Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, July 15, the Senate resume consideration of the Daschle amendment numbered 3146 regarding marketing assistance loans. I further ask that there be 3 hours for debate equally divided on the amendment and that, at the conclusion or yielding back of the time, Senator Cochran be recognized to move to table the Daschle amendment. I further ask that no second-degree amendment be in order prior to the vote.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I further ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2870, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1758, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and, finally, S. 1758 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be considered and agreed to, the committee amendments be agreed to, and the bill be read a third time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk making technical changes. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 420, S. 1758.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, July 15. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted, and there then be 20 minutes for the following Senators limited to 5 minutes each: Senators McCain, Coats, Lieberman, and Murray. I further ask that following that debate the Senate stand in recess until 11 a.m.

Mr. ROBERTS. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes, Mr. President, at 11 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of the Daschle amendment No. 3146 under the previous agreement.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3156, which was received from the House.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Wednesday at 11 a.m. and following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Daschle amendment regarding marketing assistance loans. There are 3 hours of debate on the amendment, although some time is expected to be yielded back. Therefore, the first rollcall vote of Wednesday's session is expected to occur between 12 and 1 p.m. Also, a joint meeting of Congress is scheduled for 10 a.m. tomorrow. Senators are asked to be in the Senate Chamber at 9:40 a.m. in order to proceed as a body to the Hall of the House of Representatives to hear an address by the President of Romania. The Senate is expected to be in session into the evening with votes on Wednesday in order to complete action on the agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President, first let me pay a sincere thanks to Senator McConnell and Senator Biden, and both Republican and Democratic leaders, and to all of my colleagues who have addressed this most important issue for their help and support. I do really appreciate the opportunity to speak in behalf of what I consider to be a truly emergency agriculture export relief bill. If we move, if we pass this bill, our U.S. wheat producers may, and I emphasize may, be able to sell Pakistan almost 14 million bushels of wheat. Now, that means about $40 million in the pockets of American wheat farmers instead of $40 million in the pockets of our competitors, not to mention the poor people in Pakistan who are suffering from malnutrition and hunger in regards to a very needed commodity. The deadline for the wheat tender or sale is July 15. That is next week. That is why this is an emergency. That is why the decks are cleared. That is why this legislation is hotlined. Now, if the Congress delays, in this body or in the House, it will be a $40 million delay at the expense of U.S. agriculture. This bill simply exempts the GSM export credit program from the mandated sanctions now imposed upon Pakistan. Let's take a look at a list of the positive things that will happen when and if the GSM credits are made available. First, armed with the credits and facing desperate, desperate economic straits, Pakistan may well buy the wheat from these United States as opposed to our competitors. Second, as a result of sale, the wheat market will gain strength, as will price recovery, especially in the northwestern part of the United States. Third, lost U.S. market share due to the sanctions hopefully will be regained, but most important the passage of this legislation will send an immediate strong signal to the world trade community that the U.S. will compete aggressively, aggressively for export markets, and that the Congress is taking steps, finally taking steps, as the Senator from Nebraska has indicated, to correct the current drift in our trade policy. And, yes, it has great implications in regard to farm program policy. I am not going to go into that as of this afternoon, but it does have great implication. Mr. President, Pakistan is expected to tender for wheat again in a few months, not just next week. So, with our export credit program freed from sanction chains, why, U.S. producers may win that sale as well. I might add again, time is of the essence. Our harvest is just concluded or is in the process of concluding. Now is the time when our U.S. wheat is the most competitive. If we don't sell the wheat now, the advantage will fall to our competitors. I am pleased this legislation basically encompasses the legislation that Senator Gorton, Senator Murray, myself, and others introduced when we first heard of the sanctions some weeks ago. I also note the presence of the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. He has a very comprehensive sanctions reform bill that looks ahead. I see Senator Hagel is still on the floor, and Senator Biden. I have joined them in introducing a bill to take a look back in regard to the 115 sanctions that we have now imposed on 75 percent of the world's population. And we have other bills as well. So, I am very pleased to take part in that effort. That is the good news. But I feel compelled to warn my colleagues, however, that I believe there is some bad news, with potentially more to come. This bill as originally proposed by the bipartisan task