Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak today in support of the Cuban Libertad Act. We were all troubled by the announcements that two civilian aircraft belonging to the Brothers to the Rescue, Organization had been shot down by a Cuban MiG-29. However, this event, described by the President and other world leaders as ``abominable'' and ``abhorrent,'' was not an isolated incident. Rather, it was the most recent act of aggression perpetrated by Castro's tyrannical regime. In the last few years, the Castro government has taken a hard-line position and has continued to tighten the crackdown on dissent, arrested human rights activists, and staged demonstrations against their regime's critics. Mr. President, the harassment, intimidation, and beatings of activists was well documented. Dissidents and political prisoners were routinely subjected to a variety of actions. For example, sleep deprivation in prisons was used to coerce statements from inmates. In addition, prison conditions were characterized by habitual beatings, severe overcrowding and a lack of food, and medical care. Arbitrary arrests, detention, and exile are routine methods of discouraging dissidents from speaking out against the Government. Freedom of expression is severely restricted. One person was arrested for wearing at t-shirt which said, ``Abaja Fidel,'' which means ``Down With Fidel.'' This individual was taken to a police station, beaten and held incommunicado for 8 days. He was finally tried and sentenced to prison for 6 months. Mr. President, 1994 was also a period of tyranny on the high seas. In April and July of that year, the Cuban Government was implicated in the sinking of two vessels which resulted in the deaths of a number of people, including children. President Clinton has referred to the attack in the press as, ``An appalling reminder of the nature of the Cuban regime: repressive, violent, scornful of international law.'' I couldn't agree with him more. It is another action taken by Castro that shows nothing but disregard for human life, let alone international law, norms, and values. This action requires more than just a rhetorical response. Therefore, I am pleased that we will be voting today on the conference report to the Cuban Libertad Act, or Helms-Burton Act, as it has been referred to in press accounts. President Clinton announced a series of actions he proposed in response to this unwarranted attack. These included; ensuring that the families of the pilots are compensated; imposing restrictions on Cuban nationals traveling in the United States; suspending United States charter flights into Cuba; and, passing the Helms-Burton Act. This bill includes a number of provisions which would: strengthen international sanctions against the Castro Government in Cuba; develop a plan to support a transition government leading to a democratically elected government in Cuba; and enact provisions addressing the unauthorized use of United States-citizen-owned property confiscated by the Castro government. Mr. President, I am pleased that President Clinton has committed to support and sign this legislation. Mr. President, some Senators and Members have concerns about the ramifications of this legislation. I respect those concerns and am pleased that the sponsors of the legislation have done such an excellent job of working on addressing some of those concerns. Certainly, some concerns that I had with respect to certified claimants under title III have been addressed. I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Helms, and his staff. In closing, I would just reiterate that this bill is a response to far more than the recent attack on civilian aircraft. It is a response to the continued aggression of Castro's regime.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public the scheduling of a hearing before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management to receive testimony on S. 393 and H.R. 924, the Angeles National Forest Land Exchange Act. The hearing will take place on Thursday, March 7, 1996 at 1 p.m. in room SD 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey of the subcommittee staff at 202-224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, on Saturday afternoon we were all troubled by the announcements that two civilian aircraft belonging to the Brothers to the Rescue, organization had been shot down by a Cuban Mig-29. This event, described by the President and other world leaders as ``abominable'' and ``abhorrent'' is yet another signal that business as usual continues in Castro's tyrannical regime. President Clinton has referred to the attack in the press as, ``an appalling reminder of the nature of the Cuban regime: repressive, violent, scornful of international law.'' I couldn't agree with him more. However, this action requires more than just a rhetorical response. Almost a year ago Senator Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had begun work on legislation designed to tighten the embargo and isolate the brutal regime of Fidel Castro. It is time for the Congress to complete action on this bill. The President announced a series of actions he proposed in response to this unwarranted attack. These included: ensuring that the families of the pilots are compensated; imposing restrictions on Cuban nationals traveling in the United States; suspending United States charter flights into Cuba; and passing the Helms-Burton Act. The Helms-Burton legislation, referred to as the Cuban Libertad Act, includes a number of provisions which would: strengthen international sanctions against the Castro government in Cuba; develop a plan to support a transition government leading to a democratically elected government in Cuba; and enact provisions addressing the unauthorized use of United States- citizen-owned property confiscated by the Castro government. Mr. President, I am pleased to see that President Clinton has committed to take action on this situation and has decided to support the Cuban Libertad Act. This is a welcome shift in his policy of engagement with Fidel Castro, to include steps taken last year to ease the Cuban sanctions. Mr. President, the policy of engagement has failed. Therefore, it is time to complete action on the Helms-Burton bill, the Cuba Libertad Act. This is the next step in a long road leading toward releasing Castro's dictatorial ties that have bound the people of Cuba.