Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Missouri, Senator Ashcroft; the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner; the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms, and others, in calling for the adoption of our amendment to the resolution of ratification as reported by the Foreign Relations Committee and as amended by the Senate. As the Senator pointed out, we seek to replace the broad language still in the resolution that expands the scope of NATO's purpose. We add in the amendment what we consider to be clarifying language that upholds, as the Senator has pointed out, NATO's fundamental military mission as explained in article V of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949. We seek to ensure, particularly in light of the passage of the Kyl amendment, that NATO's purpose is still fundamentally one of collective self-defense. Our amendment does not strike any of the Kyl amendment as passed by the Senate. Nor does our amendment restrict or alter the basic authority of the President to dispatch American forces whenever and wherever a genuine threat to America's national security does emerge. I will repeat that. Our amendment does not restrict or alter the basic authority of the President to dispatch American forces whenever and wherever a genuine threat to America's vital national security does emerge. I think that the debate we are having today on NATO has vast implications in regard to the future. Will NATO continue to operate, as it has for more than 50 years, as a military organization for the collective self-defense of its members? Or will its mission be changed so that it becomes, as the Senator has pointed out, a multinational military police organization? To transform NATO into what could be described as a ``nuclear supercop'' with authority to operate in all corners of the globe is unnecessary, and, quite frankly, I think it is dangerous. As we enter the 21st century, it is critical that the original scope of the North Atlantic Treaty be preserved, for several reasons, all relating to America's vital national security and national defense. Now, NATO was established as a defensive military alliance whose strategic position today is, yes, significantly altered by the dissolution of the Soviet empire--we all know that--but whose fundamental military capability remains essential to deter military aggression stemming from regional, nationalist and totalitarian tendencies. The Ashcroft-Roberts-Warner-Helms-and-others amendment seeks to prevent the decline of NATO into another outlet for ``nation building'' and ``peacekeeping'' deployments. There is nothing wrong with those deployments, except that many times they have no end game, no clear end purpose in terms of time, and they put American lives at risk for no vital U.S. national interest. I don't think NATO should be a mechanism of convenience through which any President can commit the United States to resolving long-time ethnic, religious, economic, and political conflicts worldwide. That is what the President said in Warsaw and in Bucharest in speeches--military matters no longer matter, and he mentioned these various concerns--ethnic, religious, economic, and political conflicts. It was never intended, nor is it designed and maintained, to be primarily a peacekeeping and humanitarian organization. Other organizations can do this; it is fine work, but it is not for NATO. The Senate needs to discourage any transformation of the most successful defensive military alliance in history into an international police force. Mr. President, I hope that the Senate has not hastened this regression with the adoption of any previous amendments. There is some disagreement on that. A second valid reason for adopting our amendment is to define a definitive and consistent course for the future of American military involvement in Europe. Let me emphasize and stress that it is in our interests, and the world's vital interests, for the United States to remain constructively engaged in Europe. However, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, it has been made painfully clear to me that we cannot have additional military responsibilities internationally without funding them. To be perfectly frank, the current administration defense budgets, plainly put, are not adequate to meet the basic needs of modernization, maintenance, quality of life, and training needs. Yet, the administration ordered American forces to more than 100 countries worldwide. We already hear the report of a hollow military. Should we vastly change the scope of NATO's military requirements and, by implication, our commitment to it at a time when our forces are strained by lack of resources? I don't think so. To do so, I fear, will further weaken our own force structure and place in danger the lives of our military men and women who are already being asked to do a tough job without the proper tools. The Ashcroft-Roberts-Warner-Helms amendment provides a commonsense declaration of NATO's primary purpose that does not--I want to emphasize this does not--preclude the President of the United States from dispatching U.S. troops, equipment, or aid anywhere that he believes is necessary. It simply precludes the President from saying ``We're doing these things as a member of NATO'' if it is not in response to threats as described in article V of the North Atlantic Treaty. I know there is going to be opposition to this amendment by claiming we are imposing limits on NATO military operations and also decisionmaking. That is not the case. Our amendment seeks to preserve the military nature of the alliance. Steering NATO away from missions not defensive or military in nature is not limiting military decisionmaking--rather it is upholding the original mission. It also may be argued that the North Atlantic Treaty has worked well for 50 years and has appropriately never been changed or reinterpreted, and, I think the line goes, ``We shouldn't open that Pandora's box now.'' I could not agree more. Unfortunately, the Senate is being asked to pass a ratification resolution that does open Pandora's box. The New York Times, in a recent editorial, said this: ``. . . the ratification resolution promiscuously opens the door to NATO military actions almost anywhere in the world.'' Some may claim that the Ashcroft-Roberts-Warner-Helms amendment takes away U.S. flexibility--the U.S. advantage in the NATO alliance in regard to convincing our allies to bear more of the burden of Europe's overall security. Further, some may claim that some allies could use this amendment as an excuse to abstain from missions where we want them involved. I respectfully disagree on both accounts. The first claim assumes our European allies cannot see for themselves their own legitimate security interests. The second assertion ignores recent history. What was the greatest military contingency the United States faced in the last 25 years? What was the greatest immediate threat to our interests and those of our allies? I am talking about vital interests. It was the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and the subsequent war in the gulf. The remarkable coalition of nations and forces put together by President Bush and Secretary Baker was completely out of NATO's purview. Yet, our allies joined the fight. Why? Because the threat was real, the threat was clear, and events overtook subtle differences. It is the nature of threat that determines the behavior of our allies, not the existence of provisions they may construe as loopholes in multilateral security agreements. Beside, if the mission is pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, allied participation is assured. If it is not, why should NATO be leading the charge? Mr. President, the Ashcroft-Roberts-Warner-Helms amendment is an important effort to preserve the limited responsibility of a military alliance in which we have a tremendous stake, a tremendous stake historically and financially, and, most importantly, in terms of American lives. I ask my colleagues for their support. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, can I inquire as to precisely the amount of time available?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues to discuss the issue of national security and the vital security interests to the United States and Europe, and obviously I am talking about the proposed expansion of NATO. To borrow a very well-known phrase, now we are engaged in a great debate, or at least a very good discussion, to determine and to test whether that alliance or any alliance so conceived and so successful in the past can meet the challenges of today. We are in the amendment process, but I do want to offer some general comments and some concerns. But for NATO and the collective security of Europe and the United States, the time has come. I must say that from the time of news accounts on old newsreels, or what we in my age can recall as the Movietone News or to CNN today, it has been quite a show for NATO. But it is time to turn off the movie projector, sweep up the popcorn, and turn out the lights. The old NATO show is over. Just as in that great 1971 movie, ``The Last Picture Show,'' when the camera pans back from the now-closed movie theater and pictures a deserted small, dusty town in Texas and tumbleweeds blowing down the street, we are not sure what the future holds but we know it will be different from the past. We now face the uncertainty of NATO either enlarged or with the same 16 members. We don't know what it will be in the future, but we are certain it will be different than in the past and, quite frankly, peace and stability in Europe and throughout the world hang in the balance. The debate on the addition of three new members will soon be over and the time for the vote will rapidly approach, perhaps as of this week. The administration assures us that to