Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I would like to join the chorus of well-deserved accolades--common-sense, I guess, accolades for the distinguished Senator from Indiana, the outstanding chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. The Senator from New Mexico has summed it up very well. I am not going to take the Senate's time to repeat what has already been said in regard to this debate. Senator Lugar has already done that. Others have done that. I do have a statement that involves obvious ``golden words of truth'' in regard to this issue that I will simply insert for the record, but I do want to say again that the use of sanctions as a foreign policy tool have skyrocketed since the conclusion of World War II. The last 4 years, as has been said on the floor, 61 new U.S. laws or executive actions were enacted authorizing the unilateral sanctions against 35 countries, and in all, over 70 foreign nations representing 75 percent of the world's population are currently subjected to a unilateral sanction by the United States. These are easy perceptions, I guess, actions that people take. I think in earlier days we used to call it gunboat diplomacy. Maybe we sent a gunboat over to a nation to demonstrate our unhappiness with a foreign nation and their policy. But there have been terrible repercussions in regard to these sanctions. They do not achieve their policy goals. They are very counterproductive, and as has been indicated by some across the aisle, and others, we shoot ourselves in the foot. So the distinguished chairman has, for a considerable amount of time, taken a look at the overall objective of sanctions and what has happened in a counterproductive way, not only to U.S. agriculture, but the entire U.S. economy and the global marketplace. He has come up with a comprehensive, thoughtful approach, and it is commensurate with the debate that will take place and the discussion that will take place in this body with regard to sanctions reform overall. There are those of us--Senator Dodd, Senator Hagel, Senator Biden, as well as Senator Lugar and myself--who want to take a look at all of the sanctions that we have in place. And that is appropriate. We have taken action in a 98-0 vote last week regarding the GSM program and the possibility of selling wheat to Pakistan. The chairman was a real leader in that effort. We have taken action now by unanimous consent on the India/Pakistan situation, which will give the administration flexibility to deal with that issue. The next logical step is to consider, and I think favorably pass, the Lugar reform initiative. So I stand in solid support of the chairman for what he is trying to do. Madam President, U.S. influence, prestige and resolve in foreign affairs currently rests at a cross-roads. The United States, which has prided itself on providing international leadership through strength and by example, has increasingly turned away from that legacy by embracing ambivalence and sanctions instead of engagement and respect. Nowhere is this more clear than in the area of unilateral economic sanctions. The United States in recent years has developed a seemingly uncontrollable desire to show our displeasure over a specific action, behavior or belief in a foreign country by punishing that country through the imposition of unilateral sanctions. Regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat was President, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats ran the Congress, the use of sanctions as a foreign policy tool has literally sky-rocketed since the conclusion of the Second World War. In fact, in just the last four years, 61 new U.S. laws or executive actions were enacted authorizing unilateral economic sanctions against 35 countries. All in all, over 70 foreign states representing nearly 75 percent of the world's population are currently subjected to unilateral sanctions by the United States. Unfortunately, with few exceptions, sanctions very rarely work. In order for sanctions to be successful, the United States must-- absolutely must--convince the entire rest of the world to join our boycott. Unless this occurs, the sanctioned country simply gets what it needs--food, financing, etc.--from the other countries that chose not to join the Sanctions Circle. There are two serious repercussions when this happens. First, the sanctions hurt us instead of their intended targert. Yes, that's right, when U.S. businesses lose access to markets for their products, U.S. workers lose job opportunities. So instead of joining us in professing outrage about some particularly repugnant act, foreign governments simply feign indignation while they quietly slip in to take away business from U.S. companies. And if you don't think that's true, just ask a foreign businessman or government official whether they support or oppose the American penchant for unilateral sanctions. They love it and they hope it continues. Yes, this is the second repercussion. Foreign governments--even our allies--have figured out that by refusing to join the United States in imposing sanctions, their countries actually benefit. What a bonus! They can stick it to the United States and create new markets for their businesses at the same time! As a result of this revelation throughout the world, it has become nearly impossible for the United States to build a unanimous case for sanctions against anyone. Just look at Iraq. If ever a case could be made for sanctions, Saddam Hussein is the poster child. After all, armed aggression against a peaceful neighbor and use of weapons of mass destruction on one's own citizens are truly reprehensible offenses, right? Surely Iraq deserved tougher sanctions when Saddam refused to accept U.N. weapons inspectors just a few months ago, right? Wrong. When Saddam pulled his latest stunt, the vast majority of the world flatly refused to support further sanctions. If we can't build a case for sanctions with Saddam Hussein as our target given the utter disregard he has shown for the United States and the rest of the world, will we ever be able to? I wonder. Where do sanctions come from anyway? They usually are issued by the President under the authority of at least twelve different laws governing international affairs. Again, in recent years, sanctions have been used far more frequently than ever before in U.S. history. This isn't an indictment of the current administration or any previous administrations; it is simply an assessment of how U.S. foreign policy is changing. Instead of using our influence and diplomacy to encourage good behavior, we attempt to use our power to punish bad behavior. And as I've just discussed, whether used as a threat to try and prevent unwanted actions or imposed as a punishment for undesirable actions, sanctions rarely work. Although most sanctions are imposed directly by the President, unilateral sanctions can be particularly damaging when they are imposed by Congress. The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of our country. He is charged with implementing our foreign policy. While the Congress can and should be involved in the construction of that policy, the President is ultimately responsible for implementing it. When the Congress forces the President to impose sanctions on a country for a given action or behavior, it takes away the flexibility the President needs to address distinctly different foreign policy problem that may arise. The Congress basically says, ``we don't know or care what caused the action or behavior; however, we insist that you impose these sanctions regardless of what the ramifications may be.'' That is a dangerous and irresponsible manner in which to conduct U.S. foreign policy. Let me make one other point regarding the perception of the United States abroad. Foreign countries and their citizens do not distinguish between U.S. military/diplomatic policy and U.S. trade policy. To them, they are the same thing. To them, it's just plain, old-fashioned U.S. foreign policy. When the United States imposes unilateral economic sanctions, when we fail to pass fast track negotiating authority, when we fail to renew IMF funding and when we threaten to withhold regular trading status with China, the prestige and authority of the United States in foreign affairs is greatly and permanently diminished. I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. President. Amendment No. 3159 to Amendment No. 3158 (Purpose: To perfect the amendment exempting agricultural products, medicines and medical equipment from U.S. economic sanctions)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have an amendment in the second degree that I send to the desk.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank you, Mr. President. I am very pleased to join my colleague, Senator Dodd as a coauthor of this legislation, along with Senator Hagel and Senator Biden, and many other Senators. As has been stated, it does provide a broad exclusion for all food and medical products in regard to unilateral sanctions. Now, I want to emphasize that right away--unilateral sanctions, not multilateral sanctions. You would hope that if you are going to put any sanction on a country that works, that is effective, or the pragmatic result results in some kind of policy change that is in the best interest of our national security, that would have the support of your allies. It is only when you have unilateral sanctions that this bill applies.

