Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, do I still have the floor?

Mr. DORGAN. I understand the point the Senator made. I was only making the point if, in fact, the managers' amendment is for technical amendments, really purely technical amendments, and I offered this prior to cloture, was told by the majority and the minority, yes, we accept it, there is no problem, this is not spending money, it is spending previously appropriated money, a total of $400,000, and deals with an error when, in fact, the distinction on the nonreimbursable portion of it should be in bill language, or the managers' language, which is where it was, this corrects that. It is exactly what, in my judgment, the Senator said ought to be in the managers' package. I hope the Senator will reconsider at least on 3689 and allow this to be put in the managers' package this evening or allow it to be approved this evening. Mr. President, I would make that request to ask if my two colleagues would agree to that--I know they have reviewed it. The majority and minority have reviewed it and have approved it. It is not spending a dime. It simply corrects an error. I would hope very much that they would agree to approve this amendment. My point is this, an arbitrary distinction of nongermane at this point is unfair to those who offered their amendments prior to cloture. I understand the point my friend from Arizona made about cloture, but I hope he understands that those of us who came prior to cloture, offered our amendments and were told by the Republican and the Democratic leaders on the floor, yes, we accept it, it is a good amendment, we approve it, at that point I would have expected that this amendment would be approved and not now at midnight be objected to by someone on the floor of the Senate. So I again ask if we might have some cooperation at least on an amendment that was approved previously by everyone in the Senate, to my knowledge prior to cloture?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I just want to ask unanimous consent for something. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized following Senator Hollings.

Mr. DORGAN. No, I did not vote in favor of NAFTA, I did not vote in favor of the U.S.-Canada agreement, and I did not vote in favor of GATT.

Mr. DORGAN. I did. And it is ironic that the Senator who makes the point about the Jordan agreement voted to keep the Jordan agreement labor standards out of this fast-track legislation. I voted for the bilateral trade agreements that the Senator From Oklahoma mentioned, but I did not vote for NAFTA, I did not vote for United States-Canada Agreement, and I did not vote for GATT. Those agreements have led to huge deficits. These numbers do not represent success, not in North Dakota and not in Oklahoma. These growing massive deficits are choking our country. I would love it if the Senator from Oklahoma will join me sometime in a debate on trade on the floor of the Senate. It is hard to get people to agree to do that, but if the Senator from Oklahoma would, I would love to have the opportunity.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, by previous consent, I was to be recognized following the presentation by Senator Hollings. I wish to propose, for the convenience of others in the Chamber, a slightly different arrangement. Senator Grassley wishes to be recognized. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Grassley be recognized for 20 minutes, with Senator Landrieu following for 15 minutes, Senator Corzine for 15 minutes; and, following that, I be recognized.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is quite clear to me from the cloture vote yesterday that the Senate is going to pass trade promotion authority. I think it is a shame that we have not had a more thoughtful debate on this issue. So I would like to take this opportunity to describe why this issue is and will continue to be controversial. Trade promotion authority is a euphemism for fast track. Fast track is just what the name implies--a process that involves a rush to judgment. It's like fast food, implying a lack of preparation, a quick and easy meal that in the end turns out to be bad for you. Fast track trade authority allows the Administration to go negotiate a trade agreement, and bring it back to the Senate without the ability of any Member to offer a single amendment. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That is what was written in Philadelphia one hot summer with George Washington sitting in the presiding chair, Ben Franklin over to his left, and Mason, and Madison. They decided Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations--not the trade ambassador, not the President, but the Congress. The Congress has decided in recent years that to delegate this constitutional responsibility to trade negotiators. These negotiators go to places like Doha, Qatar, and negotiate agreements in secret. They bring these agreements back to Congress, and say: Here is the agreement. Take it or leave it in total; no amendments because you are not allowed to offer any. That is what fast track is all about. If you want a good example of why fast track is a bad deal, you can look to our experience with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Our trade negotiators went to Canada armed with fast track. They negotiated a trade agreement