fundamentally alter the most successful alliance in our history is a good thing. They tell us that we will be more secure with an expanded alliance, that the wrongs of Yalta will be corrected, the candidate countries will now be free to fully develop as democratic and market-driven societies. We are guaranteed that no new dividing lines between the West and the East will result from this or any kind of future enlargement, that the door is open to all, and that further rounds of enlargement are a certainty. The administration also predicts that although the Russians are upset, and they are, with the enlargement of NATO they will simply ``get over it'' and come to understand we have their best interests in mind with enlargement and Russia will also be more secure. Now, we get all this for the amazing value of about $1.5 billion over the next 10 years. We are reassured that although the cost estimates have varied from $125 billion to $1.5 billion over the next 10 years, NATO's sharp-penciled budgeteers certainly have it right. Much to our relief, the burdensharing problems between our NATO allies that have plagued the alliance in the past will not be a problem now or in the future of an enlarged NATO, so the argument goes. The administration is confident the United States will not have to pick up any unexpected costs, although the allies have said they will refuse to pay one additional mark or franc for enlargement. Now, I have spent considerable time looking into each of these controversial areas surrounding the enlargement of NATO, and one of the most amazing things about this debate is that in each concern for enlargement, the basis of the arguments, both pro and con, are fundamentally the same but the conclusions are the opposite. Let me take a few minutes to lay out the pros and cons of NATO enlargement, if I might. First is the issue of cost and also burdensharing. Unfortunately, only time will truly show what the costs for NATO enlargement will be. With such a wide variance in the estimates, there clearly is not a single set of assumptions to gauge the true costs of enlargement. I do not know how we could. I can tell you the final costs will not be $1.5 billion over a 10-year period, but I cannot tell you what the costs will be, and I do not think anybody else can. The opponents of enlargement say the $1.5 billion number is laughable, and the opponents breathe a sigh of relief that the agreed- to number is so low that no one could suggest we cannot afford the costs of enlargement. We are told the reasons for $1.5 billion being the correct cost include the fact only three countries are being invited as opposed to four or five, and the military infrastructure in the candidate countries is in much better shape than originally thought. I am a little surprised at the infrastructure point. NATO has been involved in Partnership for Peace exercises and military-to-military contacts with those countries for more than a few years. We have a huge facility at Taszar in Hungary at a former Soviet air base. Didn't anyone in NATO or the United States notice the condition of the infrastructure during any of the exercises, and particularly in the three candidate countries? Finally, another reason the cost has been reduced is that NATO has shifted some of what some thought to be shared costs to the three candidate countries. I am concerned, regardless of the public statements by these countries, that they will not be able to fund NATO enlargement or, if they do, they will divert needed resources away from more important domestic issues and into military spending. If they are unable to meet their fiscal obligations for enlargement, will the costs be deferred or will NATO simply pick them up? I might point out in terms of paying the contribution to NATO there are three accounts. The NATO Security Investment Program, formerly called the NATO Infrastructure Program, comes from the annual military construction appropriation. We do not have the money in that account to pay for this. The NATO civil budget money comes from the annual State Department appropriation ``Contributions to International Organizations,'' and that money is tight. The NATO military budget comes from the Department of Army annual appropriation, and that budget, too, is under very severe pressure. Let's take up one other subject, if I might, Mr. President. What about the correction of the wrongs of Yalta? The candidate countries are proud, developing democracies and countries wanting very badly to become a part of the West. They have already made some great strides. We all understand they suffered terribly during the many years of Soviet domination. I applaud their efforts. I am confident they would be wonderful allies, capable at some point of carrying out their NATO responsibilities. I have been to Prague. I have been to Budapest. I have listened to the history. I have felt the pride of their accomplishments. A freedom-loving person cannot experience the strength of their conviction without reaching out to help them attain their stated goals of Western integration. But understanding and empathizing with their feelings and their desires are not reasons for the Senate to ratify a change in NATO membership. The only reason to enlarge NATO is if it is in our vital national interest to simply do so. Proponents of enlargement do not see it that way. For example, General Shalikashvili in a recent Los Angeles Times article said, ``Meanwhile, there are urgencies to expanding NATO. It is nearly 10 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the countries of Eastern Europe--including my native land, Poland--have waited long enough for a place at the table where they have yearned to be for so long.'' That is a common theme for the enlargement proponents, including the Secretary of State. They have the right to join NATO, and that is good enough to alter the alliance. Others argue that enlarging NATO will show the continued interest and commitment of the United States in a stable and secure Europe. As a matter of fact, I think the distinguished Presiding Officer has made that very cogent argument. It is still not clear why NATO must enlarge to demonstrate, however, in this Senator's opinion, U.S. resolve or commitment to Europe. There is no question in my mind a secure and stable Europe is in our vital interest, but I fail to see the connection between an enlarged NATO and that end goal. It is interesting to note that Austria, a Central European country, is not seeking NATO membership. There is no cry of a security vacuum in Austria or a concern for the right to join the primer alliance, which is NATO. In fact, Austria took a good look at NATO and decided it was more important to seek its long-term security within the European Union and the Partnership for Peace and the Organization for Security for Cooperation in Europe, OSCE. This would have been the best approach, in this Senator's view, for security and acceptance into the West for the current candidate nations rather than immediate NATO membership. Unfortunately, that is not now an option. We have come too far. The administration has planted the flag of U.S. commitment and integrity-- no small matter. Let me share with you the results of a survey published in June of 1996 in an issue of The Economist. I am sure some will challenge these results, but I think it is worth reviewing these questions asked of citizens of the three candidate countries. Would these countries support sending troops to defend another country? Only 26 percent of the people of Hungary, 43 percent of those polled in the Czech Republic, and 55 percent in Poland support sending troops to defend another country. Now, considering this is the best that the support will ever be, since the excitement of joining NATO will soon wear off, I suggest this is not a very good commentary on the weak support to carry out a core requirement of NATO. And that core requirement is the common defense and the commitment to send troops to defend an ally. Let me ask another question: Would these countries support having NATO troops based on their soil? In The Economist, they reported that only 30 percent of the Czechs and 35 percent of the Hungarians support the notion of allowing NATO troops to be stationed on their soil. Although 56 percent of the people of Poland, obviously, supported the idea, it is still an idea that does not have broad support in any of the three of the candidate countries. The next question: Would these countries support regular NATO exercises in their country, or regular flights over their country? Less than half of any of the candidate countries supported having NATO exercises on their soil or even allowing flights over their country, and those percentages range from 26 percent to 41 percent, representing, again, little support for the cost of simply joining the alliance. Would these countries support spending a bigger share of their country's budget on military and social needs? The numbers in support for this question are very low, and it is a crucial question. In the Czech Republic, 8 percent; in Hungary, 9 percent; and 23 percent in Poland support spending a bigger share on defense. Unfortunately, there will be these costs associated with their membership in NATO. I know the agriculture problems they are having in those countries. A great deal of those expenses will have to be committed to the transformation from a collective farm system to a system more in keeping with the rest of Europe. My only point in presenting these statistics is to show there are concerns in the candidate countries about the commitment to NATO. I am afraid the survey says NATO may no longer be a ``one for all, all for one,'' but rather it may become an ``all for me, but not for you'' alliance. Let me say, in April of this past year the Roper Starch World Wide poll asked Americans the level of support for using armed forces