Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first, let me say how much I appreciate working with Senator Hagel on this legislation. As he indicated, the State of Nebraska has an abiding problem, just as the State of North Dakota, South Dakota, and all of the States up and down the heartland of our country. It is not just our states. I notice the Senator from Georgia is in the Chamber. Rural counties in Georgia, as well, are shrinking like prunes. What do we do about that? Will Rogers used to chuckle when he thought about what would get the Federal Government's attention. He said: If you have two hogs that come down with something and get sick in a barn someplace, you will have all kinds of USDA people coming down to find out what is wrong with your hogs. But not much will happen if you have other problems. No one will show up. I have an example that I would like to share with my colleague from Nebraska. In recent months, we had a little prairie dog fight. I will not go into all of the details. But prairie dogs took over a picnic grounds in the Badlands in North Dakota. They were going to do an environmental assessment. Then they did an EA. They did a FONSI, a finding of no significant impact. They had all these studies going on, and the Federal agencies got all cranked up about the prairie dogs, and they decided to spend a quarter of a million dollars to move the picnic grounds. I said: Look we are not short of prairie dogs in western North Dakota; we are short of people. My home county went from 5,000 people to 3,000 people in 25 years. The county next to mine is bigger than the State of Rhode Island, and it has 900 people and only had seven babies, in a recent year, born in the entire year. These are counties that are dramatically shrinking, and losing their economic vitality. Yet you get a prairie dog problem in a picnic area, and the Federal Government mobilizes, and you have all these agencies all juiced up to do something. But what about the fact that the economy throughout the heartland of our country is in desperate trouble, and you can hardly get anybody's attention in government? What Senator Hagel and I are saying is, let's go at this just as we did with model cities or urban renewal, and decide that this is not only a North Dakota problem--although it is certainly ours--not only a Nebraska problem--although it is certainly theirs--but that it is a national problem. A century after we populated the middle part of our country through the Homestead Act, depopulation is a national problem. What has happened to cause the movement of people away from the heartland? A shift of jobs from production of natural resources-- farming, mining, and other industries--to work in service or technology-oriented industries that shifted the population in our country. New industries do not necessarily need to be near the grain elevator or the mouth of a mine. New technologies allow us to make many products with far fewer people, and that includes agriculture. Free trade agreements have made it cheaper to produce goods overseas. That, too, has shifted population. What Senator Hagel and I are talking about is choice, giving people a choice to be able to live in rural America if they choose to do that. I recently gave a commencement speech to a large class at one of our colleges in North Dakota, and I know most of those students are going to leave the State following their graduation--not because they want to, but because they do not have any choice. Those young men and women, who represent our best and brightest, are going to leave North Dakota. Many will leave Nebraska. They will end up on the west coast or the east coast or down south. And our States, in my judgment, be weakened because they left. Other States will be strengthened. We want to give them a choice to be able to stay if they would like to stay. If we want to stop outmigration and try to bring opportunity back to the heartland, we need to do it as a nation, not just for the sake of the heartland States, but for the sake of all our country. By any measure, the rural towns and counties that suffer from outmigration and population loss are still in many respects among the strongest in our country. They have good schools, a high level of civic involvement, extremely low rates of crime, good neighbors, a good life, and are great places in which to raise children. Our Government spends a great deal of time and money trying to emulate these attributes in areas where they don't exist instead of trying to help preserve them in areas where they do exist; namely, rural counties in small-town America. I know some might say Senator Hagel and I have this Norman Rockwell notion of small town in our minds, and that is just wonderful, but that it is more nostalgia than it is reality. But I don't agree. In my judgment, public policy has a lot to do with where people locate. We simply want to provide additional choices. Nebraska and North Dakota and many other States just don't have the opportunities that a California, Texas, Massachusetts, or New York has. For instance, consider that the Federal Government is the largest researcher in the world. Where do most of our research dollars go? Not to Nebraska or North Dakota. The bulk of it goes to four States: California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas. That is where, with these centers of excellence in research serving as anchors, industries and jobs locate. Public policy has a lot to do with where people live. All Senator Hagel and I are saying is that we can sit around and wring our hands, gnash our teeth, wipe our brow, and worry about this forever or we can decide to put together an initiative that says, let's try to do something about this shrinkage and outmigration in some of these wonderful places. Let's give people more choices, especially young people, to stay in those areas where they grew up and where they want to live, and provide them with spirit, hope, and opportunity to make their future economy a good economy. We can do that. That is the initiative we are proposing, one to provide tools and to offer choices to those who are working hard in a wonderful part of America. We introduced the legislation in December. It is S. 1860. It is bipartisan. We will work very hard in the Senate and around the country to see if we can't get America to do for the heartland what it once did for the cities, and to get people to see that something is happening in rural America and that it needs help now. Let's join together and do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I would inquire, for purposes of scheduling this evening, I understand the Senator's point that someone is now gone for a half an hour and you might want to talk at 7 o'clock about scheduling. Is there any way we might get some notion of whether we will have votes, whether you are intending to accept the time agreement, so that if we are going to have votes later this evening we could get a sense of when that might be?