Mr. ROBERTS. Delighted to yield.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. The Senator has indicated we are rushing to judgment here. I would only point out that in 30 years every agricultural group, every farm group, every commodity organization, everybody connected with every hunger organization has been pointing out the insensitivity and the counterproductivity of unilateral sanctions with food and medicine. I have some figures here from 1995. I don't have them yet for 1996, but they are very similar. U.S. sanctions cost an estimated $15 to $20 billion of lost exports. One way or other, I guess my question to the Senator would be: Would you support a sanction indemnity payments for those industries or those businesses who have suffered the losses, through no fault of their own, more especially agriculture? I don't know how we fund--I know how we fund it. We do it. We could declare it an emergency. As a matter of fact, that is one of the proposals that was being talked about, in terms of the package put together by the folks across the aisle, and some of us over here, on down the road. We can't go on like this. I hope, after 30 years of this debate, I would hope the wheat growers, the corn growers, the barley growers, the cattlemen, the pork producers--the Senator's State of Florida is a tremendous State in regard to agriculture output. I hope these farm groups have met with the Senator. Would the Senator be in a position to help us support some kind of sanction indemnity payment, given the situation? I am not even talking about the humanitarian aspects of this. But we have sanctions now on 75 percent of the world's population. We just can't go on like this. So, consequently, I think this is a step in the right direction. Rather than do it piecemeal, each country by country-- as the Senator from Connecticut so aptly pointed out, 98 to 0, and we just had a UC bill pass here in regards to India and Pakistan because they were counterproductive. I think the Senator is obviously concerned about an island not too far from his State and I am concerned about that. I would just pose the question. Would he support sanction indemnity payments?

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield for one more question?

Mr. ROBERTS. I appreciate the indulgence of my friend and colleague. I just want to point out that after every sanction, after every embargo, after every hindrance to every export program that we have had, we have had hearing after hearing after hearing in the House Agriculture Committee. I was privileged to be the chairman of that committee for 2 years. I have attended more hearings, more discussions, more farm meetings, been to more farm organization resolution meetings in State after State, to do something about a clear, comprehensive export policy that wards off these very counterproductive embargoes-- and is simply misdirected. We have ample, ample evidence that this does not work. I am on the sanctions task force. I went to the first meeting. We have taken some rifleshot reforms here that are sorely needed right now. It doesn't take away from the sanctions task force and their overall approach, to see if Senator Lugar's bill is appropriate, or Senator Dodd's bill, Senator Biden, Senator Hagel, myself--to look back on sanctions. That is the appropriate agenda in regard to the task force. But I can assure the Senator, in terms of voluminous hearings ad nauseum, because of the hurt it has caused in farm country that we have had ample hearings. I didn't ask the Senator a question, except to say I truly appreciate him yielding. I will cease and desist at this point.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask for one short question. I know I am batting, now, for the third time. If the Senator would indulge me?

Mr. ROBERTS. I can promise the Senator there will be a question.

Mr. ROBERTS. It is a question I know the Senator will respond to in an affirmative way because it makes so much sense. What would happen if we added a new section to the second-degree amendment that is pending at the desk, stating something like this: ``The President may retain or impose sanctions covered by this bill, sections (B) and (C), if he determines that retaining or imposing such sanctions would further U.S. national security interests.'' I had thought about listing some of the concerns that the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Florida have indicated, but I thought better of that, and put a blanket situation here--U.S. national security interests. Obviously, the export of terrorism would be included. Obviously, I think, some of the concerns that have been raised by the Senator from Florida would be included. Would the Senator be amenable to considering something like that?

Mr. ROBERTS. I take it the Senator's answer is no.

