]

  I do not know exactly when our adjournment for the year will come, 
but it is obvious we do not have a lot of time left. We do have some 
other issues we would like to have a chance to consider. Again, that is 
on both sides of the aisle.
  The cloture motion vote will occur on Friday, October 29. I will 
notify all Members of the exact time, after consultation with the 
Democratic leader.
  In the meantime, I ask consent the mandatory quorum under rule XXII 
be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I say to the Senate, I would be willing to withdraw the 
last amendment pending. I will be glad to come back in an hour and 
withdraw that, allowing Members' amendments to be offered if they were 
relevant to the trade bill, and this would allow us to make some 
progress on the bill. I would offer that idea to the minority leader 
when he returns, and I am glad to yield to the Senator from Minnesota 
if he would like to ask any questions or make a comment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I heard the majority leader mention he did not want to 
see amendments that he did not think were directly related, such as 
agriculture. As the majority leader knows, for the last 5 weeks I have 
asked him when I would have the opportunity. The majority leader said 
he thinks this is the first time he has filled up the tree, or second 
time. I think there may be other times, but I would have to check. I do 
not remember an opportunity in the last 4 or 5 weeks, or longer than 
that, to have an amendment out here that I think will speak to the pain 
of farmers.
  When might I have an opportunity to introduce this amendment that I 
think would make a difference for family farmers in Minnesota who are 
being driven off the land? If the majority leader is filling up the 
tree and therefore I cannot do this, can he tell me when I might have 
an opportunity? Will he make a commitment there will be a piece of 
legislation out here that I can amend?
  Mr. LOTT. I am not sure when that might occur. I told the Democratic 
leader just a few minutes ago, if it were just an amendment by Senator 
Wellstone on agriculture, I would be prepared to have that discussion, 
that debate, and a vote. But that is not the end of the string. We have 
a lot of innovative thinkers here on both sides of the aisle who are 
now working feverishly with their very competent staffs to develop 
other amendments.
  If it were just an amendment by the Senator from Minnesota, I think 
probably that could be done. I think if we would open the door, there 
would be no end to it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the majority leader be willing to entertain a 
freestanding bill I might introduce and have debate on? We have to do 
something, I say to the majority leader, about what is going on in farm 
country.
  Mr. LOTT. First of all, I will be willing to discuss that with the 
Senator. I would have to also discuss it with the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee and its members. I could not just unilaterally 
reach an agreement. But, again, I personally would not have a problem 
with that.
  I do not know what his amendment would be, but I am sure I would vote 
against it. But we could have a discussion. I would need to check with 
both sides and I will talk with the Senator to see if it is possible, 
to see if we can do that in some freestanding way.
  Having said that, I want to be sure the record has been made at this 
point. Last Friday, the President of the United States signed the 
Agriculture appropriations bill--I believe last Friday. It provides 
funds for agricultural needs all across this great land, in my State 
and that of the Senators from Minnesota and New York. We have lots of 
agriculture in New York. I don't know if you are aware of that, but I 
have been very impressed when I have been up there, some of the areas 
outside of Long Island. I found there is a lot of agriculture up there 
and all across this country.
  We did get the Agriculture bill. In that bill was a very significant 
amount of funds for disaster-related problems. Some of them have been 
caused because of the depressed prices, some because of drought, some 
because of floods--all the different problems we have. Others say it 
was not enough; it should have been more. Some others would say it was 
not targeted in the right way. We can debate that endlessly, I believe.
  But the President, upon review--and I believe he took the full 10 
days--decided the right thing to do was go ahead and get this bill 
signed and get that disaster money to the farmers, the men and women 
who live on the farms in this country, as quickly as possible. It is 
not as if this is an issue we have not addressed and we will not 
address next year.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I appreciate the leader's graciousness. I will not 
take up any more time with questions to him.
  Having just heard the majority leader's report about disaster relief, 
he may want to reconsider his view about whether or not he would vote 
for or against an amendment or piece of legislation I would introduce 
because I say to the majority leader in the form of a question: I am 
quite sure that, as the majority leader travels around the country in 
rural America, he understands that the financial assistance package did 
not deal with the price crisis. People are going to be driven off the 
land and we have to change the policy.
  I appreciate what he said. I guess it is less a form of a question, 
but perhaps I will get his support because I am sure the majority 
leader wants to see the Senate take some action that will make a 
positive difference for family farmers.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me say in answer to the Senator's comments, I have 
learned from past experience that you should never say exactly what you 
are going to do until you have seen the details of an amendment or a 
bill because it could be different or it could be something that, in 
the end, you find would be acceptable. I have a suspicion I might not 
use that approach, but I had to reserve final judgment until I saw its 
content. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the managers' amendment 
to H.R. 434. That substitute includes the Senate Finance Committee-
reported bills on Africa, an expansion of the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative, an extension of the Generalized System of Preferences, and 
the reauthorization of our trade adjustment assistance programs.
  It is critically important that we move this legislation. Let me say 
a few words, in particular, about the Africa trade portion of the bill.
  The last decade has been a period of great change in Africa. Some of 
these changes have been quite heartening to those of us who have been 
watching the countries in that continent for many years. The failed 
economic policies of socialism and central planning have begun to give 
way to market reforms, bringing economic growth and an improvement of 
living standards with it. There have been positive changes on the 
political front as well. The tragedy of apartheid has, thankfully, come 
to an end in South Africa. At the same time, democracy has begun to 
flower in South Africa and in a number of other sub-Saharan countries.
  The picture, however, is not all positive. As we know all too well, 
the countries in Africa continue to suffer through more than their 
share of difficulties. War, disease and hunger are still very 
significant parts of the story of that region. Africa is a continent 
that is on the brink of a new and more positive future, but still has a 
number of significant hurdles that it must overcome.
  For the Senate, the question is what we can do--what this great 
country can do--to help the African nations obtain the peace and 
prosperity that they have been working so hard to achieve. In other 
words, what can we do to help

[[Page 26928]]

them complete the work that they have already begun.
  The manager's amendment is clearly not a panacea; the challenges that 
the Africans face are too great for any single piece of legislation or 
any single act to cure. This legislation is, however, an important 
start towards building an economic partnership between the United 
States and the countries of sub-Saharan Africa. This partnership, in my 
view, is a significant first step towards giving the African nations 
the opportunities they need to continue the progress that many of them 
have made over the past decade.
  I am proud of the support that this legislation has received among 
the African-American community and among the Africans themselves. I say 
this because a few of my colleagues have suggested that the African-
American community and the African nations themselves are divided in 
their support for the African Growth and Opportunity Act. I am standing 
here to say that nothing could be further from the truth. If there was 
any doubt, it should have been put to rest with the Roll Call ad which 
ran last week. The ad, appropriately, stated the following:

       To the United States Senate, Setting the Record Straight. 
     We endorse legislation that provides social and economic 
     opportunity in Africa and we, the undersigned, are working 
     together to achieve this goal. Can we count on you?

  The signatories to this Roll Call ad are a very distinguished 
collection of religious, civic, political and business organizations 
and individual leaders. I will name just a few: the NAACP, the Southern 
Christian Leadership Conference, the African Methodist Episcopal 
Church, the National Council of Churches, AfriCare, the Council of 
National Black Churches, which represents 65,000 churches and 
20,000,000 members, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  The list of individuals signing this ad includes such notables as 
Bishops Donald Ming and Garnett Henning of the African Methodist 
Episcopal Church, Mrs. Coretta Scott King, Mr. Martin Luther King III, 
Ambassador Andrew Young, former mayor David Dinkins, the Honorable 
Kweisi Mfume, and Mr. Robert Johnson, the head of Black Entertainment 
Television. I want to note that Mr. Johnson testified eloquently about 
the need to create new economic opportunities in Africa when he 
appeared before the Finance Committee last year. He, like the others 
listed in this ad, have spoken powerfully on the pressing importance of 
this legislation.
  Let me read a quote in the ad from just one of these individuals. 
That individual is the very distinguished Rev. Leon Sullivan of the 
nearby city of Philadelphia. Rev. Sullivan is quoted in the ad as 
saying that:

       The African Growth and Opportunity Act will open new 
     markets for American products and will create additional jobs 
     for Americans and Africans. For every $1 billion in exports 
     to Africa, 14,000 jobs are created or sustained in the United 
     States. Those are powerful and important words.

  Let us not forget that this legislation is also good for Africa. That 
is why every single one of the 47 African nations covered under this 
the legislation have publicly stated their support. Let me repeat that, 
because it is important. Every single one of the countries covered 
under this legislation supports this legislation. I think it is fair to 
say that these countries have the judgment to decide what is in their 
interest. In this instance, they have spoken loudly and clearly. The 
African Growth and Opportunity Act is good for Africa.
  I am proud to say that President Clinton is also a strong supporter 
of this legislation. He recently said, and it is quoted in the Roll 
Call ad, that:

       Our administration strongly supports the African Growth and 
     Opportunity Act which I said in my State of the Union Address 
     we will work to pass in this session of Congress.

  That, Mr. President, is exactly why we are here. We are here to work 
on a bipartisan basis to work for passage of an important piece of 
legislation that is good for the American people and good for Africa.
  I was honored to have representatives of many of the groups and 
individuals I mentioned join me in a press conference this past week to 
express their support for this legislation. What these individuals and 
groups understand--and stated at the press conference--is that Africa 
has for too long been neglected in our trade policy. They also 
understand that the African Growth and Opportunity Act is the right 
legislation to begin the strengthening of our economic relationship 
with that continent.
  Let me emphasize that these individuals and groups support the 
African Growth and Opportunity Act and not the HOPE bill. They support 
this bill because it is good legislation. It is the right thing to do. 
It is good for the American people, and it is good for the people of 
Africa.
  There is, of course, much more that is part of the manager's 
amendment. The enhancement of the CBI program is long overdue. It is 
also a vital step to strengthening the economic compact begun with that 
region by President Reagan with the original CBI initiative. The 
reauthorizations of the Generalized System of Preferences and Trade 
Adjustment Assistance programs are also of critical importance. These 
measures are essential for ensuring that the benefits of the global 
economy are felt as broadly as possible and to ensure that workers and 
firms displaced by trade receive the assistance and training that they 
need.
  The effort to move the bill enjoys broad bipartisan support. But, it 
is long overdue. The House of Representatives passed the Africa 
legislation by an overwhelming vote of 234-163 in July of this year. It 
is now time for the Senate to Act.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 
434, as amended. The time to act is now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate our revered 
chairman for his achievement in a partisan setting. I think it is 
generally agreed that this Congress has not been one governed from the 
center. Here we have major legislation brought to the floor by near 
unanimous vote of the Committee on Finance and with extraordinary 
support across the country.
  I wish to make two points, the first to the question of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance. It goes back 37 years as an integral measure in 
our trade policy. As Dean Acheson might say, I was present at the 
creation. I was an Assistant Secretary of Labor, one of three delegates 
who negotiated the Long-Term Cotton Textile Agreement which was 
necessary to win the votes in the Senate for authorizing what became 
the Kennedy Round. When we came back with that agreement, the issue 
arose, if we were to open up trade, there would inevitably be persons 
displaced--just as jobs were created, jobs would be lost. There is 
nothing complex in the calculation nor very complex in identifying just 
whom you are talking about.
  We started Trade Adjustment Assistance. It has worked. We included a 
comparable provision in the NAFTA implementing legislation. In Fiscal 
Year 1998, we had 150,000 workers eligible to receive Trade Adjustment 
Assistance; last year, we had 200,000 eligible workers. Those are 
rounded numbers.
  This is an active program. There are families who are displaced in 
the world economy, and they are living off this transitional benefit--
200,000 eligible workers. That is not a small number. The authorization 
for this program, that has been integral to our trade policy for 37 
years, expired on June 30. The appropriation expires on Friday; on 
Saturday, it is no more. And when it can come back, how it comes back--
have we seen many things started of late in this Congress or the 
previous ones? No.
  Now, those are lives of American workers we are talking about, just 
as President Kennedy talked about them. John Pastore of Rhode Island 
was very vigorous on this matter, and many Members of the Senate who 
are marked in history by their capacity to see the large national 
interest.
  One other matter: The chairman noted the meeting which the Committee 
on Finance had with the group of presidents, vice presidents, and 
foreign ministers from Central America,

[[Page 26929]]