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce two measures to expand the use and availability of the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956. The Small Reclamation Projects Act has provided important benefits throughout the reclamation West in the 40 years since it was first established. Over the past several years, there have been various discussions of ways to expand the benefits of the program. These two measures incorporate some of the suggestions that have been made. I want to emphasize that neither of the measures would affect ongoing projects. One of the measures deals with financing. At the present time, the Secretary is limited to using grants or loans in fulfilling the objectives of the act. This legislation would expand that authority to include the use of loan guarantees as a way of stretching the limited Federal resources. There has been some discussion among those suggesting this approach that the committee should consider expanding the program under the guarantees outside the 17 reclamation States to other States and the territories. While I do not dispute that the advantages of the program could be useful in the territories and other States, I do not want to dilute the program so that is not able to meet the very real needs in the arid West. Therefore, I have not included such an expansion in this legislation. I do agree that it is a subject worth discussing and it should be one of the subjects of our hearings. The other measure is essentially a rewrite of the existing statute to expand the purposes for which assistance can be received from the Federal Government. Irrigation remains an authorized purpose, but it would no longer be a required component. The purposes would not include the augmentation and management of local water supplies, conservation of water and energy, fish and wildlife conservation, supplemental water for existing supplies, water quality improvements, and flood control. There had been some discussion about the application of interest on any allocable irrigation component, and I would support discussing this in any hearings. For the moment, however, I have limited the application of interest on any loans to those features which are currently reimbursable with interest under reclamation law. I also believe that we should explore in our hearings exactly how to deal with investments that further particular Federal objectives, such as fish and wildlife enhancement or other features that are normally nonreimbursable. Mr. President, neither of these measures should be viewed as a final product, and they are not mutually exclusive. Given the timing, I thought it would be useful to have both measures introduced so that they could be reviewed by the States and water users as well as by the administration and other interested parties with sufficient time to permit Congress to consider the concepts this session. While I am not prepared to announce a schedule of hearings at this time, I do want to indicate to my colleagues that I do intend to have the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources conduct hearings early this year.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I introduce two measures to expand the use and availability of the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956. The Small Reclamation Projects Act has provided important benefits throughout the reclamation West in the 40 years since it was first established. Over the past several years, there have been various discussions of ways to expand the benefits of the program. These two measures incorporate some of the suggestions that have been made. I want to emphasize that neither of the measures would affect ongoing projects. One of the measures deals with financing. At the present time, the Secretary is limited to using grants or loans in fulfilling the objectives of the act. This legislation would expand that authority to include the use of loan guarantees as a way of stretching the limited Federal resources. There has been some discussion among those suggesting this approach that the committee should consider expanding the program under the guarantees outside the 17 reclamation States to other States and the territories. While I do not dispute that the advantages of the program could be useful in the territories and other States, I do not want to dilute the program so that is not able to meet the very real needs in the arid West. Therefore, I have not included such an expansion in this legislation. I do agree that it is a subject worth discussing and it should be one of the subjects of our hearings. The other measure is essentially a rewrite of the existing statute to expand the purposes for which assistance can be received from the Federal Government. Irrigation remains an authorized purpose, but it would no longer be a required component. The purposes would not include the augmentation and management of local water supplies, conservation of water and energy, fish and wildlife conservation, supplemental water for existing supplies, water quality improvements, and flood control. There had been some discussion about the application of interest on any allocable irrigation component, and I would support discussing this in any hearings. For the moment, however, I have limited the application of interest on any loans to those features which are currently reimbursable with interest under reclamation law. I also believe that we should explore in our hearings exactly how to deal with investments that further particular Federal objectives, such as fish and wildlife enhancement or other features that are normally nonreimbursable. Mr. President, neither of these measures should be viewed as a final product, and they are not mutually exclusive. Given the timing, I thought it would be useful to have both measures introduced so that they could be reviewed by the States and water users as well as by the administration and other interested parties with sufficient time to permit Congress to consider the concepts this session. While I am not prepared to announce a schedule of hearings at this time, I do want to indicate to my colleagues that I do intend to have the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources conduct hearings early this year.