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry on that issue?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2002, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Analysis of the Failure of Superior Bank, FSB, Hinsdale, Illinois.''

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2002, at 4:30 p.m. in executive session to meet with members of the United Kingdom's House of Commons Defence Committee.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed session to receive testimony on the Conduct of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 7, 2002, at 10 a.m., in room 485, Russell Senate Building to conduct an oversight hearing on legislative proposals relating to the statute of limitations on claims against the United States related to the management of Indian tribal trust fund accounts.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 7, 2002, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``S. 1867, a Bill To Establish the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.''

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Protecting America's Pensions: Lessons From the Enron Debacle,'' during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2002, at 10 a.m.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to met during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2002 at 3 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The Nomination of Charles W. Pickering to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Fifth Circuit,'' on Thursday, February 7, 2002 at 2 p.m., in Dirksen room 226 or, if possible, Hart room 216.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, February 7, 2002, at 10 a.m., in SD226. Agenda Nominations Michael Melloy, of Iowa, to be U.S. Court of Appeals Judge for the Eighth Circuit; Robert Blackburn to be U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Colorado; David L. Bunning to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky; James Gritzner to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Iowa; Cindy Jorgenson to be U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Arizona; Richard Leon to be U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia; and Jay Zainey to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. To Be United States Attorney: Thomas P. Colantuono for the District of New Hampshire and James K. Vines for the Middle District of Tennessee. To Be United States Marshal: James D. Dawson for the Southern District of West Virginia; Brian Michael Ennis for the District of Nebraska; Nehemiah Flowers for the Southern District of Mississippi, Arthur Jeffrey Hedden for the Eastern District of Tennessee; Johnny Lewis Hughes for the District of Maryland; William C. Jenkins for the Middle District of Louisiana; Randy Merlin Johnson for the District of Alaska; David Glenn Jolley for the Western District of Tennessee; Chester Martin Keely for the Northern District of Alabama; John William Loyd for the Eastern District of Oklahoma; Ronald R. McCubbin for the Western District of Kentucky; David R. Murtaugh for the Western District of Indiana; Michael Wade Roach for the Western District of Oklahoma; Eric Eugene Robertson for the Western District of Washington; David Donald Viles for the District of Maine; and Larry Wade Wagster for the Northern District of Mississippi.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2002, at 10:45 p.m., to hold a hearing titled, ``What's Next in the War on Terrorism.'' Agenda Witnesses: Mr. Samuel R. Berger, Former National Security Advisor, Washington, DC; Gen. George A. Joulwan (Ret.), Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Arlington, VA; and Mr. William Kristol, Editor, The Weekly Standard, Chairman, Project for the New American Century, McLean, VA.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, how much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I respect those who disagree with this amendment. They make compelling arguments from their standpoint. But I would just ask this: If payment limits are not appropriate at any point, then will we end up at some point with no family farmers farming in America but only the largest agrifactories from California to Maine and still be making payments? For what purpose? My interest in trying to help family farmers survive during tough times is to say to them: You matter because you live out in the country. You are living under a yard light, trying to raise a family and raise crops, taking all the risks, and we want you to be part of our economic future. We want to have broad-based economic ownership on American family farms. That promotes food security in our country. It promotes the kind of cultural and economic society we want. It is not a case of just picking and choosing because we don't have enough money. Let us have the best price support possible, and when we run out of money, we run out of money. That is the purpose of having a payment limit amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, is the Senator from Oklahoma ready to be recognized?

