Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Grassley and I are offering is to set the negotiating objectives for agriculture for our trade negotiators at the next round of trade talks. I don't think anybody in this Chamber appreciates any more than the current occupant of the chair how serious the crisis in agriculture is in our part of the country. We have seen what I call a triple whammy to American agricultural producers: bad prices, bad weather, and bad policy. That triple whammy has threatened literally tens of thousands of farm families. Certainly, in my State, where we had a special crisis team at USDA analyze the circumstances when the Secretary of Agriculture was coming to North Dakota a year ago, that team said that if something dramatic did not happen in the next 2 years, we would lose 30 percent--and perhaps more--of the farm families in North Dakota. That is how serious the circumstances are. I will put up a couple of charts to demonstrate the problem we face. The key determinant to farm income is farm prices. Farm prices, as this chart shows, are at a 53-year low in real terms. This chart depicts wheat and barley prices from 1946 to 1999, and it shows these prices in constant dollars. So we are comparing apples to apples. What one can see is that prices have had a long-term downward trend over this 53-year period, with one major interruption that occurred back in the 1970s. I think we all recall those times, when we saw a tremendous spike in virtually all commodity prices. But over the long term, when we compare on a fair basis, what we see is constantly declining prices, and we see now the lowest prices in 53 years in real terms. That is why we see so many serious concerns in farm country about what the future holds. This chart represents a little different way of looking at what faces our producers because this looks at not only the prices farmers receive--that is the red line--but also what the farmers are paying for the inputs to produce their crops. This looks at over a 10-year period. One can see that the prices farmers are paying for their inputs have escalated rather dramatically during this 10-year period. That is not true about the prices farmers are receiving. Those prices peaked at the time we were discussing the last farm bill, in 1996. It was very interesting that, at the time we were told farmers were going to have a remarkable situation--they were faced with what we were told at the time was permanently high farm prices because of export demand--those permanently high prices lasted about 90 days. That was just about the time we were passing the last farm bill. After that, prices collapsed and collapsed on a continuous basis. We have had nothing but one way for prices, and that is down, down, down. That is the reason we have seen a collapse of farm income. This chart is another way of looking at what is happening. This shows a comparison of the prices farmers receive--the red line--to the cost of their production, which is the green line. This is for wheat. Wheat is the dominant commodity in my State. You can see the cost of production is about $5 a bushel. But ever since the last farm bill passed, we have been well below the cost of production. In fact, now we are down to about $2.50, $2.60, $2.70 a bushel, depending on the day and market conditions at the time--far below the cost of production. This is what is undermining financial security for American producers. It is not just wheat. If I had put up the chart on corn, or barley, or on virtually any commodity, one would see the same pattern. It is not just in crops; it is also in livestock. Last year, we saw hogs go down to 8 cents a pound. It costs 40 cents a pound to produce a hog. So this combination of high input costs for farmers yet low prices for what they sell has put farmers in a cost/price squeeze. That squeeze is getting tighter and tighter. It is eliminating farm income. That is why this next round of trade talks is so critically important because, very frankly, we have been playing a losing hand in agriculture. I think anybody who has really studied the matter understands that our chief competitors--the Europeans--are outspending us, outhustling us, and, as a result, they are winning markets all across the world that were once ours. If we just pierce the veil here and look below the surface, I think what we see is very revealing. This shows what Europe has been doing in terms of agricultural support over the last 3 years; that is the red box. That is what Europe is spending per year, the average for the last 3 years. The blue box is what the United States is spending under the last farm bill. You can see that the disparity is enormous. The Europeans are spending $44 billion a year, on average; the United States, under the terms of the last farm bill, is spending $6 billion a year--a 7-to-1 disparity. It is very hard to be successful or to have a level playing field when the opponents are outspending you 7-to-1. We would never permit this in a military confrontation. Why we permit it in a trade confrontation eludes me. It is a guaranteed path to disaster. That is precisely what has happened. If we look at this in a somewhat different way, if we look at it in terms of export subsidy for agricultural commodities, and we look at various regions of the world, we see another interesting picture emerge. This shows in the last year for which we have full figures, 1996, who was doing what with respect to agricultural trade subsidy. There are our European friends again. They are the blue hunk of the pie; 83.5 percent of all world agricultural export subsidy belongs to the Europeans. Here is the U.S. share, at 1.4 percent, this little piece of the pie right here. I know a lot of my colleagues think we are spending too much on agriculture. I hear it all the time from some of our colleagues from more urban areas. I say to them that you have to look at what is happening in the rest of the world. You have to look at what our competitors are doing. If you look at what our competitors are doing, it is dramatic and it is clear. Here are the Europeans. Nearly 84 percent of all world agricultural export subsidy is accounted for by the Europeans. The United States is 1.4 percent. These aren't Kent Conrad's figures. These aren't the figures from the Governor of North Dakota. These aren't figures from the agriculture commissioner of North Dakota. These are the statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They show Europe is outspending us on agricultural export subsidies by 60 to 1. How are you going to win a fight when you are outgunned 60 to 1? This is totally unfair to our farmers. They don't have a level playing field from which to compete. They have a playing field that is totally distorted. We have to change this playing field. We have to level it out. We have to make it possible for our farmers to compete fairly. We are willing to compete against anybody at any time. But it is not fair to say to our farmers: You go out there and take on the French and German farmers, and while you are at it, take on the French and German Governments as well. That isn't a fair fight. We shouldn't abandon our farmers to that kind of circumstance. But that is precisely what we have done because in the last farm bill we cut our support to producers in half. Under the previous farm bill, we were spending, on average, $10 billion a year to support our producers in the face of the competition from the Europeans who were spending $50 billion a year during that period. What did we decide to do? Did we decide to level the playing field? No. We engaged in unilateral