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding. If I could have the attention of the ranking member of the committee, the Senator from Vermont. I would like to express to him that I have been involved with the Senator from Colorado for well over 2 years as he fought this battle, and chairing the subcommittee that deals with forestry, we have taken a close look at the amendment and the problems involved. What has happened in the West historically--and I think the Senator from Vermont appreciates this--while the watersheds, largely the head waters, were owned or retained by the Federal Government, the right of water acquisition and water management and control was given to the States. And, of course, municipalities and irrigation districts went into those head waters and developed facilities under the permits of the Forest Service and the McCarran Act. That established the water systems of the West. In many situations we find Federal agencies, for whatever reasons, saying, ``To get reissuance of your permits, you have to give us some of the water.'' Instead of going in and filing for water like every other citizen has the responsibility to do to acquire a water right, they are extorting, as the Senator from Colorado said, by arguing that you cannot continue--we will not renew your permit or you cannot gain this right-of-way or continued access unless you do this. And in almost all instances, it gives up some of the water, even though that is not the responsibility of the Federal Government in the West, and historically it has never been. I know that is an issue that is being fought by many, but it is an issue that Western States will simply not give up, nor should they. They must retain primacy on water. While I have found, in all instances, cities and irrigation districts and others willing to comply in the modernization and in the safety codes of their facilities, this is not an issue about safety, it is not an issue about the environment; it is an issue about water, power, the power of holding the water or controlling it. So what the Senator from Colorado is doing, in my opinion, is exactly right. It is a reinstatement, not an expansion, of law, a reinstatement of the existing law and the way it has operated and provided the municipalities of the West, provided the irrigation districts that have allowed the arid West to flourish, the kind of position and control in the water that we think is critically necessary. I strongly support my colleague and hope that the Senate will concur with him in this amendment. And I hope, Mr. President, that if at all possible, we could work this out and take this amendment. I think it fits very nicely into existing law. Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for yielding. I thank the chairman publicly for the work he has done on behalf of farm legislation this year, the extensive hearings on almost all of the titles of the farm bill, working them out in a very intricate way, under some very difficult circumstances--circumstances from a Budget Committee that said to the chairman and to the Agriculture Committee that we had to find substantial savings in agricultural appropriations. I say that, Mr. President, in light of what we have done since 1986. Since 1986, direct payment to production agriculture in this country from Government programs has been reduced by this Congress by 60 percent. So we have continually, over the period of now a decade, progressively reduced the amount of money on a program-by-program basis that was going to production agriculture for one reason or another. In almost all instances, I have agreed with that and voted for it. I think agriculture today is stronger because of it, because they have progressively moved to farm to the market instead of to the program. That is part of the debate today and part of the consideration in the farm legislation we have before us. But my point is that it made it increasingly difficult for the chairman, myself, and other members of the Agriculture Committee to deal with the important issues of the day. But, I must tell you, I think we accomplished that. Not only did we accomplish that, but I have worked in cooperation with the chairman, the committee, and committee staff in developing what I think is an excellent bill. Now, the en bloc amendment the Senator has just introduced is a very positive approach in many areas. It looks at foreign market development in a line-item authorization. We all know that, because of the tremendous efficiencies of American agriculture today, if we are going to hold those prices in the marketplace, we have to move a lot of that production to the world market. The chairman is tremendously sensitive to that, and these amendments reflect that. I have worked for some time to strengthen the ability of alternative crops in the region of the Pacific Northwest and in the State of Idaho and in surrounding States. One of those alternative crops is an oilseed crop known as canola. Many in agriculture are familiar with it. It is a new crop for our region. I have worked with that industry to provide a checkoff, much like the dairy industry has, the beef industry has, and other industries have, so that they can use their own money to promote their own programs, to promote their sales internationally, to do research for the development of a better crop and better alternatives or varieties. That is included in this en bloc amendment, along with an important amendment for the sheep industry's improvement center. We know that the domestic sheep industry today is struggling to stay alive. They need to look at alternative methods for marketing and general improvement of the livestock of that industry. That has been a consideration by the chairman, and I greatly appreciate that. I hope the Senate can agree on this en bloc amendment. I think it complements the legislation that is before us today, rounds it out into what is a positive farm bill, I think, for American agriculture. I thank the chairman very much for the work he has done in this area and the cooperation he has offered us.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Louisiana. We serve jointly as cochairs of the Sweetener Caucus here on the Senate side and work cooperatively together to solve the problems that this industry has had. I think we have accomplished that over the years, both in cane and sugar beet production, critical crops to the South, certainly to my State and other States in the West and Midwest. What is important, as the Senator has spoken to, is creating a balance that offers stability to a program and at a reasonable cost to consumers. It is not just a good program in Idaho for Idaho agriculture, but it employs a tremendous number of people and provides a necessary and important commodity. I will discuss this later if amendments are offered to the program that we have worked very closely on to develop. Modification of Amendment No. 3184

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to modify amendment 3184 with permanent law provisions and, once that modification has been made, no amendments be in order to strike the permanent law modification during the pending action on S. 1541.