with Canada, and developed a secret side agreement which they disclosed only 2 years later to the Congress. That side agreement effectively traded away the interests of America's family farmers. Our farmers have been hurt badly as a result of it. We couldn't do a thing about it because when that agreement came back to the Congress, no one was able to offer one single amendment. I voted against the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Had I been able to offer an amendment, I might have been able to fix it. The family farmers who have been victimized by this agreement might not have been hurt nearly as badly. But no amendments were in order. No one in Congress could offer any amendment at any time. That is what fast track is about. Since we are debating trade and our trade policy, I want to use a chart to show what has happened in trade. My colleagues stood up yesterday and said: You need to understand how important this is to America. You need to understand all the new jobs we are creating with these trade agreements. Well, count me in as somebody who supports trade. I am big for trade. Expanded trade is terrific. The more the better but only as long as it is fair. If it is not fair, our country should have the backbone to stand up and say, no, the trade we demand and expect is reciprocal trade, fair trade. Fast track trade agreements have created runaway trade deficits. Here is what happens on the trade deficits. From 1991 to 2000, our trade deficit has gone from $65 billion to $436 billion. Our country suffered a recession in 2001, so the deficit declined just a bit last year, but the trend is clear. The fact is, this is by far the highest trade deficit in human history. Every single day, 7 days a week, our country buys more than $1 billion in goods from abroad in excess of what we are able to sell abroad--over $1 billion a day every single day, racked up as a deficit. I ask those who support this fast track free trade strategy, do you think this works? Where did you pick up your economics? Was there some textbook I missed along the way that makes you think that this trend is a favorable one? I don't think so. This is not working. This is a failure. This is a massive failure. Our trade strategy is drowning America in red ink. Yet we have Senators coming to the floor saying: Give us more of this. Where is this red ink coming from? Prior to negotiating an agreement with Mexico, we had a small trade surplus with Mexico. We have turned that now into a huge deficit. Prior to negotiating a trade agreement with Canada, we had a modest deficit. Now we have turned that into a very large deficit. We have a very large and growing trade deficit with China, $70 billion a year plus--and a very large, abiding, growing trade deficit with Japan. What does all that mean in terms of real people? We have Senators who come here and argue theory. They are out of touch with working people. When you work in the Congress, you take a shower in the morning and then put on a dark suit. What we are doing in trade policy is dealing with the jobs of the people who work hard all day and then have to shower at the end of the workday. It is their jobs that are sent elsewhere as a result of this legislation. I gave a speech in the Senate some years ago. I told the stories of some real folks who have been affected by unfair trade. The other day we had a press conference on the steps of the Senate, with working men and women that continue to lose their jobs. The stories don't change. The Levi corporation decided they can't make Levis in the United States anymore. It is cheaper to make Levis in countries where you can pay people 50 cents an hour. Or Fruit of the Loom, making shorts, men's shorts, they just ship those to a plant where they can pay somebody 40 cents an hour. It is one thing to lose your shirt, another to lose your shorts. OK, it's a bad joke, and this is no laughing matter. Not when you have companies decide to move their plants to where they can pay people 40 cents an hour or, better yet, pay them 24 cents an hour. You know we have products on our store shelves made by 12-year-old kids who worked 12 hours a day and were paid 12 cents an hour. We all know that. We have fought for over a century for the right of workers to organize, the right to work in a safe workplace, the right to say that it is wrong to put children who are 10 and 12 years old down in coal mines or in industrial plants, the right to a reasonable minimum wage. Those who support fast track ultimately are allowing corporations to pole vault over all of that, and to move jobs overseas where they don't have to be bothered with decent wages and working conditions. This is ultimately just about corporate profits. We have 8.6 million people today who are looking for work. If you are one of those people, your personal unemployment number is 100 percent. You, at some point, had to come home and tell your wife and your children: I am sorry, I lost my job and I don't know what I am going to do next. The Economic Policy Institute has calculated that, as a result of the most recent trade agreements--Canada, NAFTA, and the WTO--roughly 3 million jobs have been lost in this country. So when you have 8.6 million people out of work, and 3 million of them have been displaced by trade, should we be diving headfirst into new trade agreements? When NAFTA was