in certain situations. I hope--and I do not believe that the American public has become so isolationist that they would never risk any American life in defense of freedom. But there is a clearly understandable concern about risking American lives in what some call a political war of gradualism where there is no clear and discernible vital national interest. Listen to this. If the U.S. were attacked, 84 percent of those polled supported using force. This is in the Roper Starch World Wide poll. I would like to know where the other 16 percent are. If our forces stationed overseas were attacked, 50 percent supported armed intervention. To safeguard peacekeeping within the framework of the United Nations, the support dropped to 35 percent, which explains a great deal in regards to what happened in the gulf. Finally, to stop invasion of one country by another, the support fell sharply to 15 percent. That is why it took George Bush and Jim Baker and Dick Cheney and others a whole year to rally support among our allies in regards to the gulf war. One issue we should all be concerned about is the collective security commitment that NATO makes in the post-cold-war environment, and that commitment is contained in article V of the NATO charter. During the cold war, obviously, everybody understood that if the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries attacked Western Europe, the very survival of the free world was at stake and every NATO member would strike back with all of their military capability. But is that still true today with no threat to the survival of Europe? Would all NATO members automatically strike back if another member was attacked tomorrow? Article V can be read either way, and in fact the proponents and opponents argue both ways. There is a considerable amount of disagreement on this topic. I believe that if a member of NATO had a vital national interest at risk in the country under attack, they would respond with military force. If there was no threat to their vital interests, I doubt they would automatically respond with the same kind of military force. They would respond with outrage. They might threaten military force if the belligerents did not stop. But I am not sure if they would respond militarily. I am confident, however, that the candidate countries think NATO would respond to an attack on them, just as they would have during the cold war--that is, with all of their military strength. The construction of article V is such that both interpretations are possible. Some argue--and I believe they have a point--that this ambiguity is good and may be just the right amount of deterrence in the minds of would-be belligerents. This is a serious issue, since it is at the very heart of the commitment and success of NATO during the cold war. We need to fully understand what article V means in today's environment. We just had an amendment on the floor of the Senate to try to spell that out. The confusion over article V is only one mission concern. There is a more fundamental concern: What is the mission of NATO in the post-cold- war? The distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, and the distinguished Senator from Oregon who was just the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the Senator from Arizona, had a lengthy debate over this and considered the Kyl amendment. Let me share part of former Secretary of Defense Perry's testimony before the Armed Services Committee. The original mission of NATO--deterring an attack from the Soviet Union--is obviously no longer relevant. The original geographical area of NATO's responsibility is no longer sufficient. The original military structure of NATO is no longer appropriate. And the way in which NATO relates to Russia must be entirely different from the way it related to the Soviet Union. One would think, with that array of differences, and before the alliance was changed forever, that some agreed-to long-range strategy would have been developed. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Listening to the discussion on the Senate floor by my colleagues, I believe there are many possibilities for future missions of NATO. Some say the Kyl amendment opened the door to more possible missions, and the Senator from Arizona firmly says that he wants to go back to the original 1991 strategic concept. Can anyone in the Senate say with certainty what NATO's mission is? Can anyone articulate what mission, what role, against what threat we are rushing toward enlargement of NATO, to fundamentally alter this great alliance? Let me say that simply to bring NATO expansion into focus, the President, it seems to me, should become engaged. In Warsaw, St. Petersburg, and in Bucharest, the President did address general European security concerns. But to my way of thinking, despite all of the hard work by the Secretary of State and others, he has not made a personal case to the Congress or the American people. As a matter of fact, in remarks during the European trip, the President said, in a post-Soviet era--I am paraphrasing here--military matters are no longer primary, that terrorism, illegal drugs, national extremism, regional conflicts due to ethnic, racial, and religious hatreds do matter. I can assure you, using an expanded NATO to address these concerns raises some very important questions. What means would be used? Warplanes, ground forces, and naval power are of little use in fighting ethnic hatred and racism. If NATO membership reduces the threats of ethnic rivalries, somebody should tell that to the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, the Basques in Spain, and the Kurds in Turkey. Do we really want to change the most successful security alliance in history to a European United Nations? With 16 NATO members and 28 other nations inaugurating the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, it seems to me the protocol, rituals, and welcoming speeches will leave no time for any serious discussion. Exactly what force requirements are necessary to prevent a power vacuum? What is the strategy to ensure stability and security in Europe? NATO's leadership understands there is some confusion in this regard and, as I have indicated, has directed a review of its 1991 Strategic Concept to see if it is in line with the changed world and threats--and we had a good debate on the Senate floor just earlier on this very matter. Now the Secretary of State wants to ``spread NATO's security from the Middle East through Central Africa,'' but several of the current alliance members remain unconvinced of the utility of these so-called out-of-area operations for NATO. Again, let's quote from Dr. Perry's written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The geographical area of NATO interests should be anywhere in the world where aggression can threaten the security of NATO members. . . . Let me repeat that: The geographical area of NATO interests should be anywhere in the world where aggression can threaten the security of NATO members--certainly including all of Europe, and certainly including the Persian Gulf. That is a quote. Just think of that, even with the current membership and the world's global economy, what corner of this universe could not hold interest for NATO members? Are we considering NATO as a global alliance? If we are, are we to consider global membership for NATO? Is this alliance to become the military arm of the United Nations? We should be seriously concerned that we are changing NATO before we are certain of its future mission requirements. Now, the last but most frequently debated point associated with NATO enlargement is the impact on United States-Russian relations. Here both sides of the argument can list exactly the same points but come up with opposite results. It is a paradox of enormous irony. Unfortunately, this is the one area that will have the most profound effect on our country in the coming decades. We must be certain of what we are doing. The proponents argue that Russia understands that NATO is no threat to them. Opponents point out that some 350 Members of the Duma, some of which we have met with in the Senate Armed Services Committee, have formed an anti-NATO group. Let me inform the President there is not one--one--Member of the Duma that is pro-NATO publicly. The proponents say the Russians will get over it--in time. Opponents state enlargement will sour our relations with the moderate Russians. The proponents vigorously point out that in dealing with the Russians, we can't be seen as simply giving in to the ``hard-liners.'' Opponents say if we enlarge NATO, we will play into the hands of the ``hard-liners.'' Let me say, I think I know at least in part what some of the blood pressure and the motives are in regard to expanding NATO and Russia. And I quote an article from the Washington Post from Charles Krauthammer, who I think is an outstanding columnist most of the time due to the fact that he agrees with my prejudice. Obviously, I think he is a very learned columnist, but on this he tells the truth. He says here that: . . .NATO expansion nothing more than extending the borders of peace; building new bridges; strengthening an alliance directed against no one in particular, certainly ``not arrayed against Russia. . . . Then he tells the truth. This is all nice and good. It is, however, rubbish. In order not to offend the bear, the administration must understandably pretend that NATO expansion has nothing to do with Russia. Those not constrained by diplomatic niceties, however, can say the obvious: NATO, an alliance founded in that immortal formulation ``to keep America in, Germany down, and Russia out,'' is expanding in the service of its historic and continuing mission. . . . And that is to contain Russia. We are poking the Russian bear. So it goes with a host of NATO enlargement topics dealing with Russia-and-United States relations. Keeping or encouraging Russia moving toward a complete system of democratic reforms, I submit, Mr. President, is in our vital national interest and, from a timing perspective, it is more important than the addition of these three candidate countries. These are the key issues surrounding the debate on NATO enlargement: cost, mission and strategy, and United States-Russia relations. Unfortunately, there are still many unanswered questions remaining on these vital areas. I trust the Senate, with the various amendments we will be considering and the very good debate that we have had, will answer these concerns. The show is over, and we must address this enlargement of NATO on the floor now with the facts we have before us. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, in closing, Mr. President, an article by John Lewis Gaddis, who is a professor of history at Yale University. The information was provided to me by the granddaughter of Dwight David Eisenhower. Susan Eisenhower has played a very important role in this debate.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I simply close in quoting the last two paragraphs: Isn't it too late now to change course? Some argue that even if the decision to expand NATO wasn't the most thoughtful, historically aware way to make policy, that the decision has been made and going back on it would be a disaster far greater than the problems NATO expansion itself will bring. That is a good argument. As a matter of fact, I think that may be a persuasive argument. I have listed a lot of concerns that I have. I think the adjectives and adverbs that I have used and the language I have used would indicate, if somebody is watching, ``Well, Senator Roberts, he is going to vote no.'' I am undecided. Again, what the professor has indicated that ``the decision has been made and going back on it would be a disaster far greater than the problems NATO expansion itself will bring. Then he goes on to say this: This sounds a little like the refusal of the Titanic's captain to cut his ship's speed when told there were icebergs ahead. Consistency is a fine idea most of the time, but there are moments when it's just plain irresponsible. That is the other view. Only future historians will be able to say whether this is such a moment. Professor Gaddis goes on to say: . . .But the mood of current historians should not give the Administration--or those senators who plan to vote this week for NATO expansion--very much comfort. I thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the indulgence of my colleague from Illinois. I apologize to him for going on a little bit longer than I told him, and I yield the floor. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Trade Options for Farmers and Ranchers Act (TOFRA). This legislation will provide farmers and ranchers across the United States with new, improved and affordable risk management products to help producers succeed in the 21st century. This bill fulfills a promise we made to America's farmers and ranchers during the 1996 farm bill debate. The far-reaching, market- oriented reforms contained in the Freedom to Farm Act have provided substantial financial benefits to agriculture producers throughout the country. At the same time, this policy must be buttressed by proper risk management tools, regulatory relief, tax changes and a consistent, strong export policy. As a result, while leading the fight to get the federal government out of producers' daily lives and pocket-books, I promised to fight for better tools to help manage the tremendous financial risk that is inherent in life on the farm today. The TOFRA would repeal the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's prohibition on the sale of over-the-counter agriculture trade options. The CFTC ban dates to the Great Depression. It was put in place during a time when financial and commodity markets were viewed with both suspicion and fear. Today, we live in a time of mutual funds, computerized financial transactions and round-the-clock, global commodity trading. While we should never forget the important lessons of the Great Depression, we must not let the troubling memories of the past hold back our nation's farmers and ranchers when there is so much promise in the future. The CFTC's agriculture option ban created a monopoly. Today, if a farmer or rancher wants to hedge his price risk with an agriculture option, he must purchase the option from a commodity exchange. Over the years, the exchanges have performed a valuable service to farmers and ranchers by giving them the opportunity to manage their price risk in a regulated environment. Despite their best efforts, organized exchanges--primarily as a result of excessive regulation--have not been able to keep up with the tremendous demand in Farm Country for newer, better alternatives to existing risk management tools. I will continue to support legislative efforts to allow all interested parties--commodities exchanges included--to sell a wider variety of financial products. In fact, I continue to be frustrated with the CFTC's unwillingness to provide organized exchanges with the same basic business opportunities available to over-the-counter brokers. This bias is unfortunate and counterproductive to both buyers and sellers of commodities. At the same time, overly restrictive regulations are preventing America's farmers and ranchers from receiving the new, innovative products they need. The CFTC ban on over-the-counter agriculture options has been maintained in order to ``save farmers from themselves.'' The argument here is that farmers, grain elevators and others in rural America don't understand how options work. Therefore, the federal government has seen fit to limit severely the development of, and competition in, financial instruments that would provide substantial benefits to producers who understand commodity marketing in order to protect the few remaining producers who have no interest in managing price risk. Basically, current federal policy in this area is targeted towards the 1930s instead of the 2030s. Agriculture options are complex, expensive financial instruments. In order to use them properly, producers must have specialized knowledge of commodity marketing and the risks associated with participating in them. As a result, many producers may choose not to use the additional financial products made possible through this legislation. However, agriculture options should be readily available to those producers with the skill, knowledge and desire to use them. It is important that agriculture options--whether sold on an organized commodity exchange or through an over-the-counter broker--be sufficiently regulated. This legislation will simply make agriculture options just like all other options. If you purchase an option on wheat, natural gas or common stock, the bookkeeping, registration and disclosure requirements should be the same. Similarly, strong protections against fraud and manipulation are included to help prevent and punish fly-by-night operations and bucket-shops. In short, this bill establishes a simple formula: provide business opportunity with limited, but vigorously enforced rules. With proper oversight, this bill will be good for producers, brokers, businesses and consumers alike. I do want to thank the CFTC for recently submitting a proposed rule that would begin to lift its long-held ban on over-the-counter agriculture trade options. They have taken the initial step toward removing the ban on off-exchange agriculture options trading. Unfortunately, the CFTC's proposal is so limited, so burdened with red- tape and reporting requirements, that significant benefit is doubtful. No new products, no improved products and no more competition to drive down the price of risk management for America's farmers and ranchers. I am hopeful this legislation will renew CFTC interest in a workable regulation to govern agriculture option trading. I also urge the CFTC to act quickly to make these important tools available to America's farmers and ranchers. In conclusion, let me simply say this: if we give our producers a helping hand and appropriate safeguards, they will do the rest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Trade Options for Farmers and Ranchers Act (TOFRA). This legislation will provide farmers and ranchers across the United States with new, improved and affordable risk management products to help producers succeed in the 21st century. This bill fulfills a promise we made to America's farmers and ranchers during the 1996 farm bill debate. The far-reaching, market- oriented reforms contained in the Freedom to Farm Act have provided substantial financial benefits to agriculture producers throughout the country. At the same time, this policy must be buttressed by proper risk management tools, regulatory relief, tax changes and a consistent, strong export policy. As a result, while leading the fight to get the federal government out of producers' daily lives and pocket-books, I promised to fight for better tools to help manage the tremendous financial risk that is inherent in life on the farm today. The TOFRA would repeal the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's prohibition on the sale of over-the-counter agriculture trade options. The CFTC ban dates to the Great Depression. It was put in place during a time when financial and commodity markets were viewed with both suspicion and fear. Today, we live in a time of mutual funds, computerized financial transactions and round-the-clock, global commodity trading. While we should never forget the important lessons of the Great Depression, we must not let the troubling memories of the past hold back our nation's farmers and ranchers when there is so much promise in the future. The CFTC's agriculture option ban created a monopoly. Today, if a farmer or rancher wants to hedge his price risk