disarmament on the pretext that if we cut somehow we would set a good example for the Europeans and they would follow right along. Guess what. We cut our support in half for agricultural producers under the new farm bill, down to $5 billion a year on average. What did the Europeans do? Did they follow suit? Did they take our ``good example''? I put that in quotes, our ``good example.'' No. The Europeans kept right on spending. Do you know why? Because they have a strategy and they have a plan. Their strategy and plan is to dominate world agricultural trade. They are doing it the old-fashioned way. They are buying these markets. I have spent a good deal of time talking to the European negotiators. What they have shared with me is as clear as it can be. They have said to me: Senator, we believe we are in a trade war with the United States on agriculture. We believe at some point there will be a cease-fire in this trade war. We believe there will be a cease-fire in place, and we want to occupy the high ground. The high ground in this contest is world market share. That is exactly the strategy and plan of our European friends. They have said to me: You know, Senator, we have much higher levels of support in our country than you have in yours, and we believe in all of these negotiations instead of leveling the playing field, and instead of closing the gap, that we will be able to secure equal percentage reductions in the level of support on both sides. If you think about it, they have much higher levels of support in Europe, as I have demonstrated, than we do in this country. They seek to get equal percentage reductions from those unequal bases leaving Europe always on top. That is their strategy. That is their plan. Oh, how well it is working. In the last trade talks, although the levels of support were dramatically uneven, was there any closing of the gap? Not at all, not any closing of the gap. They didn't come down. We didn't go up. Both of us did not engage in a pattern and practice that would narrow the differences. Instead, what they won were equal percentage reductions from those unequal bases maintaining European dominance. If we let that happen again, shame on us, because we will be consigning our farmers to the dustbin of financial failure. There is no other way this can come out. That is going to be the absolute assured result if we come back with another failed negotiation. Some people blame our negotiators. I personally do not. I blame us because we have sent unarmed negotiators to the negotiations. In my previous job, mostly what I did was negotiate. One thing I learned very early on in my previous life was that you don't win in negotiation unless you have leverage. You have to have leverage in order to prevail in a negotiation. Our negotiators have no leverage. What leverage do they conceivably have when we send them in there and the other side is outgunning us on export subsidies 60 to 1? How are they going to win a negotiation with that sort of fact? How are they going to win when Europe has 84 percent of the world's export subsidy and we have 1.4 percent? How are we possibly going to prevail in that kind of negotiating climate? I say there is very little chance that we are. That is why I have introduced the FITEA bill, Farm Income and Trade Equity Act, to try to level the playing field, to rearm our negotiators to give us a chance to prevail in these negotiations. That bill is gaining steam. It has gotten broad support in my own home State of North Dakota. I believe it is going to get even greater support around the country. Earlier this week, I went to meet in Baltimore with the State presidents of the National Farmers Union. I gave them an outline of the FITEA plan. I hope they will endorse it. The national rural electric service areas have before them at their regional meetings opportunities to endorse the FITEA plan. It has already been endorsed by eight or nine of the national rural electric service areas. We have to give our negotiators leverage. But at the same time we have to also give them instructions. We have to tell them what their negotiating objectives are in this next round of trade talks. It is our responsibility. We can't leave it to the President. Certainly, it is his obligation as well. But Congress has a role to play. I believe we ought to take the opportunity to send a clear message to our trade ambassador and her assistants as to what their negotiating objectives are with respect to agriculture. That is what we have before us in the amendment offered on a bipartisan basis by Senator Grassley of Iowa and myself. Senator Grassley and I serve on both the Agriculture Committee and the Finance Committee. We have a special responsibility. We have taken it seriously. That is why we have come forward with a set of negotiating objectives for our trade ambassador in this next round of trade talks. This amendment sets out seven principal negotiating objectives for agriculture: No. 1, we should insist on the immediate elimination of all export subsidy programs worldwide. The elimination of all export subsidies worldwide should be the negotiating objective. No. 2, we should insist that the European Union and others adopt domestic farm policies that force their producers to face world market prices at the margin so they do not produce more than is needed for their own domestic markets. It is one thing for a country to adopt domestic policy that supports higher prices to meet domestic demand. It is quite another thing for them to have higher prices domestically and, therefore, develop greater production than they need for the domestic market and then dump that surplus on the world market at fire sale prices depressing prices for everyone. Objective No. 2 is to insist that the E.U. and others adopt domestic farm policies that force their producers to face world prices at the margin. No. 3, we should insist that State trading enterprises, such as the Canadian Wheat Board, are disciplined so that their actions are transparent and so they do not provide de facto export subsidies. Sometimes we fool ourselves with our own rhetoric around here. We talk about free markets. Many are strong supporters of free markets. In agriculture, there are no free markets. We can see, through what the Europeans are doing and spending to buy these markets, that we are not dealing in a free-market circumstance in world agricultural trade. We are certainly not dealing with it with respect to our neighbors to the north in Canada. There, individual farmers don't market their commodities; they have a wheat board that markets for them. A very significant portion of production goes to the wheat board, and they market on behalf of all of their farmers. Does anyone think that gives them all kinds of opportunities to play games in world markets? Absolutely, because the prices they charge are not transparent. Anyone can learn our prices any minute of any day by going to the Chicago Board of Trade and seeing what commodities are selling for. Try to find out what our friends to the north are selling for. They don't have a transparent market. They are not advertising their prices, except to the major buyers in the world. The few times we have a glimpse of what they are doing, we find they go to buyers before other countries and say: Whatever the United States is selling for, we are selling for 5 cents less a bushel. That is what they are doing in order to take markets that have traditionally been ours. We have to wake up and smell the coffee. No. 4, we should insist on the use of sound science when it comes to sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions. Too