SOFT-HEADED AND WEAK-KNEED AND, YES, THAT'S STRONG LANGUAGE BUT
           IT DESCRIBES WHAT'S HAPPENING TO TRADE. WE HAVE NEGOTIATORS
           THAT NEGOTIATE FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPETENT AGREEMENTS BECAUSE
           THEY DON'T HAVE THE NERVE AND WILL, IT SEEMS TO ME, TO STAND UP
           FOR THIS COUNTRY'S INTERESTS. I'VE OFTEN THOUGHT MAYBE IN SOME
           APPROPRIATIONS BILL I OUGHT TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT THAT SAYS
           LET'S ADD AT LEAST FOUR OR FIVE EMPLOYEES DOWN AT
           
           USTR AND WE WILL NAME THEM: BACKBONE, NERVE AND WILL, AND A
           COUPLE OF OTHER NAMES AND SEE IF WE CAN'T INJECT SOME KIND OF

           PASSION TO STAND UP FOR THIS COUNTRY'S INTEREST, TO SAY WE CARE
           ABOUT AMERICA'S FARMERS AND WE CARE ABOUT AMERICA'S JOBS AND
           WE'RE WILLING TO COMPETE WITH ANYBODY IN THE WORLD -- ANYBODY
           -- ABOUT THE COMPETITION MUST BE FAIR. WITH RESPECT TO FARMERS,
           IT'S NOT FAIR. IF A STATE MONOPOLY PUSHES A FLOOD OF UNFAIRLY
           SUBSIDIZED GRAIN ACROSS OUR BORDER AND DROPS PRICE FOR AMERICAN
           FARMERS, IT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S NOT FAIR WHEN FACTORY WORKERS OF
           THIS COUNTRY ARE TOLD YOU COMPETE WITH 14-YEAR-OLDS THAT WORK
           14 HOURS A DAY FOR 14 CENTS AN HOUR SOMEWHERE ON THE OTHER SIDE

           OF THE GLOBE. THAT'S NOT FAIR COMPETITION. YET THAT'S PRECISELY
           WHAT'S NEGOTIATED IN THESE TRADE AGREEMENTS. MY ONLY POINT IS
           -- AND I'LL SIMPLIFY IT AGAIN -- I WAS GOING TO OFFER A
           SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENT TO STRIP OUT THE FIRST PROVISION WHICH
           WOULD PUSH FOR FAST-TRACK TRADE AUTHORITY N. DEFERENCE TO THE
           TIME SENATOR COCHRAN AND SENATOR BUMPERS ARE GALLANTLY TRYING
           TO RUN THIS BILL THROUGH THE SENATE IN A WAY THAT IS THOUGHTFUL
           AND FAIR TO EVERYBODY, IN DEFERENCE TO THAT, I WILL NOT OFFER A
           SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENT. I WILL JUST OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT THAT

           -- OPPOSE THE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN OFFERED. I WANT TO
           COOPERATE, AND I THINK OTHER MEERS DO AS WELL. SO -- BUT I DO
           JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WHILE THERE'S SOME IN THIS AMENDMENT TO
           COMMEND IT, SOME PROVISIONS TO COMMEND IT, THE FIRST PROVISION
           THAT SAYS LET'S START DOING AGAIN THAT WHICH HAS FAILED US SO
           BADLY, LET'S BEGIN ANEW TO STIMULATE TRADE POLICY THAT HAS
           RESULTED IN SUCH SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN OUR FEDERAL TRADE

           DEFICITS, LET'S TRY ONCE AGAIN TO SEE IF WE CAN'T DO MORE TRADE
           AGREEMENTS THAT HAS RESULTED IN SUCH UNFAIRNESS TO AMERICAN
           FARMERS. I SAY THERE IS NO SENSE IN THAT AT ALL. LET ME
           COMPLETE MY STATEMENT BY JUST SHOWING A COUPLE OF CHARTS. THIS
           IS THE TRADE DEFICIT. IF THIS ISN'T AN AVALANCHE OF RED INK, I
           DON'T KNOW WHAT IS. THOSE WHO SAY THIS IS A SUCCESSFUL
           STRATEGY, I SAY GET ME THE NAMEOF THE PEOPLE THAT NEGOTIATED
           THESE TRADE AGREEMENTS, AND LET'S MAKE SURE THEY DO NOT