force on sanctions, ably led by Senators McConnell and Biden, took one important step for agriculture, and I think a bigger step towards meaningful sanctions reform as it pertains to our national security and our foreign and our trade policy. It represented, in my view, the first step in providing the President, any President, and his national security team and his foreign policy team, the real-world flexibility to deal with the proliferation and testing of nuclear weapons. The obvious case in point, and the reason we are here, is the situation in Pakistan and India. More than a month ago, Secretary of State Albright told Members of this body, in a briefing, that she needed a full arsenal of diplomatic tools to help both coerce and possibly positively influence India and Pakistan to cease any further testing and to discuss some kind of mutual strategy for improved relations between the two countries. I would add at this point, my colleague and the senior Senator from Kansas, Senator Brownback, and Senator Robb from Virginia, have been to India and Pakistan and have taken a hard look at that situation. As I recall Secretary Albright's words, she wanted the flexibility to use carrots and sticks instead of a sledgehammer. I think that is pretty graphic. Let me stress, too, that the actions of India and Pakistan were most serious and dangerous. No way did this bill or the original and more comprehensive bill really condone the aggressive and dangerous actions of India and Pakistan. That is not the case. It should go without saying that our national and international security is the foremost concern of everyone in this body, and the President, and, yes, farmers and ranchers, and, yes, everybody in the business community. It is this Senator's foremost concern. The United States cannot countenance the proliferation and testing of any weapons of mass destruction. We must continue to evaluate and improve our joint effort with our allies to achieve these mutual goals. But, in the doing of this, I say to my friends, there is a right way and there is a wrong way. Unfortunately, the best of policies years ago may not serve our best interests as of today. Those who passed legislation 4 years ago could not know--we cannot know--how the world would look in 1998 or 4 years down the road. But as a result of mandatory sanction legislation passed in 1994, the executive has little--little, if any--any flexibility to deal with the extremely sensitive issue of India and Pakistan. These sanctions are now in place. We have stopped all loans from international lending institutions, all credit programs. India, which is not dependent on World Bank financing, has largely been--somewhat-- has been unaffected by the sanctions. But Pakistan is in serious jeopardy of default. How can this serve peace and cooperation? Under the law of unintended effects, mandatory U.S. sanctions may well increase the suffering in Pakistan, it may well promote further extremism, serve no useful purpose--I might add in farm language, the testing cow is already out of the nuclear barn--and increase the likelihood of war in south Asia. And, in the process, since the United States alone has imposed sanctions, our trade competitors are first in line to seize our U.S. markets. In the original bill introduced by Senators McConnell and Biden, and supported by the great majority of the Senate, we fixed that problem. Step two of the bill would have granted the executive the full authority to impose none, some, or all of the sanctions in the Arms Control Act. It also gave the President authority to lift some or all of the sanctions when appropriate. In other words, the original bill provided an ``as you were, 9-month cooling off period,'' and gave to Secretary Albright the tools she requested to see if we could not achieve some progress in south Asia. However, due to the concerns of several Senators--and I do not question their intent, their concern--it will not be possible to enact this more comprehensive bill. But as I said, in terms of the warning I said earlier--here is the warning: My friends, we are passing a very narrow and limited sanctions reform bill that applies to agriculture only, due to the Pakistani wheat tender and problems in farm country and our trade policy and our export policy. But I must warn you, when you deal with sanctions, they become overall embargoes. We saw that in 1980, with the infamous embargo imposed by President Carter. It ended up for 10 years like shattered glass and we had a terrible time putting it back together in regard to contract sanctity for U.S. agriculture. If our competitors offer the same credit arrangements, and Pakistan has a choice, who do you think they are going to buy from as long as we continue the overall sanctions? In farm country language, you sanction a country and they get their nose out of joint. The danger is this: Without section 3, which we originally had in the bill, we are also endangering the agricultural segment. It could happen. I hope it doesn't, but it could happen. As a matter of fact, I think a policy of ``we will continue to sanction a whole lot of this but we will sell you some of that only if it suits us'' does not do anything for a comprehensive and a clear trade policy. I have already pointed out that in national security terms the current policy is counterproductive. Let me spell out some economic consequences in striking section 3. Prior to the imposition of sanctions, the United States accounted for 25 percent of India's international trade. That is remarkable, considering all the miles in between our country and theirs. Also, I say, Senator Brownback just went all the way over and all the way back to try to get an update on this. It has been truly extraordinary. The sanctions are now, however, estimated to cost India and Pakistan $4 billion in international bank loans. The Boeing aircraft company stands to lose up to $6 billion over several years