often, these are hidden protectionist trade barriers. On genetically modified organisms, we should insist foreign markets be open to our products, but obviously we can't force consumers to buy what they don't want. We have to give consumers the ability to make an informed choice on whether they want to buy these products without letting inflammatory labels be used as hidden trade barriers. No. 5, we should insist our trading partners immediately reduce their tariffs on our agricultural exports to levels no higher than ours, and then further reduce these barriers on a cooperative and comprehensive basis. No. 6, we should seek cooperative agricultural policies to avoid price-depressing surpluses or food shortages. My own long-term view for agriculture is, we desperately need to have among the major producers a common set-aside policy, a common conservation reserve policy, and a common food reserve policy. No. 7, we should strengthen disputes settlement and enforce existing commitments. The United States honors its international obligations, but all too often our trading partners refuse to live up to their commitments and use the dispute settlement process to delay our efforts to call them to account. That is totally unacceptable, and we need to send that message very clearly. These are the seven principles we believe we should send as an instruction to our trade ambassador. We should say very clearly that we believe these are the things they need to accomplish in this next round of trade talks. I also think we should say: Don't bring back under any circumstances equal percentage reductions in support from these unequal bases. Don't do that. That way lies permanent inferiority in the position of world agricultural trade. If we want to fritter away our long-term dominance, that is the path for such a result. I urge my colleagues to give very careful consideration to this amendment. Senator Grassley and I have worked in a bipartisan way in consultation with other colleagues. We believe these are the appropriate negotiating objectives for our trade representatives in the agricultural sector. Let me end where I began. American agriculture is in crisis. We desperately need a victory in the next round of trade talks, and we need it soon. Our farmers simply cannot survive year after year in a circumstance in which our major competition outspends us 7-1 on domestic support and 60-1 on export subsidies. I believe our farmers can compete against any producer anywhere in the world but they have to have a level playing field. They have to have a country that is fighting for them when our chief competitors are fighting for their producers at every set of trade talks. I hope very much our colleagues will support this amendment that lays out clear negotiating objectives for our trade representatives in this next round of trade talks. I believe this amendment is a first step in that process. I urge my colleagues to support it. I welcome cosponsorship, as I know Senator Grassley would, from other Members who are concerned about these issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Enzi and Senator Ashcroft be listed as original cosponsors of the Conrad-Grassley amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their consideration. They have been most patient in listening to me today and on the Finance Committee as I have talked about these issues. I appreciate, too, they believe, as I do, it is appropriate for us to lay out negotiating objectives for our trade representatives for this next round. I hope very much our colleagues will support this amendment. I think it is important to send a signal as to what we expect our trade representatives to focus on in the agricultural sector. Again, I thank our chairman and our ranking member very much for their assistance this morning. I note my cosponsor, Senator Grassley, is held up in committee. He would very much like to speak on this amendment before it is finally considered. So I appreciate the consideration of the chairman and ranking member with respect to providing time for him as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2360.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment and send the modification to the desk.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to give full consideration to this amendment. I consider this a fairness amendment because this amendment, which would extend trade adjustment assistance to farmers, says we ought to be giving them the protection we already give other folks who work for a living. Right now we have trade adjustment assistance on the books. It is law. If you are working on a job, and you lose your job because of a flood of unfairly traded imports, you have a chance to get back on your feet. But farmers are left out. Farmers are excluded because farmers do not lose their job when they are faced with a flood of unfairly traded imports. Instead, they are faced with a dramatic drop in income. Instead, I would like to run through a number of charts that show the conditions facing American farmers today. This shows what has happened to prices over the last 53 years. These are wheat and barley prices. These are in real terms, inflation adjusted, constant dollars. We have the lowest prices in 53 years. One reason is a flood of unfairly traded Canadian imports. This is the result. This chart shows what the cost of production is. That is the green line. The red line shows what prices for wheat have been over the last 3 years. Colleagues, wheat prices are far below the cost of production and have been for over 3 years, again partly because of a flood of Canadian imports unfairly traded. The question is, Are we going to help farmers the same way we help other workers who are faced with this condition? I hope we say yes. I hope we recognize that it is simple fairness to extend the same protection to farmers we extend to other folks who are working for a living in this country. This amendment is carefully crafted. It is limited to $10,000 per farmer per year with an overall cap cost of $100 million that is fully and completely paid for. We have an offset. Interestingly, it is one of those rare circumstances where our offset is supported by the industry that would be paying. We have an offset that affects the real estate investment trust. It is supported by the real estate industry. They are willing to pay a little something more to get what they consider is a fair result. It is the same provision that was in the President's tax bill. It is the same provision that has had support on other matters before the Senate but not included in any final packages. This matter is completely and fully offset. It simply allows that in a circumstance where the price of a commodity has dropped by over 20 percent as certified by the Secretary of Agriculture and where imports contributed importantly to this price drop, farmers will then be eligible for trade adjustment assistance. This is the same standard the Department of Labor uses to determine whether workers are eligible for trade adjustment assistance when they lose their jobs. In order to be eligible, farmers would have to demonstrate their net farm income has declined from the previous year, and they would need to meet with the Extension Service to plan how to adjust the import competition. If all of those conditions are met, training and employment benefits available to workers would then be available to farmers as an option. My colleague, Senator Grassley, is the cosponsor of this amendment and has played a key role in its development. I know he has words he would like to say about this measure as well.

