Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the issue this evening is jobs. Let me ask a question of my colleagues about the insidious and perverse incentives in our Tax Code that subsidize companies which move their United States jobs overseas. I mentioned Huffy Bicycles, gone from Ohio because they made $11 an hour. That is too much. They can produce bicycles where they pay 33 cents an hour. I am saying your party has included, and is at the moment, coming from the Finance Committee, including more incentives to move jobs overseas. I ask the question whether you are prepared to vote with us to shut down the incentives in the Tax Code that tell people if you move your United States jobs overseas and shut your U.S. plant down, we will give you a benefit in the Tax Code. Where I come from, that does not add up and it makes no sense. Are you prepared to join with us and vote to end all of those subsidies now?

Mr. DORGAN. One of the issues of competition is wages. Companies now leave this country because they can find somewhere in the world where they can hire a 12-year-old and pay them 12 cents an hour. Some think that is global competition. That ignores that which we fought for, for a century, about safe workplaces, environmental standards, child labor laws, and fair compensation. Let me also say there is a bill coming from the Finance Committee that will give us a chance to vote on the question of whether we want to keep subsidizing the movement of jobs overseas. That bill will once again say to companies, we will give you a break. Move your jobs overseas, you do not have to pay tax on your income until you repatriate. And when you do, by the way, we will charge you 5 percent. We will charge you a third or fourth the tax rate a receptionist is paid, the lowest in the office. Is that fair? The answer is no. Once again, it is another incentive to say to people, if you move your jobs overseas, go find lower labor rates somewhere else, call yourself an American firm but hire foreign labor, we will give you a benefit. That ought to be shut out of the Tax Code. Your party is opening it up.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have not heard a description of my colleagues riding Huffy bicycles or their desire to ride a Huffy bicycle in the future, but let me come back to that point. You are talking about U.S. manufacturers and the conditions of competition. Do you think Huffy bicycles decided to make bikes in China rather than Ohio because of some bill we did or did not pass in the Senate? I am sorry, they went China because they could pay 33 cent an hour in China, they could have people work 7 days a week, 15 hours a day, and they could not do that in this country. That reduced the price and the cost of producing that bicycle. I ask, if you have bought a bicycle for your child lately, whether you saw a reduction in the price of Huffy bicycles just because they went from $11 an hour to 33 cents an hour. I will answer for you. The answer is no. It was about profits. The question is, do you want to have a race to the bottom? Is that what you want for the American businesses and the American workers? Do you want to have a race to the bottom on wages, on health standards? Is that where we are? I don't think so. We can compete anywhere in the world, but the competition has to be fair. American companies and American workers ought not to have to compete with 12 cents an hour or 33 cents an hour labor. That is not fair competition. That is why I raised the issue of trade. We have the trade ambassador busy running around the world right now trying to do more trade agreements. The last one, incidentally, which both of you voted for, put in an immigration provision that had nothing to do with the trade agreement, so that we could have an enormous number of people come through Singapore to take jobs in this country. We could not get it out. They will displace American workers, coming into this country to take American jobs, and we had an amendment we could not get out. Instead, they pass an amendment that says you better watch it, but you cannot take something out of a trade bill because of fast track. This issue of competition--you want to change the subject, let's talk about what fair competition is for American businesses and American workers.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is interesting that this behaves in exactly the opposite way as the Senator from Virginia understands it. When you say to a company in this country, if you will simply invest overseas, heck, move a plant overseas, fire your workers in North Dakota and Virginia and Ohio, and employ foreign workers, if you will just do that, we will give you a deal. You will never, ever have to pay taxes on your earnings overseas. So get rid of that U.S. plant. Move it overseas. Earn your money there. And you simply do not have to pay taxes on it. That is called deferral. And the only time you will ever have to pay taxes is if you repatriate your income to this country. So there is a built-in incentive to move your company overseas. I am surprised the Senator from Virginia would ask a question about that because, in fact, the Finance Committee is now saying: I have an even better deal. We will keep deferral in the law--which is the perverse incentive--and we will allow you to repatriate that which you did earn, and we will charge you only a 5-percent income tax. Any company that takes a look at that would say: Well, I can't have a better deal than this. They will continually support me to invest overseas. And there will now be precedent to allow me to repatriate the income and pay--I don't know--a fourth of the tax of the lowest paid workers in this country. What a deal, except that every company will now understand that is the way this Congress works, and so there is a big bonus for me to shut down my U.S. plant and invest overseas. You talk about perversity, look, I am interested in jobs. I am interested in companies to expand their job base. The way to do that is to encourage that expansion in this country, to hire American workers, and pay them well, and to give them good benefits, and then, through them, earn good profits. That is what I want for this country. But this country cannot any longer ignore the perversity in the Tax Code. And one of them is exactly what the Senator from Virginia alleged, that subsidizes the flight of jobs overseas.