ranging from Trinidad and Tobago all the way up to Honduras. It took 
place just off the Senate floor in the LBJ Room. It was a special 
occasion.
  They came here as representatives of elected governments asking to 
trade. They weren't asking for foreign aid. They weren't asking for 
military assistance. They were simply asking to become part of the 
trading system of the western hemisphere in that Monroe Doctrine 
context about which the chairman spoke.
  It already seems to have happened long ago. In the 1980s, we spent $8 
billion sending arms to Central America, with precious little to show 
for it. A good enough outcome in the end, but the weaponry was 
everywhere, on all sides--a fantastic miscalculation, in my view, in my 
view at the time.
  I will give my colleagues a moment's recollection. It was 1983. I was 
in El Salvador in the capital of San Salvador having breakfast with the 
president and provost of the University of Central America, a Jesuit 
institution. At that time, the United States was going through enormous 
efforts to prevent the Sandinistas in Nicaragua from smuggling arms to 
their rebel counterparts in El Salvador.
  I asked the President and the provost, with whom I had a relationship 
through a professor at the University of Chicago, ``Father, are the 
Sandinistas sending weapons to El Salvador?'' He said, ``No.'' I said, 
``No? Well, surely they had been.'' He said, ``Yes.'' I asked, ``And 
they don't any longer?'' He said, ``No. You do.''
  Every day, the skies over Salvador were filled with American planes 
bringing in weaponry, which was promptly divided--half for the 
government, a quarter for the rebels, and a quarter for the 
international arms market. And what a better thing now to be talking 
about trade. And we have stability. If we want to ensure it, there has 
to be an economic basis. This legislation does so and, again, and 
finally, there are 200,000 American families entitled to trade 
adjustment assistance, which expires on Friday after a 37-year run as 
part of the American safety net as a condition of expanding trade. 
Let's not let them down. We can do this if only we will do it together, 
as we did in the Finance Committee. I only hope the same can be 
repeated on the Senate floor.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see my friend from South Carolina 
who is seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
New York. I have been trying to get the floor. I tried earlier today to 
be recognized to speak on this bill. It was the objection I had made, 
of course, to the motion to proceed, due to the strong feelings I had 
with respect to trade. Incidentally, on yesterday, I could not be 
present. Amongst others, the distinguished Senator from Minnesota more 
or less carried the day. I am obligated to him. Senator Wellstone did 
an outstanding job. He asked that, if I could ever get the floor --and 
I tried twice this morning and could not get the floor--to please ask 
unanimous consent that he be recognized when I had completed my 
remarks. I have talked to fellow Senators and there is objection to 
that. I wanted to let him know that I remembered the promise made. I am 
not making the request because I know it will be objected to.
  That brings us right to the unsenatorial, more or less, procedures 
into which we have bogged down by. In a line, the distinguished 
majority leader says what we ought to have had was fast track and, 
within a breath, he gives us fast track. We have fast track on this 
bill. You cannot put up an amendment. He ``filled up the tree,'' and he 
says, ``oh, but I am so considerate that I will be glad to help you out 
if I can give you permission to give you relevant amendments.'' Of 
course, he decides what is relevant.
  What about relevance with respect to the Finance Committee? What they 
are calling a trade bill is actually a foreign aid bill, because you 
have the Secretary of State calling around on the bill, not the 
Secretary of Labor for jobs--I don't think she had the gall to do it. 
But the Secretary of State, with pride, is calling the various Senators 
because this is a foreign aid bill. It is a one-way street. It is 
unilateral. It does not have the labor side agreements. It does not 
have the environmental side agreements that were included in NAFTA. It 
does not include the reciprocity that we got from the Mexicans when we 
passed NAFTA. I have prepared amendments that would be relevant, but 
you can't tell around here. I don't think that I should have to stand 
as a Senator and beg another Senator permission to put up an amendment. 
That is the most arrogance I have ever seen since I have been here, 
some 33 years. It has gotten really raw in this particular body, when 
you try to debate the most important subject that you can possibly 
imagine, which is hollowing out not only our industrial strength, but 
the middle class of our society and the strength of our democracy, and 
you have to beg to put up an amendment in order to satisfy what the 
majority leader says what is relevant.
  Could it be the minimum wage amendment that the Senator from 
Massachusetts has been trying to get up since the beginning of the 
year? Well, it is not for Africa, not for the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative, but more for the workers of America. I say why not? Don't 
we have trade adjustment assistance in the bill? If that is relevant so 
is minimum wage. Doesn't minimum wage have relevance to the welfare, 
the pay, the being of American workers?
  The question in my mind is what rules are we under? I presided for 6 
years under Heinz's precedent. I presided for 4 years under Jefferson's 
rule. When I got to the Senate, we threw away the rule book because it 
is whatever the majority leader says. That is the rule. That is what 
happens up here--we all understand that--in order to facilitate 
legislation. But when it gets to this point of arrogance it is totally 
counterproductive. Here you have been trying to get up the bill all 
year long, and then you put it up in the last few days and say we are 
all trying to get out of town, let's not have any debate, let's take it 
or leave it as the Finance Committee has it, and thereupon, let's have 
cloture, let's have fast track.
  Well, with respect to the minimum wage amendment, I would gladly put 
it up. I understood today--and the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts can speak for himself--but I talked to him the day before 
yesterday and advised him that if he didn't, I would, because I think 
it is just as important as trade adjustment assistance.
  I see that the distinguished Senator from Texas is on the floor. I 
understood he said this would create 400,000 jobs. That's very peculiar 
because I understood the distinguished Senator from New York indicating 
that we are going to have to put 200,000 on trade adjustment 
assistance--in other words, we are going to put them out of a job, we 
are going to give them welfare. What a wonderful thing it is; we 
started it some 37 years ago. Has this body got any idea what is going 
on? Are we really creating jobs, or are we decimating the jobs? One 
brags that we put them on; the other brags that we put them out. And 
there we are, with respect to relevant amendments.
  Mr. President, there is another relevant amendment. This is the Time 
magazine for this week. It is an article called, ``The Fruit of Its 
Labor.'' I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record in 
its entirety.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From Time Magazine, October 1999]

                         The Fruit of Its Labor

                           (By Adam Zagorin)

       Washington.--If you are an underwear mogul, you surely 
     cannot lack confidence. So it is with Bill Farley. The 
     handsome physical-fitness buff has under his belt brands like 
     BVD, Munsingwear and his flagship, Fruit of the Loom. He rubs 
     shoulders with the rich and powerful, and recently co-chaired 
     a lunch that raised more than $500,000 for George W. Bush. 
     Muscles rippling, Farley, 57, has also shown up wearing a 
     tank top in Fruit of the Loom advertising. He once even put 
     himself forward as a candidate for President of the United 
     States.

[[Page 26930]]

       These days, however, Farley's political focus is squarely 
     on Congress, where Fruit's adventures in lobbying offer a 
     choice example of how the game is played. Fruit of the Loom 
     is a tattered company, suffering from bad performance and 
     poor management and lobbying heavily for a bill that would 
     ripen its bottom line.
       How likely is it that the company's case will be heard on 
     the Hill? Well, last year alone Fruit handed out more than 
     $435,000 in soft-money donations, a figure that puts 
     contributions by the firm (1998 sales: $2.2 billion) ahead of 
     those of such giants as Coca-Cola, Exxon and Bank of America. 
     Most of Fruit's plums go to Republicans, including $265,000 
     to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, run by 
     Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the principal opponent of 
     campaign finance reform.
       This week, with Congress having for now killed campaign 
     finance reform, McConnell and other Republicans will get on 
     with other business, such as an amendment to an African trade 
     bill that would allow apparel produced in the Caribbean Basin 
     to enter the U.S. duty free, provided it is assembled from 
     U.S. fabric.
       Fruit's lobbyists--along with those from competitors like 
     the Sara Lee Corp., which makes Hanes underwear, and 
     retailers like the Limited and the Gap--are pushing hard for 
     passage. Fruit officials claim the measure, which Bill 
     Clinton supports, will create jobs, and deny that the 
     company's donations can buy influence. Says Ron Sorini, a 
     Fruit lobbyist: ``There's absolutely no correlation between 
     our soft-money donations and those who decide to vote in 
     favor of this bill.''
       Whether there is or not, Farley's much coveted tariff break 
     comes at a cost. Eliminating duties on apparel from the 
     Caribbean will run U.S. taxpayers at least $1 billion in lost 
     revenue over five years--a figure that, by congressional 
     rules, must be made up with cuts in other programs.
       Fruit confirms that the bill is expected to deliver a quick 
     $25 million to $50 million to the bottom line, adding to 
     savings achieved after moving some 17,000 of its U.S.-based 
     jobs, mostly to the low-wage Caribbean Basin, and 
     reincorporating in the tax haven Cayman Islands. The jobs 
     cuts were spread across the South, especially Kentucky, where 
     earlier in this decade Fruit was one of the largest 
     employers. ``They are trying to win in Washington what 
     they've been unable to achieve in the marketplace,'' says 
     Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public 
     Integrity, a watchdog group. ``They're now trying to secure 
     advantages from Congress at a time when they're in dire 
     financial straits.''
       Dire is right. After a major inventory snafu, Fruit's 
     financial elastic stretched again last month, when it had to 
     make a $45 million interest payment on accumulated debt of 
     $1.3 billion. Its stock, traded at $48 a few years ago, now 
     sells for less than $4. The board, its confidence in Farley 
     shaken, managed to shunt him into the role of nonexecutive 
     chairman in August, and the company is searching for a new 
     CEO. Farley retains a role in large measure because he still 
     controls 28.5% of Fruit's voting shares. He has also arranged 
     for the company to guarantee loans to himself worth $65 
     million.
       Fruit of the Loom's favorite trade bill has led to a rare 
     split between Kentucky's two conservative Republican 
     Senators. While McConnell is expected to support the tariff 
     cut, his colleague Jim Bunning has no intention of backing 
     the measure. Asks Bunning: ``How many more jobs do we have to 
     lose until we wake up and smell the Caribbean coffee?''
       Yet for Bill Farley, the aroma is nothing if not enticing. 
     By one count, he's tried to get versions of the bill through 
     Congress six times in recent years. Perhaps seven's the 
     charm.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I don't know whether the distinguished 
majority leader would agree that this is a special interest bill, but 
the public domain thinks it is a special interest bill. The leading 
news magazine in the world thinks it is a special interest bill. 
Therefore, campaign finance reform would be relevant.
  Why do I say that?
  ``The Fruit of Its Labor.''
  It is on page 50.
  ``How a company that exports jobs pushes for a Capitol Hill 
handout.''
  ``The politics of underwear.''
  I quote:

       If you are an underwear mogul, you surely cannot lack 
     confidence. So it is with Bill Farley. The handsome physical-
     fitness buff has under his belt brands like BVD, Munsingwear 
     and his flagship, Fruit of the Loom. He rubs shoulders with 
     the rich and powerful, and recently co-chaired a lunch that 
     raised more than $500,000 for George W. Bush. Muscles 
     rippling, Farley, 57, has also shown up wearing a tank top in 
     Fruit of the Loom advertising. He once even put himself 
     forward as a candidate for President of the United States.

  Maybe that is where Trump got the idea. I always wondered where that 
rascal could think he could be President.
  But, in any event, reading on:

       These days, however, Farley's political focus is squarely 
     on Congress, where Fruit's adventures in lobbying offer a 
     choice example of how the game is played. Fruit of the Loom 
     is a tattered company, suffering from bad performance and 
     poor management and lobbying heavily for a bill that would 
     ripen its bottom line.
       How likely is it that the company's case will be heard on 
     the Hill? Well, last year alone Fruit handed out more than 
     $435,000 in soft-money donations, a figure that puts 
     contributions by the firm (1998 sales: $2.2 billion) ahead of 
     those of such giants as Coca-Cola, Exxon and Bank of America. 
     Most of Fruit's plums go to Republicans, including $265,000 
     to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, run by 
     Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the principal opponent of 
     campaign finance reform.
       This week, with Congress having for now killed campaign 
     finance reform, McConnell and other Republicans will get on 
     with other business, such as an amendment to an African trade 
     bill that would allow apparel produced in the Caribbean Basin 
     to enter the U.S. duty free, provided it is assembled from 
     U.S. fabric.
       Fruit's lobbyists--along with those from competitors like 
     the Sara Lee Crop., which makes Hanes underwear, and 
     retailers like the Limited and the Gap--are pushing hard for 
     passage. Fruit officials claim the measure, which Bill 
     Clinton supports, will create jobs, and deny that the 
     company's donations can buy influence. Says Ron Sorini, a 
     Fruit lobbyist: ``There's absolutely no correlation between 
     our soft-money donations and those who decide to vote in 
     favor of this bill.''
       Whether there is or not, Farley's much coveted tariff break 
     comes at a cost. Eliminating duties on apparel from the 
     Caribbean will run U.S. taxpayers at least $1 billion in lost 
     revenue over five years--a figure that, by congressional 
     rules, must be made up with cuts in our programs.
       Fruit confirms that the bill is expected to deliver a quick 
     $25 million to $50 million to the bottom line, adding to 
     savings achieved after moving some 17,000 of its U.S.-based 
     jobs, mostly to the low-wage Caribbean Basin, and 
     reincorporating in the tax haven Cayman Islands. The jobs 
     cuts were spread across the South, especially Kentucky, where 
     earlier in this decade Fruit was one of the largest 
     employers. ``They are trying to win in Washington what 
     they've been unable to achieve in the marketplace,'' says 
     Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public 
     Integrity, a watchdog group. ``They're now trying to secure 
     advantages from Congress at a time when they're in dire 
     financial straits.''
       Dire is right. After a major inventory snafu, Fruit's 
     financial elastic stretched again last month, when it had to 
     make a $45 million interest payment on accumulated debt of 
     $1.3 billion. Its stock, traded at $48 a few years ago, now 
     sells for less than $4. The board, its confidence in Farley 
     shaken, managed to shunt him into the role of nonexecutive 
     chairman in August, and the company is searching for a new 
     CEO. Farley retains a role in large measure because he still 
     controls 28.5% of Fruit's voting shares. He has also arranged 
     for the company to guarantee loans to himself worth $65 
     million.
       Fruit of the Loom's favorite trade bill has led to a rare 
     split between Kentucky's two conservative Republican 
     Senators. While McConnell is expected to support the tariff 
     cut, his colleague Jim Bunning has no intention of backing 
     the measure. Asks Bunning: ``How many more jobs do we have to 
     lose until we wake up and smell the Caribbean coffee?''
       Yet for Bill Farley, the aroma is nothing if not enticing. 
     By one count, he's tried to get versions of the bill through 
     Congress six times in recent years. Perhaps seven's the 
     charm.

  Mr. President, I ask the same question as the distinguished Senator 
from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning. How many more jobs do we have to lose until 
we wake up and smell the Caribbean coffee? Is there any question in 
anybody's mind? As we used to say in the law, any reasonable and 
prudent man--and now woman--can see that this is not a special interest 
bill. And with campaign finance reform, which is mentioned in this 
article and which is mentioned in this particular bill, it would be 
relevant--not under the majority leader's rule of relevancy.
  Ask the majority leader when he comes to the floor. I can offer the 
campaign finance reform, or I can offer the minimum wage. Then we will 
all agree to move right along and vote on the amendment. I will agree 
to a time agreement. We are not holding anybody up. We can vote both of 
those amendments this afternoon. We don't have to worry about cloture 
on Friday. We are ready to roll. We, like the majority leader, want to 
get out of town. We have a lot of work to do. Don't put on this act 
about how reasonable and thoughtful and so pressured we are in

