Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I am always pleased, if I can respond to the majority leader, to be Garcia and run the trap lines for anything that could be proposed by the Senator and the distinguished leader of the minority. I have checked with a great many Senators. I thought it was pretty much common knowledge. I have checked with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Ag Appropriations, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, checked with Senator Dorgan, checked with Senator Conrad, and checked with others. I could go down the list. But I just did not anticipate that there would be an objection, and so consequently--or, more especially, when the very subject that Senator Daschle indicated is already in the Agriculture appropriations bill. As a matter of fact, I think if we fund it now, you could make the argument that later down the road, in regard to disaster assistance, there would not be any more forthcoming. I apologize if it is my fault, if in fact I was supposed to run the trap line and I didn't run all the traps. I am sorry, but I just did not anticipate that this would be this much of a problem.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, notwithstanding all the advice we have received from Senator Sarbanes and Senator D'Amato in regard to how world banks make their loans or don't, and what is in the minds of country bankers all throughout the Nation, and without CRA we simply wouldn't have ever made a loan in rural America, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 3 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 4112, the legislative branch appropriations bill. As a reminder, a cloture motion was filed on Friday to the legislative branch bill and, therefore, Members have until 2 p.m. today to file first-degree amendments. The cloture vote will occur tomorrow at approximately 9:30 in the morning. At the conclusion of debate today on the legislative branch appropriations bill, the Senate will begin consideration of S. 2260, the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. All Members are encouraged to come to the floor to offer and debate amendments to this legislation. The majority leader has announced there will be no rollcall votes during today's session and, therefore, any votes ordered with respect to any appropriations bills will be postponed, to occur on Tuesday following the vote on cloture.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order, I ask unanimous consent, detecting no other Senator wishing to speak, I may be permitted to continue for 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to compliment the men and women of our sea services, the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Navy, on an operation recently conducted. It was about a month ago in the African country of Eritrea. I think we should all be very proud of the way the Navy and the Marine Corps team responded to what I refer to as a 911 call, to execute an evacuation operation, commonly called a NEO, in that part of the world in Africa. It resulted from the unrest that this country, Eritrea, has had with its neighbor, Ethiopia. Let me highlight the action as it unfolded. On the evening of the June 5 of this year, the marines and sailors of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, part of a forward-deployed Amphibious Ready Group, received what is called a warning order. A warning order is a ``heads up'' that a specific tasking is about to come your way and you had better start thinking about the mission that is contained in the warning order. That mission was the removal of American citizens from Eritrea because of the increasing unrest, as I have indicated, with Ethiopia. The marines, who had just finished conducting an exercise in Jordan, began their preparations right off the bat. At 3:30 in the afternoon of the 6th of June, the commanding officer, Colonel T.L. Moore, as ordered by General Anthony Zinni, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command, launched two C-130 aircraft along with 30 marines and sailors from this expeditionary unit. They arrived in Asmara, Eritrea, and began removing U.S. citizens and personnel from other countries. At 11:50 p.m., on that same day, the mission was complete. What mission? These superb marines and sailors removed from harm's way, and to safety, 105 American citizens, 24 Norwegians, 20 who were British, 8 Canadians, 3 Ethiopians, 3 Japanese, 1 Korean, 1 Mexican, and 1 Swedish civilian. I am told the C-130s were proudly flying the Stars and Stripes in regards to this mission instead of their usual command banner strictly as a matter of pride in their mission and their nation. Also as part of this continuing effort, the U.S.S. Tarawa got underway at 3 p.m. on the 6th and steamed at full speed to the coast of Eritrea to wait for any further requests for NEO assistance in case any more problems did, simply, come up. I think the remarkable thing about the Tarawa is that the ship did actually prepare for this mission and got underway in less than 72 hours. There was not any fanfare in the press about this. There were no stories in the media about the successful effort or pride of our men and women involved in this important mission. I think probably too many times the only military stories we hear about are some isolated event involving a service member that creates a negative headline, or some controversial issue, like today we are hearing over the media that somehow or other we are going to lessen or keep or improve or make more stringent the rules of the military in regards to adultery. I just wanted to take this opportunity to share this mission with my colleagues because it reflects, I think, the pride and the professionalism that is the standard of the vast majority of the members of our Armed Forces. It is so infrequent that we in the Congress really salute these fine Americans. So, Semper Fi and Bravo Zulu to the men and women of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, the U.S.S. Tarawa, and all other members of our Corps and Navy involved in this effort.