           NEGOTIATE AGAIN FOR THIS COUNTRY. NOW LET ME JUST PROVIDE THE
           ONE THAT SHOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH CHINA. OUR TRADE DEFICIT
           WITH CHINA. $50 BILLION AND GETTING WORSE YEARLY. WE DON'T GET
           ENOUGH WHEAT INTO CHINA. THEY DISPLACED US AS A MAJOR WHEAT
           SUPPLIER TO CHINA, AS YOU KNOW. WE DON'T GET ENOUGH PORK INTO
           CHINA. THEY CONSUME HALF THE WORLD'S PORK. OUR TRADE AGREEMENT
           WITH CHINA, OR THE AGREEMENT BY WHICH WE TRADE WITH CHINA IS
           FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR TO US. I SAY IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE YOUR

           SHOES, TROUSERS, SHORTS, SHIRTS, YOU TAKE OUR WHEAT. DON'T TELL
           US WHEN YOU BUY AIRPLANES YOU WILL BUY AIRPLANES FROM THE
           UNITED STATES IF THEY COME AND MANUFACTURE THEM IN CHINA.
           THAT'S NOT FAIR TRADE. LET'S STAND UP FOR THIS COUNTRY'S
           INTERESTS. THERE ARE SOME WHO SAY WHEN YOU TALK LIKE THAT,
           YOU'RE A PROTECTIONIST. I'M NOT A PROTECTIONIST. I'M FOR EXPAED
           TRADE. BUT I'M DARNED SURE FOR INSISTING THAT THIS COUNTRY
           DEMAND FAIR TRADE. NOW, LET ME JUST WITH ONE FINAL CHART
           DESCRIBE GRAPHICICALLY WHAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT NOW FOR A FEW
           MINUTES. IN 1993, WHEN WE NEGOTIATED THE TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH

           CANADA AND MEXICO, WE HAD A $2 BILLION TRADE DEFICIT -- EXCUSE
           ME -- A $2 BILLION TRADE SURPLUS WITH MEXICO AND AN $11 BILLION
           TRADE DEFICIT WITH CANADA. TWO YEARS LATER -- THREE YEARS LATER
           THAT TRADE DEFICIT WENT FROM $11 BILLION TO $23 BILLION WITH
           CANADA, AND IT WENT FROM A SURPLUS OF $2 BILLION WITH MEXICO TO
           A NEARLY $16 BILLION DEFICIT WITH MEXICO. NOW, IF THAT'S
           PROGRESS, YOU GET ME THE NAMES OF PEOPLE THAT CALL IT PROGRESS
           AND I THINK THEY OUGHT TO BE BANNED FROM FURTHER TRADE

           NEGOTIATIONS. I CANNOT SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT THAT IS OFFERED
           BECAUSE IT CALLS FOR FAST-TRACK TRADE AUTHORITY AND THE RENEWAL
           OF THAT AUTHORITY. WHILE I WILL NOT OFFER A SECOND-DEGREE
           AMENDMENT TO STRIP THAT, I WILL SIMPLY VOTE AGAINST THE
           AMENDMENT FOR THE REASONS I'VE STATED. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD

           THE FLOOR. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO.
           

           MR. CRAIG: MR. PRESIDENT, FOR JUST A FEW MOMENTS I WOULD LIKE
           TO AGREE WITH THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA ON A COUPLE OF
           POINTS HE'S JUST MADE, BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO DISAGREE WITH HIM
           ON A FEW OTHER POINTS. HE, LIKE I, VOTED AGAINST THE CANADIAN
           FREE TRADE AGREEMENT, AND WE VOTED AGAINST THE NORTH AMERICAN
           FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BECAUSE WE FELT THEY WERE NOT PROPERLY
           NEGOTIATED AND WE FELT THEY HAD LOOPHOLES IN THEM. AND THE
           SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA HAS POINTED OUT SOME OF THOSE
           LOOPHOLES. BUT WHAT WE DISAGREE ON IS THE SENSE OF THE SENATE

           RESOLUTION THAT IS JUST BEFORE US. CLEARLY OUTLINING WHAT A LOT
           OF THE FARM AND COMMODITY GROUPS IN THIS COUNTRY FEEL THEY
           NEED, THIS CONGRESS AND THIS ADMINISTRATION TO DO TO IMPROVE
           THE SITUATION DOWN ON THE FARM. AND THE SENATOR FROM NORTH
           DAKOTA IS RIGHT. THE SITUATION DOWN ON THE FARM ISN'T VERY GOOD
           RIGHT NOW. AND THERE ARE A LOT OF FARMERS THAT ARE LOSING
           MONEY. BUT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE THE FARMER, AND THE
           GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE THE TOTAL SAFETY NET. THAT IS A FREE