negotiated, we were told that Mexico would specialize in low-wage and low-skilled jobs, and that those products would benefit U.S. consumers. That may have happened to some extent, but we have lost a lot of good jobs for working people in this country. The three largest imports into this country from Mexico are automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics. They are all jobs of high-skilled workers with high-skill wages that were displaced in this country. Borg Warner had a transmission plant employing 800 people in Muncie, IN. The jobs paid $17 an hour. Good jobs. Those jobs don't exist there anymore. They are in Mexico. Atlas Crankshaft, owned by Cummings Engine, literally put its manufacturing plant on trucks and moved it from Ohio to Mexico. So those 200 jobs have gone south, looking for lower wages. The Abbott Cooperation, which manufactures wires harnesses for Whirlpool Appliances, and their 117 jobs, were sent to Mexico. A metals plant in Warren, MI, closed down. They put their equipment on trucks and moved to Mexico--26 jobs gone south. Some say: You know, Senator Dorgan, that is life. That is the way the new economy is. That is the way this world works. It is a new global economy and you don't understand it. You are one of these xenophobic isolationists who can't see over the horizon and cannot understand the new economic day. Well, I am certainly not suggesting that we retract on the global economy. That is a fact of life; it is here and now. The question for this Congress is, What are the rules? The rules have not kept pace with globalization. As these plants close and move jobs to Mexico, or Indonesia, or Sri Lanka, or other countries around the world, shouldn't Congress begin debating what the rules are of free trade and globalization? Because the rules have not kept pace with the times. Those who want to take advantage of having no rules are those who want to make profits by deciding they want to trade American jobs, and all the restrictions that come with it, for jobs elsewhere for pennies an hour, where they don't have to worry about polluting the water and air, and they can do it with impunity. They can hire as many kids as they want. They don't have to worry about a safe workplace because there are no rules and regulations on any of that. The global economy has moved forward without sufficient rules. This Senate, instead of debating fast track, ought to be debating the rules of globalization. We are not allowed to do that. Do you know why? Those making big profits out of the existing system don't want us to do that. That is the last thing they want us to talk about. It would be nice if the proponents of fast track would take the time to talk to a few of the many people whose jobs were determined to be relatively unimportant in the scheme of international trade. I am not talking about people who make buggy whips--a product for which we have no additional need. I am talking about people who made decent wages working real jobs in factories that produce good products. When the rules are not fair, it is up to the Senate to stand up for American workers. They will not do it and amendment after amendment on this so called fast-track bill has gone down. Why is that? Because this was like a big truck with a tarp over it, buttoned up long ago and driving through this Chamber, like the trucks that will come in after June 30 from Mexico. Incidentally, as a result of NAFTA and some flawed analysis, this Administration is set on June 30 to allow Mexican trucks to enter our country for long hauls. Everyone here knows there isn't a ghost of a chance that this is going to be safe for American drivers. Inspection sites don't exist. The standards for Mexican long-haul trucks are not enforced. I ask you to look at investigative reports on it and ask yourself: Do you want your family driving next to a long-haul truck that has been driven for 24 hours by somebody who doesn't have a logbook and hasn't had an adequate safety inspection? I guarantee that will happen here after June 30 of this year. Why? Because we are not able to debate these issues under fast track. The Senate is once again saying to our trade ambassador to go negotiate trade agreements in secret, and to forget about what the Senate might think. Our current trade ambassador, Bob Zoellick, is a man I personally like, bright as a whip. We disagree on some things and agree on some other things. But it is just plain wrong for the Senate to give this kind of authority away, and to abrogate its responsibility. And I hate to think of the likely consequences. Mr. Zoellick said this on November 26, 2001: In Doha, Qatar, antidumping laws in the U.S. could be discussed as a new trade round gets underway. In effect, our trade ambassador has put our antidumping laws on the table to be traded away. We have already lost section 22, and section 301 has been weakened, and now the trade ambassador is talking about giving away the laws that prohibit dumping in our marketplace and injuring our producers and workers. If we trade away our antidumping laws away, there will be no protection against unfair trade. None. When on Earth will this Congress learn? Have we not had enough experience with this nonsense? How high do our trade deficits have to go? If it doubles again, maybe then they will think there is a problem? We can make the case that a fiscal