Mr. ROBERTS. Then this gift horse will ride back into the sunset and withdraw the offer.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification in the best interests of the Senators who have expressed strong opposition to this legislation. Obviously, they have some additional concerns that have been expressed.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate receives from the House a message on S. 2282, the agriculture export bill, and the text of the House amendment is identical to the text I now send to the desk, then the Senate concur in the House amendment and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. I also ask that the Senate be authorized to receive the message this evening after the Senate adjourns.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to address the agricultural issues that have been presented by my colleagues, the agriculture appropriations bill, and to discuss the current state of agriculture in the country. More particularly, I think it is most pertinent and appropriate to discuss the amendment that has been introduced by the distinguished Democratic leader on behalf of my friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that describes a very serious situation in agriculture today. The resolution was presented to the desk when I had the privilege of being the Presiding Officer. It is a little difficult to read all of it in that there has been some editing there. I am not trying to perjure the editing at all. The distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, the Senator from Mississippi, has indicated that if we could work on this a little bit, there should not be any problem in regard to a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that addresses the serious situation we have in agriculture, and more especially, the regional crisis that is now being experienced in the northern plains. So I look forward to a bipartisan sense-of-the- Senate resolution. I guess we could quibble about the adjectives and adverbs and some of the comments and figures. We are trying to work that out. It should not be a problem, though. We have appropriate language. My staff has worked on it, and I know Senator Cochran's staff has worked on it. I know we are going to consult with Senator Lugar, and many on the other side have worked on this. I think it is appropriate that we draw the attention of the American public to the severe problems that we are experiencing in agriculture, more especially in the northern plains. Having said that, Mr. President, I don't argue that things are perfect in farm country or in rural America. But I do not believe that the wheels have fallen off and sent agriculture policy crashing into a wall, as some of my colleagues are claiming. There are, indeed, problems in agriculture. I think we are all aware of that. But, again, they are regional problems, it seems to me, caused by weather and crop disease and the ``Asian economic flu''--or in some cases it has become the ``Asian pneumonia''--but not the 1996 farm bill. They do not represent a national crisis in agriculture. It is very severe for the people involved, but a national crisis? No. Are there real problems in agriculture today because of the lack of a coherent, aggressive export policy? Sure. Are there other problems and other challenges? Yes. But a national crisis? I don't think so. Two years ago, we passed the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, dubbed the Freedom to Farm Act. And it represented, I think, the most comprehensive change in agriculture policy since the New Deal. This new farm bill removed restrictive planting and marketing requirements--and, boy, were they restrictive--that for many years had prevented farmers from planting their crops and using their resources in the most efficient and profit- generating manners. When we wrote the FAIR Act, we had two basic choices. We could continue on a course of micromanaged planting and marketing restrictions that often put our producers at a competitive disadvantage in the world market, or we could pursue a course that would eliminate these restrictions and allow farmers to make their own planting decisions based on domestic and world market demands, while also receiving guaranteed--and I emphasize the word ``guaranteed,'' underscore it--levels of government transition payments. Let me put it in language that most farmers used when they talked to me when I had the privilege of being the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in the midst of the farm rewrite. They were a little tired of putting seed in the ground according to USDA dictates. Before this farm bill, the farmer put the seed in the ground as dictated by the USDA to preserve an acreage base. Why? Because the acreage base qualified them for subsidy payments. How much? We would determine that here in Washington. Then, of course, the more we set aside to pay for all of this, they said, OK, put the seed in the ground. You protect your acreage base. But you have to set aside part of your wherewithal on some kind of a supply-demand, command-and- control scheme. That said, we will set aside 10 percent, 20 percent, or 30 percent of your reduction as decided by Washington in order to pay for this. Guess what? Our competitors overseas simply increased their production by more than we set aside, and we lost market share. Folks, that was a dead-end street. The whole design of the new farm bill was to let farmers make their own decisions in regard to planting and what made sense in terms of price, market, environment, working their ground, or whatever. As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I worked with Chairman Lugar and members of the Senate Agriculture Committee to pursue this legislation that really would provide our producers with the tools to compete in the world market. But we did not, Mr. President--we did not--veer off aimlessly into the wilderness. Chairman Lugar and I had held dozens of field hearings throughout the United States. I think we totalled them up in the House Agriculture Committee, and I think we went 30,000 miles--30,000 miles listening to farmers and ranchers in regard to what they wanted. The producers overwhelmingly stated that they wanted flexibility in making their own planting decisions in competing with the world market. Has the FAIR Act worked? Has the Freedom to Farm bill worked as it was intended? I think the answer is a qualified yes. Is it perfect? No. Is it written in stone? No. Is it an ongoing work in progress? Yes. Let me refer to the policy ledger that we promised farmers in regard to when we considered this bill. We said, ``Look.'' If we are going to be budget-responsible--this is the policy ledger, 1996. This is what we told farmers in all of the hearings. And most of them bought it. Not all, but most of them bought it. And we said, look, if you have less Federal dollars here in terms of meeting our budget obligations--and let me point out that farmers and ranchers above anyone suffer from inflation and higher interest rates--they wanted a balanced budget. And we said, OK, if we are not going to rely on supply-demand set-asides, we have more reliance on risk management. Boy, that is a tough one because today a lot of farmers are finding unacceptable risk, as I have indicated, more especially in the northern plains. We are going to give you this in connection with the Freedom to Farm legislation. This was farm policy reform under the bill, a consistent and predictable farm program support, and the only time we have ever passed a farm bill that for 5 or 6 years laid it out for every banker, every financial institution, every farmer on exactly what they were going to get. As one farmer told me one time at the Hutchinson State Fair in Kansas, he said, ``Pat, I don't care what you do to me, just let me know.'' We did for 5 or 6 years. Planting flexibility: I have gone over that. The elimination of the set-aside programs, because we were losing market share. We were noncompetitive on the world market. Improved risk management tools: Have we done that? Well, no. We