[[Page 26931]]

trying to reconcile all of the particular problems there are in the 
closing days. Don't give me any of that. Let's get to the reality.
  We have a special interest bill; we have a bill affecting workers. I 
want to put up another bill affecting the workers that have been up all 
year long and all last year--minimum wage. The majority leader won't 
come out and say it is relevant. When he comes out and says it is 
relevant, I will put up the amendment; we can vote in 10 minutes' time. 
When he says a special interest bill, Shays-Meehan is relevant; we can 
vote in 10 minutes. The House has voted on it overwhelmingly.
  We couldn't get a vote on account of the so-called rules of the 
majority leader with respect to when we can call something and when we 
can't call anything around here. They won't give us a freestanding 
Shays-Meehan without the cloture and everything else.
  I have been interested in campaign finance reform since I voted for 
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. We had that bill up, and we 
had a good bipartisan cross-section vote for the measure saying one 
cannot buy the office. We have come full circle. What we are saying in 
Washington today is, the trouble is, there isn't enough money to buy 
the office. Do you know what? We have amendments. Mr. President, $1,000 
isn't enough; we ought to be able to buy it quicker with $3,000 and 
$5,000, $10,000. We have moved in the opposite direction from the 
original intent of cleaning up politics in this land of ours by stating 
categorically one could not buy the office.
  I can still see the Senator from Louisiana, Russell Long. He said, 
every man a king--everybody, regardless of economic circumstance or 
background, could aspire for the Presidency of this land of ours. 
Listen to Elizabeth Dole. One can be a former Secretary of Commerce, 
one can be a Secretary of Transportation and Secretary of Labor, one 
can have been head of the American Red Cross, every kind of track 
record, but unless the candidate has the money, the candidate doesn't 
stand a chance--money is what talks.
  We are saying it is a real problem. On the one hand, we have too many 
limits, we ought to have more money in this; or, on the other hand, let 
taxpayers, let the public, pay for our politics; let's have public 
campaign finance. We have had about three votes on it.
  I remember when I first introduced it, it was a joint resolution. 
There was one line, and it is in now, but I can't get it up. I have 
been waiting for a good joint resolution to come over, Senator. If it 
comes over, I will offer it. They told me I couldn't offer it to 
campaign finance reform because mine was a joint resolution and it was 
a simple bill, with three readings to be signed. A joint resolution, of 
course, and amending the Constitution, is not to be signed by the 
President.
  That being the case, I put in this particular one-line amendment that 
the Congress of the United States is hereby empowered to regulate or 
control spending in Federal elections. I had a dozen good Republican 
colleagues--my senior colleague and others--joined as cosponsors way 
back; this has to be almost 20 years ago. We can't get that, except for 
the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter. So the 
Hollings-Specter amendment was so salutary that the States said, wait a 
minute, add that the States are hereby empowered to control or regulate 
spending in Federal elections.
  So we added that. We have gotten a majority vote, but we never have 
gotten the two-thirds necessary. It would pass. I am not worried about 
it at any next election. It would easily come about.
  We relied upon looking at the last five of the six amendments. They 
passed in an average of 17 months.
  Does the distinguished Senator have a question? I am just feeling 
good about this particular measure.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I do have a question. I 
personally am in agreement with the different issues the Senator has 
raised--campaign finance reform, minimum wage, being able to amend 
bills. I agree with the Senator in that regard.
  However, the Senator from Texas and I have a matter on the floor. I 
ask the Senator about how much longer he will speak. I know the Senator 
has a lot of capacity, but if he could give an idea so we could either 
interrupt at this time or come back at whatever time the Senator 
indicates.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the Senator come back because I am just 
beginning to cover the subjects. We have a luncheon in the next 15 
minutes, and I will complete my thoughts.
  Mr. REID. The Senator will finish in the next half hour?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
  What happens if we can get up campaign finance and get an up-or-down 
vote on Shays-Meehan? I have my doubts about its constitutionality. I 
have voted several times for McCain-Feingold. I voted against the most 
revised or limited McCain-Feingold for the simple reason it was similar 
to half a haircut; it was worse than none at all. It said the parties 
couldn't take soft money but everyone else could take soft money.
  Immediately, my adversary, Tom Donohue at the Chamber of Commerce, 
said we had not participated financially sufficiently in campaigns. So 
I am getting up a kitty of $5 million. The Chamber of Commerce will get 
up a kitty of $5 million and pick some 8 or 10 senatorial races and 
give them at least $100,000.
  Mind you me, the Chamber of Commerce no longer represents Main Street 
America, no longer represents the middle-size or small business; rather 
the international, the transnational, the gone overseas crowd, such as 
the Farley group that has already transferred 17,000 jobs offshore. It 
is headquarters to the Cayman Islands. I don't know whether those are 
foreign contributions. I had better look into that. It strikes me they 
are talking about the Chinese. I am wondering whether the Chinese have 
any worse position that the Cayman Islanders to make contributions. I 
think we ought to call Janet Reno and say here is an example of foreign 
contributions by the Cayman Island Farley to the campaigns--$500,000 
for George. Poor George W. will never get through the year. They will 
find these things I am talking about. Poor fellow, he hasn't gotten 
into the Washington go-round. This crowd will chew anyone up.
  See how the logic applies. We are all talking about the Attorney 
General not doing enough on some antiquated contribution; that happened 
way back. I am talking about what is being made now in this week's Time 
magazine, the Cayman Island contributions to poor George W. in Texas, 
and he probably doesn't even know it--when one runs a mammoth national 
campaign. We will have to look into that.
  We have a special interest bill. We need a vote on Shays-Meehan to 
find out whether it is constitutional or to make sure, along with it, 
to constitutionalize Shays-Meehan by coming right along and taking the 
Hollings-Specter amendment to constitutionalize it.
  As I was about to say before examined by my distinguished friend from 
Nevada, we have found that of the last eight amendments to the 
Constitution, seven have passed in 17 months' time.
  There is no debate, and they all relate to elections. There is no 
greater cancer on the body politic than the campaign finance practices 
in this land.
  Everybody talks about the amount of money. I would say a word about 
the amount of time. As a full-time Senator, I am supposed to be giving 
full time to the problems of the people of South Carolina. But I found 
myself last year giving full time to my particular problem of staying 
in office, by going all over the country, trying to collect funds from 
anybody and everybody who thought I could be a pretty good Senator.
  This was the seventh time I have been elected to the Senate. I am 
still the junior Senator. I am working hard on my way up.
  Be that as it may, when I first got elected back 33 years ago, it was 
a little budget, somewhere, I think, around $400,000 or $500,000. I had 
to collect $5.5 million last year.

[[Page 26932]]

  In a small State where they are all Republicans, such as Delaware and 
South Carolina, we have that Dupont crowd. We have them. They are the 
best of the best. But all my State has gone Republican as did the 
South: two Republican Senators in Texas, two in Alabama, two in 
Mississippi, and two in Tennessee. October of last year I was the last 
remaining statewide Democrat in office except for my friend the 
comptroller, Earl Morris. He and I were the last two: city councils, 
mayor, the Governor, the legislature--all Republican. With this 
recording of every contribution in and every contribution out, there 
were a lot of Republican friends who wanted to participate. But we put 
that burden on them. They would have to, literally, explain why they 
gave that fellow Hollings $100 or $1,000, whatever the contribution 
was.
  Rather than become involved--if we want to know what cuts off people 
have from involvement in the process in America today, it is just this 
particular requirement. I voted for that requirement. I think it ought 
to be made public. But it can get bad, and it does, and has gotten bad 
in my State.
  We can correct this. We can constitutionalize whatever is the intent 
of Congress. You do not have to get that distorted opinion of Buckley 
v. Valeo for the simple reason that they said money amounted to speech. 
Those with money had all the speech they wanted, but those who did not 
have money could get lockjaw. They could just shut up and sit down. 
``You are not in the swim, Liddy Dole; you are not in the race at all. 
You can forget about it.'' The party has already arranged and crowned 
George W. in Texas, and he has $50 million to $60 million. He doesn't 
need the public money, and everybody thinks that is great.
  I think that is not great at all. I think when it has gotten to be 
that bad, when you have enough money, like Perot, to start a party, and 
you have enough money to control the party as is being done now on the 
Republican side, we have to clean this thing up and get back to not 
being able to buy the office. So I would have campaign finance reform 
as a very strong amendment and make sure there is no question.
  Time magazine thinks it is relevant, but the Senator from Mississippi 
does not think it is relevant. If he can come out and if he will make 
the proposal that he does think it is relevant, we can agree on a time 
agreement on Shays-Meehan, 5 minutes to a side, and vote. Do not come 
weeping and wailing that, Oh, we have so many things to get done, we 
have the appropriations' bills, we have this bill, we have that bill, 
and everything like that. This is not a time-consumption strategy on 
the part of the Senator from South Carolina. This is to bring to the 
fore that which has been prevented from even being debated in this 
body. The most deliberative body in the history of the world can no 
longer, under the process, deliberate. You have to walk up to the table 
and find out how to vote.
  I was here with Senator Mansfield. Senator Mansfield would think that 
demeaning, to put there how a Senator is supposed to vote. Senator 
Dirksen would absolutely oppose nonsense of that kind. But that is how 
we all are going. You have to do it this way and get on message. You 
cannot debate what the public wants debated. You can only debate what 
the polls show to be debated.
  Everybody is running all over the world talking about education 
because it shows up in the polls. But we only control 7 cents of every 
education dollar; the 93 cents, that is the State and local 
responsibility. Bless them, I am a leader on that subject. You name 
another Senator in this body who has put up a 3 percent sales tax and 
passed it for public education. You name another one who has come in 
with a system of technical training that would even equal--much less be 
better than--ours.
  I have worked in the vineyards over the years for education so I do 
not demean the need for improving the quality of education, namely, 
doubling the pay of teachers. So you get what you pay for. If we start 
attracting the best and the brightest, they do not need retraining; 
they need money. They need to be paid. The average pay, I think, in 
South Carolina, is around $27,000 or $28,000. Maybe it has gone up to 
$31,000. Don't hold me to the exact figure. But I know that is 
relevant. That doesn't pay for the children to go to college. I go to 
the graduations and they come across the stage. ``Senator, I would like 
to have taught, but I am not able to get into teaching because I cannot 
save enough money to get my children through school and college. So 
what do I do? I get into international studies, business course and 
otherwise.''
  Mr. President, we have the Kathie Lee sweatshop bill here before us, 
where 17,000, according to Time Magazine, have gone from Kentucky in 
the last few years. I have the exact figures. I had a talk the weekend 
before last to the northern textile industry. The Senator from Delaware 
had all of his textile people there, Drew Potter and otherwise. I was 
glad to talk to the northern textile industry people.
  I want to make a record of this particular situation because this is 
how bad it can get, how politics can really take over. I have been the 
principal sponsor of five textile bills that have passed this Senate, 
four of them have passed the Senate and the House of Representatives 
and gone to the President of the United States. One was vetoed by 
President Carter, two by President Reagan, and one by President Bush. I 
remember when President Bush implied, in his commitment to the talk in 
Greenville, that he was for textiles. When asked how come he vetoed it, 
he said, ``C'est la vie.'' He not only wants to import the textiles, he 
wants to import the language. That is how far off we have gotten.
  I could not get invited. I tried last year. Here is a fellow who has 
grown up and held just about every office at the local level: 
Lieutenant Governor and Governor and Senator elected seven times. But I 
tried. They have a little lunch or evening meal, I think it is, at the 
Piedmont Club, these new young executives. I said: You know, I ought to 
make an appearance there because they have a new group and everything 
else. I could not get invited. They never could find a time.
  I had some old-time leaders say: We will arrange it for you. I could 
get invited, thanks to Karl Spilhaus and the leadership of the northern 
textile industry. At least I can get invited now to the northern 
textile industry, but I could not get invited to my own backyard.
  Here, as the cosponsor and voter for the right to work bill, I am out 
here trying to protect organized labor because--where are they? I heard 
that Ms. Evelyn Dubrow is finally back in town. She is the best of the 
best. She just won the Presidential Medal last month. I congratulate 
her. She has been outstanding over the years. Maybe if I explain this 
bill long enough, we might be able to pick up some votes.
  I see others waiting. I said I would take at least 15 minutes. My 
good friend from Minnesota, who really held the fort down yesterday, 
has been trying to get recognized to say a few words. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see the Senator from Ohio is here. I 
ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for 
his courtesy. I say to him and the Senator from California, I plan on 
speaking probably 12 minutes.
  Yesterday, I filed an amendment to H.R. 434, the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, which amendment would improve our Nation's ability to 
retaliate against illegal trade practices by foreign governments. 
Despite efforts to reduce European trade barriers against American 
agriculture, despite repeated rulings by international trade bodies 
that European trade barriers are illegal, there still remains a 
``fortress Europe'' mentality against free and fair trade.
  The amendment I have filed is designed to strengthen the one and only

[[Page 26933]]

