George Allen

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment. There may be some understandable sympathy with respect to the amendment of Senator Johnson and Senator Grassley. We all claim concern for the small farm and for reducing consumer prices. We are in the process of voting on numerous amendments to protect the viability of the family farm and the farmer's ability to provide for his or her family. Personally, Virginians have been working on a peanut provision to protect small Virginia peanut farmers from the untenable, devastating, and radical changes proposed in this farm bill. I have heard the statistics that have been quoted by the Agriculture Committee ranking member, Senator Lugar, in which Senator Lugar pointed out that a large percentage of Federal farm subsidies go to a relatively small percentage of our farms. These are oftentimes larger farms, and I certainly understand his concern. The situation being addressed by this amendment is not the same type of issue. The Johnson amendment will actually harm the small farm it intends to protect. This amendment will prevent entrepreneurial and creative companies from achieving operational quality, efficiency, and economies of scale. This amendment will drive up consumer prices. This amendment will make the U.S. products less competitive in world markets. This amendment will drive small farmers out of the market. Here is how. If packers are prohibited from growing their own livestock, they will see an immediate decline in futures prices. Packers who currently run both operations will have to sell their livestock, thereby, of course, driving down market prices. When prices for hogs or cattle go down, we know what the return will be. It will shrink, making it--especially for the farmer--much tougher or difficult for especially the smaller farmers with less profitmaking room to continue in business. Now, this is obviously not the way to protect the small family farm. When prices go down, it will be too late in the longer run--say, the season or two after. The small farms will not have been able to withstand an immediate and drastic fall in prices, and they will already have been shut down and will hardly be in a position to buy more livestock. Excessive Federal Government regulations already threaten our farming community's declining profit margins due to more Federal interference in the marketplace, and that will hurt our hard-working farmers. Now, the long-term effect of this amendment would be to drive up costs for the processors and packers and ultimately drive up the costs for consumers. Our American farmers and packers would lose market share to international competition that isn't restricted by their foreign governments. Indeed, many foreign governments greatly subsidize and protect their agricultural interests. In the economic wealth of Virginia, we hold an inventory in the private sector of about 500,000 heads of hogs and pigs, making it a significant producer. We are also a large producer of cattle and calves. We enjoy a great mix of traditional farms that sell their livestock to processors and packers who also grow their own livestock. The predictability of supply experienced by these multifaceted packers results in an efficiency that is achieved by larger operations. These well-managed pork processing companies are able to offer high-quality, specialized items, quality, low-priced products to consumers as a result of this efficiency, as well as quality assurance of the methods of raising the hogs and cattle. We understand that in some of the specialized parts of the marketplace, in the way cattle are fed, they will then be able to label that as kosher or some other method of product that some consumers may desire. We are eager to finish the business of the Senate and go home to visit our families for the holiday season. Many will get a Virginia ham. They may get pork loin. They may get some beef roast or who knows what. But this amendment, unfortunately, will limit the ability of the efficient companies to offer these high-quality, competitively priced products. While I applaud the intent of this amendment to protect both the family farm and the consumer, I disagree with the methods of achieving this goal. Efficient companies that offer high-quality and low-priced products to consumers ought to be applauded and encouraged in their efforts. Congress should be saying yes to high-quality, U.S.-produced consumer goods. We ought to be saying yes to enabling long-term viability of family farms, and we ought to be saying yes to allowing strong and efficient businesses to succeed in the United States as well as internationally. I will conclude by saying I cannot see the logic of the Federal Government telling a legitimate company in this country or even a hometown butcher shop that you can't own a pig or you can't own a hog or you can't own a cow. I don't think it is the business of the Federal Government to tell someone who can own a pig, a cow, or a calf. Therefore, I oppose this amendment and hope my colleagues will as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I call for regular order under rule XIX. The Senator has yielded for more than a question.

Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield?

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendments of my colleagues, Senators Torricelli and Smith of New Hampshire. These amendments, of which I am a cosponsor, are very good amendments. I have not had the opportunity in years past to hear the argument and debates on these issues. I consider these amendments to be very well founded. What they do is they have conditions for lifting restrictions on the financing of agricultural sales to Cuba, and two findings have to be made. The first condition is that the President must certify to Congress that convicted felons wanted by the FBI who are currently living as fugitives in Cuba have been returned to the United States for incarceration. I will not repeat all of the evidence in this regard that was previously cited by Senator Torricelli, Senator Nelson of Florida, and Senator Graham of Florida, concerning the return of criminals to the United States. The second condition is that the President must certify to Congress that Cuba is not a state sponsor of international terrorism. That is the amendment of Senator Bob Smith. Mr. President, I support fair and free trade and increased opportunities for U.S. workers and businesses, including our agricultural sector, to trade with other countries. However, prudence would lead us to seek to finance trade with countries that are not terrorist states. The Secretary of State maintains a list of countries that have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. Currently, there are seven countries on that State Department terrorism list. They are, in alphabetical order: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. It is appropriate that Cuba is on that list. Fidel Castro's regime has a long history of providing arms and training to terrorist organizations, many of which were articulated previously by Senator Graham. Our State Department notes that Havana remains a safe haven to several international terrorists and U.S. fugitives as well. As we have seen since September 11, terrorists operate in an environment largely dominated by legally and geographically defined nation states. Terrorists sometimes rely on state-provided funding, bases, equipment, technical advice, logistical and support services. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President Bush, in addressing our Nation, stressed that the United States, in responding to these attacks, will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. As we heard, the President characterized these terrorist acts as ``acts of war.'' An ongoing issue for our Congress and administration is how do we respond to state-sponsored or state-sanctioned terrorists and terrorism? There is no question that we need to respond. In my view, this country has dawdled along too many years not being worried about international terrorism, thinking that it would never affect us here at home. We have come to recognize that we must wage warfare against terrorists and those who aid, support, and comfort them. An important part of that warfare is to oppose the terrorist states with every reasonable weapon at hand. That may be financial intercepts, surveillance, enhanced scrutiny of entrants into our country, infiltrating some of these terrorist organizations, greater intelligence here as well as abroad, military action when necessary, law enforcement abroad as well as here at home. All are components of our multifaceted war on terrorism. Now, trade is also an important component of our current struggle against countries that are on the terrorism list. Let's get into another aspect of Cuba. In February of this year, the State Department reported several salient facts about Cuba and life in Cuba for the people of Cuba, who we are purportedly trying to help. I do want to help the people of Cuba, but here is how we help them: First, let's recognize what they are facing. Cuba's human rights record remains poor. It continues to violate systematically the fundamental civil and political rights of its citizens. The State Department pointed out that the citizens of Cuba-- as if we didn't know it already--do not have the right to change their government peacefully. The Government of Cuba does not allow criticism of the revolution four decades ago or its repressive, tyrannical leaders. Cuba's laws against antigovernment statements and expressions of disrespect of Government officials carry penalties of between 3 months and 1 year in prison. If Fidel Castro or members of the National Assembly or the Council of States are the objects of this criticism, the sentence for such expressions can be extended to 3 years in prison. Recently, Fidel Castro was asked by Robert McNeill: Do you have political prisoners still in jail in Cuba? Castro responded: Yes, we have them. We have a few hundred political prisoners. Is that a violation of human rights? Well, I will answer Castro's rhetorical question. Yes, it is; darn right it is a violation of human rights. Castro's human rights practices are arbitrary and repressive. Hundreds of peaceful opponents of the Government remain imprisoned. Many thousands more are subject to short-term detentions, house arrest, surveillance, arbitrary searches, evictions, travel restrictions, politically motivated dismissals from employment, threats to them or their families, and other forms of harassment by the Cuban Government authorities. Mr. President, let me repeat what our State Department said. Citizens of Cuba do not have the right to change their Government peacefully. Let us recall the words written 225 years ago by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence: When a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce (people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Just as it was important for our ancestors to have the right to throw off the chains of the tyrannical monarchy 225 years ago, it must be the right of the Cuban people to free themselves of the chains of the tyrannical Castro regime. Let us support the opportunities of the Cuban people to enjoy their unalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Let us not retreat in our opposition to terrorism nor flinch from the advocacy of liberty. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support these amendments by Senator Smith and Senator Torricelli. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of President Bush's nominee to be U.S. Alternative Executive Director to the Inter-American Development Bank, Jorge L. Arrizurieta. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for this nomination from our colleagues, Senator Graham and Senator Frist, as well as letters of support from Governor Bush of Florida, the Undersecretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, Mr. John Taylor, and the Special Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Jeffrey Ross, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Arrizurieta's background represents a strong combination of public service at the Federal, State, and local levels. Previously, Mr. Arrizurieta worked for five years as the Director of State Projects for our former colleague Senator Mack where he did an outstanding job. He was also appointed by Governor Jeb Bush of Florida to the Post Secondary Education Planning Commission, where he was elected Vice Chairman by his colleagues. For the past eight years, Mr. Arrizurieta has been closely associated with corporate ventures of Mr. Wayne Huizenga, a southern Florida entrepreneur. As Vice President of Public Affairs for Huizenga Holdings, Mr. Arrizurieta has had the opportunity to meet and work with a broad variety of government and business leaders throughout the country and the Western Hemisphere. In this capacity he has worked on developing extensive business development outreach efforts in the Latin American and Caribbean region. Aside from these commitments, Mr. Arrizurieta has devoted his time and effort to many charitable, community and business organizations, including the Make A Wish Foundation, the Florida Chamber of Commerce, La Liga Contra el Cancer, and the Florida FTAA, Free Trade Area of the Americas, initiative as a founding member of its Board of Directors. Jorge Arrizurieta is the son of Cuban immigrants, is fluent in Spanish, and has a strong understanding of Latin American culture. His government affairs and community relations background will serve him well in a position where people and diplomatic skills are highly valued to advance the interests of the United States, and the efficacy of the bank as a political institution. I would like to note that a misimpression may have been left by questions raised at Mr. Arrizurieta's nomination hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, regarding a bank on whose board he serves. I call my colleagues' attention to the very helpful letter of clarification from the Department of Justice which I have entered into the Record and which should resolve any questions that arose during the Committee hearing. The nomination of Mr. Arrizurieta will come before the Committee on Foreign Relations soon. I urge my colleagues on the Committee to join me in voting to favorably report this nomination. Once the nomination has been reported from the Committee, I urge the Majority Leader to bring the nomination promptly before the Senate so that President Bush and the American people will have the benefit of Mr. Arrizurieta's strong background and experience on the Inter-American Development Bank. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, November 27, 2001. Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dirksen Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Biden: I write today to support the Administration's nominee for U.S. Alternate Executive Director to the Inter-American Development Bank, Jorge Arrizurieta, and ask that you also support this nomination. The son of Cuban immigrants, Jorge is a fellow Floridian, and an American success story. Coupled with his fluency in Spanish and strong understanding of the Latin American culture, Jorge has a strong background in government and community relations in Florida's large Latin-American community. Mr. Arrizurieta's work with Senator Mack was well regarded and extremely valuable to the Senator and all Floridians. At the Huizenga organization he began his work as the Director of Community Relations for the Florida Marlins Baseball Club. The team's focus on marketing to Latin America and the Caribbean allowed Mr. Arrizurieta the opportunity to meet and work with many government and business leaders in the region and assist the team in their efforts to become ``The Team of the Americas.'' His current duties at Huizenga Holdings include managing the government relations for its business interests as diverse as the Miami Dolphins Football Club, Pro Player Stadium, and Autonation, Inc., the largest automotive retailer in the world. Notwithstanding these responsibilities, Mr. Arrizurieta has continued to make time to give back to his community. His unselfish devotion to the Make A Wish Foundation, his work with the Annenberg Educational Challenge, his key role with the Florida FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) effort as a member of its Board of Directors and his appointed position to the State of Florida's Post Secondary Education Planning Commission, where he was elected Vice Chairman by his colleagues, have prepared Mr. Arrizurieta very well for this important position. Jorge Arrizurieta's proven background in community and government relations will serve him well in a position where people and diplomatic skills are highly valued to advance the partnership between the U.S. and in the Americas. I urge you to support his nomination. Sincerely, Bob Graham, U.S. Senator.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Sure.