with an agriculture option, he must purchase the option from a commodity exchange. Over the years, the exchanges have performed a valuable service to farmers and ranchers by giving them the opportunity to manage their price risk in a regulated environment. Despite their best efforts, organized exchanges--primarily as a result of excessive regulation--have not been able to keep up with the tremendous demand in Farm Country for newer, better alternatives to existing risk management tools. I will continue to support legislative efforts to allow all interested parties--commodities exchanges included--to sell a wider variety of financial products. In fact, I continue to be frustrated with the CFTC's unwillingness to provide organized exchanges with the same basic business opportunities available to over-the-counter brokers. This bias is unfortunate and counterproductive to both buyers and sellers of commodities. At the same time, overly restrictive regulations are preventing America's farmers and ranchers from receiving the new, innovative products they need. The CFTC ban on over-the-counter agriculture options has been maintained in order to ``save farmers from themselves.'' The argument here is that farmers, grain elevators and others in rural America don't understand how options work. Therefore, the federal government has seen fit to limit severely the development of, and competition in, financial instruments that would provide substantial benefits to producers who understand commodity marketing in order to protect the few remaining producers who have no interest in managing price risk. Basically, current federal policy in this area is targeted towards the 1930s instead of the 2030s. Agriculture options are complex, expensive financial instruments. In order to use them properly, producers must have specialized knowledge of commodity marketing and the risks associated with participating in them. As a result, many producers may choose not to use the additional financial products made possible through this legislation. However, agriculture options should be readily available to those producers with the skill, knowledge and desire to use them. It is important that agriculture options--whether sold on an organized commodity exchange or through an over-the-counter broker--be sufficiently regulated. This legislation will simply make agriculture options just like all other options. If you purchase an option on wheat, natural gas or common stock, the bookkeeping, registration and disclosure requirements should be the same. Similarly, strong protections against fraud and manipulation are included to help prevent and punish fly-by-night operations and bucket-shops. In short, this bill establishes a simple formula: provide business opportunity with limited, but vigorously enforced rules. With proper oversight, this bill will be good for producers, brokers, businesses and consumers alike. I do want to thank the CFTC for recently submitting a proposed rule that would begin to lift its long-held ban on over-the-counter agriculture trade options. They have taken the initial step toward removing the ban on off-exchange agriculture options trading. Unfortunately, the CFTC's proposal is so limited, so burdened with red- tape and reporting requirements, that significant benefit is doubtful. No new products, no improved products and no more competition to drive down the price of risk management for America's farmers and ranchers. I am hopeful this legislation will renew CFTC interest in a workable regulation to govern agriculture option trading. I also urge the CFTC to act quickly to make these important tools available to America's farmers and ranchers. In conclusion, let me simply say this: if we give our producers a helping hand and appropriate safeguards, they will do the rest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the distinguished chairman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my chairman and thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will either of the distinguished chairmen yield? I thank the Senator from Indiana for yielding. I would just like to pledge my full cooperation.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Montana. In doing so, let me say I appreciate the efforts by those supporting this approach to provide their farmers appropriate risk management tools and to do what we can to encourage improved farm prices. And, I also appreciate the unique and difficult times that farmers face where there is great risk, great opportunity and productivity, but great risk as well. My colleagues who are privileged to serve the hard working and productive producers in our northern tier states are going through a difficult time--Asian economic problems have already resulted in at least a 3.5 percent reduction in agriculture trade. This is why we just considered and passed the bill funding the International Monetary Fund with appropriate reforms. Prices at the country elevator in Montana and, for that matter in Dodge City, Kansas, have declined as a result. Add in severe weather and unfair trading practices across the border and you can see the relevance of the effort by my colleagues. But, with all due respect to their intent, I feel compelled to remind colleagues of the law of unintended effects. Under the banner of providing a so called safety net by extending the loan program what will actually happen? Is the goal to see increased prices? Today, approximately 20 percent of the nation's wheat crop is under loan, about 191 million bushels. The loan program expires this spring. This amendment would extend that loan to September 30. Extending the loan rate will not create additional marketing opportunity. Rather it will eliminate to some degree, the incentive for farmers to market their wheat. Extending the loan is an incentive for farmers to hold on to the grain they have under loan for an additional six months. Now, this would not create a big problem except for the fact that we will harvest another wheat crop before September 30. And, all indications are we can expect another bumper crop. We will then have farmers holding a portion of last year's crop while adding a new crop to the market--grain from two crops--not one--on the market. We will have excess supply and my judgment is that will drive prices down even further and we will have just the opposite effect of what is intended. And, at the same time we are holding our grain under loan and off the world market, other countries such as the EU, Australia and Argentina will again return to the business of taking our market share. This is a repeat of the situation the current farm bill tried to correct. Our current share of the world wheat market is just over 30 percent, the EU 15.4 percent, and Australia 14.8 percent. This amendment could well be called the EU and Australia Market Share Recovery Act. It is also the first step in putting the government back in the grain business in the form of a reserve and I can still hear the advice of the former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Boage of Texas who warned repeatedly, grain reserves are nothing more than government price controls. The Senator's amendment really takes us back to the age old debate in farm program policy as to whether the loan rate should be a market clearing device or income protection. I don't think it can be both. Under the current farm bill, the loan rate is a marketing clearing device and hopefully a price floor. The transition payments now being paid to farmers represent income protection. What am I talking about? Well, the price of wheat today at the Dodge City elevator is about $3.10. If you add in the transition payment farmers in Kansas, North Dakota, Montana, Texas, North Carolina are now receiving, approximately 65 cents a bushel, that means the farmer is receiving around $3.75 a bushel. Now, I agree with my colleagues that is certainly not the $4.50 price we were getting months back or even higher on the futures market. We hope to see price improvement and soon. But, let me point out with 20-20 hindsight, that this loan extension is primarily aimed, at least I hope it is aimed at last year's crop, the grain that farmers have not sold and that farmers did have an opportunity to sell at those previous prices. Let me mention another possible unintended effect. Will not keeping grain under loan work at cross purposes to our goal of stating to the world and all of our customers that we will be a reliable supplier? Does not encouraging longer loan terms and keeping grain in storage tell our customers they should go elsewhere? Should that be the signal we send just hours after this body agreed the United States remain active and competitive in international trade by approving funding for the IMF with appropriate reforms? Should we not be pushing for lower trade barriers and conducting a full court press to export our grain, our commodities, to sell wheat? My predecessor in the House, the Honorable and respected Keith Sebelius put it in language every farmer understands: ``We need to sell it, not smell it.'' What should we do? We should encourage the President, when he comes back from Africa, not to toss in the towel on fast track trading authority, to immediately sit down with Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman to explore and aggressively seek bi-lateral trade agreements. There are 370 million hungry people in Latin and Central America alone eager to begin trade negotiations--well sell them bulk commodities, they move to sustainable agriculture and quit tearing up rain forests and its a win, win, win situation. We should continue the good work of Secretary Glickman and Assistant Secretary Schumacher to fully utilize the GSM export credit program in Asia. Restore the markets that have led to the price decline, don't drive them away. Secretary Glickman has committed $2 billion under the