in business with 30 airplanes that cannot now be delivered. Enron is building a huge power plant in western India, essential to raise the standard of living of India's near billion population. A foreign competitor could, in fact, actually take over that project. And $21 million in economic development and housing assistance and $6 million to combat greenhouse gases in India have been terminated. Now, if there was any evidence, some evidence, a shred of evidence, that stopping this business activity or assistance would somehow result in Pakistan and India agreeing on a test plan and resolving their differences, I would gladly support sanctions. I would gladly do that. If there is any evidence that trade and foreign policy dominated by trade sanctions would have any practical or positive effect, I would support sanctions. In some rare cases they may be effective. In this case, I think they are making things much worse. I think we have made a mistake in striking section 3 of this bill. In doing so, we have put grain sale to Pakistan at risk. I hope that is not the case. I am still optimistic. We continue to send signals that out of date and counterproductive sanctions are still the order of the day. I full well realize, and I respect, the concerns in regard to authorship, jurisdiction, and the agreed-upon goal of a sanctions task force and the committees of jurisdiction achieving meaningful and comprehensive sanction reform. I understand that. I am part of the sanctions task force. That is going to take a considerable amount of time. It probably should, in terms of comprehensive reform. And, as a member of the task force, I look forward to working with my colleagues. But, Mr. President, in the doing of this, and in striking section 3, if we limp to the meetings it will be because, by delay in striking section 3 from this bill, we will have continued to shoot ourselves in the foot. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that gives the President full discretionary authority to address the nuclear tests recently conducted by India and Pakistan. My bill does not require the severe mandatory sanctions imposed on India and Pakistan be removed. Nuclear proliferation is a deadly serious issue. The actions of India and Pakistan deserve a strong response from the United States and the rest of the world. Sanctions are only one of several policy tools. Obviously, one of the best policy weapons we have available is hard-nosed diplomacy to prevent such nuclear incidents from occurring in the first place. The President must have full flexibility to implement a strong foreign policy that addresses the recklessness of Pakistan, India or any other nation that defines the world community. However, the Administration should be able to do so without the constraints of a Congressionally mandated list of sanctions. This flexibility should also include the authority to remove sanctions when appropriate or when in the best interest of the United States. Under current law, the United States must impose specific and mandatory sanctions on any non-nuclear weapons state that receives or detonates a nuclear device. This mandated action removes the President's authority to custom-tailor sanctions and set them for a specific period of time. These constraints dangerously restrict the President's ability to respond to world events. My bill provides the Administration with discretionary authority over sanctions placed on nations that practice nuclear proliferation. The President and his diplomatic corp are given the authority to either impose or not impose sanctions. They can decide the degree of sanctions. They can later remove or modify any sanctions. Additionally, the President is required to report his intentions to Congress within 30 days of informing the violating country of the sanctions. If it disagrees, Congress remains free to react legislatively. This bill represents an important step toward what I hope will be a critical debate regarding U.S. foreign policy. Unilateral sanctions rarely achieve their goals. Instead, they damage U.S. businesses and workers. They diminish U.S. strength and prestige in international affairs. They generate resentment from allies and competitors alike. I would remind you that we now have in place unilateral sanctions against more than 70 nations representing almost three-fourths of the world's populations. Those are markets lost to the American economy. Congress and the Administration must now work together to reassess all instances where unilateral sanctions are imposed. This bill represent an excellent step in the right direction.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that gives the President full discretionary authority to address the nuclear tests recently conducted by India and Pakistan. My bill does not require the severe mandatory sanctions imposed on India and Pakistan be removed. Nuclear proliferation is a deadly serious issue. The actions of India and Pakistan deserve a strong response from the United States and the rest of the world. Sanctions are only one of several policy tools. Obviously, one of the best policy weapons we have available is hard-nosed diplomacy to prevent such nuclear incidents from occurring in the first place. The President must have full flexibility to implement a strong foreign policy that addresses the recklessness of Pakistan, India or any other nation that defines the world community. However, the Administration should be able to do so without the constraints of a Congressionally mandated list of sanctions. This flexibility should also include the authority to remove sanctions when appropriate or when in the best interest of the United States. Under current law, the United States must impose specific and mandatory sanctions on any non-nuclear weapons state that receives or detonates a nuclear device. This mandated action removes the President's authority to custom-tailor sanctions and set them