allowable weapon in our arsenal against WTO noncompliance, the only 
weapon we have when a country is found to be in violation of the WTO 
and repeatedly refuses to comply. The only weapon we have, the only 
method of forcing compliance, is tariff retaliation.
  The amendment I filed enjoys widespread bipartisan support. In fact, 
the bill I filed is similar to the amendment and now has 24 sponsors. 
It is bipartisan.
  This amendment has strong backing by our very diverse agricultural 
community, and this is certainly no surprise. Ask any corn grower or 
cattle producer or pork producer. They know and understand their well-
being depends on expanding our export markets. We have the greatest 
agriculture in the world. We do it more efficiently and cheaper and 
better than anyone in the world today. All our farmers say is: Give us 
a chance to sell; give us a chance to compete. That is what this 
amendment is about.
  It is my hope the Senate, by adopting this amendment, will take a 
stand for our farmers and ranchers and send a strong signal to the 
European Union that their gross violations of international trade law 
simply must stop.
  Specifically, the European Union, despite years of efforts to find a 
fair solution, continues to defy the World Trade Organization's rulings 
against its ban on U.S. beef imports and its banana import rules. Both 
cases are important not just for the specific producers and the 
distributors impacted by these two cases, but it is important for every 
American business, particularly small businesses, seeking a fair shot 
at the European market.
  To appreciate the magnitude of Europe's current actions against 
American agriculture, it is important to put it in the context of 
recent history. Both these specific trade cases took several years to 
work through the WTO and were undertaken at great expense to the U.S. 
Government, and the producers in the businesses are at the heart of 
this dispute.
  Here are the essential facts. This is the story.
  The E.U. first imposed their ban on U.S. beef with growth hormones in 
1985 and officially banned all U.S. beef in 1989. When the United 
States sought rulings on this ban, either through the WTO or the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade process, the result was the 
same: The E.U.'s ban was found to be without merit and in violation of 
international trade rules. That was the ruling repeatedly, time after 
time. First through the GATT process and then through the WTO, the 
results were the same.
  In other words, the WTO, and before that the GATT, found against the 
European Union for violating trade laws. However, in spite of these 
repeated rulings, the E.U. has refused to comply, and to this very day, 
to this hour, to this minute, they continue to refuse to comply. In 
spite of these rulings, the E.U. has refused to change its practices. 
In spite of these rulings, they continue to thumb their nose at the WTO 
decision.
  The real question is whether or not the WTO rulings are enforceable, 
do they mean anything, and every nation that is a member of the WTO has 
a vested interest in making sure the rulings are enforceable, they do 
mean something, and they do matter. That is what this amendment is 
about.
  In the face of noncompliance by the E.U., the United States only has 
one remedy, and that remedy is tariff retaliation. We have no other way 
to go. This is prescribed, it is allowed, and it is provided for in the 
WTO rules. This is the only recourse a country has when another country 
refuses to comply.
  Under current WTO rules, the United States can retaliate against a 
beef ban by imposing tariffs on European imports at a total amount 
equal to the amount of financial pain being inflicted on our U.S. beef 
industry. The WTO determined in this particular case that the E.U. beef 
ban was inflicting $116.8 million per year in economic damages to U.S. 
farmers.
  Although the WTO's $116 million figure is significant, our cattle 
industry strongly believes this is a very conservative estimate. They 
believe the actual impact is closer to $1 billion annually.
  Let me talk for a few moments about the other case, the banana case. 
With bananas, the E.U. imposed import quotas and licenses in the early 
1990s. While the United States produces bananas in Hawaii, we also have 
a significant stake in the distribution and sale of bananas 
domestically and internationally.
  Seven times, the WTO ruled that the European Union's attempts to 
obstruct U.S. banana distribution violated WTO rules--seven different 
rulings. The WTO determined that the banana policy of the E.U. is 
resulting in $191.4 million worth of economic damage annually to U.S. 
interests. Again, the impacted U.S. companies believe the actual damage 
is more than $1 billion annually. Again, the United States, with regard 
to bananas, as was the case with beef, has the authority to impose 
retaliatory tariffs against E.U. products.
  Let me recap where we are in the story. With both bananas and beef, 
the European Union repeatedly has been in violation of the WTO rulings. 
The European Union has refused, in spite of these rulings, to change 
its policies.
  The WTO procedures provide a waiting period of 15 months for a nation 
that is found to be in violation of rules to comply. In other words, 
nothing happens--even as the ruling comes out, nothing happens for 15 
months. What happened here in 15 months was nothing, absolutely 
nothing. The European Union, again, continued for that 15-month period 
of time not to comply. On the beef and banana cases, we waited these 15 
months, and the European Union still didn't comply. So at that point, 
the United States simply had no choice but to impose tariffs in 
retaliation--tariffs that are fully allowed under the WTO.
  The purpose for allowing the United States to impose tariffs is, of 
course, to compel compliance with the WTO rulings. It has been 6 months 
since tariffs on European imports were imposed in response to the 
banana case, and it has been 3 months since tariffs were imposed in 
response to the beef ban. So we had the 15-month waiting period. We had 
some other time that elapsed, and then we had the 6 months and the 3 
months in the banana and beef cases. After all this, are the Europeans 
making any effort to comply with either ruling? We know the answer. The 
answer is, no, on both counts. They still are not in compliance, and 
they still give absolutely no indication that they are going to come 
into compliance.
  This is not just about beef. It is very important. It is not just 
about bananas. It is about whether the WTO is going to mean anything. 
And it is whether or not the rulings of the WTO are going to mean 
anything. I think we have to look at the big picture and put this in 
perspective.
  While the European Union, the E.U., continues its fortress mentality 
and thumbs its nose at the WTO rulings, other WTO member nations 
finding themselves on the wrong side of a WTO ruling have acted 
responsibly.
  Members of the Senate may ask: Well, what has happened in other cases 
when other countries have been found to be in noncompliance, to have 
violated the WTO, and the ruling has come down, and they lost their 
case and they have lost their appeal? What have they done? The answer 
is, they have done what you would expect them to do. They have 
complied.
  The United States has lost four separate WTO cases. In each case, 
after losing, we complied. Canada has lost and they complied. Korea 
lost and Korea complied. Japan lost and Japan complied. Everybody but 
the E.U.--all of these countries that lost their cases came into 
compliance. In fact, every nation found in violation of a WTO ruling 
has come into compliance--every nation--except for the nations of the 
European Union.
  Retaliation is the only authorized tool to bring a country into 
compliance with WTO rulings. That is the point of this amendment, to 
make this authorized retaliation more effective and to get the job 
done.
  What is a nation to do if its current list of imports subject to 
retaliatory

[[Page 26934]]

tariffs is not working to move the offender such as the E.U. into 
compliance? The solution, I believe, is to seek other products to 
target and at tariff levels that will impose the kind of pain that will 
cause the European Union to see compliance as the remedy. This is a 
process known as ``carouseling.'' That is what this amendment is about.
  In both the case with bananas and the case with beef, we came forward 
with a list of products that we were retaliating against and the duties 
were imposed. Nothing has happened. What our amendment provides--and I 
will discuss this in greater detail later when I formally offer this 
amendment--is that if the first list of items on which we are imposing 
tariffs to retaliate against the E.U., quite candidly, does not inflict 
enough pain to get their attention, then we need to carousel or change 
the list.
  The amendment provides that at least one of the items must be 
changed. It provides that many can be changed, but at least one has to 
be changed. The whole idea is, if this is the only way we can get their 
attention, the only remedy we have, the only tool we have, the only 
stick we have is this type of retaliation, we must make sure it is 
effective and we must make sure the correct products are being chosen 
on which to inflict the pain to get the attention of the E.U. That is 
what this amendment is all about. It is a rather modest amendment, but 
it is an amendment that we believe will significantly make a 
difference.
  To date, the administration has refused to carousel products in 
either case. They do have, currently, the authority to do it, although 
they are not compelled to do it. As long as the E.U. remains unwilling 
to comply with WTO rulings, it becomes more imperative that the tool of 
retaliation be used effectively. Our amendment would do that by 
requiring the United States to change retaliation lists periodically to 
inflict pressure, pain, on the noncomplying party to comply--in this 
case, the E.U.
  The ramifications of the E.U.'s noncompliance with the entire WTO 
dispute settlement process is staggering. If the E.U. is successful, if 
they get away with this, then we can expect them to continue this 
tactic on other products and other commodities, and the entire WTO 
process will mean nothing, at least as far as the E.U. is concerned.
  The issue today is beef and bananas, but tomorrow it could be grains, 
apples, peaches, potatoes, perhaps even computers. Who knows? A lot is 
at stake. We must ensure our retaliation does, in fact, result in 
compliance. We must ensure that it works.
  This amendment would require the carouseling--or the rotating--of 
products on a list of goods subject to retaliation when a foreign 
country or countries have failed to comply with a previous WTO ruling. 
This amendment would help ensure the integrity of the WTO dispute 
settlement process because it would provide the U.S. Trade 
Representative with a powerful mechanism to place considerable pressure 
on noncomplying countries to actually comply.
  In conclusion, it is my hope that in the near future, my fellow 
cosponsors and I will have an opportunity to have a more detailed 
discussion of this amendment and the issues involved and that the 
Senate will overwhelmingly approve our amendment.
  It is time, frankly, to break down the barriers of fortress Europe in 
the name of fairness for American farmers.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor. And I do thank my colleague 
from Minnesota for his courtesy.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me repeat, in about 2 
minutes, what I suggested today about the legislation before us, the 
several trade bills.
  I think while those who argue, with the WTO meeting that is coming up 
in Seattle, that we might be able to have some enforceable labor 
provisions and environmental provisions, and, for that matter, think 
about a fair shake for farmers in this trade regime, now bring to the 
floor of the Senate some trade agreements where there is no enforceable 
labor standards whatsoever, no enforceable environmental standards--
zero--the message of this legislation to working people in this country 
is: If you should want to organize and bargain collectively to make a 
decent wage, those companies are gone. And the message to people in 
other countries, the Caribbean and African countries, is: The only way 
you get investors to your country is if you are willing to work for 
less than 30 cents an hour, or whatever.
  This is hardly legislation that leads to the uplifting of living 
standards of working families in our country, much less poor and 
working people in other countries.
  I am opposed to these trade bills and have had a chance yesterday to 
lay out my case. And Senator Hollings has spoken today. Others may have 
spoken, as well.
  But what I want to do right now is speak to another issue which I 
think is almost more important than the legislation before us.
  We now have legislation out here, and the ``tree'' has been filled 
with amendments, so there is no opportunity whatsoever for those of us 
who have been saying for a while that we wanted to have an opportunity 
to offer some amendments, some legislation that we think will make a 
difference for the people we represent, there is no opportunity for us 
to be able to do so. That is what is at issue.
  If the majority leader, to whom I spoke about this earlier, was 
serious about trying to get this legislation passed, getting the 
necessary votes for cloture, then certainly we wouldn't have a piece of 
legislation on the floor with the tree filled with no opportunity for 
Senators to offer amendments. The majority leader wants to argue they 
have to be relevant amendments. Who gets to define relevant? One 
wonders whether or not, if we had amendments to have enforceable labor 
standards, that would be viewed as relevant.
  For me, it has been, now, about 6 weeks. This is why I deferred to 
the Senator from Ohio. First of all, he was on the floor first and I 
didn't want to precede his speaking. Secondly, I want to take a little 
bit of time. I think probably I will wait for a more timely time to 
take more time because one way or the other I am going to force a vote 
on some agricultural initiatives. The Chair and others can vote for or 
against it, but I have, for the last 6, 7 weeks, asked the majority 
leader, when will I have an opportunity to offer legislation I think 
will fix not all that is wrong but at least could make a positive 
difference? Other Senators can disagree. But we take responsibility for 
what we do, and we vote one way or the other. We debate one way or the 
other, and then we are held accountable.
  The exchange I had with the majority leader today about this has been 
going on for quite some time. The majority leader said he was pretty 
sure if I introduced an amendment, he probably would be opposed to it. 
That is fine. It think the more important point, which is what I tried 
to explain--I don't choose to debate the majority leader; he is not 
here--is that nobody in the Senate, Democrat or Republican, should be 
under the illusion, because we passed a financial assistance package, 
emergency package, that we have, in fact, dealt with the price crisis. 
I don't know of any producers who feel good about this bailout 
legislation every year. People are sick of it. They want us to get to 
the root of the problem.
  They don't think the farm policy is working. I don't think it is 
working. I don't even choose to point the finger. I thought Freedom to 
Farm was ``freedom to fail.'' I never liked it. I thought it was a big 
mistake. I thought it was great for the packers and the grain 
companies. I didn't think it was good for family farmers. Others take a 
different position.
  It seems to me the point is, looking forward not backward, whether or 
not we are willing to talk about some modification, some adjustment, 
some changes. If Senators don't think taking the cap off the loan rate 
makes sense,

[[Page 26935]]

then what else? If Senators don't think a moratorium on these mergers 
and acquisitions, which is what I will talk about today--that is the 
amendment I wanted to introduce to this legislation, which the majority 
leader shut me out from doing right now--makes sense, then perhaps 
Senators will have other proposals.
  In farm country in Minnesota--maybe it isn't that way in Montana--
almost everybody I know thinks there is a correlation between monopoly 
power, the power of a few companies that muscled their way to the 
dinner table and have control, and their low prices. The farm retail 
spread grows wider and wider, a lot of our producers face extinction, 
and the packers are in hog heaven. IBP makes record profits, and pork 
producers are going under.
  I thought I could introduce this amendment today, which I will 
explain.
  Mr. President, I came to the floor probably for the sixth or seventh 
time today to ask the majority leader when I would have an opportunity 
to submit an amendment to introduce legislation that I believe will 
speak at least in part to the economic convulsion that is taking place 
in agriculture. We have too many family farms that are going under the 
auctioneer's hammer. There are too many of our producers who are being 
driven off the land.
  If I had to pick one ``issue'' that means the most to me right now 
just in terms of the emotion of it, it would be what is happening to 
our producers. What is happening to our producers is they are being 
driven off the land. This is not only where they work. It is where they 
live. I think it is all quite unnecessary. I think if we were willing 
to change some of the policies, this wouldn't be happening.
  I am determined one way or another to force the Senate to vote up or 
down on several initiatives that I believe would make a difference. If 
there are other Senators who have a better idea than having a 
moratorium on these mergers and acquisitions that are leading to more 
monopoly power by these conglomerates and driving farmers off the land, 
or have a better idea of taking the cap off the loan rate, or creating 
a farmer loan reserve, or extending the payment period on the loan rate 
so that farmers have some leverage vis-a-vis these huge conglomerates, 
then come out on the floor of the Senate with your ideas. If there are 
Senators who believe we should leave in the next week or two without 
taking any action whatsoever to deal with the price crisis, to deal 
with what is really going on in agriculture, then come on out and make 
the argument.
  I appreciate the exchange with the majority leader. But, to tell you 
the truth, I think what is going on in the countryside doesn't have 
much to do with whether or not the majority leader says something that 
is fairly clever, or I say something that is fairly clever, or we have 
a kind of back and forth discussion. That is fine. Each of us is saying 
what we believe. Each of us is representing what we think is right.
  The only thing I know is that October 25, 1999, at the Bird Island 
Elevator in Renville County, wheat was $2.89 a bushel; corn was $1.43 a 
bushel; soybeans were $4.04 a bushel; and this is way below the cost of 
production. These farmers can work 19 hours a day, be the best managers 
in the world, and they are still going to go under.
  If U.S. Senators want to come out on the floor and amend the 
``freedom to fail'' bill, feel free to do so. But let's have the 
debate. More importantly, let's all come out here with some 
legislation, some change in policy, that will make a difference so we 
don't lose a whole generation of family farmers.
  In Minnesota, farm income has decreased 43 percent since 1966, and 
more than 25 percent of the remaining farmers may not be able to cover 
expenses, or won't be able to cover expenses in 1999.
  That is why I take it so personally when I am essentially told again: 
We are going to shut you out. We are going to bring this legislation to 
the floor. We are going to fill up the tree, and we are going to make 
sure, Senator Wellstone, that you can't come out here with an 
amendment, or with legislation that you think would help farmers in 
your State.
  I hope my colleagues will vote against cloture, whether or not they 
are for this trade legislation, just because of the way business is 
being conducted in the Senate. The way business should be conducted in 
the Senate is that when we have a piece of legislation, Senators must 
be able to come out with amendments they believe are an important part 
of their work to represent people in their State. If other Senators 
don't agree, they can come out and disagree. If other Senators want to 
come out and say you have no business bringing legislation to the floor 
of the Senate that deals with agriculture because we are on a trade 
bill, then I would ask you: When have I had the opportunity over the 
last several months or for the last year? The majority leader alluded 
to some of my colleagues who think that because we passed the financial 
assistance package we have dealt with the problem. Spend one second in 
Minnesota, come on out to northwest Minnesota, or west central 
Minnesota, or southwest Minnesota, or southeast Minnesota, and meet 
with some of our producers. Look in their faces and see grown men and 
women break down and cry. Why don't you come out to do that? Since, 
again, we are not going to take any action--this legislation is now 
filled up with amendments--people in greater Minnesota don't know and 
have any idea what ``fill up a tree'' means. It means, once again, we 
can't come out here and fight for the people in our State.

       Dear Farm Aid: My husband and two of our sons live on the 
     farm in Missouri. My husband has loved the farm ever since he 
     was a little boy. It would just kill him if he loses it. And 
     in fact it might just kill him. I am so very concerned. We 
     have been farming several years, and we have gone in and out 
     of bankruptcy. That is why we cannot get financing to save 
     our farm.
       I will make a long story short. I am not used to this. We 
     have no place to go. Our farm may be sold at the end of 
     September on the courthouse steps. Many lives will be 
     affected. I am really worried about what will happen if we 
     can't hold onto our farm. We have worked our entire lives and 
     made many improvements to the farm. I do not know how you can 
     help. You cannot give farmers a price for what they sell, but 
     anything you can do would be appreciated. The banks are 
     demanding $200,000 from us. Time is very critical. If you can 
     save our family farm, we will be forever grateful. You may 
     even save one's life.