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I want to call to the attention of my colleagues some headlines that are in today's press in reference to the problems that we are experiencing, the challenge we face, what could be a real tragedy in Kosovo. As I look at this, here is a headline from the Washington Post, as of this morning, written by R. Jeffrey Smith of the Post foreign service: ``Thousands Flee As Lawlessness Spreads In Kosovo.'' And it gives an up-front and personal account in regards to a particular Albanian citizen who has lived there for 40 years and was beaten in the middle of the night, and what is going on in that country. Here is another headline from the Washington Times as of today, by Philip Smucker of the Washington Times: ``Kosovar Rebels Grow Bolder.'' A grimy-faced teenager with bloodshot eyes and an automatic rifle ran at us, screaming, as we came down a hill into the heart of a raging firefight yesterday, on the bloodiest weekend of the Kosovo war. Here is another headline from the European Stars and Stripes: ``Fighting Flares In Kosovo.'' From the New York Times: ``Rebels Claim First Capture Of Kosovo City.'' Last week I had an intelligence briefing on Kosovo. They indicated if this happened, in regards to Pristina, and also in regards to Orahovac--I am having a little trouble with the pronunciation, but it is indicative of many of the communities there. So we have the fighting that has actually spread. Here is another article from the European Stars and Stripes: ``SFOR Patrols Bosnian Border for Gun-Running.'' That is the situation in Bosnia. Of course right down from Bosnia, we have the situation in regards to Kosovo. I am concerned about this because I think the United States and the rest of our allies in Western Europe are on the verge of a deep and expensive and very dangerous involvement in yet another area of the Balkans. Unfortunately, and once again, I have yet to hear from the executive, and from the administration--more especially the President--to explain to the Congress nor, more important, the American people, why is this in our vital national interest to get in the middle of this growing conflict. I think I can make a pretty good case in that regard, because I just returned from the three new prospective NATO countries--Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary--with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Shelby. To a person, every official whom we met with in those three countries indicated that what NATO does with regard to Kosovo and what we continue to do in Bosnia is the real test of NATO: What it will be; what it will do; what our involvement will be; if, in fact, we have a Palestinian kind of situation in the middle of Europe with Bosnia and Kosovo; whether or not we can end this kind of ethnic strife. So I think you could probably make a case for our involvement in Kosovo, but I have yet to hear from anybody in the administration other than reacting to news accounts or to questions. I think it is time we heard. On the other side of it, we don't want to back into a situation where there is no end in sight, no exit strategy, and no real consideration in terms of cost and involvement. The media reports are very clear that the Yugoslavian leader, Mr. Milosevic, is taking very hard and brutal action against the ethnic Albanians who are living in Kosovo. They comprise 90 percent of the population. This is the same kind of activity that he promoted in regards to Bosnia and the breakup there. We are making some diplomatic efforts. We have people there working overtime, but these efforts seem to keep changing. We have drawn several lines in the sand with threats of severe reprisals if the Serbian action against the Albanian population does not cease, and those lines in the sand are still there, they have been gone over, and the activity continues. So much for any kind of believability in regards to our commitment. The Albanian rebels, known as the KLA, are simply growing in strength and the fighting is growing more fierce. There is no real peaceful solution in sight. The United States and NATO have threatened military action and they have had a military demonstration. It was a fly-over or fly-by. It was called ``Determined Falcon.'' I really don't know how determined that falcon is, but neither side has offered to end the conflict and efforts to bring them to the table to get a solution have failed. In fact, the KLA is really, I think, buoyed by the apparent Western support for their cause. Obviously, they are not interested in backing off now. Mr. Milosevic, having observed our