for a specific period of time. These constraints dangerously restrict the President's ability to respond to world events. My bill provides the Administration with discretionary authority over sanctions placed on nations that practice nuclear proliferation. The President and his diplomatic corp are given the authority to either impose or not impose sanctions. They can decide the degree of sanctions. They can later remove or modify any sanctions. Additionally, the President is required to report his intentions to Congress within 30 days of informing the violating country of the sanctions. If it disagrees, Congress remains free to react legislatively. This bill represents an important step toward what I hope will be a critical debate regarding U.S. foreign policy. Unilateral sanctions rarely achieve their goals. Instead, they damage U.S. businesses and workers. They diminish U.S. strength and prestige in international affairs. They generate resentment from allies and competitors alike. I would remind you that we now have in place unilateral sanctions against more than 70 nations representing almost three-fourths of the world's populations. Those are markets lost to the American economy. Congress and the Administration must now work together to reassess all instances where unilateral sanctions are imposed. This bill represent an excellent step in the right direction.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, in his remarks in this body last Friday, our colleague from Nebraska, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Hagel, issued what I considered to be a most important wake-up call to this body. Senator Hagel said: I am very concerned that this Congress is not paying enough attention to what is going on around the world. I am concerned that we are not linking it, we are not interconnecting the dots. I find it remarkable that on the floor of the U.S. Senate, over the last few weeks, we have been consumed with billions of dollars of new taxes and building a larger government when essentially half of the world is burning. And Senator Hagel went on to say: ``I hope that our colleagues take a serious look at what is going on around the world,'' and he cited the ever worsening Asian economic crisis--it now also threatens China; a serious recession in Japan; the immense and growing economic problems in regard to Russia; the resulting loss of investor confidence in world markets; and a very direct signal to all of us that ``something is wrong.'' That certainly has been reflected in the recent decline in the stock market. Mr. President, one thing that certainly is wrong is the inordinate amount of time that we are spending on tobacco legislation. I think the majority leader was certainly right when he said yesterday--and to a certain extent I agree with my colleagues who have just spoken before me on the floor--that we need to either end debate, or pass the bill, or actually defeat the bill, or set the bill aside. It is not my intent to discuss the merits of what has evolved out of the tobacco briar-patch debate. I want to say that I personally support--strongly support--the efforts to address the problem of teenage smoking and addiction. I do not question the intent of supporters of what has been produced so far. But I do believe the bill has serious flaws and we have gone far afield from the original goal, more especially in regard to the problem of teenage smoking and addiction. And I would say that as we each individually shine the light of truth into the darkness in debating the tobacco bill, let us remember that our flashlights are somewhat dimmed by partisan overtones and personal finger pointing. If Nero fiddled while Rome burned, the Senate has certainly huffed and puffed for weeks on a tobacco bill--I am not trying to perjure it-- while issues of national and economic security are not being addressed. As we debated yet another tobacco amendment yesterday, warplanes from the United States and Europe roared over the mountains of Albania and Macedonia, a direct threat to Serbian leaders to end the growing and expanding violence around Kosovo. Twenty-seven U.S. warplanes took part in the 6-hour exercise that was called Determined Falcon. I don't know how determined that Falcon is. Three hundred and fifty U.S. soldiers are already stationed in Macedonia. NATO commanders have been asked to propose additional contingency operations. The only response that I am aware of that has come from the Senate in regard to the growing possibility that we become directly involved in yet another ethnic civil war--an expansion of Bosnia--is the warning delivered by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in a recent briefing just last week. The chairman pointed out that our military is already stretched, it is stressed, it is overcommitted, and we simply do not have the men and women and material to do that job. We have an urgent need to increase our commitment to national security. We have an urgent need to act on the defense authorization bill so we can do that, and so we may discuss and debate and act on our involvement in Bosnia, in the Gulf, and in Kosovo. Every single day that this stalemate on tobacco legislation continues, a pay raise is held up for America's fighting men and women around the world who continue to suffer from low morale and a lack of interest in reenlistment. Mr. President, I have heard there could be some 90 amendments to the defense authorization bill raising matters the Senate should address. We have the potential nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan, the administration's nonproliferation policy, and the impact of ill- advised sanctions. Sanctions? Sanctions? My word, as the Senator from Nebraska pointed out in his remarks on Friday, we have sanctions on over 70 nations around the world involving two-thirds of the world's population. Our exports have declined. We have a growing crisis in agriculture, as