  Actually, we can do something about the price. When we talk about 
taking the cap off the loan rate, we are saying to farmers, get more 
leverage in the marketplace to get a better price. When we talk about 
farmer on reserve, we are talking about farmers being able to withhold 
their grain until they get a decent price. When we are talking about 
the need to take antitrust action and a moratorium on the acquisitions 
and mergers, we are simply saying to our livestock producers when there 
is less concentration of power, there is a much better chance of 
getting a decent price.
  When a farmer is at an auction and there are three buyers for what is 
being sold, one does not get a very good price.

       Dear Farm Aid: We are at our wit's end. This farm has been 
     in our family since 1908. We are one of the only original 
     homestead families still surviving. We fought off foreclosure 
     three times since the 1980s. We have four children and we 
     don't live a fancy lifestyle. We built a new home 6 years 
     ago. Or rather we tried to build a home 6 years ago. We still 
     hope to have siding on the house one day. We got running 
     water 3 years ago, and fortunately we have electricity. We 
     were able to purchase a window for the house in 1997, and 
     some day the house will have flooring and sheet rock. This is 
     our only luxury. We don't have any retirement, life insurance 
     or health insurance.

  I repeat: We don't have any retirement, life insurance or health 
insurance.

       Our farm has been listed for sale 5 times but so have all 
     our neighbors' farms. There is not employment in this area 
     and the nearest city is 78 miles from us [Montana farm.] Yet 
     we do not want to leave. We owe the bank $39,000 currently 
     and we know they will not release any income for our land 
     payment that is due this January. Therefore, we face 
     foreclosure in 2000. We don't know which way to jump. Should 
     we declare bankruptcy? We cannot afford a lawyer. We don't 
     even have money for groceries. We are not ignorant and we are 
     not bad farmers. We cannot compete against the large 
     companies. Last year we couldn't even sell our grain and it 
     had to go

[[Page 26936]]

     under the CCC loan. We delivered the grain for loan repayment 
     but it didn't bring enough to cover the CCC loan and we owe 
     an additional $1,765 on that, as well. What can we do? Should 
     we concede defeat and lose our legacy? Our son would have 
     been the 6th generation to work this land. Where will he go? 
     We can no longer qualify for conventional loans. What's next? 
     What do we do? We are so scared. In 1 year we can lose what 
     has taken 92 years to build. We have tightened our belts as 
     far as we can. We live on less than $3,000 a year.

  Senators, are you listening to that?

       Please tell us what we should do. We live on less than 
     $3,000 a year. Please tell us what we should do.

  What we should do, come early February when we come back in session, 
before spring planting season, is have 10,000 farmers and rural people 
coming to the Capitol and rocking the Capitol. That is what we need to 
do. We need to have farmers, rural people, the religious community, 
labor and supporters coming right here--people are not going to come by 
jet because they don't have the money--buses of people coming from the 
Midwest, the South, and other agricultural States, joined by allies, 
have face-to-face meetings in every Senator's office, every 
Representative's office, be he or she a Democrat or a Republican. That 
is what we are going to need to do.
  It is clear to me with a week to go we are not going to take this 
action. I can't even get an up-or-down vote on one amendment. I can't 
even get an up-or-down vote. I can't even get a debate. On this piece 
of legislation, the tree is filled. No amendments can be introduced.
  But today won't be the day because the Senate right now is waiting 
until the cloture vote on Friday. The first opportunity I get to get 
the floor when we do need to do a lot of business, I will be out here 
talking for hours about agriculture--for hours.
  A Kansas farmer's daughter:

       My father is a farmer and the bank is foreclosing on his 
     farm. Due to circumstances beyond his control he has been 
     unable to make his mortgage payments. He was able to 
     forestall the sale scheduled for June 9, 1999. I don't know 
     how much longer he can put them off. He has been farming 
     since he got out of the army in 1945. He is 77 years old and 
     he is still trying to make a living. He has no life insurance 
     and I am fearful that his health will not hold out. Is there 
     any help for him? What can be done to help him maintain his 
     farm?
       All appeals have fallen on deaf ears.

  Including the deaf ears of the Senate.
  At this moment, I hold the majority party accountable for not 
enabling us to come to the floor with amendments to try to change the 
situation for the better.

       All appeals have fallen on deaf ears. This farm has been in 
     our family since the 1800s. We don't want to lose it. But it 
     seems one way or the other my father's life will be taken. 
     Either the stress and his health will kill him, or losing the 
     farm will kill him. Please help.

  I am going to repeat that so often on the floor of the Senate. We 
debate statistics. It is all abstractions. It is all party strategy. 
Several hours ago when I came out ready to go with this good bill to 
impose a moratorium on large agribusiness mergers and establish a 
commission to review large agricultural mergers and the concentration 
of market power with Senator Dorgan, the majority leader came out and 
through several motions filled up the tree.
  That is what we are talking about--filling up the tree. Don't let 
Senators have any amendments. Then I heard the majority leader say: We 
certainly don't want to have something dealing with agriculture.

       It seems one way or the other my father's life will be 
     taken. Either the stress and his health will kill him or 
     losing the farm will kill him. Please help.

  I guess this woman in Kansas isn't going to get any help today from 
the Senate. Won't get any help tomorrow. Since the majority leader has 
filled up the tree, there is not opportunity for any amendments at all, 
no opportunity to bring legislation to the floor to try to make a 
difference. No opportunity.

       Please help.

  I am going to read this again quickly because several other 
colleagues have come to the floor. This woman is talking about her dad. 
He is a World War II vet. He is 77 years old. He is trying to make it 
on the farm. She says:

       What can be done to help him maintain his farm?

  With these record low prices and record low income.

       All appeals have fallen on deaf ears. This farm has been in 
     our family since the 1800s. We don't want to lose it but it 
     seems one way or the other my father's life will be taken. 
     Either the stress and his health will kill him or losing the 
     farm will kill him. Please help.

  There is no help from the Senate today because the majority leader 
has filled up the tree and I don't have the right to come to the floor 
with an amendment to try to help this woman, this farmer or other 
farmers in our country. When are we going to do something about 
agriculture? Are we sleepwalking through history? I see my colleague, 
Senator Grassley from Iowa. He knows what is going on in the 
countryside. I know he knows. But I just believe the Senate does not. 
We are going to go with the current policy? Do Senators not believe 
that we need to make perhaps some modification, maybe some adjustments 
when farmers are getting prices way below the cost of production? When 
the men and women who produce the food and fiber for our country cannot 
even make a decent living, do we think we should not be doing anything 
about this?
  Iowa farmer:

       I am a hog farmer and as you know times are tough. I want 
     to make some changes in my farm business that would 
     necessitate an off farm job. I do not have much choice. I 
     have to get an off farm job, or I will have no farm. I'm 54 
     years old, I'm healthy, and I have a BA in history. When I go 
     to the employment agencies, I feel like the counselors do not 
     know how to help me. The only jobs out in my area are low 
     paying factory or sales jobs. Do you have any suggestions? I 
     feel that time is running out.

  I hear that so often. I hear that so often from farmers. They say, 
``I feel like time is running out.''
  That is the way I feel, as a Senator from the State of Minnesota. I 
feel that time is running out. I feel that time is not neutral. I feel 
if we stand still and we do not pass any legislation that will make a 
difference and we do not change this failed farm policy, a whole 
generation of producers are going to be wiped out in my State of 
Minnesota. The majority leader fills up the tree, denying me and 
denying other Senators an opportunity to come out here with legislation 
we think would help people in our States.
  By the way, I am pleased to debate this with any Senator, the 
majority leader and others.
  An Illinois farmer wife:

       Dear Farm Aid: My mother and father-in-law saved and 
     borrowed enough money in 1945 to buy an 80-acre farm in 
     Illinois. They farmed with horses, milked cows, raised hogs 
     in the Timber Creek Bed and raised 12 children. My husband 
     now has had the farm turned over to him since his parents 
     have passed away and his sister was killed in a car accident 
     2 years ago. My husband is, has always been, a very hard 
     worker.

  Boy, I tell you, this sounds like my mother, Mensha Daneshevsky. If 
she really liked somebody, this was her ultimate compliment. She would 
say, ``He's a hard worker'' or ``She's a hard worker.'' My mother is no 
longer alive. I tell you, family farmers in Minnesota and around the 
country are hard workers.

       We both work at jobs full-time, our other jobs outside the 
     farm. We were both raised on a farm and we both love to farm. 
     We cash rent three other farms close by to get along, but we 
     are still having an awful time. The prices are so low that we 
     just cannot seem to make ends meet.

  That is the point. I cannot believe it when Senators come out here on 
the floor, or at least one Senator today, and talk about this emergency 
financial crisis bill we passed, this disaster relief bill we passed, 
as if this is a response. It does not have anything to do with low 
prices.
  All that money we have been spending, more than we ever spent before 
in the ``freedom to fail'' bill, is only enabling people to live to 
farm another day. There will be no ``other day'' for these farmers 
until we deal with the price crisis. I am told by this majority party 
that I cannot bring an amendment to the floor to try to enable this 
family to make a living?

       Prices are so low that we cannot seem to make ends meet. If 
     it wasn't for our jobs in

[[Page 26937]]

     town we would have lost everything my husband's parents 
     worked so hard for. We are doing all we can, but we just 
     cannot get out of debt. In fact, we are going deeper and 
     deeper into debt every year. My husband and I have shed many 
     tears and had many sleepless nights trying to figure out just 
     what to do to save our family farm. We do not want to lose 
     it. Do you have any help for us or anything else that we can 
     do? We lost over $20,000 this year. It breaks my heart to see 
     my husband work so hard and get so tired of working two jobs 
     and still not making it. Please help us. If we could just get 
     a break, even on this year, things would be easier. Thank you 
     for listening and I hope you will be able to help my husband 
     save his deeply loved family farm.

  I have hours of stories, especially from Minnesota farmers. I am 
going to pick the right time on the floor of the Senate to go through 
all of that, especially when the Senate most needs to do business.
  But this is what I hear over and over and over again. ``Thank you for 
listening and I hope you will be able to help my husband and save our 
farm.''
  The answer is: I can't. I can't. I can't help save family farmers in 
my State or in other States because the Senate, and in particular--I 
don't usually come out on the floor and do this, but I am doing it 
today--the majority party which filled up this legislation with 
amendments has turned its back on agriculture. I heard today we do not 
want to deal with agriculture.
  When are we going to deal with agriculture? Exactly how much longer 
do you think these people have? How many farmers do we want to see 
driven off the land? How much more pain do we want to see? How many 
more families do we want to see shattered before we do something?
  This is about the angriest I have ever been since I have been on the 
floor of the Senate because I was ready to do this amendment. I say 
this to my colleague from Iowa, who is a good friend, he has nothing to 
do with anything I am talking about. But I was ready to have a debate. 
I was ready to bring out this amendment. I was going to say I think we 
ought to have a moratorium on these acquisitions and mergers because 
they are taking place at such a breathtaking pace, and I think what is 
happening is we are moving to monopoly and our family farmers cannot 
get a break. Let's have a study of this and let's put a moratorium on 
it for 18 months.
  I tried. I have an amendment that is I don't know how many pages. It 
is well thought out. My colleague from Iowa could agree or disagree. We 
even had some discussion. He raised some questions I thought were 
important questions. But as long as we have legislation out here with 
the tree filled and no opportunity to do the amendment, there is just 
no opportunity to do it.
  I would not be out here today saying this, but this is the sixth or 
seventh time. For the last several months, I have been saying: When do 
we have the opportunity to have this debate? It is hard to go home and 
meet with people and know people are hoping for some change and know 
this disaster package we passed does not do anything but enable people 
to survive. But then what about next year and next year? People want to 
know: Do I have a future? Do my children have a future? What is going 
to be done?
  Basically, what we get out here today on the floor of the Senate is a 
parliamentary maneuver which basically denies any Senator from coming 
out here with amendments.
  Therefore, I do not know what is going to happen, but I certainly 
hope my colleagues will vote against cloture. Then, of course, it 
becomes a game again. Then the President, who wants this legislation, 
will not get the legislation. Then some people can say that is good; we 
don't care one way or the other anyway. Or people can point the finger 
and some people can say: Those who voted against cloture, they are the 
ones who killed it, and many of them were Democrats.
  It goes on and on and on, this grand political strategy.
  Look, I don't support this legislation. I was out on the floor the 
other day stating my reasons why. But, frankly, I think there is a 
larger question. That has to do with whether or not we are going to 
have debate on issues that are important to the lives of people in our 
country and whether we are going to have the opportunity to represent 
and fight for people in our States. Today certainly is not such a day.
  I have at least a 2-hour historical analysis, but not today--I got 
the attention of my friend from Iowa--at least a 2-hour historical 
analysis of concentration in the food industry. I will go back to the 
Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and some of the work of Estes Kefauver. I 
will talk about the Farmers Alliance, the populist movement, the gilded 
age, Teddy Roosevelt, and what we should be doing. As a matter of fact, 
tomorrow I have the opportunity to testify about Viacom buying up CBS. 
It is pretty incredible. There we have concentration in the media, 
telecommunications, which deals with the flow of information in a 
representative democracy. I think food is a pretty precious commodity.
  I will summarize what this amendment would have done, if adopted.
  This amendment represents comprehensive legislation. I would have 
offered this with Senator Dorgan--he would be out here, Senator Harkin 
would be out here, and other Senators would be out here--to deal with 
the problem of market concentration in agriculture. Anybody who does 
not think we do not have a problem of market concentration in 
agriculture just does not know what is going on in the countryside. If 
anything, we are looking to put free enterprise back into the food 
industry.
  Given this concentration, given the mergers, given the 
anticompetitive practices, and given the failure of our antitrust 
authorities to remedy the situation, we need to do something.
  A moratorium on these large agribusiness mergers is something the 
Congress can do right now. This would apply to mergers and acquisitions 
among firms that do at least $10 million of business annually. It would 
apply to mergers and acquisitions that, under current law, must already 
be filed with the Justice Department and FTC; namely, the mergers and 
acquisitions in which one party has net revenue or assets over $100 
million and the second party more than $10 million. The moratorium 
would last 18 months or until the Congress enacted comprehensive 
legislation to address the problem of concentration in agriculture, 
whichever occurred first. We also would set up an agriculture antitrust 
review commission to study the nature and consequences of concentration 
in the agricultural sector.
  We have a long history in our country, a glorious history, of 
ordinary people who have been willing to take on concentrations of 
wealth, of economic power, and of political power that are unhealthy 
for democracy. They were some of our greatest leaders: Thomas 
Jefferson, Andrew Jackson; think about the New Deal, the Progressive 
era, Teddy Roosevelt, and the People's Party of the late 1800s.
  The populist platform of 1892 at the nominating convention in Omaha 
declared:

       The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to 
     build up colossal fortunes for a few unprecedented in the 
     history of mankind.