haven't. We have ample funding, hopefully, in the agriculture research bill that was passed and the crop insurance bill that was passed with the help and leadership of Senator Cochran, Senator Bumpers, and others as well, and some others. It was a tough fight, but we got it past the House, and we got it past the Senate. If we can get it past the House Appropriations Committee, why, that will be a real feather in our cap. Having said that, we have not really reformed the risk management crop insurance that we need to do. So, yes, the farm bill is not perfect. We need to do that. Less paperwork and standing in lines: I will tell you, under the old bill farmers stood in line outside of the old ASCS office. That is an acronym. It is now changed to FSA. That is the Farm Service Agency. And Aunt Harriet was in the agency's office, the Farm Service Agency office. Farmers stood in line, filled out all of the paperwork, and filled out all of the forms. They got plumb tired of it. Under this new farm bill they don't have to do that. Less paperwork, less regulation, and less waiting in line. Tax policy reform: That is all part of the credit that we promised, a farm savings account. We are going to do that this session of Congress. We should have done it in the farm bill. It should have been done at that particular time. We simply ran out of time. Capital gains tax cut: We have done some of this. We need to do more. State tax cut: We have done some of that. We need to do fully deductible health care. We are on the road to accomplishing that. Income averages: Conrad-Burns from this very desk introduced the amendment on income averaging. We should extend it for the life of the farm bill. We need to do that. The other thing on the ledger that we promised farmers we would work on, No. 3, is trade policy reform. Boy, we have a real challenge ahead of us in this regards. Fast track negotiating authority: If there is one single thing that has happened in the last year that threw a real clinker into our export sales it was a decision by the Congress--and, yes, by the President--to withdraw fast track. That single item is the most distressing piece of news since the embargo of 1980 that lead to shattered glass in regard to exports, and helped cause the 1980s farm crisis. I say to you, Mr. President, with all due respect, if we can get a 98-to-0 vote in regard to sanctions reform as we did last week, rethink fast track, please. I think that we could get it done, if you are for it. Be for it. Speaker Gingrich and Leader Lott have indicated that we will vote on it with a CBI initiative, with the African Trade Initiative. Let's do it. But that signal that was sent when we withdrew that bill sent tremors through all of our trade policies and with regard to contract sanctity. End these unilateral sanctions. This Congress, and, yes, this administration, have become sanctimonious in regard to walling off about 75 percent of the world's population, 75 percent of the world's countries. You can't have a market-oriented policy with that. Consistent aggressive export policy: Well, I don't think we are using all the tools we should. NAFTA and WTO oversight: Not doing enough. Value-added emphasis in regard to research funding: We are doing some. We should do more. Extend MFN for China: Well, you can see on the trade policy reform that we haven't done so well. And that is part of the problem, albeit a passing glance to my colleagues on the other side. But that is part of the problem that we have. Regulatory reform; preserve the conservation reserve program. We did that; not the way I wanted to, but we did that to some degree. Enact FIFRA reform. That is an acronym for you. That is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Reform Act. That is the food safety reform bill. We enacted reform. The way the EPA is administering it we have real problems. And that is going to be the source of another debate on the floor and in committee as we go down the road. So we need some help there. Incentive programs for good stewardship; eliminate unfunded mandates. That is the recipe. We promised farmers in all of the hearings we had. We said, OK, you go to market-oriented agriculture. We rely less on subsidies. These are the things we are going to work on. Have we done them all? No. Should we do them all? Yes. And it should be a bipartisan effort. But, if we do this, then obviously, by the way, the Freedom to Farm bill will work, and is working to a certain degree. We have heard a lot of statements that the Freedom to Farm bill has failed, and that we ``pulled the rug out from underneath our producers.'' My colleagues, this is not true. The facts are not there. The 1996 and 1997 farm bill provided a combined $11.5 billion in payments to America's farmers. Under the old program farmers would have only received a combined $3.6 billion in payments. If we have increased the payments to farmers in this transition three times as high as in the old farm bill, how on Earth can you say that the current farm bill is the source of our problem? Let's just put it in simple terms. If we provide more money to farmers, three times as much, that is a problem in regards to price with our export demand? Hello. Mr. President, we have also heard that there is no longer a safety net for America's farmers, and advocates of this position argue that we must extend marketing loans and remove the caps on loan rates. And based on recent figures, it is estimated the loan rate for wheat would rise to $3.17 a bushel from its current level of $2.58. We could use corn and soybeans and other program crops, but wheat is going through a difficult time. It is a good example, so I am going to use wheat. But if you add in the transition payments--nobody over there on that side of the aisle has even mentioned a transition payment--the 63 that a farmer is getting per bushel right now--as I say, three times as much as they would have received under the old farm bill. That doesn't exist for my friends across the aisle. It is invisible. But it is not invisible to the farmer. When you add in the transition payments of 63 cents per bushel on the historical base farmers are receiving for wheat, you now have a safety net of $3.21. Why should we approve amendments that will bust the budget at a cost of nearly $4 billion over 5 years, Mr. President, when they provide a lower safety net than the current program? No, I know the answer. They say we want both; we want the whole loaf. As a matter of fact, if we are going to consider any kind of a payment, it seems to me it ought to be added to the transition payment so farmers could make the decision, not some kind of a marketing loan or a loan program where, again, Washington makes the decision. So raising and extending loan rates, I do not think, in the end result will improve prices and the producer's income. As a matter of fact, extending the loan rate actually results in lower prices in the long run. Extending the loan for 6 months simply gives producers another false hope for holding on to the remainder of last year's crop. Farmers will be holding on to a portion of the 1997 crop while at the same time harvesting another bumper crop in 1998. Thus, when you roll over the loan rate, it actually increases the amount of wheat on the market and results in lower prices, not higher prices. Since the excess stocks will continue to depress prices, we will then extend the rate again. Once you go down that road, it is going to be very difficult not to extend it again. And I think it would become an endless cycle that would cost billions of dollars and which will eventually lead to a return of planting requirements to pay for it. You can't simply stand up and say we are going to spend $4 billion on an emergency because you have a regional farm crisis on the northern plains and not expect some people around here to say where is the offset. The offset would be in set-aside acres and you are right back to square one with the same old farm bill that caused all the problems to begin with. That would be an attempt to control the output and limit the