unwillingness to carry out our threats in the past, and coupled with the strong support of the Serbian people to put an end to the rebel uprising in Kosovo, has no reason to back off, either. So we have a standoff. We have now started an international monitoring program in Kosovo ``aimed at bringing peace to this strife-torn region.'' Mr. President, I want everybody to understand this. This is a very important development. This observer group is comprised of about 40 diplomats and ``military experts'' attached to embassies in Belgrade. Our ``military experts'' are unarmed U.S. military forces from the European Command. This means we have U.S. personnel now in this kind of a situation. I was reading press reports about it several days ago, and they are in white cars, very clearly marked. You hope, obviously, the white cars will be very clearly marked so they will avoid any kind of hostilities. In other words, if you are traveling in a white car and either side wants to do great mischief--and that is probably not the right word for it--why certainly, obviously, they would be highlighted. I have several concerns, Mr. President, about all of this: We are, once again, backing into a military commitment in regard to Kosovo. The term of ``unarmed military observers or experts'' certainly brings back some memories of other situations where we have backed into those conflicts. It is deja vu all over again. We are running a great risk that our ``military experts'' or diplomats could be in harm's way. NATO is conducting contingency planning that could involve thousands of military troops to separate the warring factions or impose peace. I must tell you, in talking to a British general at the ceremony celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Berlin airlift, when I was talking about this, I asked the general, ``How many people would it take to really maintain order on that border?'' And there have been estimates of anywhere from 7,000 to 25,000. It is very difficult terrain. He said, ``Oh, my no, it would take upwards of 70,000.'' ``Seventy thousand?'' My mouth, obviously, dropped a little bit. He said, ``Of course, we don't intend on doing that.'' But, of course, then we didn't intend on doing that in other rather political involvements of gradualism that we have had around the world, and I am not going to spell those out in specific terms. I think everybody here knows what we are talking about. So we have those contingency plans that could involve thousands of military troops. The costs, both in dollars and the impact on our already-stressed military, are potentially very devastating. I remember the briefing that we had in regard to India and Pakistan, and our esteemed Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was talking about the related situation in regard to Kosovo and indicated that we might have to become much more involved there. Senator Stevens, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said, ``Wait a minute, we do not have the money, we do not have the funds, we do not have the materiel, we do not have the men and women in uniform to get the job done. We are already committed in the gulf. We are already committed in Bosnia. Most of those funds in the past have been taken out of the readiness account-- we are not paying for it--and that is a real problem.'' I think the Senator's sense of urgency in his response to the Secretary was well taken. There are many unanswered questions on how this conflict in Kosovo is in our vital national interest. Let me stress vital national interest. I do think it is in the best interest of NATO. I think we have to be very careful; I think we have to be very firm. Senator Lieberman, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, and the former distinguished majority leader in the Senate and my colleague and longtime friend, Bob Dole, indicated we must take aggressive and very positive action. There are unexplained scenarios of Kosovo leading to a larger war in Europe if this conflict is not ended now. But my primary concern in bringing this up, Mr. President, is this: This whole issue has yet to be addressed by the President and, for that matter, to some extent by this Congress in any way. Yet, here we are backing into a situation with ``military observers'' and with contingency plans that could involve thousands more. The President should not, nor will the Congress let him, commit the men and women of our Armed Forces without defining our national interests. That is fundamental, and I think we ought to spell that out. I call for the President to do so and to outline the objectives in the exit strategy for any involvement in that part of the world and in regard to Kosovo in particular. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Men and Women of the 22d Air Refueling Wing at McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, Kansas. The crew at the 22d won recognition as the top KC-135 maintenance team in the world at a recent competition known as the Air Mobility Rodeo. This is an event sponsored by the Air Mobility Command. It is an accomplishment that requires skill, training, leadership, teamwork, pride, professionalism and unselfish dedication to the task at hand. I take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge their great success and professionalism. The Air Mobility Rodeo is a binannual, multinational event that is designed to develop and improve techniques and procedures that enhance air mobility operations--something that is very crucial in today's world. In this year's competition at McCord Air Force Base, the participants included more than 2,500 competitors formed in 80 teams from over 300 active duty Air Force, Air Force Reserve command, Air National Guard, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Army, and other Allied Nations. Winning this award is an important event worthy of real recognition. What also makes this such an important win is that for the 22d, it is a repeat win for this team. They walked away with the prize in the 1996 competition as well. And this leads me to say there is no question that the KC-135 aircraft at McConnell are the best maintained in the world. Let me acknowledge the leadership at Team McConnell because without their leadership and guidance, the atmosphere at McConnell would never support the effort required to win this competition. The two key players are the Wing Commander, Col. Michael C. Gould, and the Senior Enlisted Advisor, Chief Master Sergeant Herbert V. Williams, Jr. Anyone who has been around the military understands how much the senior leadership of an organization sets the tone for the entire command. There is one other member of the team whose contribution I want to recognize. That member is Lead Crew Chief, Sergeant Jeffery Gass. He was singled out for special recognition and was selected as Air Mobility Command's Crew Chief of the year. It is men and women such as Sgt. Gass who make our military the most successful in the world. They are the unsung heroes--quietly working in the background, exceptionally professional, dedicated to their service and their nation, and serving the communities where they are stationed. The award nomination for Sgt. Gass is testimony to his unselfish dedication, his professional knowledge, and his service to his country and the local community. I am particularly proud to recognize this team from McConnell Air Force Base and Sgt. Gass not only because they contribute so much to the defense of our nation but because they contribute so much to Wichita and Kansas. Well done to the 22nd Air Refueling Wing and well done to Sgt. Gass.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I object to further consideration of the bill at this time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk due for its second reading.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized, in the engrossment of the following bills, to strike section 3705 of each bill: The Senate amendment to H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999; S. 2057, the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999; and S. 2058, the Department of Energy National Security Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I further ask unanimous consent that the Secretary be authorized, in the engrossment of the following bills, to strike the period at the end of section 2646(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, as proposed to be added by section 321(a) of each bill, and insert in lieu thereof the following: ``, and only if such materials are specifically provided for in subchapter VIII, chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.'': The Senate amendment to H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999; S. 2057, the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999; and S. 2060, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. I further ask unanimous consent that S. 2057, as so corrected, be printed as passed.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 16, 1998 at 10:00 am., 2:00 pm and 4:00 pm to hold three hearings.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, July 16, 1998 beginning at 10:00 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on July 16, 1998 at 10:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in Dirksen G50 for the purpose of conducting a forum.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, July 16, 1998, at 9:30 am on Universal Service: Schools and Libraries Program.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 16, 1998 at 2:00 p.m., in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building, to hold a hearing on: ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Thursday July 16, 1998, at 9:30 a.m. in open session, to consider the nomination of Daryl Jones to be Secretary of the Air Force.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday July 16, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 226, of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 16, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 155, a bill to redesignate General Grant National Memorial Monument as Grant's Tomb National Monument, and for other purposes, S. 1408, a bill to established the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site, and for other purposes; S. 1718, a bill to amend the Weir Farm National Historic Site Establishment Act of 1990 to authorize the acquisition of additional acreage for the historic site to permit the development of visitor and administrative facilities and to authorize the appropriation of additional amounts for the acquisition of real and personal property; and S. 1990, to authorize expansion of Fort Davis National Historic Sit in Fort Davis, Texas. The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I especially thank my colleague from Minnesota. I know he will have some important things to say, too. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Grassley amendment. While this vote is nonbinding, as the Senator has said, I believe it does give the Senate the opportunity to make a very important statement on our commitment to our farmers and ranchers. We have had a rather spirited and I think a rather good debate in these past few days in regard to the many challenges that face farm country. I think this amendment is very clear. It simply lays out the issues Congress must address before we finish this session. Time is certainly drawing near. The time for action is now. None of these issues, as the distinguished Senator from Iowa has pointed out, is more important than fast-track trade negotiating authority. Senator Grassley did actually consider offering the fast track as an amendment to this bill, but obviously, due to the need to complete this bill, he has decided not to offer the amendment. So we have a sense of the Senate, if you will, that this is our priority action. That does not mean we should not come back to the issue as of this session, and that is the plan. Before the Senator leaves the floor, let me point out, I do not know anybody in this Senate who has been a more distinguished leader in behalf of agriculture than the Senator from Iowa. There is an expression in farm country that you need to sit on the wagon to be able to listen to farmers. Chuck Grassley is the personification of that. There isn't anybody who speaks more in concert with the corn producer of Iowa or the hog producer of Iowa or livestock producer or any other farmer in Iowa, and I think that is reflective of his position of leadership in the Senate and all throughout the country. As a matter of fact, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution mirrors a letter sent to the President, to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Agriculture, to the distinguished Democratic leader, to our leader. This is the letter I referred to in my remarks when we had the debate on the Daschle amendment. It was sent, as I have said, to the President, the Secretary of State, to our Special Trade Representative, the Secretary of Agriculture, everybody on the House Committee on Agriculture, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Ways and Means. The person who really paid attention to this was, in fact, the distinguished Senator from Iowa. He pretty much took what these farm organizations--and I might add, it is: the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Barley Growers Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Corn Growers--obviously they would be here if Senator Grassley did it--the National Cotton Council of America, the National Grain Sorghum Producers Association, National Grange, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Pork Producers Council, National Sunflower Association. They had a meeting with Senator Lott and 12 Senators, attended by Senator Grassley. Not content with just saying, ``Here's the list of what we need to do,'' Senator Grassley has come to the floor of the Senate and said, ``These are our marching orders. It's the sense of the Senate that we do these things.'' Consequently, he listened to agriculture. He followed the farm summit that the agriculture leaders of America had with Republican Senators, and this is bipartisan as well. So I certainly credit him in that regard. I do have some concern about the President first saying, ``Yes, let's do this,'' and then, ``Perhaps, you know, let's not.'' So, consequently, in that regard I am happy that both the distinguished majority leader of the Senate, Senator Lott, and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, have indicated we will vote on fast track, and hopefully it can be combined with IMF funding, a Caribbean initiative, or the African trade bill. I cannot think of a more important message to say to our farmers or more important work that we should do prior to this session ending. With that, I thank, again, the Senator from Minnesota, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, the esteemed chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee. Let me say how much I appreciate his perseverance and patience as we work to try to get what I think is a very good agriculture appropriations bill. I made some remarks yesterday. I will not take up much time of the Senate to go over that again. But I do have some comments, more especially as to the criticism by those across the aisle in regard to the loan rate and in regard to the Daschle amendment which, I understand, is intended to be of help to the farmers and, more especially, the farmers in the northern plains who are going through a very difficult time. Mr. President, we have heard that there is no longer a ``safety-net'' for America's farmers. Advocates of this position argue that we must extend marketing loans and remove the caps on loan rates. Based upon recent figures, it is estimated the loan rate for wheat would rise to $3.17 per bushel from its current level of $2.58. However, when you add the transition payments of 63 cents per bushel on the historical base that farmers are receiving for wheat, you have a new safety net of $3.21. We are told raising