  The People's Party founder, Tom Watson, thundered:

       The People's Party is the protest of the plundered against 
     the plunderers.

  The late 1800s and the early 1900s is the way it seems to me in this 
country now. I keep referring to my colleague from Iowa because he is a 
friend. I do not know what his experience is, but when I speak, for 
example, to pork producers--there may be several hundred there--it 
seems as if I am in the late 1800s when the deck was stacked against 
producers. It really does. They work hard. There are just a few packers 
who pretty much control everything. The producers do not understand why 
they cannot even make a living and IBP is making millions.
  Come on, what is going on? Where is the competition? Let's give our 
producers a fair shot, a fair shake. That is all they are asking. I 
have not met anyone in the countryside--and this transcends all party 
differences--who does not believe there is some correlation between the 
concentration of power and the low prices they receive.
  Everybody thinks this is a problem, and we are sitting on our thumbs. 
I am

[[Page 26938]]

told today by the majority leader, in filling up the tree: We don't 
want these amendments such as agriculture; that is unrelated; that is 
not relevant.
  An amendment on agriculture is relevant to me. It is relevant to 
Minnesota. It is relevant to family farmers in the Midwest. It is 
relevant to rural America. If I cannot meet the majority leader's 
definition of relevant, then I will just have to come to the floor 
whenever I can and take as many hours as I can to talk about what is 
relevant.
  There is nothing more relevant to me right now than the pain and 
agony of family farmers in my State of Minnesota, and there is nothing 
more urgent, from my point of view, than for me to try, even if I 
lose--I may very well. Cargill, IBP, ConAgra, and Monsanto have a fair 
amount of clout, but I think it is worth trying to take them on. I 
really do. At least I am going to try to fight for it, and at least I 
am going to try to continue to force this question in the Senate. If I 
cannot get an up-or-down vote and keep getting blocked, then I will 
just have to figure out ways to block the Senate as we try to do our 
business because to me this is the relevant question.
  What is relevant to me is that on the present course, we lose a 
generation of producers. We can change the course. We can change some 
of our policy. We can make some modifications. We can make some 
adjustments. We can get the price up. We can give our producers some 
protection against these monopolies. We can do something that will make 
much more sense on trade policy, and we can make a difference.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on the Africa trade bill, which is now 
before the Senate, we are in a parliamentary position in which all the 
amendments offered have been offered by the Republican side. Such a 
position had to be taken by the majority leader because of failures to 
get time agreements and commitments from the other side, meaning the 
Democrat side, on a limitation on amendments and time agreements on 
those amendments so we could bring this bill to a vote.
  I hope our Democrat friends will heed the necessity of this 
legislation from President Clinton's State of the Union Address that 
this was one of the most important goals of his administration. Since 
the Republican majority in the Congress is often criticized by the 
President for not working closely with the President--and I think those 
charges by the President of the United States are overblown most times, 
but those charges are still made. So in the present environment in 
which one of the President's prime pieces of legislation is before the 
Senate, with a determination by our majority leader to help get this 
part of the President's program into law, I would think the Democrat 
minority would be embarrassed that they are taking actions that make it 
difficult to get one of the President's programs through this Congress 
for the President's signature.
  I hope, as one Senator--not speaking for the majority leader, just 
speaking for myself--they will reach agreement on these very important 
amendments so we can bring this bill to finality and get it sent to the 
President, not because it is one of the President's major goals, not 
that it shows the President's charges against the Republican majority 
are many times unfounded, not for any of those reasons, as legitimate 
as that might be, but because the substance of this legislation is very 
important for the economy of the United States and the economy of the 
countries that it applies to--because free trade strengthens economies, 
free and fair trade creates jobs, not only in the United States, but 
also economies that practice free trade anywhere around the world are 
stronger economies because of it. That is the goal we seek in this 
legislation.
  We have heard we have a lot to fear from free trade. In the last few 
months, we have heard from many quarters that free trade is harmful 
because it destroys jobs. We have heard free trade is not fair trade 
because it causes investments to shift overseas. We have heard that the 
Africa trade bill will do both of these things, as well as cause 
illegal transshipment that we cannot do anything about.
  When you look at the facts, none of these three arguments that are 
used against this piece of legislation has any merit. First, let's look 
at the claim that free trade destroys jobs. The 50-year history of the 
multilateral trade negotiations, first under the General Agreement of 
Tariffs and Trade, and now under the World Trade Organization, called 
WTO for short, shows the enormous positive effect on the world economy 
of liberalizing trade by reducing tariffs and getting rid of nontariff 
trade barriers.
  We have had eight series, or rounds as they are called, of 
multilateral trade negotiations since GATT first started in 1947. We 
are about to launch a new round, the ninth one, at the WTO Ministerial 
Conference in Seattle in about 5 weeks.
  During the first round, the Geneva Round it was called, in 1947, we 
negotiated 45,000 tariff concessions affecting one-fifth of world 
trade.
  In the sixth round, which was called the Kennedy Round, we slashed 
custom duties on average of 35 percent.
  During the last round, the Uruguay Round, starting in the middle 
1980s, ending in 1993, we reduced or eliminated many nontariff trade 
barriers.
  The results of this trade liberalization have been nothing short of 
astounding--creating jobs, expanding the world economic pie, creating 
better economies in various countries around the world, enhancing 
political opportunities and, most importantly, political stability. The 
expansion of free trade that has followed this 50-year period of trade 
liberalization has spurred one of the greatest bursts of wealth 
creation the world has ever seen.
  In 1947, when we started postwar trade liberalization, the total 
value of world exports was about $50 billion. Today, the total value of 
world exports is $7 trillion, more than 3\1/2\ times the total budget 
of the United States.
  Free trade has enriched every American family. According to the 
President's own 1998 economic report, the added economic benefit to 
each American through expanded trade is $1,000 per year or $4,000 per 
year for a family of four, as we measure families in America. This is 
equivalent to an annual $4,000 per family tax cut. Where can one get a 
$4,000 tax cut these days? Even the tax cuts now being debated in the 
Congress do not come anywhere close to this amount of money to enhance 
family income and disposable income.
  The facts that show the benefits of free trade seem to be so 
compelling that in explaining them, I don't know where to begin.
  Let me mention a recent example that comes from NAFTA. According to a 
September 1998 report published by the nonpartisan Congressional 
Research Service, approximately 191,000 jobs were certified, between 
January 1, 1949, and August 12, 1998, as potentially suffering NAFTA-
related loss--affecting 191,000 workers. That is on the negative side. 
We have always said that free trade will cause some job dislocation. 
That is why we have programs such as trade adjustment assistance--to 
ease the transition that is sometimes necessary when we have open 
markets.
  On the positive side, there has been much more gain. Let's go back to 
that Congressional Research Service study I cited. The number, 191,000 
workers affected negatively by NAFTA over 4 years, represents less than 
the number of jobs created in any single month in 1997. In contrast, 
then, on the positive side, more than 1 million new jobs were created 
from new exports to Mexico and Canada after NAFTA was enacted into 
law--more than 1 million new jobs.
  Next let's look at the claim that is made by opponents of this 
legislation or free trade generally that it causes investment to shift 
overseas. That claim, too, has little or no merit. Section 512 of the 
NAFTA Implementation Act required the President to provide a 
comprehensive assessment of the operation and effects of NAFTA to 
Congress. The President's report shows that the amount of new United 
States investment in Mexico is very low.

[[Page 26939]]

Again, the specific facts are compelling. In 1997, direct United States 
investment in Mexico was $5.9 billion compared to United States 
domestic investment in plant and equipment of $864.9 billion. In other 
words, United States investment in Mexico was less than 1 percent of 
all United States domestic investment in plant and equipment in 1997. 
So much for that giant sucking sound we were supposed to have heard 
continuously from south of our border.
  Free trade has been so good for our economy. If all these predictions 
about economic disaster haven't come true when we have liberalized 
trade in the past, it is clear we shouldn't fear tearing down barriers 
around the world, as we have for the last 50 years with the good 
results we have for the 50 years, without the expectation that those 
beneficial impacts would continue. We should, then, embrace such an 
opportunity.
  Let me get specifically to the Africa trade bill. The fear that the 
Africa trade bill will cause a huge influx of illegal textile 
transshipments from Asia, as has been stated on the floor of the 
Senate, just is not true. I cite the International Trade Commission 
study, our own Government. It looked at the transshipment issue. Here 
is what our International Trade Commission found:
  Assuming we will get illegal transshipments in a worst case scenario, 
the ITC study shows that U.S. apparel shipments would drop by one-tenth 
of 1 percent and result in the loss of less than 700 jobs. Again, to 
put this number in perspective, the U.S. economy has created about 
200,000 jobs each month this year.
  Remember, the ITC study guesstimate of 700 jobs is based on a worst 
case scenario. It is highly unlikely, then, that sub-Saharan Africa 
will see this level of export growth in the near term. They don't have 
the infrastructure. They don't have the trained workforce. They don't 
have good transportation. And the Africa bill has strong anti-
transshipment provisions.
  One might say, then, why the big deal about the Africa trade bill? 
Because trade is better than foreign aid and because, when you want to 
build up the economies of the developing nations, you start someplace. 
This is how we can best help them to help themselves.
  Participating countries will have to commit to full cooperation with 
the United States to address and take any necessary action to prevent 
transshipment. The spirit of this legislation is that there not be 
transshipment. In addition, the U.S. Customs Service has effective 
procedures to thwart illegal transshipments, as Customs jump teams have 
proven to be successful in doing in both Hong Kong and Macao. And there 
are many other provisions aimed at preventing transshipments. So free 
trade works. Free trade creates jobs and prosperity in the United 
States, adding $4,000 every year in economic benefits to each American 
family at home. Free trade keeps the peace by building interdependence 
among nations, and by bringing political stability to nations that 
heretofore have relied upon dictators and relied upon a government-
controlled economy. Finally, free trade will help Africa break the 
shackles of poverty by bringing economic freedom to the most 
economically unfree and also the poorest regions in the world. So I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment, 
No. 2335, be temporarily laid aside in order for Senator Reid of Nevada 
to offer an amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of that amendment, amendment No. 2335 become the pending 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2336

 (Purpose: To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 1998 with respect to export controls on high performance 
                               computers)

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2336.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE 
                   LEVELS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS.

       Section 1211(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by striking ``180'' and 
     inserting ``30''; and
       (2) by adding at the end, the following new sentence: ``The 
     30-day reporting requirement shall apply to any changes to 
     the composite theoretical performance level for purposes of 
     subsection (a) proposed by the President on or after June 1, 
     1999.''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was born and raised on the southern tip of 
the State of Nevada, in a little mining town called Searchlight. When I 
grew up, there wasn't a single telephone anyplace in the town. No one 
had a telephone. In the home I was raised in, there was no hot water. 
We had no indoor toilets; they were outdoor toilets. It was primitive--
well, I would not say primitive, but we weren't very modern there. That 
is the way it was with a lot of people in rural Nevada at that time.
  Today, it is hard for me to comprehend what has taken place in the 
advancement of science. I can go home at night and see if I have 
received any e-mail on my computer. It is easy to do. I open my 
computer and it says, ``You've got mail.'' I open that up and find out 
who has contacted me by e-mail, and it is like magic. I press a button 
and I can reply to that person as quickly as I can type that message 
out. That message is sent quicker, of course, than the speed of light. 
It is gone. It is amazing. I can check to find out the weather on my 
computer. I can communicate and buy a CD, or anything else I want, on 
my computer. I can't imagine how that can happen, but it happens.
  I rise today in total awe of what is happening in science and 
technology in America. The amendment I have offered is an amendment 
that is critical to maintaining our Nation's lead in the high-tech 
sector. Specifically, this amendment is crucial to the computer 
industry, the industry that allows me to communicate, for example, with 
all five of my children. It is easy to do. It is easier to do than 
seeing if they are home by virtue of a telephone. It is easier to do 
because it is very convenient. They can send me a message when I want a 
message sent. I can send them a message when I have the time. I can 
have a good time with my children over the Internet. I sent one of my 
boys, who is the athlete of the family, an e-mail last weekend saying 
that I think the Redskins are going to do well if they get a new coach. 
He was an athlete at the University of Virginia. It is the first time I 
can remember that the University of Virginia soccer team has not been 
ranked in the top 10; they are in the top 20. I suggested to my son 
that it might not be a bad idea to get a new coach for the soccer team 
at Virginia.
  This is done so quickly. He will communicate back to me when he has 
the time. I am in total awe of what is going on in the high-tech 
sector.
  This amendment relates to an issue I have been interested in for 
quite a long time and, in particular, have done a lot of work on this 
session with some of my colleagues. What I am concerned about is 
bipartisanship. For once in this legislative session, we are doing 
something that is bipartisan. I have to say it appears the underlying 
bill is generally bipartisan, even though some disagree with it.
  I want to talk about the U.S. computer industry. According to an 
article in Computers Today, one of the many computer trade journals, 
dated July of last year, American computer technology has led the world 
since the first commercial electronic computer was employed at the 
University of Pennsylvania in 1946. The advancements that have been 
made are unbelievable. I can remember, before I came back to 
Washington, going to the Clark County

[[Page 26940]]