Mr. CONRAD. That is not correct from our standpoint because our understanding was we were going to get 10 minutes on our side. As the Chair has stated it, it would be 10 minutes total debate on our amendment. So if you could just amend that unanimous consent request to be that on amendment No. 2359, there be up to 10 minutes on a side--and we will endeavor not to use that full time--it would be fully agreeable.

Mr. CONRAD. Would the chairman modify his request in that regard?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my understanding was we were going to get 10 minutes on our side on our amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask my colleague how much time he wants. May we have 10 minutes, at most, on our side to talk about this amendment?

Mr. CONRAD. Before the vote. We will be happy to take a vote as part of that sequence or have it at a later point, but that we at least have a chance, since we are both here, to present our amendment before these votes are taken.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their support of the amendment. We appreciate it very much. I think this amendment is a matter of fairness. I deeply appreciate the response today. I hope this will prevail through the conference. I have the utmost confidence in the chairman's ability to persuade our colleagues over on the House side of the merits of this amendment. I again thank the chairman. I thank our ranking member, who all along has recognized that this is a logical extension of trade adjustment assistance we provide other workers in our economy. I thank also my cosponsor, Senator Grassley from Iowa. He and I have worked together closely not only on this amendment but many other matters as well. I thank him very much for his leadership and support. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I understand that. What I am inquiring is whether or not, as part of this agreement, the Senator can indicate that Senator Grassley and I will have a chance to offer our amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I had indicated we would like a chance to offer our amendment at about this time. I inquire if this agreement could include an agreement to allow Senator Grassley and me time to present our amendment before these votes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment, the Conrad- Grassley amendment, amendment No. 2359, that has been previously filed at the desk.

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the trade bill which is before us, and to register some disappointment with the path the leader has chosen to pursue because at this point the leader has indicated that he is not going to permit amendments to this trade bill. He has brought the bill to the floor, but he has what we call around here ``filled the tree.'' I am certain people who are listening to this out across the country must wonder what this language we use around here means. Very simply, it means the Republican leader has constructed this bill and amendments to the bill that preclude other Senators from offering amendments to this legislation. I regret that. I think it is a mistake. One of the reasons we are bogged down around here is because the leader keeps doing this and keeps bringing up bills and keeps filling the tree. He keeps filing cloture and doesn't let the Senate legislate. I understand from time to time that may be necessary to move business in the Senate. But I think it has now happened so frequently that it is actually stopping business in the Senate. I believe that is a mistake. Hopefully, this will change and we will be given an opportunity to offer amendments. I have several amendments that I believe should be considered by the body on this legislation. They are directly relevant to trade. In fact, I can't think of amendments any more relevant than the amendments I would like to offer. The first amendment I would like considered is one to give direction to our trade negotiators as they go into the WTO Round in Seattle next month. We are just weeks away from our negotiators going into talks with all of the other countries that are involved in these discussions. We have not taken the opportunity to give direction to our trade negotiators on the policies they ought to pursue in these talks. I believe it is very important that we set out what the goals should be. What should we ask our negotiators to have as their negotiating priorities? I also would like to offer an amendment that would give trade adjustment assistance to farmers because right now they are left out. If they are adversely affected by a trade agreement that we reach, tough luck. They are left out. They are not helped. They ought to be included. Certainly, there ought to be restrictions as to how it would apply. But trade adjustment assistance ought to be provided for farmers. That is an amendment that I would like to offer to this bill. Right now I am precluded from doing so because, as I indicated, the Republican leader is denying other Senators the opportunity to present amendments. I am willing to live by the will of this body. I am willing to offer an amendment and have votes taken. If I win, I win. If I lose, I lose. But I would at least like to have the opportunity to see where the will of the Senate lies on these questions. What are the negotiating instructions we give to our delegation to the WTO talks? Should farmers be included in trade adjustment assistance just as every other worker in this country is eligible? I believe the answer to those questions is a firm yes. Let me first indicate that the reason I believe it is so critically important that we give instructions to our negotiators with respect to agriculture and what they do in terms of pursuing an agricultural policy in the WTO talks is because we are getting skunked in these discussions. We have been getting skunked and skunked repeatedly in these international trade talks. Not so long ago I was visiting with the chief negotiator for the Europeans who told me: Senator, we believe we are in a trade war with the United States on agriculture. We believe at some point there will be a cease-fire in this conflict and we want to occupy the high ground. The high ground is world market share. Our European friends have engaged in a strategy and a plan to dominate world market share in agriculture. They have succeeded brilliantly. They have gone from being the largest importing region in the world to being one of the largest exporting regions in 20 years. They have done it the old-fashioned way: They have done it by buying these markets. They have spent, and spent profusely, in order to win this world agricultural trade battle. Over the last 3 years, they have averaged $44 billion a year in support for producers versus our $6 billion. They have been outspending America 7 to 1 in terms of support for producers over the last 3 years. That is part of their strategy. That is part of their plan. They want to go out and buy these markets. The way they have done it is very interesting. They have developed a structure of agricultural support that pays their producers more within European boundaries to produce the same crops we produce, and then they take the surplus production that results and sell it for fire sale prices