budgetary effects. I suppose we could find some offsets. Where is that article by Jim Suber? Jim Suber is an ag writer for the Topeka Daily Capital. He knows what he is talking about, if we want to find offsets and pay for this and do it the right way, not add to the budget deficit, not add to the possibility of inflation, higher interest rates. Jim says USDA is spending, or will spend $37.9 billion on social welfare programs. I am not perjuring that. They are very good programs. But it plans only to spend $5.9 billion in commodity programs. So here we have the Department of Agriculture, according to Jim, spending 7 to 1 more money in regard to social welfare programs and other very fine programs as opposed to assistance to farmers. Well, if we want to get offsets, I can certainly go down that list, but I don't think that is a popular thing to do, and I don't think I am going to do that. Extending and raising loan rates will only serve, I think, to exacerbate the lack of storage associated with the transportation problems in middle America because it simply causes farmers to hold on to their crops and to fill their elevator storage spaces. Now, in Kansas we have just harvested our second largest wheat crop in history. Perhaps not in Oklahoma and Texas, where they have had bad weather, but in Kansas that is certainly the case. There are predictions of record corn and soybeans in the fall in Kansas. If we don't move the wheat crop now, it will create transportation problems in the future that will surpass anything we experienced last year. And we had mounds of grain sitting by the local country elevator with no rail transportation. I think I should also mention that advocates of higher extended loan rates argue it will allow farmers to hold their crops until after the harvest when prices will rise. After all, that is the whole intent, or that is the whole plan in regard to the higher loan rate. I would point out that Kansas State University recently published a report which looked at the years of 1981 to 1997, and they compared the farmer's earnings if they held wheat in storage until mid-November as opposed to selling at harvest. In all but 5 years, why, farmers ended up with a net loss as storage and interest costs exceeded the gains in price. Simply put, extending and raising the rates, I think, would provide a false hope for higher profits that most often does not exist. Really, what we are talking about here, Mr. President--and it gets a little detailed here, but we are talking about what is the function of the loan rate in any farm program. Is the loan rate a market clearing device or is it income protection. And my friends across the aisle obviously want to make it both. I don't think you can have it both ways, but they want to make it income protection as opposed to the transition payments. In addition, if you raise the loan rate up to $3.17, and you have a fire sale on wheat, you have a bumper crop and you have China, which is the world's No. 1 wheat producer, and you had the European Union, which is the world's No. 2 wheat producer, and a surplus of grain on the world market, what do you think is going to happen to the price? It will fall, and we will never have wheat over the price of $3.17. So what my distinguished colleagues across the aisle fail to point out is if you put that cap on the loan rate at $3.17, you may get the $3.17 plus the transition payment if you can somehow squirrel that by the Senate and the House with all the budget problems, but you put a cap on it and you will never see $4 and $5 wheat. As a matter of fact, that is what some of my colleagues across the aisle say they have to have to stay in business. One of the most effective measures of the success of the Freedom to Farm Act is to review the planting changes that have occurred all throughout the country since its passage. When that bill was passed, the opponents argued that farmers did not have the capability to rotate and grow various different crops, that this would be a negative. And we have heard that rhetoric here in this debate. We have heard it now for, what, 2, 3, 4, 5 weeks with the appropriate charts. Here are the facts. In the northern plains, where many farmers are suffering from a devastating disease called white scab, farmers have rotated out of wheat acreage. They have switched to higher value crops. Recent USDA reports state that spring wheat acreage has fallen nearly a quarter from last year. We have in effect had a wheat set-aside to reduce the supply, but the farmer made that decision and went to more productive crops all across this country. A comparison of the Farm Service Agency figures from 1993 and 1997 in North Dakota shows that during the 4 years soybean acreage increased from 591,000 acres to 1,090,000. Canola, which should be the crop of preference now in terms of profit in that State, went from 47,000 acres to 456,000 acres; dried pea acreage rose from 6,711 to 67,000 acres; navy beans went from virtually no acreage to 151,000--dramatic changes in crop production made by the decision of the individual producer. Minnesota: The Minnesota Agriculture Statistics Service reported record soybeans and sugar beet acreage in 1997 with soybeans breaking the previous record by 850,000 acres. South Dakota's harvested soybean acres were 3.4 million--million--in 1997, 780,000 above the previous record set in 1996. Sorghum production was also up 42 percent from 1996. I think it is important to know that these changes are not only occurring in the northern plains, but throughout the entire United States by farmers, under the flexibility under Freedom to Farm. Alabama cotton on acreage fell by 74,000 acres in 1997; soybean acreage increased by 70,000. They are following the market. A February paper by the Agriculture and Food Policy Institute at Texas A&M reported that cotton acreage declined in 1997 from the 1994-1996 average in Louisiana, in Mississippi, and in Arkansas by 34, 23, and 9 percent, respectively. Here cotton farmers take a look at the market saying, ``I think I can make a better deal; I can make a better profit in another crop.'' That is the flexibility that was provided in regard to Freedom to Farm. Same report: Cotton acreage in Oklahoma decreased 42 percent from a 3-year average while sorghum acres increased 31 percent. And harvested wheat acreage in Kansas--we have a little saying on the Kansas license plate that says, ``The Wheat State.'' Well, we are not. We are now the grain State--in 1998 was at its lowest level in nearly 25 years. Meanwhile, we have now planted some 20,000 to 25,000 acres of cotton in Kansas because it is productive. It is a profit incentive. As a matter of fact, the weather is a little cold up in Kansas as compared with down south, and the insects can't bite quite as hard on the cotton. If we can survive the winters, which we are doing, why, Kansas is now a cotton-producing State. You would never have dreamed that under the old farm bill. These farmers who made these decisions and changes in American agriculture have exceeded expectations in 1996. During a recent meeting with 12 major farm organizations--what we call the summit, which we had here about 2 weeks ago--a Mississippi farmer representing the cotton growers summed it up best when he said, ``I have been farming for 40 years and farming has changed more in the last 4 years than it did in the previous 40.'' That was a positive, not a negative. Farmers have switched to higher value crops because it makes economic sense. The plain and simple and sometimes painful--let me emphasize that-- sometimes painful truth is that all U.S. producers are no longer the most efficient producers of a crop, more especially wheat, in the world. That is hard news to tell to somebody who is going through a very difficult time, but in fact our producers are no longer the No. 1 producer of wheat. When my staff, my able staff, answers the phone from worried and concerned farmers from Kansas, one of the things that I instruct him to say is: Wake up a little bit. We are no longer the No. 1 wheat producer--I am talking about