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I ask a question, might I say, I don't know about all these doctors and analysts, but I know about Americans who lost their jobs because of this perverse incentive; and that is what I want to shut down. But let me ask my colleagues a question about this record. Again, we do not have to debate theory tonight. Let's just debate what has happened. The odds against this being a coincidence are highly unlikely. Every Democratic administration has produced far more jobs than every Republican administration. Does that mean one is good and one is bad? No. It means different strategies produce different results. Isn't it the case that, over many years, the strategy by which we invest in working people and invest in small businesses, and giving them something to work with, produces the robust economic opportunity and economic growth across this land? It is true with Clinton, Carter, Johnson, right on down the line. And the evidence does not lie. As I said, might this be a coincidence? Mathematicians say the odds are highly unlikely against that being a coincidence. In the last 40 years, every Democratic administration has done better than every Republican administration in creating jobs.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we certainly agree. I hope very much that we are moving in the right direction. We want economic expansion and jobs. But the fact is, Jimmy Carter has come up several times here. I am not surprised it is Grover Cleveland. There are so many excuses. We are choking on Federal budget deficits. We are choking on a trade deficit that is the highest in history. The fact is, the American people lack confidence in the future because we don't have our fiscal house in order. We can blame others but we are dramatically increasing spending on defense, on homeland security, and cutting taxes substantially, and we have a fiscal policy that does not add up. I want one that adds up, that creates new jobs and new economic expansion and hope for the American people. Most families just want a good job that pays well, that gives them some security. Most small businesses want a chance to expand in order to create new employment. That is all we want. The question is rooted in this chart. Where has the performance been? We don't have to debate theory. Just debate the performance of those who believe if you invest in working families, our economy does just fine.

Mr. DORGAN. My dad always told me never buy something from somebody who is out of breath. There is kind of a breathless quality to this debate from the other side. They want us to essentially ignore the fact that we have lost more than 3 million jobs in a couple of years. Of the biggest fiscal policy budget deficit in history, the biggest trade deficit in history, just ignore that. Be happy. In fact, call for more tax cuts, preferably tax cuts for businesses that are moving jobs overseas and tax cuts for people at the top of the income ladder. Let's talk about jobs, though. What is the menu that creates new jobs? The Oscar Meyer Company had an opening for their Weinermobile driver. Eight hundred college graduates showed up to apply to drive the Weinermobile. What does that tell you about jobs in this country? This is a sad commentary on our job situation. This country needs new jobs. We don't need an economic strategy that shrinks. We need one that expands jobs. We will best serve the American people if we decide these things matter. Deficits matter. Trade policies matter. If we decide these things matter and start working on them in a bipartisan way, in a thoughtful way, in a commonsense way, we will best serve this country's interests. But facts remain. This is the first administration since Herbert Hoover that had a net loss of jobs, nearly 3 million jobs since it took office. I take no pleasure in saying that. I wish it were not so. I hope a year from now I can say there are massive new jobs being created and our economy is growing. But I tell you this: That won't happen if we ignore the fundamentals. Let's get back to the fundamentals: fiscal policy that adds up and works; trade policy that adds up and supports this country's best interests in a way that can give confidence to the American people about the future. We won't provide confidence by putting our head in the sand and saying: Be happy. Just call for more tax cuts. I am for tax cuts, but I am also for a world-class educational system, protecting our environment, and creating more jobs.