Mr. ALLEN. This is a bad precedent for us to be meddling in these affairs.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President. I have been listening, wondering why this issue came up. I first listened to Senator Nickles talking about the procedural matters and Senator McCain talking about committee jurisdiction. Then I heard my friend, the Senator from Texas, talk about why is this involved at all on a Defense appropriations matter. While the process and committee jurisdiction is very interesting, I am just wondering why in the heck, regardless of what bill it is on, the Senate is involved in this issue at all. There are concerns, and Senator McCain told me: This is going to affect airport funds in Virginia, this, that, and the other. I said: Maybe so, but why are we bringing this up? I remember when I was Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia taking great exception to the Federal Government coming in and telling us how to run Reagan National Airport, telling us how many flights we can have out, how many gates, the perimeter rule, and how we should operate in our authority that runs Reagan National, as well as Dulles, and how they ought to operate. I know there are some folks who may be on the same side as me who had the Federal Government sticking their nose in the business of the people of Virginia and the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. I have been reading about arguments over whether O'Hare Airport ought to be expanded or not or whether it is desirable to have a third airport. I do not know. I am not taking a side one way or the other. If the folks in Chicago and Illinois want three airports, two airports, five airports, or seven airports, to me that is the business of the people of Illinois and those jurisdictions in which those airports might be expanded or located. The Illinois delegation is split on the proposal, which is interesting in itself, but that is not dispositive to me. We might have both Senators from Illinois thinking it is great to usurp the rights and prerogatives of the people of Illinois. To me that would be something politically foolish to do, but nevertheless, maybe some folks may not pay attention to it. This effort is one of expansion and safety of O'Hare, and maybe that is a good idea, but the basic issue to me is whether we are going to allow Federal preemption of State law that requires apparently State approval of airport building or expansion. This is a State law in the State of Illinois. Let them decide it. If that is a foolish law, if it is too harmful for the expansion of airports, it is not as if the people in Illinois do not have the right to vote to change those laws or those representatives to change those laws if they decided to do so. Every civilian commercial airport in our country, it seems to me, is owned and operated by a political subdivision of a State or multijurisdictional authority. Those are powers that are properly the prerogatives and in the purview of the people in the States. The way I see it, should Senator Durbin's maybe well-intentioned amendment--maybe it is a good idea to build a third airport. Regardless, if this amendment should be adopted, it would actually allow the Federal Aviation Administration to usurp the State government's authority to decide this airport issue at the State level.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the Senator from Texas----

Mr. ALLEN. Will the Senator from Texas yield?

Mr. ALLEN. Having once lived in Deerfield, IL--I was a youngster at the time. We did not have Illinois State Government. But I did hear from the other Senator, Senator Fitzgerald, that the legislature has not agreed to this language. The point is, in my view, this is not the jurisdiction or the place for us to decide the issues that are rightly in the purview and are the prerogative of the people of Illinois and political subdivisions therein. I may agree with the Senator that maybe the best idea is expansion of O'Hare Airport, as opposed to the third airport. Again, that is something that needs to be worked out with the localities and, for that matter, all branches of the State government in Illinois. Mr. President, I will support the efforts to defeat this amendment. I do think the issue of air transportation is important to our Nation, obviously, but these decisions are best made by the people in the States, those closest to it. If those laws need amending, let them work it out with due process at the State level, and do not bring these fights and decisions to the Senate. We are remote people who do not know the details and are trying to make a decision. I think it is best we defer this decision and refer it back to the jurisdiction and court where it ought to be, and that is in Illinois. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLEN. The point of all this is the people from Illinois can figure this out themselves. Do they really need us to ratify their agreements?