Mr. DORGAN. I yield as much time as he may consume to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, when I read the list of the cosponsors, I was mistaken to read Senator Cochran's name. He is not a cosponsor of this amendment. The amendment was originally drafted to be submitted as a second-degree amendment to the Cochran amendment to the commodity title in December. I read from a list that included his name on the bottom. He certainly is not a cosponsor. It was my mistake. My apologies to Senator Cochran. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cochran's name be stricken from the Record in that section where I identified cosponsors. He is not and has not been a cosponsor.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to offer the amendment. I ask I be allowed as much time as I may consume, following which I expect Senator Grassley, who has worked with me in constructing this amendment, will be recognized. This amendment is about limitation on payments in the farm program. We always have people coming to the floor of the Senate talking about the requirement to help family farmers in our country. The reason I support a farm bill, the reason I fight so hard to try to get good farm policy, is to help family farmers. What do I mean by family farmers? I am talking about people out there living under a yard light trying to raise a family and trying to operate a family farm and raise food. They go to town and buy their supplies. I am talking about a network of food producers scattered across this country that represents, in my judgment, food security for our country. This issue of helping family farmers with a safety net in the form of farm program payments during tough times is something that has become much different over a long period of time. It is not the case that we are fighting over farm program payments for family farmers. There is some of that in the farm bill, but all of us recognize there is in this farm bill substantial payments to some of the biggest operators in the country that have nothing to do with families, nothing to do with family farming. Let me cite some examples of who gets farm program payments. Fortune 500 companies get payments under the farm program; not much about families there. City dwellers who have millions of dollars, who need the farm program the least and do not have anything to do with the family farm, get farm program payments. Chase Manhattan Bank, farm program payments; colleges and universities--the list goes on forever. This is about family farming, in my judgment. I am sure those who support this amendment, and there are many in the Chamber, are always asked the question: If you talk about family farmers, what do you mean by family? Define a family farm, they say. I defy you to tell me what it is. If we took 10 minutes, we could agree on what it is not. Michelangelo once sculpted David. They asked: How did you sculpt David? He said: Easy; I took a block of marble and chipped away everything that was not David. We can chip away everything that is not a family farm and have a decent idea of what a family farm is not. Is it a New York bank operating land in one of our States? I don't think so. Is a family farmer a piece of ground owned by somebody who has lived in Los Angeles for 40 years and the only time that person has come back to the family farm area is for Thanksgiving, twice in 40 years; is that a family farmer? I don't think so. Is that where you want farm program payments to go? Or do you want, in small towns on Saturday night, to have a vibrant Main Street where people come to town to buy supplies and park their vehicles? They are families living on the farm and farming our land and raising our food, producing our food and doing it by creating a network of broad-based economic ownership on America's farms. Is that what we are talking about? I think so. What is this amendment? This amendment provides a $275,000 payment limit. Some will roll their eyes and say: Are you kidding me? Two hundred seventy-five thousand dollars and you think that is a limit? They will say it ought to be much lower than that. We will have trouble getting this passed today because there are people who want it much higher and some want no limits at all. We propose $275,000. On direct and countercyclical payments there is a $75,000 limit; marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments, a $150,000 limit; a husband and wife allowance, $50,000--for a total limitation of $275,000. Now, this Senate bill has a $500,000 limit, but it does not get rid of triple entities so you can collect more than that. Current law is $460,000, which means you can collect more than that because of triple entity rules and other things. The House bill is $550,000, and again we allow triple entities and so on. So these are not real limits. Ours is a real limit. We just talk about payments going to a tax ID, and we determine who the taxpayer is here--this is not about taxes but it is determining who the individual is--and we have a limitation. We have seen a lot of these stories--incidentally, these are the kinds of stories which I think will ruin the climate in which we do farm bills in the future. If we do not do something about this, the American people and taxpayers generally are going to say that is not why we are paying taxes. We really support family farms. We believe family farms are important for America. But we believe we are not paying taxes so you can transfer money to the tune of millions, hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars, to those who need it least and ought not be getting farm payments. This talks about a farm operation, a 61,000-acre