on the international market, driving prices down for them, driving down prices for us, driving down prices for everyone. That is also part of their strategy as they increase their market share--again, with the notion they are going to be in a position when a cease-fire is declared in this trade conflict to extract concessions. Oh, how well that strategy and plan has been working. Their level of support is much higher than ours--3 times as high in some measures, 7 times as high under total support measurement, 60 times as high looking at world agricultural trade subsidy--and we are being outgunned. How do we win a fight when we are being outgunned on world agricultural export subsidy by 60 to 1? That is what the latest figures reveal. Europe accounts for almost 84 percent of all world agricultural trade subsidy; 84 percent. The United States, 1.4 percent. They are providing 60 times as much to go out and buy these markets as we are doing. Not surprisingly, they are winning. Their trade negotiator said: Senator, we have a higher level of support than you do. In the last trade talks, instead of closing the gap, they were able to get equal percentage reductions from these unequal levels of support. Again, that is part of their strategy and plan. They don't want to see this gap closed. They don't want to see the United States go up and theirs go down. They don't want to see any movement in this relationship where they are now dominant. Instead, they want to secure equal percentage reductions from these unequal levels. If they are able to do that, they will push us closer and closer to the brink of losing tens of thousands of farm families all across this country. That is why I believe it is critically important we offer negotiating objectives for agriculture to our delegation that will begin with the WTO Round in November. If I were able to offer the amendment, I would offer the following negotiating objectives. The amendment I have crafted, and it is cosponsored by Senator Grassley of Iowa, lays out seven principal negotiating objectives for agriculture: No. 1, we should insist on the immediate elimination of all export subsidy programs worldwide. Export subsidies only depress world market prices. I think this is something we could agree on in the Senate. It is not in our interests to have world agricultural export subsidies. It is certainly not in our interests when the Europeans are outspending the United States in this regard 60 to 1. No. 2, we should insist that the European Union and others adopt domestic farm policies that force their producers to face world prices at the margin so they do not produce more than is needed for their domestic markets. Every economist I have spoken to has told me that is something that makes sense to them, that every country ought to face world market prices at the margin. It is one thing for countries to adopt domestic food security policies to ensure they can feed themselves; it is entirely another matter to subsidize excess production and then dump this surplus on the world market, depressing prices for everyone else. No. 3, we should insist that the State trading enterprises, such as the Canadian Wheat Board, are disciplined so their actions are transparent and they do not provide de facto export subsidies. No. 4, we should insist on the use of sound science when it comes to sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions. Too often these are used as hidden protectionist trade barriers. On genetically modified organisms--which is a very hot issue in Europe--we should insist that foreign markets be open to our products, but we should also recognize we can't force consumers to buy what they don't want. We have to give consumers the ability to make an informed choice on whether they want to buy these products without letting inflammatory labels be used as hidden trade barriers. No. 5, we should insist that our trading partners immediately reduce their tariffs on our agricultural exports to levels that are no higher than ours and then further reduce these barriers. No. 6, we should seek cooperative agricultural policies to avoid price-depressing surpluses or food shortages. No. 7, we should strengthen dispute settlement and enforce existing commitments. We honor our commitments. All too often, other countries that are party to these agreements fail to follow what they have pledged to do. I think these are seven commonsense negotiating objectives we ought to lay out for our delegation to the WTO talks. I hope at some point we are able to offer that amendment. I have indicated I want to offer an amendment allowing our farmers to qualify for trade adjustment assistance. The amendment I want to offer--and again, this is cosponsored by Senator Grassley--makes farmers eligible for trade adjustment assistance similar to what is provided to other workers in other industries who suffer as a result of unfair imports. When imports cause layoffs in manufacturing industries, workers are eligible for trade adjustment assistance. But when imports cause the same kind of problem to farmers, they are not eligible because the test is job loss. Of course, farmers don't work for a paycheck, they get their living by selling the commodities they produce. When they are faced with a circumstance in which they are unfairly impacted by trade imports, they lose their income but not their job. So when it comes to trade adjustment assistance, they are out of luck. They don't qualify for trade adjustment assistance. Farmers lose their income, and there is nothing to help them. In fact, this may be something we do to them ourselves. We may negotiate away certain sectors of our industry as we did in the so-called Canadian Free Trade Agreement. Yet we come back and do absolutely nothing for the sector of our economy that was traded away--in this case, farmers. We have a case in my State where certain loopholes were negotiated in the Canadian Free Trade Agreement that allow Canadians to flood our market with Canadian durum. We can't send a bushel north, and yet there is nothing to help our farmers who were basically sold out in that negotiation. There is not one thing to be done to help them. We have lost hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and nothing is being done to provide assistance to those farmers. The least we could do is provide trade adjustments as we do for every other industry. That is why I believe we must act on an amendment such as the one Senator Grassley and I have crafted. Trade adjustment assistance for farmers can not only provide badly needed cash assistance to a devastated agricultural economy; it can reignite support for trade among many family farmers. The Conrad-Grassley amendment would assist farmers who lost income because of unfair imports. Farmers would get a payment to compensate them for some, but not all, of the income they lose if increased imports affect commodity prices. The maximum any farmer would receive in any one year is $10,000, and the maximum cost of this amendment would be $100 million a year. Under our amendment, the Secretary of Agriculture would decide whether the price of a commodity has dropped more than 20 percent and whether imports contributed importantly to this price drop. The ``imports