the loan cap will cost nearly $1.5 billion for one year. And, if we were to come back and make the increase permanent, we are told it would cost $3.5 billion to $4 billion over five years. Why should we approve amendments that will bust the budget when they provide a lower safety net than the current program? Raising and extending loan rates will not improve prices and producer incomes. Extending the loan rate actually results in lower prices in the long-run. Extending the loan for six months simply gives producers another false hope for holding onto the remainder of last year's crop. Farmers will be holding onto a portion of the 1997 crop, while at the same time harvesting another bumper crop in 1998. Thus, rolling over the loan rate actually increases the amount of wheat on the market and results in lower prices--not higher prices. Since excess stocks will continue to depress prices, will we then extend the rate again? It will become an endless cycle that will cost billions of dollars, and which will eventually lead to a return to planting requirements and set-aside acres in an attempt to control agricultural output and limit the budgetary effects. Where will we get the offsets the Senate and House will require? Extending and raising loan rates will only serve to exacerbate the lack of storage associated with the transportation problems in middle America, because it simply causes farmers to hold onto their crops and fill elevator storage spaces. Kansas just harvested its second largest wheat crop in history and there are predictions of record corn and soybean crops in the fall. If we do not move the wheat crop now, it will create transportation problems in the fall that will surpass anything we experienced last year. I feel it should also be mentioned that advocates of higher or extended loan rates argue that it will allow farmers to hold their crops until after the harvest when prices will rise. To those who advocate this position, I would point out that Kansas State University recently published a report which looked at the years 1981 through 1997 and compared farmers earnings if they held wheat in storage until mid-November versus selling at harvest. In all but five years, farmers ended up with a net loss as storage and interest costs exceeded the gains in price. Simply put, extending and raising the rates provides a false hope for higher profits that most often does not exist. Mr. President, we must ask what is the purpose of loan rates? Are they intended to be a marketing clearing device or a price support? They cannot be both as the other side of the aisle would. And, if we set price at $3.17 it very well may become a ceiling on price. Mr. President, raising loan rates is simply not the answer. We need to continue on course and continue to pursue the new trade markets and tax relief that farmers need. And, as I mentioned yesterday, I would remind my colleagues of the meeting 14 Senators had with 12 major farm organizations approximately one month ago. At the top of every organizations wish list was trade, trade, and more trade. Mr. President, I mentioned yesterday that I like to think I have spent more time on the wagon tongue listening to our farmers than any Member of Congress. And, farmers tell me to leave loan rates alone. They want export markets opened. They want sanctions that shoot them in the foot removed. These are the policies we should be pursuing, not the policies of the past that put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage in the world market. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two articles, which fit within the restrictions of Senate rules, by Pro Farmer's Washington Bureau Chief Jim Wiesemeyer, be printed in the Record. One is regarding failed policies of the past, and the second one is regarding trade policy.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator and the author of the bill for that explanation. I hope that would take away some of the concern as expressed by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. This amendment recognizes that until the United States is literally at war or we have a national security problem with another country--and certainly terrorism fits into that category--there is no positive benefit in denying the most meager necessities of life, food and medicine, to the people of this world. Certainly it doesn't benefit the sick and hungry, Mr. President. In regard to the people of Africa and Asia, and blocking the sale of food and medicine, it does severely damage, I think, America's image in the eyes of people across the globe. As a matter of fact, as a member of the Transatlantic Partnership, which is an organization dedicated to better understanding between the peoples and the parliamentarians of Europe and the United States, this subject comes up again and again and again. Why are you basically hurting the people who are most disadvantaged in any kind of a unilateral sanction that makes no sense in terms of any policy change? So I think the world must know that the U.S. Government and the American people care about what goes on outside our borders, and the world must also know that the United States stands ready to provide food and medicine--on commercial terms--to anybody, any time, any place, unless there is national security involved, and unless we have a situation like the Senator from New