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first of all, I have enjoyed the opportunity to exchange views with my colleagues. They are very able legislators. I thank my colleague from Iowa and my colleagues from Virginia and Minnesota and also my colleague from Arizona, chairman of the Republican Policy Committee. I must, however, correct one little misstatement at the end. My good friend from Virginia just raised this little issue about the Internet tax, and nobody is suggesting we tax the Internet. We will save that for another day. We can have another date--just the two of us--on that subject. We need to do that based on facts. I will say that I think this is a good exchange of views. My colleague from Arizona and I, with our caucuses, have created an opportunity--and we will try to do this each month--which allows us to exchange views on specific subjects. I think it merits additional opportunities in the Senate, and I will be pleased in the coming months when we are in session to work with my friend, Senator Kyl, to find additional topics and debaters and to further advance discussions on public policy in our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, before we begin, let me say to my colleague from Arizona that I think this is a good idea. We will engage now for the second time today in a debate about a specific topic. We will do it for 1 hour talking about something that is very important to the country. In this circumstance, it is going to be jobs and economic policies that create jobs. This Senate is considered the greatest deliberative body in the world and, from time to time, people might tune in and wonder whether that description best suits the Senate these days. I think it does, however. There are some extraordinary men and women who serve in this body, very capable of debating the issues. So Senator Kyl and myself, as chairmen of the respective policy committees, have decided to establish this 1-hour debate on important issues. I am going to participate in the debate on our side at this time, and I believe Senator Kyl will participate in a future debate.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I look forward to this debate.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, that is a first-degree amendment. I will offer a second-degree amendment. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have visited with my colleague, Senator Craig, about this second-degree amendment. I have also visited with those who are running the Agriculture Committee. This is an amendment to the pesticide registration fee amendment offered by Senator Craig. Let me point out, I support the underlying amendment. I believe it is an important amendment that Senator Craig has offered. I intend to vote for it. I will not insist on a vote. In fact, I will ask to withdraw my amendment following my presentation. But I did want to have a dialog with my colleague from Idaho about an issue that is related to the issue of pesticide registration. It deals with the issue of harmonization with Canada, something that was promised when we did the free trade agreement with Canada, that we would harmonize pesticides and herbicide pricing and policies. The fact is it has not been done. A group of us in the Senate, a bipartisan group, including Senator Craig and Senator Burns, myself, and others, have continued to work on this issue because we have a circumstance on the northern border where chemical prices are substantially different between the United States and Canada, even though in many cases the chemical itself is nearly identical--perhaps tweaked with one piece or another of the formula, but otherwise nearly identical. For example, a chemical that is put on canola in Canada and then the canola is sent to our country to be crushed at the crushing plant and put into our food supply is a chemical our farmers cannot go get in Canada and bring back, despite the fact this chemical is substantially similar to one used on canola in the United States but is priced much lower in Canada. So we have had this promise of chemical harmonization for some long while dealing with Canada. The current circumstance we believe is unfair to American farmers. The bipartisan legislation that is in the second-degree amendment I offer gives the EPA 60 days to approve or deny the registration of a Canadian pesticide if it has similar use and makeup as a pesticide registered in the United States. It allows the EPA, if the EPA so chooses, to delegate portions of the registration workload to the States to aid the EPA in completing the registration process. But the Environmental Protection Agency, under this approach, is ultimately responsible for this process. According to a study done by the North Dakota State University, we still have significant price disparities between chemicals that are almost identical. If those disparities had been eliminated with harmonization, North Dakota producers would have saved $20 million last year. That is a substantial amount. We have worked with State agriculture commissioners in the various States. As I indicated, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have worked together. As a result of that, we are anxious to move this legislation. We did have a hearing on a different version of it previously. We have now changed that version because of some objections to it. We would like to have a hearing and a markup. I understand there are some perhaps in the industry who do not support this. But on behalf of American farmers, we really need to do it. I have offered it as a second-degree amendment. I have learned moments ago that the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee will commit to doing a hearing on this next February. That is a couple of months away. That is significant progress. I appreciate very much his cooperation, and I know the Senator from Idaho is a member of that committee. My hope would be, although there is not a commitment at this point, that that hearing, in which we demonstrate bipartisan support for this issue, would be followed by a markup. We really do need to move this legislation. My only purpose for offering the second-degree amendment today is that my colleagues and I are frustrated that we have not been able to get this done previously. There are many reasons for it, but we do need to now take action. That is the purpose of this. I say to my colleague from Idaho, as a member of the Agriculture Committee, I know he and Senator Cochran, leader of the committee, and others believe strongly that we need to have proper hearings on these issues. I know my colleague from Idaho is a strong supporter. I ask him how he feels about this legislation, the second-degree amendment I have offered.