the United States--that's China. We are no longer No. 2; that's the European Union. So, consequently, I think we have to look at what we can grow and be competitive with in regards to the global marketplace. I think that is a fact. Some people, however, refuse to accept that fact. But we have a competitive advantage in the feedgrains and oil seeds, and these are the exact crops that producers have shifted to under the Freedom to Farm bill. Let me again clearly state, I am not standing here saying there are no problems in farm country--we have them--or that I would not like to see higher prices for our producers. Would I like to see the $5 wheat of 2 years ago? You bet. I would like to see $6 wheat. I can give a pretty good speech about old parity. Parity meant justice. Parity for wheat today is, what, $12, $13, as compared to what all the costs were back when the parity formula was first considered, way back in I think it was 1912. So, to be fair, our producers ought to get $12 wheat. I can say that, but I also know that when wheat production--not acreage but production--is 60-bushel wheat in my State, which is more than double the level of 1996, we are not going to see any $5 wheat. And when you add in the European Union and you add in China, that is simply not going to happen. As hard as it may be for some to believe--and I want every farmer and everyone listening, in terms of agricultural program policy, to pay attention--our Kansas farmers and other farmers, if they are blessed by good weather and good ideas, will make more in 1998 than they did in 1996. In 1996, 20 bushels an acre was a common yield for many Kansas farmers. At $5 a bushel, why, farmers had gross incomes of $100 per acre. Yesterday, wheat closed at $2.55 in Dodge City, KS, America. On Friday, we received estimates that the 1998 Kansas wheat crop will likely average at a State return of around 50 bushels per acre at $2.55 a bushel, a price I think is way too low. However, this figures up to a gross of $125 per acre. In 18 years, serving as a Representative and Senator, I have yet to meet a farmer who would not choose the $125 per acre over the $100 per acre. Obviously, it would be better if the price were higher. I know that current prices are not good. However, high yields are allowing farmers to continue to receive an income. The facts simply do not represent a crisis all throughout American agriculture. Yes, there are very severe problems in the northern plains. Yes, we must do something about it. But farmers in this area of the country have had to face a triple whammy, as evidenced so clear, and appropriately clear, by their Senators from those States. It is a triple whammy of floods and blizzards and crop disease. These are regional problems. They are factors that would have occurred regardless of the farm bill, regardless of what agriculture policy we had in place. You simply cannot argue that these factors are evidence we need to rewrite the farm bill. Let me try to demonstrate how sincerely I feel about the demonstration of intent on the part of the distinguished Democratic leader and Senators Dorgan and Conrad and Wellstone and Durbin and others who have pointed out the seriousness of the situation in the northern plains. And I know that. But let me quote in regard to the farm management specialist from North Dakota State University and their extension service. His name is Dwight Aakre. He says: Farmers in northeast North Dakota have only about a 50/50 chance of paying out-of-pocket costs if they raise durum or barley or flax in dry beans this year. Boy, that is tough. They do have a problem, a very serious problem. He also says--this is Dwight again: Current expectations for harvest time prices keep dropping while the cost of production, the cost of operations, do not. And he said: We are now approaching price levels where the best farming strategy is how to consider your losses and to go forward from that. And then he says: Ouch, it is this the combo of anemic wheat prices and wet weather that has created what Senator Kent Conrad aptly calls the stealth disaster for his State in that region? As for this individual-- Again--I am referring to Dwight Aakre--he calculates: It's a pretty tough time to get enough income to pay out- of-pocket costs. And he says: It's likely too late to drop any rental land for 1998. So you can understand why my colleagues are on the floor calling for action. I know that. Then he said, in regard to the farm bill, however: Contrary to popular thought-- And this is Andrew Swensen, the Farm Management Specialist for North Dakota State University Extension Service. He said: What caused our problems last year with wheat and barley yields of poor size and quality and lower prices and high cost of production [he says] is the effects of this last factor especially have been underestimated by many. Don't blame Freedom to Farm. That isn't Pat Roberts, that is Andrew Swensen, from North Dakota: Contrary to popular thought, [says Swensen] the new Freedom to Farm Program was not responsible for 1997 woes. In fact, he says the market transition payments it provided were greater than what would have been provided under the old farm program. It is difficult to avoid blaming this whole situation on the weather, the Government, and prices, [says Swensen] but it is more productive to be realistic and analyze things that can be controlled internally in your own business. I think that is certainly true. So I don't doubt or disregard the pain many producers are feeling in the northern plains. However, I do point out that many of my farmers do have at least some questions, and I guess if you are going through a situation where you are drowning in a sea of troubles financially, you can drown in 6 inches of water or 6 feet. But we have heard that this is a disaster that has continued for 5 or 6 consecutive years. Every one of my colleagues over there has indicated that. Kansas is known as a wheat State, yet both in 1995 and 1996, why, North Dakota led the Nation in the production of wheat. In 1996, North Dakota was first in the production of eight crops, second in two, third in one, fourth in two. In 1997, why, North Dakota had the following national production rankings: First in spring wheat, durum, barley, sunflower, dry edible beans, and canola and flax seed; second, all wheat, oats and honey; third, sugar beets. There is very real pain being faced by the producers in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, some parts of Montana. If, in fact, for 6 years it has been a crop disaster, if you are going to lead the Nation in production in these crops, that is a disaster that most farmers in my State would be happy to experience. I would also ask what good raising the loan rate will do if producers have no crop to sell; if, in fact, this is that serious. It is important to note that many farmers did indeed suffer production losses during the blizzards and the floods experienced in the northern plains last year, a real tragedy. However, under the old program, why, producers would have received little or no Government support. Yet, under the Freedom to Farm Act, farmers in North Dakota received $244 million in transition payments in 1997. Talk about indemnity payments. Not only did farmers receive the Government support they would not have received under the previous program, they were also allowed to go into the fields and plant substitute crops in place of the lost acres. They could not have done that without the current farm bill. We have heard many statements on this floor about how the Government payments have been yanked away from producers in North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota. I point out the average payments in 1996 and 1997 for all three States exceeded the average level of Government payments in each State during 1991 through 1995. So if you have a bill that is providing more average payments to those three States, all three States exceeding the level of Government payments in each State during 1991 to 1995, where were my colleagues from 1991 to 1995? And what