GSM program to assist South Korea and it has resulted in over $600 million in sales of agriculture products. The $2 billion figure is not a ceiling, it is a floor we can and must use more! We can use the Export Enhancement Program. The Administration recommended severe cuts in the very program that could not be of help. My colleagues, we need to sell the grain, we have the export tools to accomplish that. What happens when this loan extension results in lower prices, we have a bumper crop, our competitors seize the opportunity to steal our market share, and we are faced with this decision again in September? We may be buying time with this amendment but we are also buying into market distortion and problems down the road. Let us instead convince and support the Administration to aggressively use the export programs we have in place to answer this problem. Let us work on crop insurance reform. Let us recommit to the promises we made during the farm bill debate in regard to tax policy changes, a farmer IRA, regulatory reform, an aggressive and consistent export program. Again, I commend my colleagues for their concern, for their long record of support for our farmers and ranchers and I look forward to working with them in the future. But, in terms of this amendment, its just that the trail you are recommending leads right into a box canyon. With that, I reluctantly oppose the Senator's amendment and hope he can work with us and perhaps even withdraw the amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today to applaud and thank my colleagues for finally taking decisive action that will provide full funding for the International Monetary Fund while requiring strict conditions on receiving IMF assistance. In particular, I am pleased that this agreement insists that efforts to remove illegal trade barriers to American products be a required item in any IMF program. It is entirely appropriate that we are doing that. I am especially pleased that this body has rejected efforts to include requirements and conditions that would have gone too far. While the recipient countries should be required to comply with tough, fundamental changes in their economies in order to receive the assistance, the bar must not be raised so high that any hope for reaching the conditions is lost. If excessive conditions had been included--and some Members in this body had been promoting those conditions--why, the United States would have no leverage to insist on reforms that would lower trade barriers to American goods and end unfair subsidies for foreign businesses. That would hurt both the country in trouble and the United States as well. In this regard, Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for his outstanding leadership in assuring a common-sense and bipartisan approach to this challenge. I also wish to pay special thanks to Senator Hagel and to Senator Grams for their efforts in helping to craft language that I believe will certainly enable us to achieve both funding and the needed reforms. In particular, I wish to thank my good friend from Nebraska, who has worked tirelessly on this issue and deserves much, if not most, of the credit for enabling us to achieve real progress on this bill. Our neighboring States are particularly dependent on this country's implementing a consistent export policy and for the United States to provide continued leadership in stabilizing the world economy. In this regard, our farmers and ranchers and the many segments of our economy who depend on exports owe Senator Hagel a debt of gratitude. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to ask of the Chair if that means I have an additional 5 minutes or about a minute has been taken off? I would assume that I have an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma, and I especially want to thank the Senator from Texas for raising this issue. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, before coming to the floor, I looked up the definition of ``wise'' in Webster's Third International Dictionary--that is the recognized authority with regard to the English language--and it read: Characterized by wisdom; knowledgeable; exercising sound judgment. It even went on to say if you were a wise person that you were ``alert,'' and further described a wise person as being a person ``in a condition where an individual becomes aware of the slow, steady creep of the tide, lest they will be in it up to their hubcaps before they realize it.'' Mr. President, I think there is another definition of ``wise'' in this body, and perhaps the synonym would be the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who made a speech on Monday that I commend to the attention of my colleagues. It is in Monday's Record. It is on page S2382. If my colleagues and staff are paying attention to the floor, write that down, S2382. It is the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who says: With respect to Bosnia, the President has provided a certification and report, required by Fiscal Year 1998 Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts, that the continued presence of U.S. armed forces----

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I will continue with Senator Byrd's remarks: Last year, the administration told us that we would be out of Bosnia in about a year. All of the witnesses who came up before the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee assured the committees that that was the expected timeframe which would be needed during which we would have to place our men and women in possible harm's way, but we were assured--we didn't just ask the question once or twice, and the response didn't come forth just once or twice, but the response was always in the context of a year's time. Then Senator Byrd went on to comment that he had strong suspicions that it really wouldn't work out that way. And he referred to the report that was made, and the report said: ``We do not propose a fixed end-date for the deployment.'' That says it all. So we are in a different situation now. The exit strategy--in other words, the required conditions for our forces to come out and come home--reads like a nation- building strategy. That is the concern of this Senator and the Senator from Texas and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. What is required for us to leave Bosnia? First, judicial reform-- The Senator from West Virginia said-- Just a minor thing, judicial reform. Then, development of an independent media throughout the territory. He said that was a pretty big order, and it certainly is. Then there is more. Democratic elections. What do we mean by democratic elections? Democratic elections followed by free market economic reforms . . . privatization of the economy, and so on and on. And the Senator said: We all get the point. This is a formula requiring the completion of a new, integrated democratic state. That is what nation-building is. I didn't buy on to that. The U.S. Senate has not bought onto that. And if the duration of our stay is going to be based on nation-building, as the President is obviously saying in the report, we are [going to be] there for a good, long [period of] time. I was in Sarajevo. I talked with our officials there. That was last year, I say to the Senator from Texas. The conditions at that time were troop protection, refugee relocation, economic restoration, and a rather hard-to-understand policy in regard to war criminals. That has changed, and the Senator from Texas is precisely correct; we have not even had that under consideration or with any kind of talk, other than that of the Senators here on the floor and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia in regard to what the end policy is in regard to Bosnia. I indicated the definition of somebody being wise, other than being Senator Byrd of West Virginia, was that they be alert--and I repeat that--further described by Webster's as ``a condition where an individual knows and is aware of the slow, steady creep of the tide, lest they will be in it up to their hubcaps before they realize it.'' Mr. President, we are not only in it to our hubcaps; we are in it to the axle with no reverse gear. It was Herbert Hoover who said in 1958, ``Wisdom consists not so much in knowing what to do in the ultimate as in knowing what to do next.'' I do not know what we are going to do next, but it is the responsibility of this Senate to consider that. We will do it in the 1999 defense authorization and appropriations bills. I credit the Senator from Texas for focusing on this, and I thank the Senator from West Virginia and remind all of my colleagues that it ought to be required reading in regards to his remarks on the floor of the Senate last Monday, again, page S2382. Please, my colleagues, pay attention to the Senator from West Virginia. He is right on in regards to this terribly important and difficult issue. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to yield to the distinguished chairman.