Jersey pointed out with regard to terrorist activities or exporting terrorism. This amendment represents one very critical component of what is becoming a sweeping debate on the use of acting unilaterally--and I emphasize unilateral--all by ourselves, in U.S. foreign policy. Unilateral sanctions serve no purpose other than to hurt the U.S. businesses and workers and to diminish U.S. strength and prestige. I firmly believe that the Congress and the administration must continue to work together on a broad-based effort to reassess all instances of unilateral sanctions. This amendment would represent an excellent step in the right direction. Mr. President, with a few add-ons, those are my prepared remarks. I want to respond to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. The Senator from New Jersey indicated that for the last three decades the Presidents of the United States have reaffirmed in each and every case unilateral sanctions, including the use of food and medicine. To a certain degree, I think that is true, because it was in 1980, when President Carter was President, that this issue really hit a flash point. President Carter, thinking of the terrible tragedy when the former Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, decided we would cancel out of the Olympics. He also decided he would put on a grain embargo. I know that the President intended on sending a strong message to the former Soviet Union. I know President Carter hoped that the perception in the world community would be such that somehow the Russians would change their policy. And they did not. I will tell you who was hurt in that particular instance by the Carter grain embargo--and I am not trying to perjure it; I am saying this happened in terms of a pragmatic effect. It was like shattered glass and it headed us toward the farm crisis of the 1980s, in some ways, and it took us years to get back contract sanctity to the point that our exports made anything. We had an excellent Olympics; I think it was in L.A. Americans won a great many battles and medals. But I can tell you that, in terms of perception, it didn't do a thing. No Russian troop ever left Afghanistan. Now, that was a terrible tragedy. Again, we were using unilateral sanctions, and we were using the farmer and rancher with regard to that price. I submit to you that if you want to put sanctions on people, all American taxpayers should pay for it, not just farmers and ranchers. That is called an embargo. I can tell you that you can spell embargo S- A-N-C-T-I-O-N-S. No country that has sanctions put on them unilaterally, regardless of what progress we are making in terms of whatever objective we are trying to achieve, will buy from us as long as that is available from other countries. That is precisely what is happening regarding the countries where we have the unilateral sanctions. Look at Pakistan. Thank goodness, we acted on this 98-0 this week in the Senate. They have a wheat tender. Guess who was standing in line. There was the French. They were going to buy the wheat from the French. They may anyway. We acted wisely and we said, ``This isn't going to work. Why are we hurting the American farmer or rancher or, for that matter, anybody in the business community when the sanctions don't work?'' Yes, it has been 30 years of a broad policy, trying to look at sanctions to see if they are going to work. But the fact is that was started with the Carter embargo. I must say that it took President Reagan 2 years to get around to getting contract sanctity. In the meantime, we suffered great harm in terms of farm country. So I say to my distinguished friend from New Jersey, you are darn right, it has been a 30-year policy and, for the most part, it hasn't worked. Now, in terms of terrorism, I personally agree. Libya? I would hope that we would have multilateral sanctions. I would hope the world community would understand that Mr. Qadhafi and Libya have, in the past, exported terrorism. I might add that one of the reasons it has been so successful in terms of keeping him under wraps is that the administration at the time sent a strong message to Mr. Qadhafi. He woke up one morning to find that part of the place where he spent most of his time to watch television and do other matters was no longer there. All of a sudden, he got the message. He probably scratched his head and said, ``Had I been sitting there, it might have been a little different.'' And then he calmed down right away. Have we gotten to the bottom of all of the tragedies that he has inspired? No. Are we ready to sell him product, i.e., Kansas wheat, or any other product? No, because his behavior is such that we feel it is in our national security interest not to do that. I agree with the Senator from New Jersey with regard to food products. They are fungible. What happens is, if you are able to arrange a sale, or for a humanitarian purpose you provide food, obviously, they have the ability in a totalitarian state to simply use that for other purposes, and they can continue whatever practices they may have. But in the end result, the people who are at the lowest levels are the people who get hurt--the women, children, all of the people mentioned by Senator Dodd. So while it is fungible, I think, with regard to agriculture and medicine, the basic question you have to figure out here is, are we using