contributed importantly'' standard is the same standard the Department of Labor uses to determine whether workers are eligible for trade adjustment assistance when they lose their jobs. In order to be eligible for benefits under this program, farmers would have to demonstrate their net farm income has declined from the previous years. This was a criticism leveled at the amendment in the Finance Committee, and we have added this provision to try to respond to that criticism. Farmers would also need to meet with the USDA's Extension Service to plan how to adjust to the import competition. This adjustment could take the form of improving the efficiency of the operation or switching to different crops. Training and employment benefits available to workers under trade adjustment assistance would also be available to farmers as an option. In most years, the program would have a very modest cost because very few commodities, if any, would be eligible. But in a year comparable to last year, when hog prices collapsed and wheat prices tumbled, the program would offer modest support to compensate farmers for the harmful effect of imports. These are two amendments that I believe are totally relevant to the bill before us. One of these amendments I offered in the Finance Committee to this very bill. Now this legislation is on the floor and we are precluded from offering an amendment here. Again, I hope the leader will relent. I hope he will open it up so those of us who have serious amendments, amendments that deserve consideration, can at least get an up-or-down vote. The second amendment I discussed, dealing with WTO negotiating objectives, I also think is directly relevant. Frankly, we are not going to have another chance to give instructions to our delegation before they go to the WTO Round. Before they commence these trade talks, we ought to have an opportunity to give negotiating guidelines to our negotiators. That is part of our responsibility, part of our role. If we do not have a chance here, we are not going to have a chance. Finally, I have a third amendment on agricultural sanctions that I would hope could be considered. I very much hope before this is done we will have a chance to offer amendments, amendments that are serious, that are relevant to trade, so our colleagues may pass judgment on them, so we may consider and vote on them. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the achievements of a true public servant, a fellow North Dakotan, and a man I am proud to call my friend. Wally Beyer has served this nation as Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service, the former Rural Electric Administration, for 6 years now. Wally is the 12th administrator of the agency originally created by Franklin Roosevelt; an agency that has developed as we've developed as a nation: from providing basic electric and telecommunications needs for America's rural areas, to making sure rural America takes its rightful place in the new communication age. Wally has helped steer the RUS toward not only providing the critical continuing need for clean water and waste water facilities, but into new territory of critical distance-learning and medical links for areas that otherwise might not have access to these important services. Since he was first nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate in late 1993, Wally's steady hand, professional skill and patience has served our Nation well. Whether it was to guide the refinancing of electric borrowers through the high interest years of the 1970's and 80's, or to lead the modernization and stream-lining of rules and regulations at the RUA, Wally Beyer managed the agency with a careful balancing of the needs of rural America and the needs of the American taxpayer. Wally Beyer has served this nation well. As a crew chief for the U.S. Air Force air rescue squadron in the Caribbean in the 50's, as an engineer for the Verendrye Electric Cooperative bringing electricity to north central North Dakota, and as head of the reinvigorated RUS. Wally plans to return to our native North Dakota, along with his wife Pat. With three married children and three growing grandchildren, he says he will stay active and involved in public service. Washington's loss will be North Dakota's gain as Wally Beyer returns home to the land we both love. In a recent speech announcing those plans, Wally said, ``My season has come. I feel good about it. I've got to get back to North Dakota where the air is sweet. You won't miss me when I'm gone.'' Well Wally. Your legacy at the RUS is in tact, and thanks to your hard work is, as you said, ``humming along.'' But you are wrong to say you won't be missed. Your selfless service to the public good will be missed by many, who will have to continue the restructuring of the electric utility industry without your sure hand. You will be missed by those electric consumers in 46 States that were well aware that you, as a rural resident, understood their needs. And you will be missed by those who relied on your friendship and good judgement when seeking to solve the long term problems continuing to plague rural America. So, as you take your leave, I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in wishing you and your family the very best in what ever path you choose. You have made a lasting impact and a worthwhile contribution to your country. Wally Beyer, you have made a difference and we are all better for it. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise this morning to respond to a series of ads that are being run in my State by the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. These ads are false. They are what can only be charitably termed misleading, and they diminish the credibility of the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee. That is not just my conclusion, Mr. President. That is the conclusion of the major newspaper of my State, the Fargo Forum, which has written an editorial in which it says: Politics is often a down and dirty business, but the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee's early TV ads 13 months before the election, and even before State Republicans have an endorsed congressional candidate, are a new low in the campaign gutter. They're false on every level. Decent North Dakota Republicans should tell the national group to clean up its act. Well, amen to that because the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee ought to be ashamed of the ads they are running in North Dakota. They are claiming that Democrats are raiding the Social Security trust fund here in Washington. They must have forgotten they are in control in the House of Representatives and they are in control in the Senate. It is not Democrats who are determining the spending priorities in the House of Representatives. The Republicans are in control. They are deciding the budget outcome in the House of Representatives. If ever there was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it because we know that the majority party themselves are, in fact, raiding Social Security. That is not just the conclusion of the senior Senator from North Dakota. That is the conclusion of the Washington Post which had a major news story with the headline ``GOP Spending