           ENTERPRISE SYSTEM OUT THERE. THERE SHOULD AN ELEMENT OF RISK.
           AND WE'VE OFFERED FARMERS ULTIMATE FLEXIBILITY. AND WE'RE NOW
           HERE ON THE FLOOR TRYING TO DESIGN THAT FLEXIBILITY IN A WAY TO
           ASSURE THAT THEY CAN TRANSITION. SO THERE IS WHERE THE SENATOR
           FROM NORTH DAKOTA AND I DISAGREE. YESTERDAY I TALKED WITH THE
           SENATOR'S GOVERNOR AND THE SENATOR'S FARM BUREAU PRESIDENT AND
           THE SENATOR'S WHEAT GROWERS PRESIDENT. I DON'T THINK THEY
           TOTALLY AGREE WITH HIM EITHER BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE
           FREEDOM TO FARM GROW. THEY DON'T WANT US TO LURCH BACK INTO THE
           PAST. THEY DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO BE THE LARGEST PROVIDER

           OF INCOME TO AGRICULTURE AMERICA, TO BE THE ONE THAT HOLDS THE
           HANDS OF THE FARMER AND TELLS THE FARMER WHAT TO FARM AND HOW
           TO FARM IT AND WHEN TO FARM IT. THAT OUGHT TO BE THAT
           INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE AS A FREE PERSON IN A FREE MARKET. NOW,
           GOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE, AND THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA IS
           RIGHT. GOVERNMENT HASN'T PLAYED THAT ROLE TOO WELL. AND IT
           ISN'T TO BE THE SAFETY NET, AND IT ISN'T TO BE THE CARETAKER.
           IT'S TO BE THE PERSON THAT GETS OTHER GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE
           WAY. IT'S TO BE THE PERSON THAT OPENS THE DOORS OF THE BORDER.
           IT'S TO BE THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS A FACILITATOR. I AGREE WITH

           THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA. I WOULD SAY WE PUT JERSEYS ON
           WHEN THEY GO INTO THE TRADE DISCUSSIONS. I WANT IT TO BE TEAM
           AMERICA, WORKING FOR AMERICA. BUT I DON'T WANT A GOVERNMENT
           CHECK TO BE THE SOLE SOURCE OF INCOME TO AMERICA'S FARMERS. WE
           TRIED IT IN THE PAST. THEY BECAME VICTIMS OF AGRICULTURAL
           DESIGN BY GOVERNMENT AND IT DIDN'T WORK. NOW WE'RE IN
           TRANSITION. TIMES AREN'T EASY. AND WE'RE SITTING HERE TRYING TO
           SORT OUT THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO HELP AGRICULTURE THROUGH

           THAT TRANSITION. BUT A STEP BACK INTO THE PAST IS NOT THE ROUTE
           TO TAKE. AND I BELIEVE WHAT THE RESOLUTION TALKS ABOUT TODAY IS
           EXACTLY WHAT AMERICAN AGRICULTURE IS TALKING OUT. WHY WAS THIS
           ADMINISTRATION ASLEEP AT THE WITCH FOR 12 LONG MONTHS AND
           WATCHED COMMODITY PRICES SLIDE AND NOT TRADE AND NOT USE THE
           TOOLS WE'VE GIVEN THEM?
           WAS IT POLITICS OR WAS IT SIMPLY AN IGNORANCE OF WHAT WAS GOING
           ON AND WHAT THEY COULD DO AND WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING?
           BECAUSE WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMODITY GROUPS IS VERY SIMPLE.

           KEEP FREEDOM TO FARM. GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY AND TRADE, TRADE,
           TRADE. DON'T STORE IT ON THE FARM. NOT ONE YEAR, NOT TWO YEARS,
           NOT THREE YEARS OF STORAGE. NOT A HUGE OVERHANG ON THE MARKET.
           MOVE THE GRAIN. MOVE THE PRODUCT. AND WHAT DID THIS
           ADMINISTRATION DO?
           THEY HAVEN'T USED ONE TOOL, AND THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
           THAT'S WHAT'S FRUSTRATING TO ME. I CAN'T YIELD. WE'RE ON A TIME
           LIMITATION. LET ME CLOSE, AND THEN THE SENATOR FROM NORTH
           DAKOTA CAN SPEAK IF HE WISHES. BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT THAT WE

           AGREE ON, BUT THERE'S ALSO A LOT THAT WE DISAGREE ON. I DON'T
           WANT TO LOOK INTO THE PAST. I WANT TO LOOK INTO THE FUTURE. I
           WANT AMERICAN AGRICULTURE TO MODERNIZE AND DEVELOP THE
           FLEXIBILITIES THAT IT OUGHT TO HAVE. AND I WANT TO HELP THEM
           WHEN THEY NEED HELP. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE ON THE FLOOR
           DISCUSSING. BUT THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA TALKS ABOUT TRADE
           DEFICITS. YOU BET, TRADE DEFICITS HAVE OCCURRED, AND I DON'T
           LIKE IT EITHER. BUT I'VE ALSO WATCHED OUR ABILITY TO TRADE
           EXPAND WITH EVERY AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE STRUCK AND THAT WE DO