policy deficit is money we owe to ourselves. We cannot make that case with the trade deficit. This is money we owe to other countries. We will repay this someday with a lower standard of living in this country. That is inevitable. Our negotiators just keep handing us these bad trade agreements, and our trade deficits keep skyrocketing. Will Rogers once said that the United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference. He surely must have been speaking of our trade negotiators because with United States-Canada, with NAFTA, with WTO, with GATT, our trade negotiators have taken 15 minutes and have wilted and folded under the onslaught of pressure from both corporations and other countries, and we end up with rules of trade that are fundamentally unfair to our workers, our farmers, and our businesses. There is no debate about that in this Chamber. There is a relentless chant of the type you find on street corners about free trade, free trade, fast track, new jobs, when all the evidence tells us that we have had a disastrous experience with trade. We have paved the road by which U.S. companies can seek a lower wage almost anywhere in the world. Did any of my colleagues see the story the other day in the Washington Post about the young woman who was working in a toy factory and died from sheer exhaustion? She had been working 16-hour days for two months without a day off. I have been in a number of countries with abysmal working conditions. We know there are a couple hundred million kids who are being employed around the world. Some are locked in garages, in basements. I held a hearing in Congress about child labor, and heard testimony about young kids in India making carpets. They had had their fingertips laced with gunpowder and set on fire so the burns would scar. Then when these young children in these large plants would stick themselves with needles while making carpets, it would not hurt, and they could keep on working. Do we want those products on the store shelves of Pittsburgh or Fargo or Los Angeles or Dallas? Is that free trade? Is that fair trade? Does anybody here care about that? Do my colleagues know how many people we have in the Department of Commerce working on enforcement of trade laws so we make sure these trade laws are fair? China, a country that has somewhere around a $70 billion trade surplus with us, because they send us all their trinkets, trousers, shirts, and shoes, and we take them all. Madam President, do you know how many people are enforcing trade agreements with China? Fewer than 10. Fewer than 10 people. The same is true with Japan, with which we have a huge trade deficit. It is probably not unnoticed that I have a great deal of angst about the way these issues generally are handled. We do not have a thoughtful debate; we have a thoughtless debate. This is chanting about irrelevancies instead of talking about what makes this country strong. The economic engine in this country, in my judgment, is an economic engine that begins with working people and also businesses willing to invest their money to ask for a fair shake in international competition. We create these trade agreements with other countries that result in huge trade deficits, and we have Senators come to the Chamber and talk about how many new jobs they have created. It is total nonsense. They ought to be talking about the 3 million jobs they have lost, and then talk about a few of the names of the people who have lost their jobs. I guarantee there is not one Member of the Senate who is going to lose his job because of a bad trade agreement. There are going to be a lot of folks out there raising a family and trying very hard to make a good living who will be told: No, your job does not exist in Akron, OH, anymore. Your job is now going to Sri Lanka, and we are sorry, that is life, that is the global economy. It is inevitable now this President will be given fast-track authority. I did not believe we ought to give fast-track authority to President Clinton, and I do not believe we ought to give it to this President. What I say about fast track is this: Take 1, 2, 10, or 20 of the trade problems we already have from existing trade agreements. Try to fix those. Then come back and let's talk about new agreements. I will not vote for this fast track bill. I suspect many Members of the Senate will. They will button their coats tighter, stand up proudly and say how wonderful it is for this country, and not one of them will have his job moved to Sri Lanka, Mexico, or anywhere else. I guarantee working people who lose their jobs because of this will find precious little comfort by having trade adjustment assistance as part of it. Yes, I support that part of the trade package. But it is not a good substitute for good trade law, and everybody in this Chamber knows it. Madam President, I would like to take a couple more hours, but I need to step aside. We have other business to do. I hope at some point we will have a real debate on trade in the Senate. It is certainly not the leader's fault we have not had a real debate. The problem is the lack of substance of the underlying bill. We cannot have a debate about substance. I invite other Senators to spend a few hours talking about the reality of international trade. If anybody wants to do that with me, I will join him and talk about real numbers and the truth on trade.