Bills Tap Social Security Surplus.'' It is the Republican Party's plan that is tapping the Social Security surplus. For them to then run ads claiming the Democrats are doing it is just a giant diversionary tactic. They are trying to avoid responsibility for what they are doing. It is not only the Washington Post that has made this point. We also have the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office, which they control, has sent a letter which says very clearly that the Republican spending plans have tapped Social Security for $18 billion. In other words, they are raiding the Social Security accounts for $18 billion. That is their plan, that is their responsibility, and to avoid accountability apparently they have decided, or their campaign consultants have decided, that the best defense is an offensive attack. So in my State of North Dakota, 13 months before the election, they are running ads that the major newspaper in my State says are ``a new low in the campaign gutter. They are false on every level.'' And, indeed, they are. They are false on every level. The people of America who are being subjected to these ads ought to know exactly what is going on and who is doing what with respect to the budget of the United States. One of the things I find most ironic is that the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee which is sponsoring these ads are the very same folks who sponsored a constitutional amendment a number of years ago that had as its base that they would raid the Social Security trust fund in order to balance the budget. These folks who trumpeted this constitutional amendment to balance the budget had as a definition of a balanced budget the raiding of the Social Security trust fund. Now they have the chutzpah to come before the American people and run ads saying the Democrats are raiding the Social Security trust fund surplus. And the Democrats are not in control. We don't control the U.S. House of Representatives. We don't control the Senate. Again, the major newspaper in my State has called these ads false on every level. Maybe it is helpful to review the record of who has done what with respect to budget policy. I am on the Budget Committee. I am on the Finance Committee. I am known in the Budget Committee as the ``deficit hawk.'' I have been involved in every effort to get our fiscal house in order. I believe deeply in the need for fiscal discipline. That is primarily why I ran for the Senate. I saw back when I ran in 1986 that things were running amuck; that the deficits were growing; that we were getting deeper in debt, and this country was in real trouble. I believed then and I believe now that it is threatening the national security of the United States. If we go back and review the record of the Reagan years, he inherited a deficit of about $80 billion. Very quickly, under Reaganomics the deficit exploded up to over $200 billion a year. In fact, during this time we tripled the national debt. This trickle-down economics was a disaster. Then we saw in the Bush years, again, the deficit took off like a scalded cat. It went from $150 billion a year up to $290 billion a year. That is the record of our friends on the other side of the aisle. They were in charge. They were in control. Reaganomics was carrying the day. We saw headline after headline about how the Republicans in the House and the Senate in conjunction with boll weevil Democrats were passing Reaganomics and Reaganomics exploded the deficit and exploded the debt. That is the record. When the Clinton administration came in in 1992, we passed a plan in 1993 that reduced the deficit--a 5-year budget plan. We can go back and check the record. It is not a matter of running television ads. It is a matter of fact. Facts are very clear. The deficit under that 5-year plan declined each and every year. The deficit went down from $290 billion in the last year of the Bush administration to $255 billion. And each year that deficit was reduced in the 5 years of that budget plan. By the way, we passed that budget plan without a single Republican vote--not one, not one. In 1997, we agreed on a bipartisan plan to finish the job. There I commend our colleagues on the other side of the aisle because we did join together in 1997 for a balanced budget plan to finish the job. But the truth is most of the heavy lifting had been done by the 1993 plan. But we didn't have a single Republican vote--not one. I heard another ad this morning, this time attacking Bill Bradley and Al Gore. This was run by some committee called the National Republican Council. I never heard of it. But they were running ads attacking Bill Bradley and Al Gore saying they had voted for increased spending and increased taxes. Do you know they were here and they were fighting for the 1993 plan that eliminated this deficit? That is the fact. The fact is Federal spending in real terms, as measured as a percentage of our national income, is at its lowest level since 1974. Back in 1993 when we passed that plan, Federal spending was 22 percent of our national income. It is now down to 19 percent of our national income. So the truth about Mr. Bradley, who voted for that 1993 plan, and the truth about Mr. Gore, who was Vice President and argued for that 1993 plan, is that in real terms they supported a reduction in Federal spending. That is the truth. That is the truth of the matter. But I guess political consultants don't have to worry about the truth. They are more interested in scoring rhetorical points. They don't have to worry apparently about the factual record. Let's look at the factual record. Here is the history going back 20 years in Federal receipts and Federal outlays. The blue line shows expenditures of the Federal Government. The red line is the income of the Federal Government, the receipts. You can see during the Reagan years there was an enormous gap between the two. That is why we had these budget deficits because we were spending more than we were taking in. In 1993, right here when we passed the plan, again, without a single Republican vote, that cut spending. You can see the blue line--the spending line--is coming down, and it raised revenue. Yes, it did. We raised taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent in this country; raised income taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent. And it was that combination of cutting spending and raising revenue that eliminated the deficit. That is how we balanced the budget. Thank God we did. Thank God there was a Bill Bradley who was courageous enough to stand on this floor and cast a tough vote to get our fiscal house in order. Thank God there was an Al Gore as Vice President of the United States who had the courage to stand up and support a plan to get our fiscal house in order after the disasters of the Reagan and Bush administrations when it was all talk about fiscal responsibility and it was all deficits and debt. That is their legacy. If we want to debate, I am ready to debate this anytime anywhere with anyone about what happened and when and what the results have been. But they have these smear ads running in my State and smear ads running nationally that distort the truth. That is going to get a response because we are not