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my concerns over the action of the Senate in proceeding to the Farm Bill, notwithstanding the nice dialog between the Senator from Pennsylvania and my good friend from a fellow peanut-growing State, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller. I understand the desire to make improvements in the existing farm bill. There should be improvements made. From what I can tell, the House-passed bill and the Senate-Agriculture-Committee-reported bill have several very worthy provisions. No one can argue against the need for a strong farm bill. Indeed, it is a high priority, and I certainly will not disagree with that. In my home State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, agriculture accounts for a significant part of our diverse economy. Agriculture creates approximately 388,000 jobs in Virginia, which is about 10 percent of the total jobs statewide. Virginia agriculture contributes about $19.5 billion to Virginia's gross State product, or 11.2 percent of the total GSP. Farms cover 8.8 million acres, or 34 percent of Virginia's total land area. There are 49,000 farms in Virginia. Most farms in Virginia are smaller farms, but there are 49,000 of them. Again, a strong farm bill is very important to Virginia. I do applaud the work of the committee in drafting this bill. However, I have several concerns and I cannot agree with moving forward on this bill right now. Let me elaborate on these several concerns. Number one, this is not the right time to deal with this bill. The current farm bill, with whatever flaws it may have and whatever improvements need to be made to that bill, does not expire until the end of fiscal year 2002, which is September 30 of next year. We are already several months into the fiscal year 2002. It is simply unfair to our hard-working men and women to make any changes to this legislation that may harm their income in the middle of the current year. They just finished the fall harvest and are now involved in planning, buying, and leasing for the next planting. It would be like lining up to kick a field goal and having the goalpost moved after you kick the ball. After you kick it, nobody is allowed to move the goalpost back. That simply would not be fair. It is a terrible way to make changes, whether it is in the peanut program in particular in Virginia or any other sort of program when farmers are making these decisions. The second problem I have with this measure being brought up now is that Americans have much more pressing problems to deal with rather than changing a law that doesn't expire for another 10 or 11 months. We are at war. Financing this war is important, and making sure that the men and women in uniform have adequate compensation is important. It is important that they have the armaments and the most technologically advanced equipment for protecting our interests at home and abroad. We need to be worrying about that and dealing with the crisis of terrorism. That must be dealt with now. The Defense appropriations bill: We need to be dealing with proper funding for our Defense Department. Overall appropriations: The Senate and the House have not completed work on all the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bills, yet we are considering a bill and a law that has not expired and will not expire until the end of fiscal year 2002. Sometimes I may have a hard time getting used to the logic of the Federal Government--trying to change a bill that has 10 months of validity to it while not even taking care of bills that should have been financing our military or schools since the first of October. These are supposed to be 5-year farm bills. There is a logic to making this a four-year bill. There is a predictability that allows farmers to plan ahead and make investments so that they will grow the best crop possible to provide for their families. That bill doesn't expire until late next year, and here we are arguing that issue. Meanwhile, we are in a war, and we are not dealing with the Defense Appropriations bill or the Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill. As far as I am concerned, these appropriations bills are some of the primary functions we serve as Members of Congress. The one thing we have to do each and every year is fund the government. We haven't completed that task yet. Those bills should have been completed before October of this year. Here we are fiddling around and debating a very important measure with important implications, but again not taking care of the things that are most timely. We have emergency appropriations, and $20 billion in appropriations still has to be finalized by Congress concerning response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Congress has yet to spend the $20 billion appropriated portion of the war on terrorism for emergency security, response, and recovery efforts This issue should be on our plate right now for action rather than the farm bill. Economic stimulus: We realize our economy has a great deal of consternation. Consumer confidence is low. Businesses are not investing. Jobs are being lost. An economic stimulus package, something that will help spur consumer spending and business investment and thereby the creation of more jobs rather than the loss of jobs--that should be a priority. That is a clear and pressing need for the people of America right now, not a law that expires in October of next year. Getting hard-working Americans back to work is a priority. Our economy has lost thousands and thousands of jobs and these job losses are not unique to the airline or tourism industry, or even to New York or Virginia. They are felt in every corner of the country and in every industry. As the Senator from Georgia mentioned, we have lost a lot of textile jobs in the South. In Southside, VA, 2,300 jobs were just lost at VF Imagewear in the Henry County area--in the heart of Virginia. The President's back-to-work package is a way to help those folks who are out of work--hopefully temporarily--with their health care as well as with their unemployment benefits. We need to help these people through tough times and most importantly, strengthen the economy to enable them to get back to work. That is a part of the stimulus package that I wish we were arguing, debating, and acting upon at this moment. But we are fiddling with this bill that doesn't expire until next year. Nominees: The President ought to have his team in place. I know the Senator from Georgia at one time was an executive. They need their own team in place to respond and to effectuate their philosophy, to act upon the principles, promises and policies that they enunciated to the American people. Yet the President has not gotten the deserved attention to have his nominees for key administration positions-- whether it is in the State Department, judicial arena, or in other areas. I think the Government needs to have capable people to do the work of the Government. Senator Bond spoke on this matter earlier and I agree with his remarks. Energy legislation: I very much agree on the need to pass comprehensive energy legislation that deals with both supply and demand issues. That is a positive aspect of this farm bill that the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller, brought up. Fuel cells and new technologies are very important. We can't keep doing things the same old way. We need to have a diversity of fuels and not be so dependent on foreign oil. I would like to see us become more energy independent in this country so that we are not