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, provided I am recognized following his presentation.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I believe, by unanimous consent, I was to have been recognized following the presentation by Senator Corzine. If that is the case--I believe it is the case.

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will agree that, while fast track is making new agreements and shoving them through the Congress with no amendments, efforts to correct the problems in trade that are faced by so many American workers and so many businesses cannot get any action, let alone slow-track; they get no movement at all. Is that not the case?

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is ever more important that the Senator's amendment be approved. To the extent Congress is going to provide so-called fast-track authority, we need people looking over the shoulders of those who are going to negotiate these trade agreements. I was in a room in Montreal when the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement was negotiated. It did not do much good, frankly. I went there and heard what the negotiator had to tell us, but it was not part of the negotiations. When I got back here, I discovered that which was negotiated behind the scenes in a secret agreement did not come out until 2 years later, much to the detriment of American farmers. Senator Byrd is on the right track saying if fast track is going to happen--and I do not support fast track--but if it is going to happen, in future negotiations, let's have more people looking over the shoulders of those who are negotiating on behalf of our country.

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia will yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN. First, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor to this amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, the Senator from West Virginia has offered a very sound proposal to this so-called fast-track legislation. I was wondering if the Senator from West Virginia, who has been in this Chamber a long while, knows of circumstances where other things have been given ``fast track'' treatment in ways that help ordinary folks. Has the Senator from West Virginia been aware of circumstances where, for example, legislation that affects ordinary Americans is given fast- track authority to be considered here?

Mr. DORGAN. How about the disputes against unfair foreign trade practices that the steel industry raises or that family farmers or textile manufacturers raise--do the disputes they deem they need to bring because they are victims of unfair trade get fast-tracked or do they get slow-tracked?

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the pending business is amendment No. 3442; am I correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I offered this amendment prior to the cloture vote. I understand a point of order would lie against it postcloture because it is not germane postcloture. I will withdraw it because I do not think at this point the amendment would survive the vote because it is not germane. But I am, frankly, surprised. The first amendment I offered prevailed here in the Senate on a rather significant vote. This amendment is an interesting amendment. It is very simple. Those who come to the floor of the Senate and talk about trade normally turn the volume up a bit and talk about how this country needs to be able to compete, that we need to be able to do so around the world. Let me talk about competition for a second and what this amendment is about. We had an investigation with respect to Canadian wheat. It has flooded into this country unfairly. It has done so for years following the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement. In fact, that flood, that avalanche of Canadian grain, was in contravention to an agreement that Mr. Yeutter put in writing to the Congress saying: This won't happen. The representation of good faith on both sides of the border post-United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement means we will not have a significant change in the flow of grain across our border. He put that in writing to the Congress. Guess what happened. That trade agreement was approved--not with my vote. I voted against it. But instantly we had an avalanche of unfairly traded grain coming into this country. Did anyone lift a finger to do anything about it? We have had all of this discussion about helping the American farmer, but no one was willing to lift a finger to do anything. The farmers had to put their own money together in a 301 investigation that went through the ITC and the U.S. Trade Representative. The U.S. Trade Representative and the ITC concluded that Canada is guilty of unfair trade. It hurt our farmers. So the judgment was guilty. What is the remedy? The remedy is we are going to say you had better watch it. We are not going to do anything about it. There is no trade remedy, no sanction, and no tariff quota--no nothing. Here we are. The farmers spent their money in a section 301 action. They won. Canada is guilty of unfair trade and is taking money right out of family farmers' pockets. And we have people prancing around the floor of the Senate talking about we ought to be able to compete anywhere in the world as long as the competition is fair. It is not fair. It has been judged to be unfair. Yet we can't get a trade remedy. Why is the