spread, $30.8 million in sales last year, receiving $38 million in Federal crop subsidies in 5 years. Is that what we are here for? Is that what this fight is about, to try to help family farmers? I do not think so. That is not why I am interested in this business. Here is a letter from a North Dakota farmer, a person I have known for some while. He is a good farmer. His son also started farming. Dear Senator Dorgan: I know you are aware of the really large operations in rural areas that are getting the big farm payments. I feel strongly against these large payments which are set forth in the current law. I hope you can fix this in the farm bill. The biggest operations keep getting the bulk of the farm benefits while the small farmers are getting squeezed out of the rural areas. When this happens, the family farm operation can't compete with the larger enterprises because of the financial disadvantages. Cash rents go up because of the huge payments to these big operations, causing smaller farms to quit. In my judgment, if our goal is not to preserve a network of family producers on America's farms, then we don't need a farm program, we don't need a Department of Agriculture; get rid of it all. The Department of Agriculture started under Abraham Lincoln and had nine employees. Now it has become this behemoth organization. But if our goal is not to try to protect, nurture, and assist family farmers over price valleys because they are too small to be able to survive these precipitous international price drops for their crops, if our goal isn't to do that, get rid of the whole thing. If that is our goal--and I believe it ought to be; I believe that is why the American people support a farm program--then let's shape this farm program in a way that really does target the help to family producers. I have told so many stories about family farmers and why I believe passionately about what this issue should mean to our country. In Europe they have a vibrant rural economy. Go to a small town in Europe on Saturday night and see the main street full of pickup trucks and small cars. Do you know why? Because Europe has said we have been hungry before and we don't want to be hungry again and part of our national security is our food security and part of that is rooted in the notion of trying to preserve a network of family producers on the land in Europe. They have a farm program that does it. We ought not to disparage their farm program, we ought to applaud it, to say the goal of keeping small family producers, family operations, on the farm to produce a food supply is a laudable goal. Some in this Chamber will say this notion of a family farm is like the little old diner that got left behind when the interstate came through. It is really fun to talk about it, but it is not real and it is not today's economy. We can have the kind of economy we want. We can have the kind of economy we choose. With farm policy, we can decide that our future is in 61,000-acre operations where we give $38 million in farm price supports from the taxpayer to the biggest agrifactories in the country, or we can decide that those people out there--mothers, fathers, sons, daughters--with 500 acres, 2,000 acres, yes, 8,000 acres, 10,000 acres, trying to make a living, families trying to make a living out there on America's farms are what are really important to this Senate and this Congress. We can do that in public policy, but we can only do that if we pass this payment limitation amendment. There is a lot to talk about. We will have people stand up and say: This is outrageous; you are trying to penalize people who got big. That is not the case at all. We only have a certain amount of money. My point is, let's layer it in from the bottom up to help those who need help the most. It doesn't penalize anybody. It just says: Here is the kind of economy we want. Here is what we want to invest in for America's future. Here is what we want to do to help family farmers in our country. Let me conclude by saying I represent a farm State. There are some in my State who will be aggravated by this amendment. They are the ones who would be affected by the limit. This is important and good public policy so we can provide the best possible price supports during tough times to families who are farming America's land. That is the purpose. It is not to penalize anybody. It is just to invest as best we can in those family farmers struggling during price depressions, which have existed now for some years, and to say to them: We care about you; we care about the future; we want you to hang on because we want family farming as a part of America's future. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of our time. I assume the opponents have an equal amount of time. I believe Senator Grassley will be recognized next, on our side, as soon as an opponent is recognized.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be sending an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, and joined by cosponsors Mr. Hagel, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Brownback. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Yes, Mr. President, that will be fine.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 5, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Retirement Insecurity: 401(k) Crisis at Enron.''

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 5, 2002, at 10:15 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Foreign Policy Overview and the President's Fiscal Year 2003 Foreign Affairs Budget Request.'' Witness: The Honorable Colin L. Powell, Secretary of State, Washington, DC.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.