jerked around by monarchs or others in the Middle East for our reliance on oil, which matters a great deal for our economy, and clearly it matters to farmers. When diesel prices or gas prices are skyrocketing, they are put in quite a bind. An energy bill, which has consisted been advocated by Senator Murkowski of Alaska, is something we have been trying to deal with for this entire year. It is an important issue that has been dealt with in the House and deserves the Senates attention. We are at war in Afghanistan. We also have a war on the homefront as well. We have become the target of domestic terrorism that is accurately described as war. We need to make sure that in our homeland we have the right safety and security--not just abroad but here at home as well. The farm bill, in my view, is not a piece of legislation that should be rushed into. I believe Senator Conrad accurately portrayed why we may be pushing this legislation forward. He explained that issue very well. He said: ``The money is in the budget now. If we do not use the money, it will very likely not be available next year.'' While what the Senate Budget Committee says may be true, it is not a good reason to rush through floor consideration on a piece of legislation as important as this one. The farm bill is an important matter. It merits time, consideration, and full debate on the floor. With all of the other priorities that the Senate really must consider prior to recess, it doesn't make sense to hold them up for the farm bill. I am not a member of the Agriculture Committee and was therefore not able to offer amendments in the committee. I look forward to the opportunity to work with committee members and potentially offer amendments on the floor. I also understand that the committee markup was not very open to amendments. While I am sure there was a significant amount of wonderful work done by the chairman on the bill, I know there are significant differences even within the Agriculture Committee. These differences are obvious even to someone who is not on the committee. Especially when you look at the number of competing bills introduced by committee members themselves. First there is the Harkin bill which was passed by the committee. There is a Lugar substitute, and the Cochran-Roberts substitute is a third measure. There is a fourth measure being considered, the House-passed bill, and the fifth is the Lincoln- Hutchinson bill. I heard from people all across Virginia about many of the positive changes that several of these bills would make. However, I also heard from Virginia peanut farmers who have a different view than peanut farmers maybe in Oklahoma, or New Mexico, or Texas, or even the Empire State of the South, Georgia. That is my third concern. The peanut farmers in Virginia may very well go out of business with this measure as written. This new peanut program will hurt the income of hard-working Virginia peanut farmers. In 1996, when the Federal Government last debated the farm bill, the target price was lowered from $670 per ton down to the current level of $610 per ton. This $610-per-ton level is not due to expire until the end of fiscal year 2002--September 30, 2002. These peanut-growing farmers in Virginia have sense and practicality. They have already entered into agreements for land. They have entered into agreements for equipment leases as well as renting quota for the upcoming growing season. They will be planting in Virginia only about 5 to 6 months from now. That is simply the planting, and these farmers are certainly in the midst of preparation prior to planting right now. This farm bill will change their revenue stream after they have already entered into contracts based upon the provisions in the current farm bill. People in the real world think that law doesn't expire until September 30 of 2002. They think that law is going to be there. They make decisions based on that law. Here we are debating changing the rules on them. The bottom line is that it is simply not fair. It is not fair to our hard-working farmers who have to be dealing with a moving target. I have been working on these issues with members of the committee and other concerned Senators and look forward to the opportunity to make some changes that will benefit the hard-working family of peanut growers in Virginia and, indeed, every farmer, regardless of crop throughout our country. Virginia's peanut farms cannot withstand another 10-percent reduction in the price of peanuts as we saw back in 1996. This current farm bill, as proposed, will do just that and then some. Virginia has about 76,000 acres of peanuts and 4,000 peanut growing farmers. The crop brought in $60 million to the State's economy last year. While these numbers may not look large to some Senators who have large corporate farms in their States, these peanut farms are the basis of many local rural communities, particularly in southeastern Virginia. And there are different types of peanuts. I am not going to name every one, but in Virginia we grow the jumbo--the nice, big peanuts. You may see the brands Whitley's or the Virginia Diner peanuts, the Hancock peanuts, the blanched peanuts. Those are Virginia-style or sometimes called Virginia-Carolina style peanuts--the jumbos, the big peanuts, not the small, little redskin peanuts or the Spanish peanuts, goobers, or runters. Those are all fine peanuts as well. You just have to eat two of them for every one of a Virginia peanut. They are probably just as great for peanut butter and candies. Most of the States are different. Virginia grows this different type of peanut. While it is larger, it does get a lower yield per acre than you would with the smaller peanuts, and they also have a higher cost per acre. Our peanut farmers in Virginia risk having their revenue cut to a point where they will lose money on each pound that is produced. Again, it is a different peanut than is grown in other regions of the country. And while that raises our costs, it unfortunately does not often equally raise the price that the farmer receives. So a tough situation now would just become disastrous if this measure became law in the middle of this year, or, for that matter, even after 2002. The situation here is one where our economy would be affected. The farmers, in particular, who have purchased equipment, who have made leases on equipment, on implements, on fertilizer--I know the Presiding Officer understands because in his State they have a lot of good rural communities--if there is a good crop that brings in a good yield, sure, that helps the farmer, the implement dealer, those who sell feed or seed or fertilizer, but it also has an impact on the entire community with the money that comes into the businesses there, such as grocery stores and restaurants. It has a big impact on that economy through both direct and indirect means. Having met this summer with a great deal of peanut growers in southeastern Virginia, it reminded me of when I saw the tobacco farmers just a few years ago, where they were trying to get the best yield per acre they could get and they were under attack by officious nannies from Washington, who are looking to reform somebody else's habit, and here are these communities wondering how they are going to survive. They are simply hard-working law abiding men and women trying to provide for their families. And these proposed changes don't only affect them--it affects their whole community. It is not a matter of humor nor to be taken lightly. Their livelihoods are at stake. So I say, number one, this is not the right time to change