ambassador unwilling to stand up for family farmers? The trade ambassador stood up for steel. He stood up for lumber. Why is he unwilling to stand up for family farmers and propose a remedy--for example, a tariff quota? Why? Does anyone have an answer to that? I don't think so. So I offered the softest possible amendment. I offered that precloture. The amendment I understand now postcloture will fall on a point of order. So I shall withdraw it. But the amendment is very simple. Anyone who says they stand for family farmers ought to support this amendment. It simply says we want the trade ambassador to report back to the Congress within 6 months, telling us what his remedy is going to be for the judgment that has already been rendered that Canada is guilty of unfair trade, yes, unfair trade, and shipping an avalanche of unfairly subsidized Canadian grain into our market at secret prices by a state-sanctioned Canadian Wheat Board which is a monopoly that would be illegal in our country, and also underpricing us in other markets, particularly northern Africa and other places where we have been injured in international trade in other markets. My amendment simply says the ambassador shall report back to the Congress within 6 months the specific proposed trade remedy that will be administered on behalf of the American farmers who have already been able to achieve through their own filing of a 301 case and through the use of their own money to bring a case and get a guilty verdict against the Canadians. One is going to ask--and farmers certainly should ask--of what value is it to have a trade remedy if at the end of the day it is judged that farmers are victims of unfair trade and our trade authority? Our legislators say, by the way, the perpetrators of this unfair trade shall not have to bear any responsibility or any burden or be on the receiving end of financial sanctions. I just do not understand it. I do understand what is going on with respect to the fast-track trade agreement, which I don't support. The effort here is to try to tighten it up, like putting a big tarp on a big truck. You tighten the rubber bands around it, hook it altogether, don't let any wind in, and drive it through as fast as you can. That is what this is all about. It is good for those who do it. After this particular legislation is enacted, they will see another increase in America's trade deficit. In every single circumstance in the last 15 years when we bragged about forcing open foreign markets, and when we passed fast-track trade authority and negotiated another trade agreement, our trade deficit increased, yes, with Europe, with Mexico, with Canada, with Japan, and with China. In every single circumstance, that trade deficit is on a relentless path upward. Everybody knows it. Therefore, while everyone is sitting around saying let us ignore this huge, growing tumor called this trade deficit, over $1 billion a day, every single day, 7 days a week represents the trade deficit. Over $1 billion every day is the amount of goods we bring into this country which exceeds the amount of goods we ship out. Somebody is going to have to pay for that. I used to teach economics in college. I have told my colleagues many times. But I have been able to overcome that experience and do other things in life as well. But what we taught in college in the field of economics was that you could explain a budget deficit by a deficit that you owe to yourself. That is a plausible explanation. Under the U.S. fiscal policy, a budget deficit is money we owe to ourselves. You cannot make a similar explanation with respect to the trade deficit. The trade deficit is money we owe to others. It will be someday, in some way, paid for by a lower standard of living in the United States. That is inevitable and is not debatable. The question is: When are we going to care about the trade deficit? When does an American trade deficit of $440 billion-plus begin to matter to our country and to our economy, and, yes, to the children who will inherit that and will have to pay others around the world to settle that trade deficit? Part and parcel of that trade deficit are the trade circumstances in which our producers and our workers are victimized. One instance of that is America's farmers who produce this grain and lifestyle and find themselves victimized by unfair trade. It is admonished by politicians of virtually every stripe that it is important for them to go forward and to compete: You must compete. You must be competitive. We can be competitive anywhere in the world. I am convinced of that. But you can't do it with one hand tied behind your back. You can't do it with rules that aren't fair, especially with respect to grain. The judgment is already in. The ITC and the U.S. Trade Representative have already said our farmers are victims of unfair trade. It is just that the remedy is nonexistent. Unfortunately, I am not able, apparently, to put on this piece of legislation a very simple amendment that would ask the Trade Representative within 6 months to report back a remedy by which people stand up for and support those who are victims of unfair trade with Canada; that is, family farmers and family ranchers across this country. I regret that. But then there will be other days and other ways to address this issue. This is the place to have addressed it. This is a trade bill. This is the place, and this is the time to have addressed this issue on behalf of family farmers. I regret that we could not get the 60 votes necessary to overcome the point of order postcloture to stand up for family farmers on this matter. As a result, I will ask consent to withdraw the amendment, and I make such a request.