referred to by the Senator from North Dakota, the ``stealth crisis.'' It is no stealth. It is real. We must address that problem. As a result of sanctions, agriculture is going through a necessary hardship. And we have all sorts of problems in farm country--not only in the northern plains. We have disease, we have overproduction in other parts of the world, we have declining exports, we have unfair trading practices, and we have a trade policy that is yet to be determined. We have a real problem in farm country. We can address the sanctions bill in the agriculture appropriations bill, which is waiting in the tobacco wings. In that bill we have the sanctions reform legislation of Senator Lugar, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, more especially in regards to Pakistan and India, and key agricultural exports programs. We need to act. We need to act, Mr. President. From that standpoint, I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Nebraska for any comments he would make. I thank him for issuing a wake-up call to the Senate as of last Friday. I yield to the Senator. Mr. HAGEL addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS. In closing, I am reminded of an old Mills Brothers' tune--that really dates me--and it was, ``I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire.'' I want to make it clear, I don't want to set the tobacco bill on fire; I just want to light a flame in the heart of our national security and our economic well-being. And with that rather dubious reference as to what we are about, Mr. President--we need to act on other matters--I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. ROBERTS. I shall not take all of the time. I want to thank my distinguished friend and colleague for his contribution. I want to pay particular credit to Senator Hagel for his work in enabling the Senate to move on IMF legislation. The Senator worked extremely hard with leadership of the Congress on both sides to implement serious reforms in the IMF bill, and to move ahead with the IMF bill. I hope the House of Representatives will simply address that legislation. The Senator mentioned the most-favored-nation status for China, which is simply regular trading status that is exceedingly important. I have already indicated my concern about sanctions reform. I think we ought to move on fast-track legislation. I was talking to the majority leader yesterday and he agrees with that. There are going to be 12 major farm organizations and commodity groups coming to the Hill to visit with us on Thursday. We would like to change the whole attitude and the whole situation in regard to trade. It seems to me if we could really recommit to that, it would be most helpful--especially in agriculture. Our whole economy relies on exports. I have never seen this Congress more insular, more protectionist, and more consumed with legislation that tends to be either ideological or attempts to legislate morality. It is just as important to prevent bad legislation from passing as it is to enact good legislation. And I am not trying to point any fingers at any Member who has strong feelings about tobacco legislation. I do. I have youngsters who are teenagers, and I am concerned about this just as much as every Member of the Senate, but this has gone far afield from a bill to really direct itself at real answers to teenage smoking and addiction. And, in the meantime, we have these problems that are extremely serious. And so I would simply quote again the majority leader who is not trying to perjure the bill. He was right when he said, ``We must end debate. Either pass, defeat, or set the bill aside.'' And let's move and get on with the business that directly affects the livelihood and the pocketbook of virtually every American when things such as world peace are hanging in the balance.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to recognize a life-long Kansas native, Lucile Wulfmeyer, who passed away on May 11, 1997. Her memorial service at First Presbyterian Church included the following remembrance of Lucile, written by her elder daughter, Roberta Doerges: My earliest memories of mother and my family roots seem to materialize in the home she purchased at 316 S. Bluff. Here, I remember a formal dining room converted to a family room; learning to ride my first bicycle; and meeting the man who would later become my father: Lawrence Wulfmeyer. What come before all of that dims in childhood lost, but along with Marian's ``I wuv you, Wawrance,'' and my manipulative acts to prevent my mother's dating, I remember an abundance of motherly patience and forbearance. The nearly four years between my father, Francis Chambers' death, and my mothers' union of 37 years to Lawrence, set the stage for revealing my mother's life of service. Today's stories might have described a woman with 18-month- old and not-quite-three-year-old daughters as capitulating to welfare, but not so for our mother. A woman wise beyond her decade, she returned to work at Wichita's McConnell AFB and managed to provide her daughters with a live-in housekeeper, as well as financial support. I have always marveled at her courage to do this: a ``woman's libber'' before her time, working in a predominately male field, and providing two young daughters with love and sustenance. Knowing that she needed companionship, and a helpmate to raise these little girls, Lucile married again in October of 1959. Lawrence's Brownie camera recorded two little girls, dressed identically, and participating in the celebration of their parents' union and a new father. A new home in East Wichita, and a new family life ensued. Always a large part of the family picture was First Presbyterian Church: group calling on prospective new members, UPY meetings and youth choir through junior and senior high school years. Even the conception and realization of the Wulfmeyer ``Dream Home'' in Clearwater did not dim that