Courthouse and being shown around by the person who was in charge of 
the computers for the county. It was a whole floor of that large 
building. Of course, it had to be really cold because computers needed 
constant cool temperatures. Well, today, what was done on the whole 
floor of that Clark County Courthouse can be done on a computer the 
size of a briefcase.
  The industry is constantly changing with new companies and new 
products emerging every day. A statistic I find fascinating is that 
more than 75 percent of the revenues of computer companies comes from 
products that didn't exist 2 years ago. That statistic shows they will 
continue to grow and change rapidly.
  Through research and development that is largely due to another issue 
I have strongly favored, the research and development tax credit--and I 
think it should be permanent--the computer industry has been able to 
remain competitive for these many years. The challenge we now face is a 
challenge that, frankly, we haven't lived up to in the past as a 
Congress, and that is to allow our export control policies to change 
with the times and not to overly restrict our Nation's computer 
companies.
  In the free enterprise system, entrepreneurs have never been so in 
charge of what is going on than in the computer industry. They have led 
this Nation forward economically. We have to give them the freedom that 
they can continue, in this free enterprise system, to sell the product. 
We need to stop trying to control technology by politics. We have to 
start controlling technology by allowing the businesses to go forward. 
The technology we are regulating, computers with performance levels of 
2,000 to 7,000 millions of theoretical operations per second, or MTOPS, 
is readily available from many foreign companies. Companies from 
countries such as China and other tier III countries are moving into 
this field rapidly.
  Not too long ago, I secured funding through Congress for a 
supercomputer at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. We were so 
proud of that computer. It required its own room. It is now about as 
powerful as my laptop computer. The supercomputer is no longer the same 
supercomputer it was then, in 1988 or 1989, when it came to UNLV. That 
is exactly, though, the kind of computers we are still regulating 
politically.
  Computers that are now considered supercomputers operate more than 1 
million MTOPS, or about 500 times the current level of regulation. Last 
month, Apple began producing a computer that exceeds the current 
threshold and, as a result, Apple is unable to sell its new G4 computer 
systems in over 50 countries.
  The bottom line is that by placing artificially low limits on the 
level of technology that can be exported, we may be denying market 
realities and could very quickly cripple America's global 
competitiveness for this vital industry. If Congress doesn't act 
quickly, we will substantially disadvantage American companies in an 
extremely competitive global market.
  On July 23, 1999, at my urging, and the urging of some of my 
colleagues, the President proposed changes to the U.S. export controls 
on high-performance computers. Since that announcement, the President's 
proposal has been floating around Congress for a mandated review period 
of 180 days, or 6 months. When the President made his proposal, the new 
levels would have been sufficient; however, we are still regulating 
under the old levels, and therefore hindering companies such as Apple 
from competing in tier III countries with other foreign companies.
  The amendment I am offering simply reduces the congressional review 
period from 180 days to 30 days to complement the administration's 
easing export restrictions by amending the National Defense 
Authorization Act of 1998.
  I would like to share an example of how outdated today's restrictions 
are. I was at a meeting recently where Michael Dell, President of Dell 
Computers, stood up and pulled from his hip holster a little pager. 
Under current export controls, this little pager, normally smaller than 
a computer mouse, can't be exported to tier III countries because it is 
considered a supercomputer. That is wrong.
  I am going to withdraw my amendment. I am going to do it because I 
have had conversations with the chairman of the Banking Committee. I 
fortuitously was able to have lunch with the ranking member of the 
Banking Committee, and I met also with Senator Enzi, who has worked 
very hard on this issue, and also Senator Johnson, who has worked very 
hard on this issue. They indicated they are very impressed with the 
need to change this time period. They want to do it under the Export 
Administration Act. I, frankly, have been convinced by them that their 
intentions are well considered. They have thought this out over a long 
period of time. I want to work with them and the majority leader and 
the minority leader to do whatever we can to, this year, move the 
Export Administration Act. It is vitally important that we do that.
  We need to allow the entrepreneurs in America who have made this 
economy the vibrant, untiring economy that it is the freedom to sell 
their products because if we don't allow them to have that freedom to 
sell their products, other foreign companies, some of which will be 
actually Americans moving over and setting up foreign companies, will 
be selling products that we should be selling with American-
manufactured goods.
  I am going to withdraw my amendment with the notice that I am going 
to work very hard with my friend, the chairman of the Banking Committee 
and the members of the Banking Committee to do whatever we can to move 
this very important piece of legislation. It is more than just my 
amendment. What the Banking Committee wants to move is more important 
than my amendment. I am concerned about the material that I have in 
this amendment. I think this is very important.
  I look forward to working with the chairman of the Banking Committee 
and the other members of the Banking Committee to see what we can do to 
move the Export Administration Act in this Congress. With all the 
turmoil we have had in recent months with the partisanship, I believe 
we need to move this legislation in a bipartisan fashion. It can be 
done. We need to show the business community of America that we can 
move forward.
  It is vitally important to everyone. The people who buy these 
products don't look to see who manufactures them, whether they are 
Democrats or Republicans. The people who work putting these computers 
together, no one knows whether they are Democrats or Republicans. But 
everyone knows when we have a good economy that we, the Congress, 
should get some consideration in a positive fashion for that. If 
something goes wrong, we deserve the blame. I think with things going 
so well we have to do everything we can to make sure the economy 
continues to move forward.
  I am going to do what I can to help this piece of legislation that we 
hope will come up as early as this week or next week and have it passed 
in this Congress and not next Congress. I mean this year of this 
Congress and not some subsequent year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Nevada for his 
amendment and for withdrawing it, and for joining our effort to try to 
pass the Export Administration Act.
  As some of our colleagues will be aware, there have been 11 failed 
attempts to pass a new Export Administration Act since the last one 
expired.
  We now find ourselves in a position where despite the Cox report, 
despite concerns that have been raised about lost American technology, 
and despite the growing obsolescence of the residual permanent law the 
administration is forced to operate under, we have not reauthorized the 
Export Administration Act. I think it is a terrible indictment of the 
Congress that we have not done that.
  That is the bad news.
  The good news is that under Chairman Enzi we have put together an 
excellent bill. Chairman Enzi has done something I am not aware of any 
Member of the Senate ever doing. He has

[[Page 26941]]

gone over and sat through meetings of the current bodies of the 
executive branch that make decisions related to export licensing. So he 
has, through practical experience, come to understand the process. He 
has provided leadership whereby we have put together a bill. He has 
provided leadership where we literally sat down with everybody who has 
any interest in this bill. We have had numerous meetings. We have let 
people submit concerns in writing. I believe we are on the verge of 
having a bill that is uniformly supported.
  What our bill tries to do is simple to say and very difficult to 
achieve. We have a conflicting interest. We want to sell things on the 
world market which embody new technology because those are items that 
we have a comparative advantage in producing, and they are items that 
are high-wage items in the production process.
  Finally, they represent commodities that will dominate the future of 
the world economy. So we want to be the leader in selling these types 
of goods.
  On the other hand, we have legitimate concerns about technologies. If 
they are in the hands of people who may be potential terrorist nations 
or potential enemies of the United States, they could end up hurting 
our national security.
  We have taken those two conflicting concerns, and we have put 
together a bill. The two major features of it are the following:
  One, we define a brand new concept called mass marketing. It is a 
very simple and powerful concept. It says if an item is for sale at 
Radio Shack, if you can buy it over the web site of Dell Computers, if 
it is generally being marketed in the United States and around the 
world--though you might wish that it is possible that all of this could 
happen without it falling into the hands of a potential adversary--the 
bottom line is there is no practical way at that point that you can 
keep anybody from getting the technology.
  So we take mass marketed items out of the process and, hopefully, 
reduce the number of different items that are under licensing in any 
given year from about 10,000 to 1,000 so that we could put the focus of 
attention where it belongs.
  Second, under current law, if companies are accused and found guilty 
of wrongdoing in China, despite numerous accusations, all of which 
carry some penalties, the maximum fine under current law would be 
$132,000, which for corporate America is a relatively insignificant 
amount of money. Under our bill, we have a $10 million fine per 
violation. We also have for a conscious, knowing violation where 
individuals are involved, prison sentences of up to 10 years, and in 
aggravated cases, life in prison.
  So there is a dramatic strengthening of current law.
  I agree with our colleague from Nevada. This needs to be adopted this 
year. I believe we have eliminated opposition to it.
  It simply is now our task to provide leadership where we can bring 
the bill to the floor later this week, or early next week, and get an 
agreement that this is not going to become a vehicle for a bunch of 
unrelated amendments.
  Having said that, let me stop before I sit down. I want to say a 
couple of words about the African trade bill.
  First of all, I congratulate the chairman of the Finance Committee 
for his leadership on this bill. I endorse the African trade bill. Our 
President went to Africa, did an extensive tour, and talked about what 
we could do to try to break the bonds of poverty--this crushing, 
grinding poverty--that people in sub-Saharan Africa face. I think the 
President rightly understood, if we take all the important aid provided 
by all the countries in the world and combine them, we have about $40 
billion a year. There are 700 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, so 
if they get all the foreign aid provided by all the countries in the 
world, we will have relatively little impact on them, and there is 
relatively little evidence that foreign aid has produced economic 
development in areas where no economic development ever existed before.
  As a result, the President proposed bringing in the most powerful 
tool for economic development ever to evolve in the history of mankind; 
that tool is trade. The President proposed we open up a fiber trade 
agreement in textiles with sub-Saharan Africa. I remind my colleagues, 
under existing agreements internationally, by the year 2005, under the 
Multifiber Agreement, we will no longer have quotas on tariffs anywhere 
in the world. We are not talking about a permanent advantage for sub-
Saharan Africa; we are talking about giving them a little bit of a head 
start.
  Let me briefly define the problem. The average per capita GDP of 
countries in sub-Saharan Africa is $490 a year; 40 percent of the 
people in sub-Saharan Africa earn less than $1 a day. The current 
estimates are, we import about .86 percent of textiles and apparel 
imported into America from sub-Saharan Africa. The International Trade 
Commission has estimated that if they devoted their productive capacity 
to textiles, under this agreement, still within 10 years we couldn't 
expect more than 2 percent of our textile imports to come from sub-
Saharan Africa. We are talking about expanded trade, and we are talking 
about trade with countries that have no significant capacity to impact 
American imports of textiles.
  I believe this bill is needed. I think it is a step in the right 
direction. I remind my colleagues, for any country in sub-Saharan 
Africa to take part in this program, they have to do the following 
three things: they have to make progress toward a market-based economy, 
they have to institute a democratic society, and they have to open 
their trading system. These are all actions that will mean stronger 
economic growth in Africa, that will mean greater human happiness in 
Africa, and that will ultimately mean a greater demand for American 
goods and services.
  I believe this is an important bill. I believe it should be adopted. 
I am hopeful we will adopt it today. I intend to vote for cloture and 
for final passage.
  There is one provision in this bill in the Senate that is not in the 
House bill. That is a provision that requires, for textiles and apparel 
to be imported from Africa, they have to be made out of American fabric 
and yarn. That same agreement is in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, 
which I support. But the problem with Africa is that given the 
transportation costs, and given that their ability to market products 
is basically based on using longer strand cotton and basically 
producing different types of textiles that would be relatively new to 
the American market, I believe the provision in the Senate bill for all 
practical purposes kills the African trade bill.
  I am not going to offer an amendment to strike this provision because 
it is not in the House bill. I hope it will be dropped in conference. 
We are talking about a relatively small effort to benefit 700 million 
human beings. The worst thing that could come out of it is that we 
would have greater diversity in the textile goods that would be for 
sale in American stores and they would be at lower prices. I can't see 
anything but good that can come out of this. Anywhere in the world, 
when we can encourage people to move toward a market-based economy, 
toward a democratic society, and toward open trade, we are doing things 
that benefit them and benefit the world.
  These are important bills before the Senate. I am for them. Trade is 
vitally important. It is an amazing thing to me that, due to ignorance 
and prejudice, we continue to restrict the importation of goods and 
services into America. Why we should give government the ability to 
impose a tax on working Americans and deny them the ability to 
purchase, with the fruit of their own labor, better and cheaper goods 
if they are produced abroad, I don't know. That the greatest trading 
nation in the world would continue textile laws that cost every working 
American family of four $700 a year is an absolute outrage. Something 
needs to be done about it. This is not going to solve that problem, but 
it is the right thing to do. I hope it will become the law of the land 
this year. I am hopeful it will.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Nevada, Mr.

[[Page 26942]]

Reid, for helping to raise the consciousness of the Senate and the 
consciousness of the Nation to the increases in productivity that we 
have gotten through technology and the rate at which it is moving. I 
thank him for his recognition that we have a bill that will not only 
solve some of the problems of technology but go hand in hand with our 
need for national security.
  This is a bill that has been before the Banking Committee and, before 
that, before the International Trade and Finance Committee, of which 
Senator Johnson is the ranking member on that subcommittee. He and I 
had an opportunity this year to spend a lot of time pursuing a bill to 
increase our world trade while preserving national security, making 
sure they run down parallel tracks instead of crossing tracks where the 
locomotive might wind up in a train wreck.
  I thank the chairman of the Banking Committee, the senior Senator 
from Texas, for working with me to focus the committee on the need to 
reauthorize the Export Administration Act. I appreciate the assistance 
that has given in helping to put together a balanced product that we 
reported out of the Banking Committee.
  I am remiss if I do not mention Senators Sarbanes and Johnson again. 
They deserve our thanks for the constructive and thoughtful input they 
put into the bill to make it truly bipartisan.
  I thank every single member of the Banking Committee. We worked 
together for a period of 9 months to be sure all of the concerns of 
national security and commerce were covered in this bill on which we 
are working. The members not only devoted a lot of time to it; they 
assigned staff to it. We had one of my offices--I don't have very many 
offices--dedicated to this bill. At any hour of day, and often night, 
one could walk into that office and there would be a group of people 
meeting to make sure their concerns and their solutions were being 
represented. We had some great discourse that led to a solution that I 
think can pass both the House and the Senate. We worked with the 
members of the Defense Committee, Intelligence Committee, Commerce 
Committee, and the Governmental Affairs Committee, and I think the bill 
is better because of everyone's involvement in it.
  The first 9 months I was on the job as chairman of the subcommittee I 
spent dedicated to this bill. At first, I did not envision I would have 
to put in quite as much work on the issue as I did. I now realize there 
was a lot to learn about export controls.
  It has been mentioned there were attempts to reauthorize the Act, 
which expired in 1994. Since 1994, this country has been operating 
under Executive orders on something so entirely crucial to the United 
States. But during that period of time, we have tried to reauthorize 
it. During that time, 11 separate measures have failed; in fact, they 
failed to even make it out of committee.
  But one of the nice things about the Senate is that there is a lot of 
documentation, even on things that fail. We have gone back and looked 
at that documentation. We have talked to the people who were involved 
in the issues each of those 11 times. We were able to find out what the 
pitfalls were before and have worked to come up with a solution.
  As mentioned, I visited the Bureau of Export Administration and I 
observed some of their activities and processes. I sat in on committee 
meetings.
  During the time we were working on this, the Cox and Dicks report 
also came out, and so did the Deutch Commission report that talked 
about problems that have been identified with foreign countries getting 
secrets from this country. These commissions and committees looked into 
ways to solve that.
  As soon as their reports were filed with the Intelligence Committee, 
before any public documentation came out on it, I went over to the 
Intelligence Committee and I read those reports to see if the efforts 
we were making had any parallel with the suggestions that were coming 
out from these people who were looking at some very detailed and often 
secret situations. I am pleased to say, out of the recommendations of 
Congressman Cox and Congressman Dicks there were 17 different areas of 
legislative possibility. We covered 15 of those in the act and part of 
the other two.
  The subcommittee and full committee held a total of 6 hearings that 
consisted of 25 witnesses who helped us identify critical areas 
relating to export controls as well. We also met with various high-tech 
and industry groups. We met with several Members of Congress. I have 
mentioned the Departments we met with, and a lot of the other executive 
agencies it seems have some involvement in exports and securities or 
both, and we met with them as well.
  We also had an opportunity to meet with many people in the business 
community. It has been my goal to have an open-door policy for 
everyone, and we will continue that policy through the time the bill 
finally gets passage. Throughout the hearings held this year on the 
Export Administration Act, there were many calls to reauthorize the 
expired act. Only a few people have questioned the need for us to 
reauthorize that act. They asked what problems have been identified 
with the current system.
  There are several reasons for reauthorizing the Export Administration 
Act. The first is the U.S. Government's inability to convince other 
countries, even our strongest allies, to improve their export control 
regimes. Only if the EAA is reauthorized can the United States exercise 
a legitimate leadership role to strengthen the multilateral export 
controls that seek to curb dangerous dual-use items. We cannot do it by 
ourselves; we have to have help from other countries. Our ability to 
convince other countries to impose similar controls on their exports is 
compromised by the fact that Congress has allowed the EAA to expire.
  In our June 24 hearing, Richard Cupitt, who is the associate director 
of the Center for International Trade and Security, agreed with this 
assessment by saying:

       The inability of the U.S. Government to craft a firm 
     legislative foundation for its own controls on the export of 
     dual-use goods, technologies, and services over the last 
     decade. . .has compromised U.S. leadership initiatives.