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is my intent not to take the 30 minutes. But I do want to make some comments about an amendment I have offered that is now pending, amendment No. 3439. This amendment deals with language that was in the farm bill that passed the Senate and went to conference dealing with the ability to sell food to Cuba. As my colleagues know, we have had an embargo with respect to the country of Cuba for some four decades. That embargo included, for most of those four decades, an embargo on the shipment or sale of food to Cuba. That changed a couple years ago because my colleagues and I decided that an embargo ought not include an embargo on food shipments, that using food as a weapon is not the appropriate thing to do. So we lifted that embargo with respect to food, though it was lifted in a very narrow way. And the Cubans have been able to buy American food, especially following the hurricane in Cuba. They have purchased $75 to $90 million worth of food from this country now. It has to be purchased with cash, and they have to do it through a French bank in order to accomplish the transaction. In fact, following the vote in September of 2000, where we allowed food to be sold to the Cubans, one of the people who opposed that, a Congressman from Florida, said he was satisfied that the language in the legislation was restrictive, making it difficult for the United States companies to do business in Cuba because they will have to go through third countries for financing. In point of fact, he was saying it is going to make it very difficult for us to sell food to the Cubans. We agree that it is difficult. As a result of that, we put legislation on the farm bill in the Senate by a very significant vote. That legislation says that Cuba could access private financing in this country for the purchase of food from the United States. No government subsidies at all, just private financing, if they can find private financing. We included that in the farm bill that left the Senate and went to conference and got stripped out of the conference, even though the House of Representatives had a vote. They voted 273 to 143 to endorse the Senate plan for more trade with Cuba. So the House has spoken on this issue. The Senate has spoken on it. By far, the vast majority of both the House and the Senate said we do not want to use food as a weapon. Let's be able to sell food to the Cubans, if they want to buy food. If they want to access private financing, they can access private financing, if they can find it somewhere. But let's not make it more difficult for those in the world who need access to that which our farmers grow in such abundance to have access to that food--let's not make that more difficult. There are some who still are rooted in the 1960s. This 40-year embargo with Cuba has not succeeded through 10 United States Presidents. It just has not succeeded. I do not stand here suggesting that I have any sympathy for the Castro regime. We need to, as a country, persuade Cuba to move towards democracy, move towards greater human rights. I believe we will best do that by doing just as we do with China and Vietnam--both Communist countries--engaging them with trade and commerce and travel. I believe we will best do that in Cuba in exactly the same manner. That is why I believe that changing our laws with respect to trade, especially with respect to food, and also with respect to travel, will be the method by which we move Cuba and move the Castro government towards a day when there will be open elections in Cuba, democracy, and a better record on human rights in Cuba. There are some in this town who do not agree with me. And I respect that. But I tell you, I wonder, for the life of me, how does someone really believe that our selling chicken gizzards, turkey legs, pork lard, wheat, and dried beans to Cuba undermine the interests of the United States? Does anybody really believe that, that the sale of these agricultural products to Cuba undermines the economic interests or the security interests of the United States? No one really believes that any longer. So I do not believe we ought to use food as a weapon anywhere in the world, under any circumstance. That does not hurt Fidel Castro. He has never missed breakfast or dinner because this country decided it will not sell food to Cuba. But the poor, sick, and hungry people in Cuba, who have missed a lot of meals, they are the ones who hurt from this country's policy of using food as a weapon. So this amendment is very simple. It lifts, ever so narrowly, that portion of the embargo that deals with food and allows Cuba to purchase food from this country with private financing--not public financing, just private financing. Why should our farmers be the victims of a foreign policy that doesn't work? Why should our farmers be told that they cannot sell their crops to Cuba using the kinds of private financing that are common to agricultural sales involving other countries? That doesn't make any sense to me. I know my colleague from New Jersey has a different view on this. Let me, if I might, out of my time, yield to my colleague from New Jersey for 4 minutes. (Mr. REED assumed the chair.)