has changed? And what has changed is the export demand and unfair trading practices from Canada and the wheat disease and the weather--we have gone all over that--but it sure isn't the farm bill. We have been told this is the worst crisis in farm country since the crisis of the eighties. Yet, let me point out in other sections of the country--not the northern plains--tractor purchases were up 15 percent in June over levels of a year ago, while self-propelled combine sales are 40 percent above year-ago levels. I don't think the arguments we are hearing on the floor--they are certainly true in the northern plains--but I don't think they mirror what we are hearing from producers all across the country. Mr. President, I like to think that no one has spent more time on the wagon tongue listening to America's farmers than I have, and I must tell you from my recent visits with producers, they are not happy. They are worried about current prices. They are worried about the export market. But they realize in many instances why high yields have allowed them to meet or even surpass their income expectations. The greatest majority do not want to return to higher loan rates and loan extensions. They fear, and rightly so, that this would simply be the first step toward return to the narrow-focused, anticompetitive, micromanaged Government programs of the past. Farmers tell me the 1996 farm bill is working if we can get our export demand back up to the levels that they used to be. They are changing their planting decisions. They are growing the crops that allow them to earn the most profits. They are happy with this flexibility. They want to see it continue. What my farmers and ranchers are telling me is that they are extremely concerned with the seemingly lack of trade and foreign policy focus in Washington. Our farmers and ranchers realize the United States must export nearly 40 percent of our agriculture products to overseas customers. Unfortunately, this is very difficult to do when Congress and the President become what I call ``sanctions happy'' and place sanctions on approximately, as I have indicated before, 75 countries, 70 percent of the world's population. U.S. Wheat Associates recently published several depressing facts in regard to U.S. trade policies. In the last 10 years, the embargo on Cuba has cost wheat producers at least $500 million in lost wheat sales. Iran, Libya, North Korea did represent 7 percent of the world's wheat market. The United States will not trade with these countries. Add on the embargo of Iraq and our producers are shut off from 11 percent of the world wheat market. I am not saying those sanctions should be immediately lifted. There are national security implications, obviously. The United States has imposed sanctions 100 times since World War II. Sixty of these have been imposed since 1993. Mr. President, as Hubert Humphrey once said, ``We need to sell them anything that can't shoot back,'' and we are shooting ourself in the foot by not allowing our producers to sell to the other countries of the world. We must also give our trade negotiators the tools they need to open up foreign markets to U.S. products. You can't go to the trade gunfight with a butter knife. That was a statement by the president of the Oregon Wheat Producers, and he is certainly accurate. That is what we continually ask our negotiators to do. Other countries will not negotiate the trade agreements with the United States because our negotiators do not have fast-track trade negotiating authority. President Clinton has blamed inaction in the trade arena since last November on the Congress' failure to pass fast track. Now, Congress is not blameless. I have never seen a Congress more insular, more protectionist, and more ideological in regard to trade, and I am not happy with every member of my party on the Republican side who seem to think we can impose sanctions or not pass MFN or not pass the IMF or not go ahead with fast track. I understand their concerns. But in terms of doing great damage to the agriculture sector and other sectors of the economy, we are not blameless either--an editorial in behalf of the party with which I am associated. However, our majority leader and the Speaker of the House are now pledging a vote on fast track in the Caribbean initiative and the African trade bill before the end of the 105th Congress. However, the President indicates he is not quite sure whether this is the time to pass fast track. Mr. President, our farmers and ranchers respectfully disagree. I understand that some of my colleagues have stated that trade is really not that much of the problem. I point out that approximately 1 month ago, 14 Senators met with 12 major agriculture groups and organizations to discuss the priorities these groups felt were absolutely necessary for Congress to pass this year. Rather than parroting a particular point of view or ideology or being locked into your criticism of the current farm bill of 2 years ago, what we did on the Republican side is to respond to the letter sent to all of the leadership in the Congress by 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 Association-- there are about six left--National Cotton Council of America--I have their tie on in support of Senator Cochran in this debate--National Grange, National Grange Sorghum Producers Association, National Oil Seed Processors Association, National Pork Producers, National Sunflower Association. A letter by all of these groups was sent to the President, Secretary of State, Trade Representative, Secretary of Agriculture, members of the House Committee on Ag, members of the House Committee on Ways and Means. I guess the only one they didn't send it to is Larry King. They listed all of the things that they felt--farmers felt--that we needed to do in this session of the Congress to turn this thing around. I can go down the list: fast track, $18 billion IMF, reform of U.S. sanctions, administration should commit to seek agreement to end unfair trade practices in the next trade negotiation round, foreign market development, market access program, GSM program--trade, trade, trade, and trade. Something has to be wrong here. Either the farmers and ranchers or the members of these organizations who hold meetings in counties and States and pass resolutions--the tail doesn't wag the dog; they get this information from farmers and ranchers--and either they are right or my colleagues who argue trade is not the problem at all or vice versa. I think I am going to go with the farm organizations. I realize that some will argue that trade agreements, such as NAFTA, have sold out our farmers. I agree. We have not had the appropriate oversight in regard to NAFTA or, for that matter, GATT or, for that matter, preparation of the next round of trade talks. However, let me point out that the USDA Under Secretary Gus Schumacher, who is doing all he can in regard to our export markets under very difficult circumstances, recently said in a speech in Minnesota that the United States would send a record number of exports to both Mexico and Canada in 1998. That is not a failed trade policy; it means simply we have regional problems where we could do a lot better. Critics have stated on the Senate floor that one day we will wake up and discover that we are no longer the leader in agriculture exports, just like we lost the automotive market. Pay attention to this argument. It is interesting to note that many of the pitfalls suffered by the U.S. auto industry in the 1970s and early 1980s were based on its unwillingness to adapt to the desires of consumers the world over. Could there be a similar effect resulting from some Members' seeming unwillingness to allow producers to change their production practices to meet the demands of the world market? Finally, Mr. President, not only do Republicans believe that we need to improve trade opportunities for our producers through fast track and sanctions reform and IMF funding and normal trade relations with China, we must also provide viable forms of risk management for our producers. One of