emphasis. Many a Lucckock Class picnic, or a Brown Sunday School Class open house was held at the home in Clearwater, dubbed ``Spring Creek Acres,'' and the seat of so many collective family memories. Mother's life of service continued through all of those years. Whether creating musical programs for Marian, Roberta and Lucile to perform, or lovingly constructing costumes to enhance them; whether taxiing busy daughters to endless high school extracurricular activities, or typing term papers at 7:30 am (at 120 words per minutes proficiency, this was one skill that was too tempting for at least her elder daughter to overlook taking advantage of!) Reading and correcting school papers, assisting with college choices, consoling unrequited crushes--no act was too demeaning for Mother. Her creative juices seemed endless; her power to be supportive was astonishing; her innovation was impressive. (To this day, I owe my own extensive and find vocabulary to her love of literature, and the ingenious idea during our late high school years to put a ``new'' vocabulary word on the table daily, at breakfast. The challenge was not only to learn its meaning, but, by dinner time, to be able to use it correctly in conversation.) My mother's ability to teach and instill was amazing. I never remember learning the 23rd Psalm or the Lord's Prayer. These were repeated to us as babies, following our father's death, and were as much a part of our essence as eating or speaking. The faith which she instilled in us was invaluable: the unswerving foundation of a God who loves us, in spite of any adversity. Mother's ability to teach also shows through in her three grandchildren: Autumn's love of art; Lauren's organizational skills, service inclinations, and musical interests; Kyle's appreciation of theater . . . all of these are owed in great part to a grandmother who took the time of summer visits to send grandchildren to art classes, or escort them to Wichita Music Theater. That love and those lessons will last a lifetime. Small wonder that Lucile had already begun a life of service as a young woman. Her father died when she was seventeen. She assisted her mother through years of illnesses, operations at Mayo, bitterness over poor health, and tender care in her elder years. This attitude of service also include care for her elderly father-in-law, Sidney Chambers, and for Lawrence's mother, Clara. Her love and service seemingly knew no bounds. Those who loved Lucile will remember her devotion to protocol, her gracious way of living, and her love of family. They will remember her acute appreciation of the fine arts; her gifts of writing prose and poetry; her love of reading and of books, her fascination with history (especially through the D.A.R.), and her delight in the unique (how many American ``witches'' do you know)? She will be remembered for her life of service to her family and her church; and her appreciation of God's divine purpose. While recent months may have seemingly robber her of many of the things which she appreciated most, her inability to enjoy those things completely made all of us who visited and loved her, acutely aware of all those finer appreciations which she enjoyed and instilled in others. She was greatly loved, and will be greatly missed. ``Well done, thou good and faithful servant.''

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit and support the bill.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the conference report to the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Act of 1998. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman. This is going to be the most important bill to be passed in the 105th Congress in relation to agriculture. I commend the chairman, the ranking member, and the members of the conference for their efforts in reaching what I consider to be a good and a very bipartisan bill. This bill has been in the making for 2 years. Due to time constraints and the need to more thoroughly evaluate the future direction of agricultural research, these programs, the research programs, were not dealt with in the new farm bill back in 1996. But we promised our farmers and our ranchers, all of us involved in agriculture, all of the land grant universities and consumers, that Congress would move to complete this important piece of the ag policy puzzle as soon as possible. After 2 long years, we will soon vote to ``reform'' our agriculture research programs. We will not only vote to extend these programs and commit funds to feed America, and a very troubled and hungry world, but to reform them as well to make them more competitive. We are also going to provide important funding for crop insurance and rural development and, yes, limited food stamp benefits to a specified group of legal immigrants. The distinguished chairman, the distinguished ranking minority member, and the distinguished Senator from Texas have talked about that at length. I am going to try to briefly address the importance of funding in each of these areas. First of all, this bill provides $600 million in new funding for agriculture research. Why is that important? Mr. President, in the last several decades we have seen the population double in this world, and yet we continue to feed this country and, as I have said before, a troubled and hungry world on the same amount of ground. That is a modern miracle. People used to get peace prizes for that. And the main reason is agriculture research. When we passed that new farm bill, producers were promised that funding would be provided to help develop new crops, higher yields and stronger resistance to disease and pests. In recent weeks, we have heard our colleagues from the northern plains discuss the problems caused by wheat scab. This bill provides funding for research on fighting this disease that has ravaged the wheat crop in many areas of the northern plains. Let us talk about food safety. We have heard an awful lot of