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, let me compliment my colleague from Missouri and my colleague from Maryland, the chair and ranking member of this subcommittee. They have offered the Senate a good piece of legislation. While there may be some areas for discussion where we might have some disagreements about one level or another that has been proposed, by and large, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski have done an excellent job bringing this appropriations subcommittee bill to the Senate. I appreciate their work. The amendment just offered will spark some significant debate this morning. I believe my colleague from Idaho is also preparing to offer an amendment, and my hope is to be involved in that discussion when my colleague from Idaho offers his amendment this morning. I would like to make a comment about another appropriations bill we will be dealing with this afternoon. I don't want to be in violation of the rule.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this afternoon at 5 o'clock, the Transportation, Treasury, and General Government appropriations conference will meet. I am one of the conferees on that conference. We meet at 5 o'clock this afternoon. In the appropriations bill that comes from both the House and the Senate to that conference at 5 o'clock this afternoon, there are provisions that deal with travel to Cuba. I mention that because something important will happen today. We have identical amendments in the House and the Senate bills that prohibit the enforcement of the provision that prohibits travel to Cuba by the American citizens. No money in the bill shall be used to enforce that travel ban. I am particularly interested in this because, for example, the Treasury Department earlier this year denied a license to the Farm Bureau and other farm organizations to help organize a trade show in Cuba to promote the sale of U.S. agricultural products. I find that unfathomable. Why would we want to prohibit the promotion of the sale of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba? Cuba must pay cash for those products they have been purchasing from our country because of an amendment I was involved in getting passed that allows U.S. companies to sell agricultural products to Cuba. There was a 40-year embargo, but we are now able to sell in Cuba. But inexplicably, the farm organizations, including the Farm Bureau, were denied a license to go to Cuba to promote the agricultural sales. That makes no sense to me. I hope we will have people who think more clearly about that. What prompted me to talk about it this morning is a visit I had yesterday from a young woman who came to talk to me about a problem she has. I am going to show a picture of the young woman. Her name is Joni Scott. She went to Cuba 4 years ago. She is from Indiana. She went to Cuba 4 years ago, and she distributed free Bibles in Cuba. She and a group of folks from her church traveled to Cuba to distribute free Bibles. Last month, 4 years later, she received from the U.S. Government a fine of $10,000 for having traveled to Cuba to distribute free Bibles. Yes, that is right, the Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Department of the Treasury tracked her down. It took them 4 years. I don't know why it took 4 years. They tracked her down and said: For the act that you have committed, traveling to Cuba to distribute free Bibles, we will fine you $10,000. I have written to the Department of Treasury saying this does not make any sense. Is there no reservoir of common sense there, or at least some level below which they will not sink? Fining somebody $10,000 for distributing free Bibles in Cuba, what on Earth are we thinking about? This woman went with a church group to distribute Bibles free of charge to the Cuban people. Now she is being tracked down by our Government and levied a $10,000 fine. It makes no sense. I also was contacted recently by another organization, the Disarm Education Fund. They donate medicine and medical supplies to Cuban health clinics. But more importantly, they send United States doctors to Cuba to teach advanced medical techniques to Cuban doctors. One of their projects involves a procedure called something called mandibular distraction, building new jaws for kids born without jaws. This is highly technical surgery. They have been not only doing this for children but teaching Cuban doctors the techniques of this intricate surgery. This year, Disarm had to discontinue its programs because OFAC at the Treasury Department would not renew the license they had held since 1994. This went on for 6 months and they could not go to Cuba to help these children by distributing medicine and by performing intricate surgery and teach and train Cuban doctors. On October 17, less than a month ago, after 6 months of consideration, OFAC issued a new license that allows the Disarm Education Fund to resume some of its programs in Cuba. However, the new license specifically prohibits this organization's doctors from training Cuban doctors. Do you know why? Because OFAC says training of Cuban doctors in this very intricate surgery constitutes an export of service to Cuba. So they can now go down and perform this surgery on Cuban children. It is very intricate surgery. They can perform the surgery, but they cannot have a Cuban doctor around to be trained because OFAC recently decided that educating Cuban doctors is illegal. What in the world is this Administration thinking?