Mr. CRAIG. With that, I send that modification to the desk.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3444

Mr. CRAIG. I thank my chairman for yielding, Mr. President.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I stand in opposition to the amendment that my colleague from New Hampshire has offered this morning. Let me say at the outset, I ain't no Johnny Cochran, but I can defend the revisions in this program, and I hope the Senator from New Hampshire will listen this morning, because, if he was like many Americans who sat down in a restaurant this morning to eat some cereal for breakfast, they reached out and, for no cost to them, picked up a packet of sugar and spread it upon their cereal. They did not pay a dime for it or a dollar for it. The sugar price is such that it was a service provided by the restaurant. Why? Because the sugar price in America today, in a retail market, per pound is about 39 cents. In Japan it is $1. In Norway it is 70 cents. In Switzerland it is 55 cents. Of the 20 developed countries of the world, we are the third from the bottom in the price of sugar. Why, then, is this Senator saying that consumers are getting ripped off, that consumers are paying billions of dollars for this program when in fact they are paying less than almost any other country in the world except Third World nations where near slave labor produces it? What we have today is a program that we are offering in this legislation that responds to what the Senator from New Hampshire was saying, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, and others. Reform needs to be offered to agricultural programs built within the farm bill. What did we do? We eliminated market allotments. No more domestic supply control. Any farmer can raise cane or any farmer can raise sugar beets. We do not restrict the market. We eliminated the 1 cent penalty, effectively lowering the loan rate an additional penny. What is real savings? What do we do? Also, by the assessment, we raise $300 million for deficit reduction. Then why do we still have a program? We have a program to create a level playing field for the 1,900 farm families in my State, not a few rich producers, but 1,900 farm families who raise sugar beets, who have found that an extremely valuable program. What this program, then, offers is a Government participation in allowing a flow of foreign raw commodity into the market to balance out domestic production. The 7.5 cents that might be saved if the Senator from New Hampshire succeeds will not be passed on to the consumer. That is 7.5 cents a pound. It will not be passed on to the consumer. It will go in the pocket of the large producers of candy and soft drinks. That would be fine if it did not destroy the market and the production environment for the domestic producer. What happened in 1974 without a sugar program? The price of sugar was not 39 cents a pound, it was 60 cents a pound. We saw radical gyrations in a market that nearly destroyed the production unit of American sweetener, both in the cane and the sugar beet market. What we have offered is stability, but we also have heard the Senator from New Hampshire. We also offered reform. In working with my growers and working with the sugar beet industry and the cane industry, we said--myself and Senator Breaux from Louisiana, with whom I have worked on this--we cannot accept business as usual. The Congress is changing. We want to change farm programs, and you have to farm to a market. And they said they will. What we also said is that we will not allow the massive dumping of foreign sugar in this market that is produced at little to no cost, oftentimes subsidized, sometimes by $1 a day labor. But that is what the large consumers of sugar want so their profits expand. But what they pass to the consumer will be not one dime of savings. They have openly admitted that after they spent millions of dollars in the television markets of this country trying to convince us there was some kind of a ripoff. This is not a ripoff. This is a program of reform that does not cost the American taxpayer one penny. I believe it saves them money by creating a stable market. So that the Senator from New Hampshire, or the Senator from Pennsylvania, or this Senator can reach out in a restaurant, pick up a pack of sugar for no cost to them, and spread it across their cereal like thousands of Americans do every day. It sounds like a good buy to me. I think it is a great buy to the taxpayer. I hope the Senate will reject this amendment.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will not stand before any of the Members of the Senate today and attempt to justify large multinational, billion-dollar corporations getting taxpayer-subsidized promotion programs. That needs to be reformed, no question about it. In the committee this year we have reduced the overall level of funding from $110 to $100 million. But the reason the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, who just spoke, and the reason I am on the floor defending the program is because we are trying to take the Government out of production agriculture and put the Government in the right and proper role as it relates to its relationship to domestic industries. And that is for small producers who have to compete against subsidized producers in foreign countries, our Government should serve as a leveler of the playing field. That is where our Government can work best. We know that in our country today for American agriculture to flourish, it must sell in foreign markets. And, oh, yes, by the way, every item that one of those companies sells in many instances is produced by a small producer and sold to that company that then markets it in a foreign country. That is the other side of the story. But what I am interested in are the marketing co-ops and the associations