agriculture as a tool for peace? Or are we using agriculture as a foreign policy weapon? I can tell you that, for too many years now, we have used agriculture as a foreign policy weapon--to the detriment of farmers and ranchers, for no apparent reason, with no pragmatic result, with the nations that we are now talking about. I might add that there are some moderating forces that are now at work in Iran. And I might add that when I went to Saudi Arabia with Chairman Stevens and six other Senators, we asked the Saudis--we made indirect inquiries, and we were working with the Secretary of State to make further indirect inquiries: Could we help the forces of moderation in Iran by offering agriculture as a tool for peace? Would that work? Could they increase their diet, basic protein diet, so they are better off, and become, hopefully, more dependent on the United States with regard to their basic needs and their food supplies? Think what could happen if we would use agriculture as a tool for peace, as opposed to a weapon, on a selective basis. The Senator from New Jersey mentioned Iraq and Saddam Hussein. I think it is disingenuous to say that the people who support this amendment somehow support Saddam Hussein. We are now allowing Iraq and Saddam Hussein to export as much oil as they did prior to the gulf war. They, in turn, used the cash that we allowed them to expend regarding oil sales to buy wheat in regard to the French. Hello. Why does that make any sense? If we are going to sanction Iraq under a banner of, well, everything except something that is humanitarian, and we say you can sell this oil to achieve humanitarian needs, food and medicine, i.e., food products, agriculture products, and they buy from our competitors, that doesn't make any sense. If you have sanctions, it seems to me you ought to make them across the board. We didn't do that. We backed off of that. There is a whole history as to where we are with Iraq and the United Nations and plans by the administration to have a limited armed conflict and where we are with that. I am not going to second guess that. But let's don't say that since we support this amendment, we support Saddam Hussein. North Korea--if there ever was a totalitarian regime that is rather bizarre in its nature, it is North Korea. I have been in North Korea. I went to Pyongyang to meet with the North Koreans, along with Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye, and others. We met with representatives of the North Korean Government. We were trying to arrange a grain sale by a third-party country so they could somehow get an experience of trading with other nations--moderate, a little. That is a tough chore, I will tell you--what is happening in North Korea. We saw children who are 16 and 17 whose growth and whose stature really represents somebody who is 11 or 12. We saw young people marching out into the fields to plant some kind of crops and to hunt for grubs. We saw no animals whatsoever, not even a pigeon, not a dog, not a cow, not any kind of a farm animal. Bark on the trees was taken off up to that height. Do you know who is helping the North Koreans? It is the World Food group led by Catherine Bertini. So the United States, what we do under a humanitarian banner is we say, All right. We will contribute X amount of dollars. We will give it to the World Food organization. They, in turn, will buy grain on the open market. They will give the grain, then, to the North Koreans. Is there any real guarantee that they are going to use it for that? No. But under the circumstances the situation was so dire that I think that happened, to some degree. So here we are expending money to the World Food group who, in turn, uses it to provide the humanitarian aid. I am not in a position to say that we are going to say to North Korea that we are going to enter into any kind of trade negotiations. That is a very oppressive regime. It is probably the most Stalinist, if I can use that word, I guess, regime in the entire country. And Kim Chong-il, ``The Dear Leader,'' has no illusions otherwise. Now, however, we have the South Koreans making overtures that if the North Koreans will finally behave themselves, there might be a glimmer of change in North Korea. Could it well be that we could use agriculture once again as a tool for peace? I do not know. But the bottom line is that the President under this bill --under the Dodd-Roberts bill, under the Dodd-Roberts-Hagel-Biden bill--has the authority to come in and say, if this is in our national security--if, in fact, the export of terrorism is such that this is really something that is not in our national interest, he can do so. Why on Earth on unilateral sanctions we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot and make agriculture and farmers and ranchers pay for this when the fact is it is not working is beyond me. Again, I say this is not an effort by Senators in some kind of disingenuous fashion to encourage terrorism, or to encourage rogue states or pariah states. Nobody wants to do that. But when you have an opportunity to use agriculture again as a tool for peace, I think we ought to do it. I appreciate this opportunity to take this time. I thank my colleagues for their indulgence. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. I want, Mr. President, to offer an amendment in the second degree.