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho was part of a group, a bipartisan group, in the Senate. Then-Senator John Ashcroft, for example, was also a key part of that group. We changed the law with respect to trade with Cuba so that we could sell agricultural products into the Cuban marketplace. We did not open it very wide, but we opened it. Last year, for the first time in 42 years, 22 train carloads of dried peas left North Dakota to go to the Cuban people. Cuba paid cash for it. Our farmers were able to sell into the Cuban marketplace. Good for them. But this issue of travel and denying farm organizations, including the Farm Bureau, the right to go to Cuba to promote food sales is just unbelievable. There are times, not very often, but there are times when I am profoundly embarrassed by the actions of this Government. Yesterday was one of them, when this young lady came to see me to say: I am really concerned and upset about this because I went to Cuba to distribute free Bibles, and now my Government is slapping me with a $10,000 fine. That is an unforgivable policy, in my judgment. But it is not just her. It is not just this young lady who thought she was doing the world some good, and clearly she was. She was pursuing her faith and her interest in distributing Bibles to the Cuban people. There is so much more than just her. I mentioned the doctors who have been denied the opportunity to travel to Cuba to do this intricate facial surgery on Cuban children and to train Cuban doctors to do the same surgery. Now, after 6 months, they are able to go do the surgery, but they are not able to train the Cuban doctors because that is the prohibited export of a service to Cuba. Again, that is an embarrassing decision on the part of this Government. But let me just describe a couple more, if I might. This young lady is named Joni Scott. She traveled to Cuba, as I said, 4 years ago. It took them 4 years to track her down. Cevin Allen, from the State of Washington, wanted to bury the ashes of his father, who was a Pentecostal minister in prerevolutionary Cuba. He died, and his last wish was that his ashes would be buried on the church grounds where he served in Cuba. Well, his son, true to the faith in his father, took his ashes to Cuba to bury them, and what happened to him was he received a notice from the Federal Government. They were fining him $20,000 for taking the ashes of his dead father to be buried on the church grounds where he served as a minister in prerevolutionary Cuba. Marilyn Meister was a 72-year-old Wisconsin schoolteacher. She bicycled in Cuba. She received a $7,500 fine. I have shown the picture previously of Joan Slote, whom I also know. She is a Senior Olympian. She bicycles all around the world. She is in her midseventies. She went with a Canadian bicycle group to take a bicycle trip to Cuba. She was fined $7,630. I said to OFAC: You ought to be embarrassed about that. OFAC then reduced her fine to $1,900, and she paid it. I don't think she should have, but she paid it. Then she got a note from the Department of the Treasury, after she paid it, that they were going to garnish her Social Security, and they sent a collection agency after her because, they said: Well, we never received it. She had the canceled check. It is one thing for an agency to be incompetent; it is another thing for it to make fundamentally bad judgments about what it is going to do with its time. OFAC's should be chasing terrorists, not visitors to Cuba. This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue; this went on under Democratic administrations as well, although I must say it has been ratcheted up--over double the effort--under this administration. And the President just announced, a month ago, on October 10: I have instructed the Department of Homeland Security to increase inspections of travelers and shipments to and from Cuba. He said: We will also target those who travel to Cuba illegally through third countries. He talks about using the investigative capability of the Department of Homeland Security to track down American travelers so we can levy fines against them. My colleague from Idaho is right. It is ludicrous for OFAC to be tracking down some young woman who has distributed free Bibles in Cuba, so we can levy a fine. This is not, in my judgment, injuring Fidel Castro. This policy is attempting to take a slap at Fidel Castro, and it injures Americans and their right to travel freely. I hope this afternoon, at 5 o'clock, when we go to this conference, with the identical provisions coming from the House and the Senate, that my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, will support this policy of allowing travel to Cuba. We long ago concluded with China, a Communist country, and Vietnam, a Communist country, that trade and travel and engagement is a constructive way to move forward. I believe that. I believe that is true with Cuba. The only voice Cubans hear is Fidel Castro's voice. I would much prefer they hear