comment in the press and concern--understandable concern--about E. coli. This bill provides funding for research on the implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Systems (HACCP). It addresses the problem of E. coli. The bill provides funding for important research into discovering and analyzing trade barriers that prohibit the movement of U.S. ag products on the world market. With the Asian flu today, and our markets declining, nothing could be more important. This research will provide important information to help us move toward these goals in regard to becoming much more market oriented and competitive. Let me talk about the environment. The one thing that agriculture can do through precision agriculture is to contribute to being more and better stewards of the soil and the environment. Precision agriculture will become one of the most important tools available to producers in the future. It allows them to protect the environment by using satellite technology to determine the proper rates of pesticide and fertilizer applications to the square foot. This has implications all over the world. I am pleased also that this bill will provide important funding for the Federal Crop Insurance Program. The Crop Insurance Program is currently facing a $200 million funding shortfall in each of the coming 5 years. Let me just say that this lack of funding is a ``train wreck'' waiting to happen for American agriculture. Without full funding of this program, farmers could face cancellation of hundreds of thousands of crop insurance policies. Let me repeat that. Hundreds of thousands of farmers, this spring, are facing the cancellation of their crop insurance. That would be devastating. Obviously, many farmers are required to maintain their crop insurance coverage in order to obtain loans from their rural banks. Without crop insurance policies backing these loans, many loans would be recalled, and it could send agriculture into a credit and financing crisis. Farmers and ranchers were also promised increased access to viable risk management tools with the passage of the 1996 farm bill. Crop insurance ranks at the top of the list of these important and necessary tools. This bill provides approximately $500 million in new funding for crop insurance over the next 5 years. It also makes internal changes in the program. This $1 billion in combined funding changes solves the funding shortfall in the program and ensures producers access to adequate crop insurance. Are all the changes made that we need to make in regard to crop insurance? No. There are changes and reforms that are still needed in the program. With the most important issue facing us--the funding shortfall--now solved, the chairman and I, Senator Kerrey, and others, in a bipartisan way, will confront this, and we will work to achieve the needed crop insurance reform in the next session of Congress. Rather than going into the food stamp issue, which the chairman has addressed, Senator Gramm expressed his concern, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Harkin, has addressed, I will go on and point out several other important facts in regard to this bill. Well, let me say this in regard to food stamps. The very first thing we did in the House Agriculture Committee 3 years ago, when we started to address the farm bill, was take up the issue of food stamps. That is the first hearing we had. Billions and billions of dollars were being spent on food stamps--a program out of control and obviously in need of reform. Working with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and others, we had hearings. We exposed $3 billion to $5 billion in fraud and abuse and organized crime in the program. We instilled reforms, and we saved $23 billion to $24 billion, plus $10 billion in regard to savings with the farm commodity programs. There isn't any other segment of Government that has gone through that kind of savings. No member of any committee of this Senate or of the House previously has ever achieved those kinds of significant cuts and reform in the Food Stamp Program or any other program. So the chairman is right. We would like to think we know a little bit about it. The 1996 welfare reforms eliminated benefits from 800,000 to 950,000 to illegal immigrants. I know that. This bill extends the benefits back to children, elderly, and the disabled who were in the country before August 22 of 1996. It also extends benefits to refugees and asylees who may have entered after the August 22 date. Benefits will be returned to approximately 250,000 people--not 900,000, but 250,000 people. The trend line is down in regard to refugees. I point out that a refugee is defined as ``a person who is fleeing because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and who is of special humanitarian concern to the United States.'' With all due respect, I don't think that is a beacon. I think they are fleeing, and I think it is certainly within the boundaries of the United States and what the Statue of Liberty is all about that we consider that. There is a cap. Most of the European numbers are used largely for Soviet, religious minorities, and Bosnians. The East Asian numbers are for former Vietnamese reeducation camp detainees, and Laotians. As I have indicated, these numbers are down. It has gone from 100,000 in 1980 to 75,000 in 1998. In closing, let me say this. This agriculture research bill and this crop insurance bill will likely be the most important piece of legislation we pass for our farmers and ranchers during the 105th Congress. During the debate on the 1996 farm bill, we promised our farmers, ranchers, and researchers, who depend on the markets, a more market- oriented agriculture. We promised to get the Government out of our decisionmaking, no longer do you put the seed in the ground as dictated by Washington. In return for less government support, we said we would provide the research and the risk