the law before it expires. Let the law expire before you change these laws affecting these peanut farmers. Number two, we have much more pressing issues on which to be focusing our current attention and our brainpower, whether it is supporting our war effort, addressing our economy, getting people back to work or gaining energy independence. And number three, I think this would have a terrible impact on Virginia's peanut farmers and their communities. I find it completely wrong for the Federal Government to change, at this time, a law that many good, decent, hard-working, law-abiding citizens have relied on. To do that would put a lot of people out of business. And any new law should take effect after the end of the current farm bill. So with that, Mr. President, I thank you for your attention. I thank my colleagues for their attention. And I hope to be able to work with all of you in the months ahead to come up with a peanut program that is good for the taxpayers, and also one that allows Americans to enjoy the benefits of good, wholesome, nutritious peanuts as well, and takes into account fair practices as far as legislating up here. And we should not change laws before they expire, especially when so many people have relied on those laws. I especially hope that Virginia peanuts will always be around for all of us to enjoy. With that, under the provisions of rule XXII, I yield my remaining time to the ranking member of the committee, Senator Lugar.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit today, along with the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, the Vice Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Warner, and the Vice Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Mr. Campbell, and many of our colleagues, a Senate resolution recognizing the historical significance of the 100th anniversary of Korean-Americans' immigration to the United States in 2003. In December of 1902, 56 men, 21 women and 25 children traveled from Korea across the Pacific Ocean on the S.S. Gaelic and landed in Honolulu, HI, on January 13, 1903, marking the first entry of Korean immigrants to the U.S. territories. The year 2003 will be the 100th Anniversary of that immigration. With that anniversary looming, interest in this historic centennial celebration is growing in Korean communities in the United States and worldwide, including events within the vibrant Korean-American communities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. A century is more than a convenient marker for Korean-Americans: It celebrates Koreans' prominent place in the broad narrative of America. Judging by their achievements over these past 100 years, theirs is an American story that confirms the opportunity for individual initiative, creativity, hard work and success in these free United States. Both individually and as a community, Korean-Americans have much to celebrate in 2003. In such diverse areas as commerce and finance, technology, medicine, education, and the arts, Korean-American contributions are being widely acknowledged and recognized. Even the Korean culture, uniquely shaped, inspired, and nurtured by life in America, is becoming part of the vernacular. From Hawaii to California to New York, and in Annandale in Fairfax County, VA, Korean-American communities are vibrant and vital leaders throughout the United States. It is worth noting that apart from the many achievements by Korean- Americans, unique among all immigrant communities in the United States, the early Korean-American community was united around the common goal of attaining freedom and independence for their colonized mother country. Like many immigrant groups, Korean-Americans embraced the basic principles of democracy in our Constitution. It is a goal that continues to this day, when one considers that one out of four Korean-Americans still has relatives and other loved ones trapped in North Korea. Starting in the early 1950s, thousands of immigrants, fleeing from war, poverty and desolation came to the United States seeking opportunities. Without knowing the language and without great wealth, but with strong family ties, caring community support and many hours of hard work, Korean-Americans, like waves of immigrants before them, have taken root and thrived in our free American soil. Crucial to Korean-Americans' success was their ability to organize themselves for mutual support and assistance through associations, churches and other organizations. This success has translated itself, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, into 135,571 businesses owned and operated by Korean-Americans across the country with gross sales and receipts of $46 billion. These businesses employ 333,649 men and women with an annual payroll of $5.8 billion. The contributions to this country by early Korean-Americans include the invention of the first beating heart operation for coronary heart disease, the development of the nectarine and a four-time Olympic gold medallist. In the modern era, there have been notable achievements by engineers, architects, doctors, actors, singers, sculptors and novelists, among others. With more than 100 communities throughout the United States preparing to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Korean- American immigration to the United States, it is appropriate and deserving to recognize the historical significance of this milestone. It is my hope that this resolution will encourage appreciation, pride, and self-awareness among Korean Americans, and I encourage schools, organizations, and Federal, State, and local governments to plan activities and programs together with the many Korean-American organizations that are currently preparing for this wonderful anniversary of the living American Dream. I respectfully ask for the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this resolution, and urge the Senate to pass this historic resolution.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I yield myself 8 minutes off the time of the opponents of the amendment.

Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, the reality is, if we pass the Enzi- Dorgan amendment, the substitute, what we are in effect doing is imposing Internet access taxes and allowing discriminatory taxes on the Internet. This is a measure on which I know Senator Enzi and Senator Dorgan have worked hard. Nevertheless, it has been changing almost by the day and certainly almost by the hour in recent weeks. There has not been any scrutiny to it. Let me associate myself, though, with the remarks and observations of Senator Wyden of Oregon. This does complicate the Tax Code. It is a very complex issue which actually makes it worse. There are unfair taxes that could occur even within a State if this were adopted and, indeed, it has added taxes. If we allow this amendment to be put on, let's have no doubt about it; the House is not going to conference. We will have this expired moratorium continuing. There are already States that have access taxes that are grandfathered. These are taxes, such as the Spanish-American war tax that was put on for telephone service, a luxury. Once taxes are put on by a State or locality, it is very hard to get them off. There are two sides. There is a choice Senators are going to need to make. The opponents are for a tax-free Internet. The other side is on the pro-tax-collector side. The first decision we need to make is whether we extend the Internet access tax moratorium or do we vote for the Enzi-Dorgan amendment which would result in allowing Internet access taxes and