the most important steps we can take in this area is passage of the farm savings account legislation. The primary sponsor in the Senate is Senator Grassley. The young Member of Congress who really authored this bill is Kenny Hulshof, who is from Missouri. We tried to do it in the farm bill considerations in 1996. It would allow farmers to place up to 20 percent of their Schedule F income tax into a tax-deferred account for a period of up to 5 years. This would allow farmers to average out the income highs and lows better that are common in agriculture and allow farmers to save money for those years when incomes are lower due to a reduced crop yield. I recently joined with many other Senators in signing a letter to our majority leader reconfirming our support of the farm savings account legislation. This is one of the most important risk-management tools, Mr. President, we can provide our producers. I think we are going to pass it this year. As I have said in my earlier remarks, things are far from perfect in farm country, but we are far from a national crisis. It is not time to reinvent the wheel. We are at another one of those historical crossroads in agriculture policy. I am sorry the situation has developed on our export demand--that it is so severe. We can choose to return to the failed policies of the past and put our farmers and producers at a competitive disadvantage on the world market at the same time our dependence on world markets continues to increase. Or, we can take the necessary steps to provide our producers and our trade negotiators with the tools necessary to open foreign markets and meet the demands of the world market. My colleagues are correct, the choices we make here today, and in the next few months, may very well affect the future of agriculture in the United States. My hope is that we continue to look with our producers toward the future and not into the rearview mirror and the broken policies of the past. I want to make some very brief additional comments in regard to the fact that this is an even-numbered year. At the beginning of this debate, this discussion that is most relevant to the difficulty we face in farm country, a number of my friends across the aisle have gone out of their way to mention me personally--I think I appreciate that--and very candidly, very frankly, blame most, if not all, of agriculture's problems on what is called the Freedom to Farm bill. I know and I realize and accept that it is an even-numbered year. And when there are strong differences of opinion in even-numbered years, the chances for just a tad bit of politics to enter into the debate are pretty good. In this case, a tad has become a deluge. I truly appreciated the kind remarks of the distinguished Democratic leader in reference to our friendship, even my alleged sense of humor. In that regard, I take the job and my responsibility very seriously, but not myself. But after listening to my colleagues go on and on and on, blaming all our problems on the new farm bill, I think you have to have a sense of humor. The northern plains have experienced very bad weather. It is very real. You would think that Freedom to Farm was El Nino. The northern plains have experienced wheat disease for 6 years running. You would think the disease came from the Freedom to Farm bill. By the way, I am at least gratified that after 6 years of wheat disease, my colleagues have now requested the targeted research funds to address this problem. And we should do that. The Asian flu and sanctions and the lack of an aggressive and coherent trade policy are--or as the farm organizations simply put it to me yesterday, the failure of the administration and the Congress to use all of our export tools has played havoc in our markets. My colleagues mention that with the wave of a hand--so much for supply and demand--must be the fault of the Freedom to Farm bill. The seven or so distinguished Senators who have been railing against and blaming the farm bill are the same seven who bitterly opposed it during the farm bill debate 2 years ago, voted against it, and recommended that the President veto it. He did not. It is an understatement to say they have not given up and will not. If the good Lord is not willing and the creeks do not rise or if the creeks rise too much, blame the farm bill. Can we end this partisan book-shelving of Freedom to Farm? I know it is not perfect. It is a work in progress. No bill is perfect. But I think it is a foundation. Can we build upon what is a good foundation? Can we seriously consider proposals that do not break the budget, or return us to the old command-and-control and residual-supply agricultural days? Can we shoot straight, Mr. President, with producers who are experiencing serious problems, and quit promising more than can be delivered, or should be delivered? Let us fix crop insurance. Let us get cracking on an aggressive export policy free of sanctions. Let us finish the job with tax policy changes and regulatory reform. Let us commit to appropriate research to fight the plant disease. And let us pass this week--this week, if we could; next week--the farm savings account, and, yes, let us consider some form of payment. The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on Ag Appropriations has indicated to me that the President would declare the State of Florida, because of fires, eligible for disaster assistance. The same kind of thing could apply to the northern plains States. Of course they are hurting. There may be an opportunity here. In view of what has happened to our markets--no fault of our farmers and ranchers--I would favor emergency sanction indemnity payments. If you are going to spend $4 billion, for goodness' sakes, call it an emergency. Why would you put it in a loan rate that keeps the price below approximately $3? You ought to give it to the farmer. Let us do all of this, and more, to build upon and improve the current farm bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following articles be printed in the Record. I call them the ``Set the Record Straight Articles.'' I call them to the attention of all of my colleagues, especially those so critical of current policy. It ought to be required reading for them. As I have said before, the Freedom to Farm bill is not sacrosanct. It is far from perfect. There is no perfect legislation. It is a work in progress, should not be discarded. I originally thought, in coming to the floor, I would not take so much of the time of my colleagues and the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I thought the proper course of debate would be to simply ignore some of the commentary--basically accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, and do not mess with Mr. In-Between. That was my original plan. But given the tidal wave of criticism, I think we also have the responsibility to set the record straight. I ask unanimous consent that an article from Pro Farmer outlining what Speaker Gingrich has indicated their agenda is in the House to be of help, be printed; and, finally, an article by Gregg Doud of World Perspectives, who did an analysis, and he calls it the ``Anatomy of a Regional Farm Crisis.'' I urge that all Senators--if they could find the time to really get at the bottom of what we are facing in regard to this farm crisis--read this. This goes into considerable detail. It is painful. It is painful to go through a transition when you are not competitive in the world market or, for that matter, the domestic market. But Gregg certainly tells it how it is. And I think all of these articles certainly set the record straight. And, again, I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. I would be delighted to.

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

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

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President pro tempore of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort the President of Romania into the House Chamber for the joint meeting at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, July 15, 1998.