that go to countries to develop markets so that we can sell to them directly our products. That is where market promotion works at its very best. That is what the ag committee is really trying to get at. I am not going to be stampeded by a couple of great, dramatic television programs. That should not dictate policy on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It should make us aware of policy that is in trouble, that deserves to be corrected. That is exactly what we are trying to do. The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Idaho are not going to defend McDonald's. They do not need help. But those who produce the commodities that build the components of the food they sell need to be assured that they have full access to foreign markets under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and all other trade agreements we get into. The only way we can maintain profitability at the production level on the farm is to assure that our Government works in cooperation with that producer in assuring them the level playing field and the access to foreign markets. I am sorry, if we do not do that, if we allow foreign barriers to be constantly built against our producers, without the advantage of breaking those barriers down, then surplus arrives, profitability drops, and guess where we will be? We will have agriculture lined up at the door of the Congress once again, saying, ``You have got to help us out. You have got to provide a minimum income level. We're all going broke.'' The transition that we have been involved in for well over a decade, Mr. President, has been to move the farmer to the market and allow that farmer to produce for a market. And that market is an international market as well as a domestic market. The Market Promotion Program has been designed to expand that foreign market and create a greater desire on the part of the foreign consumer for the U.S. agricultural product. It has worked in spades. We know that. USDA knows it. That is why it has defended it. It has been misused. We all know that. We are working to correct that. I am going be as aggressive as anyone in getting it done. We have cut the funding now. That is a responsible action to take. We will target and prioritize the money where it should be under the premise that I have laid out. That, I think, is the premise that all have agreed on was the intent of the program originally. So I hope the Senate will reject this amendment. It is important that we look internationally when we think about American agriculture. That is a role where Government can play a responsible part as a partner with our domestic U.S. farmer.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, a GAO audit was done of this program several years ago. The Senator from New Hampshire has quoted from that as to impact on consumers. Let me put in the Record a letter from the Department of Agriculture, the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, saying that the GAO used a totally faulty basis from which to calculate it. This letter refutes the very figures that are being used by the Senator, and it is important that be a part of the record. This is the Department of Agriculture that analyzes and monitors this, saying the wrong premise was used; therefore, the wrong figures, and in fact this might be a net savings to consumers instead of a cost because of the stability of the program itself.

Mr. CRAIG. I do.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3450

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will oppose the next amendment that will be up. Reform has been asked for in the sugar program, and we have brought major reform. This is of no cost to the taxpayers. We create stability in the market, which I think all of us want to see. I yield to my colleague from Louisiana.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public the scheduling of a field hearing in Hot Springs, AR, before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management on S. 1025, exchange of lands, mineral, oil and gas interests. The hearing will be held on Thursday, February 15, 1996, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in the Arlington Resort Hotel, 239 Central Avenue, Hot Springs, AR 71902. Testimony will be received on the land exchange of certain federally owned lands and minerals interest, with private lands owned by the Weyerhauser Co. Because of the limited time available, witnesses may testify by invitation only. Witnesses testifying at the hearing are requested to bring 10 copies of their testimony with them on the day of the hearing. In addition, please send or fax a copy in advance to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. Fax 202-228-0539. For further information, please contact Mark Rey of the committee staff at 202-224-6170. subcommittee on investigations

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I would note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will once again attempt to wrestle with one of its key responsibilities to American agriculture, and that is to pass legislation that will craft new farm policy for our country and send the necessary message as to what we expect American agriculture to do in relation to farm programs directed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I found it interesting yesterday that President Clinton has submitted his 1997 budget when we do not even have a 1996 budget, and we find ourselves here on the floor of the Senate today debating agriculture because the President vetoed agriculture. So while the President is now off campaigning across the country waving a 1997 budget, the Government does not have a 1996 budget, and we do not have a farm policy. The Secretary of Agriculture has just entered the floor. By the 15th of this month, he is going to arrive at a crisis point in having