discriminatory Internet taxes. The opponents of this amendment side with individuals. We side with entrepreneurs rather than siding with the tax collectors. We have heard that this is a loophole, the fact that someone who has no physical presence in a State, gets no benefits from fire or police services, that they do not have to collect and remit sales and use taxes to 7,600 jurisdictions--that that is not a level playing field, or it is a loophole. I look at the Internet as an individualized enterprise zone where the consumer, the individual, the human being is the one making the decisions, not tax-collecting bureaucracies. As far as this level playing field, let's assume you wanted to get your son or daughter a Harry Potter CD. If you ordered it on line, it would cost $16.26. That is including shipping and handling. That would be getting it in 3 to 5 days in shipment. It would be 5 times more in cost of shipping if you wanted it overnight. Off line, at a store, it would be $14.62. With the velour dress, here are cowboy boots and a computer. Let me go through the specification on each of these to show how this playing field is relatively level and, in fact, you actually save money by going to a store, as well as convenience. Amazon.com on line, total price, shipping and handling, is $16.26. If you go to Best Buy in Springfield, VA, paying a sales tax, it is $14.62. Savings by going to the store is $1.64. Again, we took the lowest shipping and handling. Again, this is where we take the lowest shipping and handling. Let's assume you wanted to buy yourself or your bride a dress. There is a velour dress from Spiegel.com, on line, at $89. The price at the store is actually a little more. At Tyson's Corner, at Macy's, it is $95. But when you put in the tax versus shipping and handling, you save money by going to the store. Say you wanted to buy yourself some boots. This is what it would cost on line--$120. It is $121 at the store in Springfield. But, again, the savings is $3.50 if you go to the store over shipping and handling. If you buy a Dell computer on line, the price is exactly the same price as it is at Circuit City in Charlottesville, VA. But you would save money in that the sales tax is $71. Shipping and handling is $95. You would save approximately $24. Put all of that into context. If you are buying a dress, or somebody is buying boots, you may like to try them on. You may want to put them on to see if they fit. That is the advantage those in the stores have over somebody buying on line. You can touch it. You can feel it. You can see how they fit. If there is a problem, you bring them right back to that store. You don't have to pay handling and shipping and go through all that annoyance and aggravation of handling and shipping. Say you wanted to buy your son or daughter the Harry Potter soundtrack but didn't want to wait 5 days. Maybe you wanted to get an Allen Jackson soundtrack and listen to it driving home. You would want to get it right away. Again, the convenience is there. The point is there is competition. The idea that this is not a level playing field is not just borne out by the facts. While this is all very well intentioned, the solution is not burdening the free enterprise system. The solution is not harming the Internet, and the capabilities and potential and possibilities of the Internet for education, communication, and commerce. Indeed, what is being tried here with the Enzi-Dorgan amendment is to abrogate and negate a settled constitutional law from Supreme Court decisions, whether it was the Quill decision or whether it was the Bella Hess decision, which say there cannot be taxation without representation. I would like to work with the proponents of this amendment to find a system where the folks who care about their local schools, as Senator Dorgan said, can pay those use taxes. But I am going to stand on the side of freedom--freedom of the Internet, trusting individuals and entrepreneurs--and not on the side of making this advancement in technology easier to tax for the tax collectors. I reserve whatever time I may have remaining.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in conclusion, as Senators are getting ready to vote on this amendment, my amendment actually keeps the policies the way they have been in prior administrations. I cited General McCaffrey who was the drug czar under President Clinton. General McCaffrey stated the problem is not clean needles, the problem is drug addiction. One thing that has arisen a great deal in this debate is not the message we are sending, although I think it is the wrong message if we actually say we are going to use taxpayer funds in the District of Columbia to give drug users, drug addicts, clean needles and syringes. The evidence is clearly mixed on it. We can get evidence, I suppose, from those who are drug addicts. I would not consider them the most credible witnesses under any cross-examination. Indeed both sides cite studies. Whether it is a study in New York or Vancouver or various other studies, these needle exchange networks only create networks for drug users to exchange information and drugs and have no positive impact whatsoever on drug use nor do they have an impact on stopping HIV transmission. Of course, I do think AIDS and HIV ought to be addressed, but, as General McCaffrey states, the way of doing it is not to encourage and facilitate drug delivery devices that are cleaner than one would ordinarily use. The main argument, though, is a jurisdictional one. I have the same general sentiments as the Senator from Illinois when we are talking about local control. I really do not like it. Notice Virginia, of course, is not one of the States that allows needle exchange. I am one who generally, as a matter of philosophy, trust the people in the States. I believe the 10th amendment is very important as a part of our Bill of Rights granting to the people in the States those rights that are not specifically granted to the Federal Government. But this is an issue that has to do with the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia is under the purview and oversight of the Congress because it is the seat of Government. The part of the District of Columbia that remains is that which was ceded for the seat of Government by the State of Maryland. Virginia also granted some land, which is now Arlington County. It was not necessary, and it was retro- ceded to Virginia. Just to show how Congress recognizes its special role in oversight as far as the District is concerned, both the House and the Senate have authorizing subcommittees specifically to address the needs of the District. There is no Chicago committee or Kansas City committee or Oklahoma City committee or Los Angeles committee in the House nor a subcommittee on them. To argue this is a States rights issue or 10th amendment issue negates and clouds the reality that we have a responsibility in the Senate to have oversight over the laws and the activities, the safety and the conduct in the District of Columbia. It is my view that it would be the wise and prudent course of conduct to not have the Senate in any way condone granting free needles, or free syringes to those who are engaged in and, in fact, are illegal drug addicts. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will stand for that principle for the District of Columbia, which is looked upon as not only our Nation's Capital but also the home of our legislative body, and of freedom of our representative democracy by people all over the world. I thank the Chair. I yield back my time.