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the letter got lost in the mail. It never made it to President Yeltsin. It never made it to the radar crews in Russia. As a result, within minutes, Russian President Boris Yeltsin was brought a black nuclear command suitcase and for several minutes, wild confusion reigned in Russia, as Russia's command and control system was operating in a combat mode. The letter was from the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, and it was routine. It informed the Russians and other surrounding countries that a joint United States and Norwegian research rocket would be launched to study the northern lights. As I say, it was a foulup, a bureaucratic foulup, and it prompted a hair-trigger war scare, a nuclear war scare, only 3 years ago. Mr. President, I rise today to focus on this incident, because I believe it is the kind of discussion that we should carefully consider as we move to the debate on NATO and NATO expansion and the kind of debate that has not received much, if any, public attention. I encourage my colleagues to read two articles that appeared in the Washington Post, Sunday the 15th of March and Monday the 16th. Those two articles focus on areas that I feel the United States should be most concerned about: United States-Russia relations and the status and the direction of the Russian nuclear forces and their command and control. The two articles, entitled ``Cold War Doctrines Refuse To Die'' and ``Downsizing a Mighty Arsenal,'' are a two-part series by David Hoffman and paint a very discouraging picture. The first article describes the January 25, 1995, launch, as I have indicated, of a joint Norwegian-United States research rocket off of Norway's northwest coast. For a brief period of time, the Russians actually mistook this launch as one from a U.S. submarine and a possible threat to Russia. Some analysts say that day we came as close as we ever have come to a counterlaunch by the Russians. The article further discusses the deteriorating state of the Russian command and control systems and early warning systems. The second article discusses the impact of the economic problems on the Russian strategic weapons system. The author outlines the sad material and operational shape of the nuclear armored submarine and rocket forces. He states that the economic weaknesses of Russia will, outside of any bilateral agreements, drive the number of operational warheads to below START II levels. I suppose many could be saying, ``So, what's the problem? That's what we want, fewer weapons systems and nuclear warheads, right?'' Well, it's not that easy. Certainly, the wanted downsizing should be a controlled, systematic, consistent process and not one that is as chaotic as the article certainly portrays. My purpose today is to highlight this problem and to urge that the administration be more concerned and that the Congress be more concerned about United States-Russia relations. Opponents of NATO enlargement say our actions have resulted in a delay in the Duma's ratification of START II. They further state that because of the increased military capability of an enlarged NATO, Russia must depend on nuclear weapons as a first-use capability since their conventional forces are so weakened. Proponents of enlargement pretty much scoff at these assertions and state that although Russia does not like NATO enlargement, they need to ``get over it.'' My concern is not to guess which camp is right but to say in our relations with Russia, we need to go slow, we need to ensure we fully understand the long-term implications of our actions. My bottom-line concern and fear is that this administration has no long-range, overarching strategy in our relations with Russia. Unfortunately, I believe this is a hallmark in the President's foreign policy, just as we have seen in his policy in Bosnia and just as we have seen in his policy in Iraq. Where is the end game? Russia is a huge country that does exist and does still have tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. They will play a major role in the future of Europe. Our choice, Mr. President, is to continue to treat them as a defeated foe--and too many in the Congress certainly have that view--or to work with them to continue to develop their form of government and their military consistent with our common values. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two articles be printed in the Record. I understand the Government Printing Office estimates it will cost $1,616 to have these two articles printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the parliamentary situation is such that we are in morning business and Senators are permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes; is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. On behalf of the majority leader, I announce that in a moment the Senate will begin a rollcall vote on S. Con. Res. 78, a resolution regarding Saddam Hussein. Following the vote, the Senate will be in a period of morning business with Senator Bennett being recognized for 45 minutes. As announced last night, the Senate may also begin consideration of S. 270, the Texas low-level radioactive waste legislation; S. 414, the international shipping bill; or H.R. 2646, the A+ education bill. Finally, as a reminder, the majority leader stated that all Senators should anticipate one or two rollcall votes during Monday's session of the Senate. Those would begin at approximately 5:30 p.m. I thank all Senators for their attention, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. We are going to have a lot of newspapers. We are going to have a lot of commentators. We are going to have a lot, under the Snowe-Jeffords amendment, of ``news stories, commentaries and stories distributed under the facilities of any broadcasting station [that] are exempt from its reporting requirements.'' What about the Internet? What about the Internet? Does the distinguished Senator have a view in that regard? The reason I ask is, just today, like every Senator, you know, you check the Internet and you check your e-mail and all of that. On the Internet, on somebody's web page, there was sort of a semi-newspaper making commentary about one of our colleagues. It indicated down the road anybody but that individual should be supported in the next election. That is pretty express advocacy, it seems to me. They had some issue tied to it. It was interesting. I am just wondering. As a matter of fact, a lot of people who started newspapers--I don't know if they call them newspapers but they call them, certainly, free and protected speech under the first amendment on the Internet. Who is going to--how are we going to police that? Would the distinguished Senator have a view on that?

Mr. ROBERTS. That could conceivably cause some of the supporters of this legislation to change their minds. Because just yesterday the coauthor of the major spending bill indicated if you just took a look at the legislative agenda of those who are dealing with express advocacy or soft money, you would see that the people who vote for that agenda are bought and paid for in regards to that specific agenda. Obviously, if a person has a different agenda from those who support this bill and it's a little different--whether it be big labor or labor or, say, many of the nonprofits as opposed to, say, the Chamber of Commerce or whatever--why, that is certainly different. I am wondering if they now understand that since the major broadcast networks are owned by corporations, that this should not apply to them. I mean, that's dreadful, to really figure out that the major broadcasters are corporate entities. Why, we can't give them free speech. My goodness, it has to be pure as wind-driven snow, as described by these other groups you see, because the legislative agenda would be different. That was amazing to me, absolutely amazing, that if you support the top five issues of Common Cause on one hand, why, that's fine and we want to certainly encourage that free flow of information. But if you supported the Chamber of Commerce, which may or may not agree with Common Cause, that's different and your vote was bought and paid for, even to the point that if you support this legislation, it will result in lower food costs, lower gas prices, better farm income--I don't know--better health care, protecting the environment. What do we have here? I'll tell you what we have. We have censorship by agenda of the particular group that either favors or does not favor this legislation. I maintain there is not any Senator here who is bought or paid for by that kind of contribution. I don't know anybody here who would do that. That is a very specious commentary; self- serving, condescending, elitist. I worry about free speech. I am an old newspaper man. My family started a newspaper, the second oldest in the State of Kansas, the Oskaloosa Independent, based on abolition. My great grandfather, John W. Roberts, came to Kansas to make it a free State. I firmly believe in the first amendment and free speech. This legislation, well-intended, strikes at free speech. It doesn't define what is and is not a newspaper. We are dealing with the same issue that the Founding Fathers spoke to with the Alien and Sedition Act. Senator Gorton is right; it is not a stretch. As you can see, I get a little worked up about this. But I think it is a point that every editorialist in every newspaper who thinks they are on cloud nine and protected should stop and consider. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for being a protector of free speech. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have spoken to this issue before. Before I made very clear my respect and admiration for the distinguished Senator from Kentucky as a stalwart defender of something we call free speech. I want to thank him again for his stalwart efforts. It seems to me that we have been focusing on this debate over and over and over again on perception as opposed to what really is at stake. I can't imagine what I can add to this today under the circumstances, and go on and on and on ad nauseam, to a certain extent, and I don't mean to purger anybody's intent or their feelings about this, or even intimate that this is not an important issue. I would like to repeat a couple of things that I said before. At that time I quoted Thomas Paine in Common Sense. It wasn't Common Cause. It was Common Sense. Thomas Paine said, ``Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered.'' And I was speaking to a resolution that would have defined free speech. We considered it certainly earlier in the session. I then went on and gave quite a few quotes from American history and people that everybody respects about the value of free speech. I talked a little bit about the infamous Alien and Sedition acts. That was mentioned by Senator Gorton, the distinguished Senator from Washington. I think it has application in this legislation. I said at the time that those acts were passed by a young country that had adopted but didn't fully appreciate the first amendment rights of free speech. They were passed because the Government did not like what some of its citizens were saying about politics, politicians, and Government. And, goodness knows, we have heard awful sorts of comments in regard to this debate on both sides about the fact that people really do not appreciate some of the criticism that we get in this business. The Government was worried, of course, about national security. But it is instructive to note that the Government's attempt to limit free speech is like walking in a swamp, and we are, in fact, walking toward a swamp in regard to the bill that we are considering. Your good intentions are tugged and pulled from all sides. Abigail Adams, for example, urged the passage of the acts to deal with Benjamin Franklin Bache, an editor who had referred to her husband as ``old, querulous, bald''--well, she had something there--``blind, crippled, toothless Adams.'' I don't think anybody would appreciate that. Bache was arrested, but died before he could be prosecuted, according to historians Jean Folkerts and Dwight Teeter. Twenty-five persons were charged under the sedition laws. Included was one unlucky customer in a Newark tavern who staggered into the sunlight to make a negative comment about John Adams' anatomy as the President's carriage passed. My goodness, that might have some modern- day application. Only after the rights of American citizens to speak freely were trampled by their Government did our young country come to appreciate the real meaning of the first amendment. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson objected to the attack on free speech with their Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. Madison presented the importance of free speech to democratic government. His argument has great relevance to our discussion today, it seems to me, in regard to this discussion as he drew the connection between free speech and elections. Listen to Madison: Let it be recollected, lastly, that the right of electing members of the government, constitutes more particularly the essence of a free and responsible government. The value and the efficacy of this right, depends on the knowledge of the comparative merits and the demerits of the candidates for public trust; and on the equal freedom, consequently of examining and discussing these merits and demerits of the candidates respectively. That is the essence of free and also political speech. That is the essence of the philosophy advanced by great philosophers like John Milton, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill. If they were here to take part in this debate, they probably couldn't or wouldn't believe it. The concept of a marketplace of ideas is based on unfettered speech and thought. One of America's greatest jurists, Louis Brandeis, warned us to be ``most on guard to protect liberty when government's purposes are beneficial . . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk''--lurk, lurk-- ``in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.'' Advocates of this resolution want us to believe the need for Congress to limit campaign spending is so great that first amendment rights are secondary. Further, they argue that limits on campaign spending are really not limits on speech at all. We have gone over and over and over again, back and forth, on the Buckley decision and the Supreme Court. A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on a political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in our mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information have made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech. In Kansas, I tell my esteemed colleague from Kentucky, a full-page advertisement in the Topeka Daily Capital cost $4,400. One 30-second TV ad to reach across the State costs more than $33,000. I know. I was in a Senate race, obviously. Even speech via the Internet, or the Postal Service, requires the expenditure of resources. If we adopt this kind of legislation, and it is ratified--or, that was the earlier resolution. Obviously, this wouldn't have to be ratified by the States. What will you tell the business owner who wishes to petition his government for redress of grievances, to criticize a campaign of Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, or Mitch McConnell, or to urge election of another candidate? Will we see that free political speech is only a half-page advertisement? Because I think the limit is $10,000. We wouldn't spend $10,050. Maybe $9,000 is OK. But we say free speech only applies to 15 seconds at the TV station. Who is going to administer all of this? The FEC? Really. We can't even get decisions on a timely basis. The thought occurs to me, come to think of it, that the distinguished Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, a good friend and colleague of mine--was it 4 or 6 years ago? I think it was 6 years ago, or maybe 8 years ago. He had an opponent who was very ``brain noisy.'' That is probably not the right way to put it--very ``vigorous'' in his campaign. And a local cable distributor, a local cable TV company, didn't like the way Dan voted on an issue directly affecting his future. It was a telecom issue in the House. Every hour on the hour he just gave him unmitigated grief about it, including a lot of other things that had nothing to do with the legislation. I don't know whether Dan filed the inquiry, or the charge, or the complaint with the FEC after that election, or whatever, but, clearly, this was out of bounds. The FEC in its usual, expeditious manner, I think about 2 or 3 months ago, finally got around to a 6- or 8-year-old case, and made no decision. So this leads me to question the distinguished Senator. Who is the first amendment for? To be more accurate, if Congress were to act on the principle of the first amendment uniformity, which the proponents of this legislation would do, it would not discriminate against the political speech of some speakers in favor of others. First amendment uniformity would mean that John Q. Public gets the same treatment as the highly paid, vastly influential Joe Anchorman, or the cable operator, or the TV anchorman or the editorialist, or the radio editorialist, or the publisher, or the editor of a newspaper? It might guide campaign ``reform'' legislation if the following resolution were adopted: Whereas the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says in pertinent part that ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,'' and Whereas the First Amendment makes no distinction between the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, Now Therefore Be It Resolved that no campaign reform proposal shall be enacted that treats Joe Anchorman's political speech more favorably than John Q. Public's. This obviously is not a draft resolution that I think the supporters of the legislation would adopt. But, is the first amendment for everyone equally, or some persons or institutions entitled to special treatment for their political speech? Is John Q. Public entitled to the same first amendment treatment as Joe Anchorman, or is Mr. Anchorman entitled to special treatment because he delivers the news? Here is the question I have for the distinguished Senator: What happens if John Q. Public wants to express issue advocacy and then says he is John Q. Anchorman? Say somebody solicits a group of people from a list of migrant workers, the American Farm Bureau, Kansas Wheat Growers, the wheat growers of, say, North Dakota, or of Common Cause, or the tobacco growers of Kentucky. I know that is, I guess, politically incorrect. Obviously, they couldn't start a newspaper. It might go up in smoke. It might be regulated by the FDA. But, having said that, say that they sell the stock at $100 a crack, $1,000, and they start a newspaper. My dad was an old newspaperman. I am an old newspaperman. I am a journalist. That is what it says in the bio when you read about Roberts; that he is an unemployed newspaperman. So, to start a newspaper, all you needed was a hat rack and a hat. A newspaper? No. Not a newspaper. You could print--and a typewriter. Those are the old days--and a subscription list. You don't even need, if you have the money, an advertisement. Well, you don't need a hat rack anymore. You don't need a hat. You don't need a typewriter. You do need a subscription list. If you know some nice ladies that work in an offset shop, you can have your own newspaper. Say you have a bunch of thousand-dollar contributors and you want to start your own newspaper. The Common Cause Daily News is published every week in Kansas. That is a newspaper. They are not affected by this legislation. I want to know, what is a newspaper anyway? What is the definition of a newspaper? Volume, 1, 2, 3, 4, and they started it for 6 months. What about an editorial announcer on a TV station? What about the situation with Dan Glickman who had no redress? I am not saying whether Dan was right or wrong. By the way, that race did not affect the current incumbent who didn't defeat Mr. Glickman. I think not everybody in the world gets the chance to be a Secretary as a consequence. But Dan is enjoying that and doing an outstanding job. What is a newspaper? Where are the loopholes? Where does John Q. Public become John Q. Anchorman? How do we distinguish?

Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, my goodness.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: No. 371, Sally Thompson, to be CFO of the Department of Agriculture. No. 490, Robert Warshaw, to be Associate Director for National Drug Control Policy.