Mr. DORGAN. I yield an additional minute.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague and I share the goal of democratic reforms in Cuba and human rights in Cuba. It is just that I believe that the quickest route to changing the Government of Cuba is not through a policy that for 40 years has been a failure but, instead, by developing policies that we have decided work in China, Vietnam, and elsewhere, policies of engagement. I believe very strongly that having unfettered trade with Cuba and United States citizens traveling in Cuba is the quickest way that exists in order to bring democratic reform and human rights to Cuba. It is interesting to me that in the early 1970s, it was Richard Nixon who went to China. When he went to China, do you know who was the leader of China? Mao Tse Tung, a repressive Communist leader who virtually obliterated human rights in China. Richard Nixon went to China and began an engagement with China to open and expand trade and travel with China over a period of years. Now in the Senate we hear people say, when we have these votes, engagement with China is the way to bring China along on human rights and democratic reforms. Engagement with China, a Communist country, is the way for us to accomplish that goal. They say that with Vietnam as well, a Communist country. Engagement with Vietnam, more trade, more travel, more engagement will move us towards greater human rights and greater democratic reforms in China and Vietnam. But they say that logic does not exist with respect to Cuba. Why? For 40 years this policy has existed, and for 40 years it has failed. Despite the fact we have opened a crevice dealing with the sale of agricultural products to Cuba, the State Department and the administration are not helping us move food to Cuba when Cuba wants to buy it for cash. The head of Alimport, which is the agency that buys food for Cuba, applied for a visa to come to the United States. That visa was revoked. Why? Because they indicated on a previous visit to the United States, the head of Alimport, Mr. Pedro Alvarez, seemed to do things that were undermining our country's interests. What were these things? He said in the United States that he hoped Cuba could buy more food from the United States. That undermines our country's vital interests? I think not. I always find it interesting the way our country handles these issues, not just this but trade issues generally. We use trade as a way of creating foreign policy to punish and reward. I have spoken before about this. We have this little trade disagreement with Europe. Europe slaps some prohibitions on hormone beef coming from the United States. What is our response to Europe? We slap big penalties on Europe. We take aggressive, tough action against goose liver, truffles, and Roquefort cheese. That is enough to scare the devil out of anybody. We are going to take action against your goose liver. Going to Cuba, Pedro Alvarez wants to come to this country because he wants to buy--if you don't mind my reading a few of these things-- chicken innards, chicken gizzards, chicken entrails, pork trimmings, yes, pork loins, wheat, corn, soybeans, dried beans, eggs. The list is a long list. Does anybody really think that any part of this as a sale to Cuba is going to undermine the interests of our country? Does anybody really think that? I don't think so. My colleague from New Jersey always states his case well. I understand his point. Neither he nor I wants to give comfort to a government that doesn't respect human rights. But this isn't about giving comfort to the government. This is about our responsibility. Our responsibility, in my judgment, is to decide as a country that it is not a moral policy to use food as a weapon. I hope we never again use food as a weapon.

Mr. DORGAN. In the final 30 seconds I have remaining, I intend to withdraw my amendment No. 3439, and I will explain why that is the case. Some of those who have cosponsored amendment No. 3439, and who support us on all of these issues when we vote on Cuba issues, have indicated to me they would feel constrained to support a tabling motion only because it would exist on trade promotion authority, and they don't want to jeopardize that legislation in any way. They have indicated they would support this proposition that I offer on future legislation. So it is my intention to offer it on an appropriations bill. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 3439 at this moment.