Mr. ALLEN. Agreed.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nickles also be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. ALLEN

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the Senate to take a stand, a strong stand, against illegal drug use by rejecting a provision in the District of Columbia appropriations bill that would allow the use of taxpayer funds for a needle exchange program. My amendment mirrors the section of the House bill that addresses the needle exchange programs and would prohibit both the use of Federal and locally generated funds for these needle exchange programs. I think it is wrong and it is a misguided priority for the District of Columbia, with all their priorities and pressing concerns in the District-- whether they be in improving their public schools or improving public safety--to be wasting money. In fact, I don't think they ought to waste a penny in providing drug users with sterile needles or syringes. As you know, Mr. President, the Constitution provides the Congress the authority to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all cases dealing with the District of Columbia. We have oversight responsibilities. The Federal District of Columbia is properly and constitutionally subject to more oversight from the Congress than would be any of the 50 States. This is evidenced by the fact that both the House and Senate have authorizing subcommittees specifically addressing the District of Columbia. Thus, we, as Members of the Senate, have not only a right but also a constitutional oversight responsibility to stop this legislation which would obviously be detrimental to the public good. That is the bottom line here. When there is something that is clearly detrimental to the public good in the District of Columbia, we have an oversight responsibility. While the vast majority of matters have to do with local jurisdiction--schools and traffic signals--various other issues, management is best at that local level--although we would like to empower them in some cases to do more--but insofar as the needle exchange network is concerned, these needle exchange networks are bad for the communities in which they are located. In November of 1995, the Manhattan Lower East Side Community Board passed a resolution to terminate their needle exchange program. You may wonder why they stopped it. They said: The community has been inundated with drug dealers. Lawful businesses are being abandoned, and much needed law enforcement is being withheld by the police. Why would we want that to happen in our Nation's Capital? The U.S. Senate could through this appropriations bill, if this amendment is not adopted and the conference committee leaves it in, allow the District of Columbia, our Nation's beloved capital, to use taxpayer funds to buy clean needles for drug addicts. However, prior experience with these needle exchange programs not only fails to demonstrate positive results among drug addicts, but it may actually result in negative results. That is right, negative results. Deaths resulting from drug overdoses have increased five times since 1988. According to a White House report, in 1997 15,973 people died from drug-induced causes. That is 1,130 more people than in 1996. The highest death rate from illegal use was among African Americans at 8.3 deaths per 100,000 people. Additionally, according to Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, the number of American teenagers using heroin has doubled in most recent years. Indeed, when one thinks of heroin, you think of heroin being used by folks in their late 20s and 30s. The biggest increase in the use of heroin is among teenagers. In fact, the average age of heroin users nationally is now lower among teenagers. That is very frightening. An AIDS Journal study indicated that Vancouver, the site of one of these needle exchange programs, now has the highest rate of heroin deaths in North America. It seems to me that giving a drug addict a clean needle is like giving an alcoholic a clean flask. It just doesn't make any sense. Some would claim that needle exchange programs prevent the spread of AIDS amongst intravenous drug users and are, therefore, important in addressing the AIDS problem. The Clinton administration attempted to lift the ongoing ban on Federal funds for needle exchange programs as a solution to reducing the rate of HIV infection among intravenous or IV drug users without increasing the use of drugs such as heroin. While clean needles do not contribute to the spread of HIV, there is scant evidence, scientific or anecdotal, that needle exchanges protect users. A Montreal study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 1997 showed that addicts who used needle exchange programs were twice as likely to become infected with HIV than those who did not. The New York Times magazine reported that one New York City program gave a single individual 60 syringes, a pamphlet with instructions on using them, and a identification card that allows them to legally possess drug paraphernalia. Indeed, drug addicts use these programs not only for fresh paraphernalia but also to network among other drug addicts for fresh supplies of the drug itself. It may be more accurate to call the drug needle exchange programs what they are: drug exchange networks. We are at a time in history when more Americans are ruining or losing their lives to illegal drug use. When the highest death rate from illegal drug use occurs in African American communities, and when heroin and cocaine are at some of their lowest prices in history, I maintain that we should not vote to encourage the government to give away the tools that enable people to promote drug use and, therefore, harm themselves. Indeed, it is not just harming themselves. Drug use is the key component in crime. Ask any prosecutor, law enforcement officer, or, in fact, any judge who deals with criminal cases, and you will find that the vast majority of criminal cases are related to drug use. Someone may be under the influence of drugs when they assault or rape someone, and when they are breaking and entering, armed robberies, or other thefts and stealing of property to pay for that addiction. You will find, I maintain, that the vast majority of crimes are drug-related one way or the other. I believe that in a time when all of these negative trends seem to be on the rise that the endorsement or condoning of a needle exchange network by the U.S. Senate sends the wrong message about our Government's commitment to fighting drugs and, thus, undermines our efforts to prevent drug use and eliminate the illegal drug trade. According to former President Clinton's drug czar, General Barry McCaffery: The problem is not dirty needles. The problem is heroin addiction. The focus should be on bringing help to the suffering population, not giving them more effective means to continue their addiction. One doesn't want to facilitate this dreadful scourge on mankind. We have a legal responsibility to keep these harmful networks from becoming a reality in the District of Columbia. Allowing it in the District of Columbia would send a very poor message to those ravaged by drug addiction--that AIDS is a terrible disease that can be maintained, yet it is OK to die from the effects of drug addiction. Additionally, the Government would be sending a weak message to those who would want to make a profit from illegal drug trade: Drugs are illegal, yet the United States Government condones needle exchange networks which issue identification cards that entitle users to carry drug paraphernalia without interference from the law. Finally, it would send a dangerous message to our youth. It seems to me that we all know that drugs are harmful. We don't want to send a message to our youngsters that the Federal Government supports providing needles and syringes for drug delivery and brochures explaining the most efficient means of injection. It is imperative that the Senate stand strong against illegal drug use. We must not allow Federal funds to go toward programs supplying individuals already struggling with addiction with drug paraphernalia. We must not directly or indirectly endorse needle exchange networks. I ask my fellow Senators to join me in this effort and not give up on this war on drugs as we take on another war--the war on terrorism. We owe it to our brave law enforcement officers who have been fighting this war on drugs, with many of them risking their lives by infiltrating some of these drug networks, chasing drug dealers, paying informants, doing undercover work, and surveillance. Our law enforcement officers have been fighting this war on drugs, and now they are fighting daily battles on many other fronts in the war on terrorism. We also owe it to those struggling with drugs not to turn our Government into an enabler. Finally, we owe it to our children to fight to ensure that they grow up and live in a world as free from illegal drugs as is possible. I respectfully ask my colleagues to support my amendment, which sends all the right messages, all the proper messages, not just for our District of Columbia, which is in a time of crisis; but it sends the right message for all of America, and actually the right message for all of the world which is now watching our Nation's Capital. Once again, I ask my colleagues to stand up for what is right in our Nation's Capital, for all the people of America, and those who are watching us. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ALLEN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President I call up amendment No. 2107.

Mr. ALLEN. Certainly.