management tools. That was a promise. We will endanger the significant reforms that we made in the new farm bill if this bill is not passed. Let me make one other observation. The amendment by the distinguished Senator from Texas to recommit is, in fact, a killer amendment; $1.7 billion in regards to the way that States are administering the program, based on the reform we passed, will disappear. We do not have the money in the appropriations bill to pay for the research or the crop insurance, and we will face an agriculture crisis. Mr. President, during the debate on the 1996 Farm bill, we promised our farmers, ranchers, and researchers that we would pass this bill and provide the tools needed to feed a troubled and hungry world. It is unconscionable that at a time when producers are facing low commodity prices, reduced international markets due to the Asian Crisis, and new crop diseases, this bill has languished. The tools included in this bill allow producers and researchers to directly address these issues. I applaud and thank the Chairman, ranking member, and the greater majority of the members of the Agriculture Committee for their work on this bill.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I tell my distinguished chairman, if he could yield to me maybe 5 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suppose that some of what I am going to say is repetitive in that most of this was discussed during the general debate. But I feel compelled to speak again because of the strong personal interest in this in behalf of myself and many of my colleagues who served on the House Agriculture Committee, and for that matter the Senate Agriculture Committee back in 1996. There has been a real success story in regards to the Food Stamp Program and reforms that have been initiated. In 1996, with all due respect to that program and others who supported it, it was a program out of control. It couldn't even be audited. The inspector general came in, an inspector general from New York--a tough cop, by the way, named Roger Viadero, who has done an outstanding job, basically said that the Food Stamp Program could not even be audited due to the fraud, abuse, and organized crime involvement. As a matter of fact, he had a tape that we showed during the Committee hearings which ended up on 60 Minutes. And we know all the stories about the Food Stamp Program, about the waiting in line, people with food stamps exchanging them for cash and then buying things that obviously did not represent a nutritious market basket of food. They got a new inspector general. We exposed the fraud and abuse on 60 Minutes and saved $3 billion to $5 billion in regard to the fraud and abuse. Then we instituted major reforms. I am talking about the Senate Agriculture Committee and the House Agriculture Committee--$24 billion, as the distinguished chairman has pointed out. I just do not think that is a success story that can be equaled. As a matter of fact, as to the person in charge of the Food Stamp Program there were many allegations made in regard to the performance of duty. She resigned. It is in better hands. Then we gave these reforms to the States. The States have come back with administrative savings. That is where the $1.7 billion comes in that has been referred to in terms of entitlement. And that money, I think, should be used for agriculture research, and I believe it also should be used for crop insurance and risk management. And, yes, there is some limited assistance in regard to food stamps. But let me refer to the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Texas whose concern I share. I certainly don't want any social welfare program, food stamps or otherwise, to be a beacon for people to come to this country when they wouldn't otherwise. But we are talking about refugees, and a refugee is defined as follows: A person who is fleeing because of persecution, or well- founded fear of persecution, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, and who is of special humanitarian concern to the United States. I don't think people choose to be a refugee. That is just not the case. People are not fleeing their country to come to the U.S. with a beacon held out there saying ``I am coming because of food stamps.'' And we have a cap on the number of refugees. It will be 75,000 admissions for the fiscal year as of 1999. Who are these people? The European numbers are used largely for Soviet religious minorities and Bosnians. East Asian numbers are for former Vietnamese, reeducation, camp detainees, and Laotians. I could keep on going down here. Basically, refugee admissions have fallen significantly from over 100,000 per year during fiscal year 1989. Now they are down to 75,000, and they are headed further downward. Here is the difference. The agriculture research bill's food stamp provisions mirror the SSI provisions of last year's Balanced Both Houses have approved that. Let's go back to the original food stamp reform that was passed in 1996 that I just talked about. These welfare reforms eliminated the benefits for anywhere from 800,000 to 950,000 noncitizens. This bill extends those benefits back to the children, the elderly, and the disabled who were in the country before August 22. That is the day of enactment of the bill. And, yes, it does also extend the benefits to refugees and asylees who may have entered after the August 22, 1996, debate. That means the total of the benefits will be restored to 250,000 people, not 900,000. I do not think this represents a step back from the far-reaching food stamp reforms that were passed back in 1996. I think if you take a hard look at these people, I don't think the Food Stamp Program represents a beacon in regard to any kind of a reason that they would come to the United States. I have already read the definition. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time.

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