going to allow people to tell falsehoods about what occurred. Too many people took real risks in order to get the fiscal house of our country back in order, and the record is abundantly clear about who did what. This is the reality. In 1993, a 5-year budget plan was passed that worked, that cut spending in real terms, that raised revenue, and that balanced the budget. The result is a dramatically strengthened economy--the longest record of economic expansion in our history, and an economic performance that is the envy of the world. The inflation rate is the lowest in 33 years. Here we went. In 1993, the plan was passed. Inflation came down. The unemployment rate is the lowest in 41 years. The central reason was the budget plan that was passed in 1993 that moved us toward a balanced budget and towards fiscal discipline to getting our fiscal house in order. Debt held by the public is coming down dramatically. In 1993, the first year of the plan, publicly held debt in comparison with our gross domestic product was 50 percent. If we stay on the course that we have set now, we will have this debt down to 9 percent of our gross domestic product in 2009. We can eliminate publicly held debt in 15 years. That is the course we are on. That is the course the Democrats established. That is the course which is the result of the 1993 plan that brought fiscal discipline back to this government and led to an incredible economic expansion. Welfare caseloads: Another benefit of getting our fiscal house in order. This is also not only a result of a good economy, but it is also a result of welfare reform, which in fairness I should say was done on a bipartisan basis. We had help from our Republican friends, and many of us felt strongly that welfare reform was required, and, indeed, it has produced incredibly positive results. Welfare caseloads are the lowest they have been in 29 years. Republicans, this year, have engaged the Congress in a series of what I can only call sort of baffling gimmicks, in order to try to make it look to the American people that they are not raiding Social Security. They are running ads that the major newspaper in my State has described as ``a new low in the campaign gutter. They are false on every level.'' That is what the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee is instituting in my State. The facts show something quite different. The Congressional Budget Office says the non-Social Security surplus for the year we are working on, fiscal year 2000, is $14 billion. What does that mean? That means if we take out the Social Security surplus, we have $14 billion of what I call a true surplus in fiscal year 2000. If we take the House and Senate committee actions to date, the Budget Committee directives to CBO spent $18 billion of that. Emergency spending: The Republicans have labeled a whole series of spending initiatives ``emergencies'' to avoid the requirements of fiscal discipline--$13 billion is declared emergencies, including the census. The census is provided for in the U.S. Constitution. We have been instituting the census for 200 years in this country, and they declare it an emergency. They declared the low-income heating program in this country an emergency--a program we have had for 24 years. That is absolutely nonsense. Social Security administrative costs: They have taken those and don't want to count them, debt service costs and others. Add this up, and they are into Social Security by $21 billion. They are raiding Social Security by $21 billion and are trying to hide the raid by running television ads that some clever campaign consultant told them is their best strategy for avoiding their own responsibility. To try to avoid their own accountability, they are claiming the Democrats are instituting it. The problem with that: Democrats are not in control. Republicans are in control, and this is what they are instituting. They are raiding Social Security. The record is abundantly clear. One of the last times I came to the floor was when the Republicans came up with the gimmick--and they have come up with a whole series of them to try to avoid the charge that they are instituting precisely what they claim Democrats are instituting--of having a 13th month. They came up with kind of a clever idea to get around the problem by declaring a 13th month in this country. The last time I checked the calendar, there were only 12 months. But the Republicans decided they would come up with a 13th month to make it look as though they were not raiding the Social Security trust fund surplus. That is a novel idea. I came to the floor and wondered, what would they call it? ``Spend- tember''? Would they call it ``Fictionary''? What would we call a 13th month? Why stop there? Why not have 14 or 15 months? What would be the additional month that would be added? Would we have two Augusts or two Decembers? I favored two Octobers because I enjoy baseball; we could have two World Series. Maybe we could have two Decembers so we could celebrate Christmas twice. I know it sounds far fetched, but this is the headline in the Washington Post: ``GOP Seeks to Ease Crunch with 13-Month Fiscal Year.'' That is the length to which they go to avoid accountability and responsibility. That is what happened. That is not the only gimmick they came up with. They got the 13th month. They have the census emergency--the census we have been instituting for 200 years they claim is an emergency. They declared LIHEAP an emergency, the low-income heating program. We have had that program for 24 years. They proposed delaying earned-income tax credit payments to people. They were even chastised by their own leading Presidential candidate. He made it very clear they were way out of tune with the American people when they proposed that gimmick. That is what is going on to cover this mismanagement and to cover this fiscal irresponsibility. The National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee is running television ads in my State claiming Democrats are raiding Social Security. That dog doesn't hunt. That is not going to fly. We are going to respond very forcefully when people try to misrepresent the record. As I began, I conclude: The major newspaper in my State called these ads ``a new low in the campaign gutter. They are false on every level.'' That is the truth. I hope the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee will stop running these ads because they are false. They are irresponsible. They are misleading. They ought to be stopped. That is the record. That is the fact. I hope people, as they evaluate candidates in this next election, will inquire: What is the record of candidates on the question of spending Social Security surpluses, on raiding Social Security trust funds? I am prepared to answer that question. Every budget plan I have offered, every budget plan Senate Democrats have offered, has maintained the Social Security surplus. We haven't touched the Social Security surplus. We wouldn't engage in a raid of the Social Security surplus. That is true of the plan Senate Democrats offered in the Finance Committee. That is true of the plan Senate Democrats offered in the Budget Committee. For anyone to say anything else is an absolute falsehood. I yield the floor.