to deal with the implementation of 1949 agricultural policy. Last Friday on the floor of this Senate, the Democrat leader and his party blocked a farm bill. We offered a bipartisan farm bill, Democrats and Republicans alike. Senator Leahy of Vermont, who is just about as liberal as I am conservative, came together in a bipartisan bill. Once again we were denied the opportunity to vote on that because we were told it would be blocked. I hope today that we can deal with a farm bill and send the appropriate message to American agriculture. But yesterday, I think Robert Shapiro, the president of the Progressive Policy Institute, which is a centrist Democrat leadership council arm, said it very clearly: The President's budget is not about dollars; it is about politics. He said we are now in a political season, and the President did this for politics. The politics that is being played on the floor of the U.S. Senate right now may be good for one party or another, but it is not good for American agriculture. So, Mr. President, pick up the phone and call your people here in the Senate and say let us get an agriculture bill so that the Secretary of Agriculture does not have to deal with the kind of draconian things that he may be forced to do to send a shock wave through American agriculture by implementation of the 1949 farm policy. That is not good government. That is not the kind of government we need to deal with. So I hope we can arrive at a solution this afternoon. But, Mr. President, in closing, because I know our time is up here at about 12:30, I am told that there are now 240-plus amendments filed at the desk on the Lugar-Leahy-Craig alternative bipartisan farm bill. That sends a very simple message to me. There is not going to be a farm bill today. It is impossible to deal with it after 6\1/2\ months of intensive extensive hearings before the Senate Agriculture Committee when American agriculture, almost per organization, said do not simply reinstate farm policy, but reform it and clean it up. And that is what we have done in trying to build this. I am not sure where we go from here. I hope we can get the 60 votes this afternoon so that we can move forward and get the 1996 work done before our President is off campaigning on 1997 budgets that do not balance while he is President, assuming he might get elected another term. I find it very interesting that his own people are now saying it is not policy; it is all politics. Well, we knew that. He knows that. But it is a very dangerous kind of politics, a very dangerous kind of politics for American agriculture. Historically, Mr. President, we have always crafted a bipartisan farm bill. I see the Senator from North Dakota on the floor. He has talked about that. I have worked with him. I have worked with other Senators on the floor to craft a bipartisan approach to farm policy. I hope that is what we can accomplish this afternoon before the political season gets so hot that we cannot get any work done. If that is the case, we probably lose. But someone else loses, and that is the American farmer and American agriculture. Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the leader yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think I and a lot of other Senators are very frustrated at this moment as we have tried to move this issue over the last several weeks. All of us agree that the agricultural community deserves to hear a clear message from the Congress of the United States that relates to farm policy. I am terribly disappointed that this afternoon we could not gain cloture, that the other side chose to kill freedom to farm. We also put up an excellent alternative to that and that--we could not work with that issue. Obviously, farm policy in its formation has always been bipartisan. I was confident this afternoon, or at least I thought I could be, that we had worked for several days to build that bipartisan compromise and still maintain the kind of levels of expenditure that sent a clear message to American agriculture that there would be some safety nets but, at the same time, that they were going to move toward the market as they have told us--week after week, month after month, as we have held hearings in the Senate Agriculture Committee this year--that a reinstatement of current policy simply would not work anymore and it should not work. While I know none of us at this moment are working on a reinstatement of current policy, I am very concerned to see us edging back toward it at a time when agriculture has said to us that is not where we ought to head. So I hope we can arrive at something over the weekend and into next week. It is my understanding the House may not be able to get there, as we had hoped, so we could at least show the American farm community a timetable that we are all going to be sensitive to. But I am disappointed, and I think we all are, that this cannot be resolved in the fashion we had hoped. I am going to have to, as I think others on this side are, look a great deal more closely at the deals that are being put together. We, in my opinion--certainly from this Senator's point of view--have gone as far as I know is possible to go without saying to Idaho agriculture we have decided not to do what we told you we were going to do and what most of you had agreed to. I presented legislation yesterday that had the full endorsement of the American Farm Bureau and a variety of other organizations, wheat growers, corn growers and others. I had hoped we could arrive at that in a timely fashion. It appears we are not there. I hope we are closer than I am led to believe we might be. But, to the leader who, I know, has worked today, and the minority leader, I hope we can get this accomplished and the final plans worked out. Timing is of the essence, that we resolve it. It should have been resolved today.