           SELL MORE. AND WE KNOW THAT IN AMERICAN AGRICULTURE TODAY, IF
           YOU DON'T SELL 40% OF THE CROP YOU RAISE IN A FOREIGN MARKET,
           YOU'RE IN TROUBLE FINANCIALLY. AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE IN
           TROUBLE FINANCIALLY TODAY. BECAUSE THIS GOVERNMENT, THIS
           ADMINISTRATION, THIS USDA DIDN'T HELP THEM SELL THE PRODUCT AT
           A TIME WHEN MARKETS WERE COLLAPSING AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS WERE
           AGGRESSIVELY PURSUING THOSE MARKETS. SO THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN
           DO. BUT I WOULD HOPE THIS SENATE WOULD NOT STEP BACKWARDS INTO

           A DARK AGE OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, FARM TO THE GOVERNMENT, LIVE
           WITH THE GOVERNMENT CHECK ARRIVING IN THE MAILBOX. MY FARMERS
           DON'T WANT THAT. MOST FARM GROUPS DON'T WANT THAT. THAT'S WHAT
           THIS RESOLUTION IS ABOUT, TO CRAFT A SENSE OF THE SENATE IN THE
           AREA OF TRADE, CERTAINLY IN THE AREA THAT DEALS WITH TAXES TO
           OFFER THEM THE FLEXIBILITY THERE SO THAT WE WON'T INJURE THEM
           LIKE A DEMOCRAT CONGRESS DID BEFORE WHEN IT ROLLED BACK THE

           ABILITY TO INCOME AVERAGE IN 1986. WE'VE MADE SOME BIG MISTAKES
           HERE THAT'S DAMAGED AGRICULTURE. WE OUGHT NOT MAKE THOSE AGAIN.
           I DON'T THINK WE WILL. SO LET ME CONCLUDE BY THIS. THERE'S A
           LOT THAT THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA AND I AGREE ON. WE AGREE
           ON OUR INABILITY TO NEGOTIATE GOOD TRADE AGREEMENTS. BUT WE
           OUGHT NOT AGREE ON THE DESIRE TO SHOVE TRADE AND TO EXPAND
           MARKETS AND TO OPEN UP MARKETS. AND YOU DO THAT THROUGH TRADE
           AGREEMENTS. AND WE'VE GOT TO BE THERE, AND WE SHOULD BE DOING

           THAT. AND I VOTED YESTERDAY, AND I'LL VOTE TODAY AND PROBABLY
           NEXT WEEK FOR PROGRAMS TO HELP AMERICAN AGRICULTURE OUT RIGHT
           NOW. BUT THEY'VE GOT TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH FREEDOM TO FARM. WE
           CAN'T GO BACK TO ALL KINDS OF ON-FARM PROGRAMS THAT STORE THE
           WHEAT AND STORE IT AND STORE IT AND STORE IT FOR ANOTHER YEAR.
           SELL IT, MOVE IT SO WE CAN GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF
           TRANSITIONING. THAT'S WHAT I THINK THIS RESOLUTION REPRESENTS.

           I HOPE THE SENATE WILL SUPPORT T. I YIELD THE FLOOR. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA.
           

           MR. DORGAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I WILL TAKE JUST A COUPLE OF MINUTES
           BUT I MUST RESPOND TO THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO. THERE IS NO TIME
           AGREEMENT HERE. I WISH THE SENATOR WOULD HAVE ALLOWED ME TO ASK
           A QUESTION AND RESPONDED TO IT.
           

           MR. CRAIG: I WILL BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO A QUESTION.
           

           MR. DORGAN: IN FACT, THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO WAS WINNING A
           DEBATE WE WEREN'T HAVING A FEW MOMENTS AGO. THAT'S THE EASIEST
           DEBATE TO WIN. WE WEREN'T HAVING A DEBATE A COUPLE OF MINUTES
           AGO ABOUT PRICE SUPPORTS. WE WERE HAVING A DEBATE ABOUT THIS
           AMENDMENT. BUT WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION YESTERDAY ABOUT PRICE
           SUPPORTS. AND THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO DESCRIBED THE DEMOCRATIC
           CONGRESS PREVIOUSLY THAT DID SO AND SO AND THE PRESIDENT AND
           USDA. YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHICH PARTY HAS FORSAKEN