  Another reason for the reauthorization is the lack of penalties for 
violations of export controls under the implementing Executive order--
very strict. If the outdated EAA of 1979 had stiffer penalties than the 
Executive order's maximum penalty of $10,000, we would be in better 
shape. A reauthorization will also give enforcement officers the 
authority to use the tools they need to be effective.
  I now have a person on my staff, who has been loaned to us, who has 
been working on the export enforcement, so we can make sure enforcement 
will be adequate. She has run some numbers for us on some of the 
indictments that have been handed down on things that happened during 
this period between 1994 and now. You have heard some of those 
numbers--16 indictments, potential fine of $132,000 on a contract that 
was $5.4 million. A microdot in the budget--less than the advertising 
budget spent. Fines need to be increased.
  Additionally, it is important we deal with the issue of export 
controls in a comprehensive reauthorization instead of allowing some 
issues to be addressed by a patchwork of inadequate measures. I suspect 
over the next few days and over the next few months, if we do not get 
this passed, you will see parts of the bill that solve a particular 
problem put on as an amendment to something else to take care of an 
immediate critical need. There are a lot of them involved in the bill.
  There is a very delicate balance that is maintained through this 
bill. All of it needs to go through together. If one person gets 
everything he or she wants, there is no reason to participate in the 
rest of the bill. All of them have worked together to make sure their 
interests were covered as well as being able to live with the other 
interests involved here.
  We have received great cooperation from the administration because 
they understand the need to reauthorize the

[[Page 26943]]

Act. Under Secretary Reinsch has even said:

       The EAA is held together right now by duct tape and bailing 
     wire.

  It is also questionable whether export controls are permitted under 
the International Economic Emergency Powers Act.
  The bill before us today represents a compilation of thoughtful 
comments gathered from industry, the administration, Members of 
Congress, on and off of the committee. However, it is not a hodgepodge 
of conflicting ideas and competing interests. The bill is interwoven 
with several basic themes throughout: Transparency, accountability, 
deterrence, multilateral cooperation, and enforcement. It strikes a 
balance by recognizing the need for export controls on very sensitive 
items for national security purposes while relaxing those controls on 
items that have foreign availability or mass market status and thus are 
difficult to control effectively. It allows enforcement to concentrate 
on what can be effectively enforced. It gives each of the departments 
and agencies an equal stake and a fair shake. The compromise for the 
interagency dispute resolution process represents a fair procedure that 
defaults to decision. Yet it provides any department's representative 
the opportunity to appeal a decision without going through the 
bureaucratic hassle of convincing his or her boss of the need to appeal 
a decision in a relatively limited amount of time.
  Transparency, accountability: The reporting requirements in the EAA 
of 1999 instill accountability and transparency in the export control 
process and multilateral negotiations. The criteria for foreign policy 
control provisions foster an accountable system, very similar to that 
in the EAA of 1979.
  The bill encourages the administration to strengthen multilateral 
export control regimes since multilateral controls are more effective. 
It also maintains the sanctions provisions for those who violate 
multilateral export control regimes and contribute to the proliferation 
of missile, chemical, or biological weapons.
  The bill remains tough on terrorism, requiring licenses for the 
export of certain items to countries designated as supporting 
international terrorism. Additionally, it includes penalties that deter 
violations of export control law and the authorities to effectively 
enforce the provisions set forth in the bill.
  It has been mentioned this is supported in a bipartisan way. This 
bill came out of the full Banking Committee unanimously. Our country 
needs this bill, and the people on that committee recognize the need. 
The more they were involved in it, the more they recognized the need.
  I want to mention the patience the House folks have had during this 
process. The problem has been more deeply studied in the House, 
perhaps, than on the Senate side. The suggestions for what needed to be 
done came from the House side, but they have been waiting, watching, 
discussing, following, and commenting on the process we have had on 
this side. They have spent a lot of time with Senator Johnson and me, 
to see if the solutions we came up with met the suggestions they have 
given. They have waited, but they are ready to go.
  This bill cannot be done piecemeal. It needs to be done immediately 
for the security of our country and for the furtherance of our 
commerce. I ask for your support.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Nevada for raising the consciousness 
on this level and giving us an opportunity to comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair for recognizing me.
  Mr. President, I want to comment on the legislation pending before 
the Senate which is the Caribbean Basin Initiative trade bill along 
with the African trade bill.
  I remind my colleagues, it came out of the Senate Finance Committee 
with a unanimous vote. In essence, we did it on a voice vote. At a time 
when this Congress and perhaps this Senate is becoming better known for 
what we have not done, we are presented with an opportunity to do 
something extremely significant in the area of trade for a large part 
of the world with which the United States deals.
  When we write about what we did or did not do in this first session 
of this Congress, it will be clearly pointed out that we did not do 
Social Security reform, as the Presiding Officer well knows, because of 
his involvement in an effort to reform that system.
  We did not do Medicare reform, as the speaker certainly knows, 
following the efforts of the National Commission on Medicare.
  We did not do campaign finance reform, and we all remember those 
arguments.
  We have not done Patients' Bill of Rights legislation because of the 
differences of opinion and the politics involved in that legislation.
  I do not know of any environmental legislation that has worked its 
way through this body with a resounding vote of support, nor do I 
remember particularly any major education efforts that have been 
successfully navigated through this body this year.
  I have a great fear this body is becoming more known for what we have 
not done rather than what we have done. I wonder what the American 
people think of the distinguished Members of this body with whom I have 
the privilege of serving and why we cannot get together and work out 
our differences in the interest of the American public. Why do we spend 
so much of our time debating whose fault it is that nothing is getting 
done as opposed to working together? We can always have the debate over 
who did it. At least under those circumstances we would be arguing 
about success: Look what we did; no, look what we did, rather than 
arguing about failure and whose fault it is that nothing was done.
  We have one last opportunity of great significance in this Congress 
to pass legislation that is bipartisan in its origination, that is 
strongly supported by the administration, which, when it came before 
the Senate Finance Committee after the hearings and after the debate, 
we reported out by a voice vote.
  The question then becomes: What is the problem now? Some will argue 
it is the Republicans' fault because they have filled up the tree. That 
ought to go over well in my State of Louisiana when I tell people we 
did not pass this bill because the Republicans filled up the tree. They 
are going to say: What in the world are you talking about?
  I daresay some are going to say: We did not complete action on this 
bill because we were not able to offer amendments to it in the nature 
of other important efforts, such as minimum wage or agricultural 
provisions, or other trade legislation that some want to offer. Because 
they cannot offer it now, we are not going to continue our progress on 
this legislation.
  I daresay, the American people would say: What in the world are you 
talking about?
  Here is a trade bill that affects U.S. jobs, U.S. industry; it helps 
people who have been loyal to the United States in other parts of the 
world. It clearly helps Central American nations which not too many 
years ago were Marxist countries, Communist dictatorships that have 
gradually been brought into the family of nations with the assistance 
of the United States, and we want to continue having their support on 
things that are important for the people of this country.
  This legislation is a way of doing that--by working out bilateral 
trade agreements with these countries to the south of us that will help 
them economically. When we help them economically, they help us. When 
countries in Central America can do a little bit better economically, 
they buy more of what we produce.
  From my own State of Louisiana, they could buy more rice, more 
soybeans, more manufactured goods. They would ship it through the Port 
of New Orleans, the Port of Baton Rouge, and the Port of Lake Charles 
because they have more money and better jobs. They are helped and we 
are helped. It is a win-win situation.
  The question is: Why don't we do it? What is the problem? The problem 
is

[[Page 26944]]

politics. The problem is political posturing about whose fault it is 
that it is not getting done. Most of the debate is going to be why we 
did not do it and blame each other for failure. Then, again, the 
American people are going to say: What in the world are they talking 
about?
  My State is particularly affected by this. I have heard arguments 
that it is bad for American jobs. My State has lost thousands of jobs 
in the stitch-and-sew industry. It used to be in Louisiana that 
thousands of minimum wage employees, many of them minorities, were 
working in the stitch-and-sew industry for many of these large 
companies that manufacture items we are talking about today. Many of 
them were arbitrarily dismissed, arbitrarily fired. Many of them lost 
their jobs right before Christmas a couple of years ago when most of 
the companies moved out of my State and went to Central American and 
Latin American countries and located down there. That has already 
happened. It did not happen because of this bill. This bill was not 
being considered then. It happened because of the existing state of the 
world.
  I have worked with our people. We have helped them find other jobs. 
Fortunately, because of the economic conditions of our State and the 
economic conditions of the United States, the vast majority of these 
people who lost jobs in the so-called stitch-and-sew industry have 
found jobs in more sophisticated, if I can use that term, industries in 
the United States that represent the future of the United States in 
terms of jobs in the high-tech industries as opposed to something like 
stitch and sew.
  What we have been able to do is use some of the training programs and 
retrain these people to get them into other manufacturing segments, to 
get them into high technology, to get them into computers, to get them 
jobs where they now find they are much better off than they were 
sitting behind a sewing machine stitching and sewing underwear.
  I argue the future of U.S. employees is not in the stitch-and-sew 
industry. If we have to somehow preserve jobs in the stitch-and-sew 
business, we are not being very bullish on America. I argue that is not 
the future of this country. The future of this country is highly 
trained men and women who can do the jobs for the 21st century, and 
that is not in the stitch-and-sew industry.
  It is interesting. I love my dear friend and colleague from South 
Carolina who was reading this article in Time about how these companies 
have, in fact, moved out of the United States. He is absolutely right. 
One of the things I noticed when I was looking at the article the 
distinguished junior Senator from South Carolina was pointing out is 
the article had a picture of the State of Kentucky, and the caption 
under the article is: ``Fruit of the Loom eliminated more than 7,000 
jobs in the past 6 years. Here would-be workers attend a job fair held 
by new arrival Amazon.com.''
  That is particularly important because it says that while stitch-and-
sew jobs are moving out of this country, high-tech jobs, better jobs, 
better paying jobs, more sophisticated jobs, jobs that require more 
training and a better educated workforce are moving in.
  The people who were leaving the Fruit of the Loom jobs were moving, 
on the other hand, into jobs that Amazon.com was providing in that area 
using those workers and retraining them for the 21st century.
  That, I argue, is the future of the United States. The future workers 
of this country are not going to sit behind a sewing machine. If that 
is the future of this country, I daresay it is not a very bright 
future. The future is highly trained jobs in highly technical 
industries which pay well and have a future.
  We are not going to be able to compete with the poorest of the poor 
in terms of who can pay the lowest wages. We should be concentrating on 
educating our workers for the 21st century and then, at the same time, 
trying to do what we can in the textile industry.
  The reason I believe it is so very important and necessary to pass 
this bill is because we say in this trade bill, particularly in the 
textile industry: Look, we are not going to have the stitch-and-sew 
jobs, but, by God, we are the best manufacturer of textiles and cloth 
and fabric.
  We have the best technical ability to weave and dye the fabric. And 
this bill, for the first time, says: Look, if we are going to give 
these countries some advantages, at least we want it to be a two-way 
street, to at least say, if you are going to be able to do these 
products in your country, with lower paying jobs, at least use fabric 
that is manufactured and woven and dyed and assembled in this country. 
We will send it to you. We will manufacture the fabric, you will use 
those fabrics to manufacture garments, and then you have the ability to 
export those products back to this country.
  Mexico can do it now. China will be able to do it. Unless we have 
something like this, we are not going to get any part of the business.
  This legislation, when it talks about the products that are covered, 
clearly says: Apparel articles assembled in the Caribbean basin and 
sub-Sahara Africa from fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United 
States from yarns wholly formed in the United States.
  What that says to the cotton farmers in my State of Louisiana and 
throughout the South is that we are going to use their cotton. Without 
this legislation, we are not going to be using their cotton. The fabric 
will come from overseas, as well as the finished product. At least this 
legislation says we will use their cotton.
  This legislation also says it has to be assembled in this country. It 
has to be woven in this country. If it is going to have a color to it, 
it is going to have to be dyed in this country. So we are getting 
something out of this that we do not have now, that in the absence of 
this legislation we will not have. Therefore, I think it is very clear 
this is something that is important to do. The House thought it was.
  You talk about how bad the House is divided. The House passed this 
234-163. Now it is before this body. For those who argue they don't 
like the process, I don't like the process, either. I would probably 
like to offer a Medicare reform bill to this legislation. People are 
looking for a wagon to jump on to get something passed they would like 
to have passed. I understand that. The problem is that you are 
affecting the merits of good legislation that was bipartisan when it 
left the Senate Finance Committee, that passed by voice vote in the 
Senate Finance Committee, and that merits our support.
  So my point is that other countries are going to benefit, but we are 
going to benefit. If we do not have this legislation, other countries 
will be able to have access to our market with no requirements on using 
U.S. fabric at all. I think we owe it to the workers of this country 
who are still engaged in some aspect of this industry to come up with a 
fair product and fair package like this is.
  I intend to support this legislation. I think it is the right thing 
to do. I hope my colleagues will join me in that effort.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________