the voice of this young lady who travels to Cuba to talk to them about her faith and to talk to them about the Bible. I would much prefer they hear the voice of thousands and thousands of tourists who tell the Cubans what is happening in the rest of the world. The Cuban people deserve that. That is the quickest and the most effective way, I believe, to effect a change in the Government in Cuba. So at 5 o'clock this afternoon, in the conference of Transportation- Treasury Appropriations bill, we will be making a very important decision, and because there are identical provisions in both the House and the Senate bills which will prohibit the enforcement of this travel ban in the future, I hope the conference will keep those provisions. But the White House, as they have done in other areas, threatens a veto. I do not think they would veto this appropriations bill over this issue. But let them threaten. I believe very strongly, as my colleague from Idaho just suggested, that we ought to hold tight on this provision in conference this afternoon. My intention of bringing this up now, and describing this young lady and her experience, is to ask my colleagues again: Let's do the right thing. Let's not be embarrassed by actions of the Government that fine the American people for traveling someplace to distribute free Bibles. That is outrageous, and it has to stop. Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that the pending amendment is an amendment offered by Senator Craig from Idaho dealing with pesticide registration fees. Is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Idaho. He has been a strong supporter of this approach. Perhaps for the record, I might add what farmers are upset about is the following. We see Canadian grain coming into our country. It is treated with their chemicals but their chemicals are deemed unfit here, not because it has the wrong ingredient or it would be unhealthy for us. It is just the way it is labeled in order to prevent it from being sold in this country. On the chemical Liberty for use in canola, there is a $4.40 per-acre price difference between the United States and Canada for essentially the same chemical. On Glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, there is only about a $2 per-acre price differential; On a chemical Puma, $11 million more to apply just for North Dakota farmers. The chemical Stinger, which is sold as Lontrel in Canada--both are similar pesticides, use the same active ingredient--there is almost a $10 per-acre difference between the chemicals. That is what upsets farmers. They see that they can't buy the nearly identical chemicals for $10 an acre less, but they see the grain come in from Canada that has been treated with the same chemical. That is why the United States-Canada free trade agreement had a provision in it that called for harmonization in these areas, and yet almost no progress has been made. It is why a group of us are trying to do something about it. I thank my colleague from Idaho and my colleague from Montana and my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I thank Senator Cochran, and especially his staff on the Senate Agriculture Committee, on the commitment to hold a hearing, in the next couple of months, on this, in the month of February. Also, my colleague's belief that we need to move along, and he will be pushing for a markup, gives me some hope that we will be able to move this legislation. Let me conclude by saying again the first-degree amendment offered by my colleague from Idaho is one that is needed. It is very important, and I strongly support it. It provides the fees for pesticide registration. This Congress needs to pass that legislation. I support doing it as a first-degree amendment offered by my colleague from Idaho. Amendment No. 2159 Withdrawn

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my second-degree amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. I hope we will adopt the first-degree amendment of my colleague from Idaho by voice vote. Certainly, this appropriations bill is going to become law. Whether it is on the floor of the Senate with action or part of some omnibus bill, this is going to the President for signature. Having my colleague's first-degree amendment part of the bill, doing something that needs to get done now, not later, makes a lot of sense. I am pleased to be supportive of the amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. In the previous administration, over 50 nominations were sent to the Congress in which there wasn't even 1 day of hearing--not even the courtesy of allowing someone to come to the Capitol for a hearing. Were any of the folks who are now on the floor of the Senate complaining about our holding up four judges who did get a hearing but we decided not to confirm--were any of the folks complaining back then that those 50 nominees never got a hearing?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have not had the opportunity to listen to all of this debate.