           FARMERS. THIS IS ABOUT, AFTER ALL, WHAT CAN BE DONE TO HELP
           FARMERS SURVIVE IN THE FUTURE. AND I'M ALL FOR THIS NOTION TO
           SAY TO FARMERS, GET YOUR MONEY FROM THE MARKETPLACE. I'D LOVE
           FOR A FARMER TO LOAD UP A TRUCK AND DRIVE THAT TRUCK TO THE
           COUNTRY ELEVATOR AND RAISE THAT HOIST AND DROP THAT GRAIN AND
           SELL IT AND GET A DECENT PRICE FOR IT. BUT I TELL YOU THIS.
           WHEN THAT FARMER LOSES MONEY ON EVERY LOAD OF GRAIN, AND LOSES
           BIG MONEY, NOT BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THEY'VE DONE BUT BECAUSE OF

           A WHOLE RANGE OF OTHER REASONS, BECAUSE, RST OF ALL, WE HAVE
           BAD TRADE AGREEMENTS, WE HAVE UNFAIR GRAIN COMING IN
           UNDERCUTTING THEIR MARKETS, WE HAVE TRADE SANCTIONS THAT MEAN
           10% OF THE INTERNATIONAL WHEAT MARKET IS OUTSIDE OF THEIR
           ABILITY TO SELL INTO. WHEN THEY MARKET IT, THEY MARKET IT UP
           INTO THE NECK OF A BOTTLE AGAINST GRAIN TRADE FIRMS THAT HOLD
           AN IRON FIST AROUND THE NECK THAT HAVE BOTTLE. WHEN THEY FARM
           MACHINERY EQUIPMENT, GUESS WHAT THEY PAY?
           THEY PAY THROUGH THE NOSE. WHEN THEY TRY TO GET THEIR GRAIN TO

           A FLOWER MILLER, FOUR MILLING FIRMS OWN OVER 60% OF THE
           CAPACITY IN THIS COUNTRY. SAME THING WITH MEATPACKERS. IF THE
           SENATOR FROM IDAHO CAN TELL ME A FAMILY FARMER DRIVING ON A
           LONELY ROAD, IN MOST CASES A 10-YEAR-OLD TRUCK, TRYING TO GET
           THOSE FEW BUSHELS OF GRAIN TO MARKET, HOPING AGAINST HOPE THEY
           WILL BE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING FOR THAT GRAIN THAT MEETS THEIR
           COST OF LIVING, THAT MEETS THEIR COST OF PRODUCTION, IF THE
           SENATOR FROM IDAHO CAN TELL ME THAT THE DECK ISN'T STACKED
           AGAINST THOSE FARMERS, THAT WE DON'T HAVE VIRTUAL MONOPOLIES IN

           EVERY AREA THEY TURN AROUND, THAT THEY DON'T SHOW UP ON A
           RAILROAD TRACK AND FIND THERE ARE NOT TWO OR THREE RAILROADS
           READY TO SERVE THEM. THERE'S ONE. IF THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO CAN
           TELL ME THAT THAT FARMER DRIVING THAT TRUCK IS DRIVING DOWN THE
           ROAD TOWARDS FREE AND OPEN AND FAIR COMPETITION, THEN I SAY
           THAT'S JUST FINE. EN WE OUGHT TO BUTT OUT. IF THE SENATOR CAN'T
           SAY THAT -- AND I DON'T THINK HE CAN SAY THAT IN A MILLION
           YEARS -- THEN SOMEBODY -- SOMEBODY HAD BETTER SAY THAT FAMILY
           FARMERS MATTER. AND THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY WILL BE

           BENEFITED AND ENHANCED IF WE DECIDE FAMILY FARMING HAS VALUING
           AND MERIT. I SAID IT YESTERDAY AND I'M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN.
           THERE IS SOMETHING SO FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING
           IN THIS COUNTRY WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURE. WE GOT PEOPLE
           STARVING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD, PEOPLE TRYING TO EAT
           LEAVES ON TREES BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE FOOD. AND WE'VE GOT
           PEOPLE DRIVING THEIR TRUCKS TO THE ELEVATOR WHO SWEAT ALL YEAR
           AND RISK THEY HAVE IN LIFE TO PLANT A CROP AND HARVEST IT AND
           THEY ARE TOLD WHEN THEY GET TO THE ELEVATOR THEIR GRAIN DOESN'T

           HAVE VALUE. THEIR CROP DOESN'T HAVE VALUE. THAT'S A
           DISCONNECTION WE MUST FIND A WAY TO KHECT AND CHANGE. WHILE WE
           AGREE ON SOME THINGS,
{END: 1998/07/16 TIME: 11-30 , Thu.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}