Mr. DORGAN. I am not sure I would consider it an opportunity, had I had the time. I know people watching this, perhaps on C-SPAN, would take a look at all this and say: Well, this is a bunch of windbags in blue suits. They talk and they talk and they seem to disagree, and when they are done talking, they have not said very much. There is some truth to the fact that much of what goes on in this Chamber is without great merit and without great consequence. There are times when we do things--and often when we do things together--that have significant impact on the future of this country and on the direction of this country. This is not one of those moments, I might say. This 30 hours is 30 hours that are designed to make a point, a point without much validity. And I will explain why that is the case. But it is, in my judgment, of very little consequence. My dad used to say, never buy something from somebody who is out of breath. Do you know something? There is a kind of breathless quality to my colleagues. My colleague from Colorado just asked me a question kind of breathlessly, and I have watched others sort of out of breath here coming to the floor of the Senate talking about how unfair this process has been, how we are blocking judges. Look, maybe it is time for just a few facts--just a few. You have seen them before. This is not a memory test, but it will take very little time to commit to memory. Mr. President, 168 judges confirmed-- 168 confirmed--and 4 have been blocked. We do not apologize for blocking four judges we don't want to be on the Federal bench. The Constitution says there are two steps to giving someone a lifetime appointment: One, the President shall nominate; and, two, the Senate shall approve. It is called advise and consent. The roles are equal. This is not a circumstance where the President has certain prerogatives that we do not have. The roles are equal. To put someone on the Federal bench for an entire lifetime, the President nominates and then we give our advice and consent. Mr. President, 168 times this Senate has said yes, and on 4 occasions it has said no. Why are we here for 30 hours? Because the majority party is apoplectic. They are having apoplectic seizures about these four. Do you know something? When my son was about 10 years old, he ordered from a magazine an ant farm. When he did it, I described it on the floor of the Senate one day. I had no idea what an ant farm was, but it was two pieces of glass hooked together on the ends, very narrowly, and then you put sand in it. They also sent you a little vial with ants. And they said in the instructions that you put the ants in the refrigerator to slow them down a little bit, and then you take the cap off and you throw those things in that little glass container with sand. And then it said: Just watch, and you will be entertained by this ant farm. So we slowed them down. We put these old ants in the refrigerator. Then we poured them in this little glass with the sand, and then we watched--a day, a week, 2 weeks. It was fascinating. Every morning you would wake up, and those old ants had been working. They took the sand from this side, and they would move it to this side. The next day you would wake up, and they moved the sand back. Do that about 2, 3 weeks and you realize there was a lot of activity going on but they were not going anyplace. Nothing was happening. It was all an empty exercise. And do you know what? At times the Senate reminds me of that, and especially in this 30-hour period it reminds me of that. We can move things back and forth, we can vent and breeze and wheeze, and it does not change the facts. The facts about judgeships are these: 168 we have supported, which means we have the lowest vacancy rate since the mid-1980s. Why do we have the lowest vacancy rate since the mid-1980s? Because we--yes, we-- have approved 168 judges, at a far higher rate than happened under the Clinton administration when the Republicans controlled this body. I am not and will not be apologetic to anyone under any circumstance for this record. Now, with respect to these four, do we have a right to decide there are four people whom we do not want on the Federal bench? You bet your life we do--not only a right, but we have an obligation. If we decide this candidate or that candidate is not worthy of a lifetime appointment, we, in my judgment, have an obligation, and that obligation, under advise and consent, is to weigh in with our opinion.