Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, today the Senate has passed H.R. 3323, a bill that waives the penalties for state health programs, health care providers, and health plans that are unable to comply with the transactions and code sets regulation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act by October 16, 2002. This bill is different from the bill passed by the Senate on November 27, and frankly, I would prefer that we simply provide the one-year extension to those entities that need it, as provided for in the Senate bill. However, the time remaining in this session of Congress is short, and the House bill will offer a measure of help to those in our states. The House bill would require that, in order to receive a waiver, those entities needing more time to comply with the transactions and code sets regulation would have to submit a plan to the Secretary of Health and Human Services explaining how they plan to come into compliance by October 16, 2003. When Senator Craig and I first introduced legislation on this issue more than six months ago, we are attempting to help alleviate a burden on covered entities. It is not our intention in passing this bill to place a significant new burden on health care providers, states, and health plans.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wish to inquire of the Senator from Iowa, if I might get his attention. First of all, I congratulate those who worked on this amendment. It sounds to me as if they have done a lot of hard work in reaching a solution. I inquire of the Senator from Iowa and, perhaps, the Senator from Indiana of the progress in trying to find a list or to elicit information about what kind of a list of amendments might be about to be offered on this bill. The reason I ask the question is, it is 6:30 this evening and, of course, we are nearing the end of the session. It is coming very close to Christmas. We want to finish this bill so we have time remaining for a conference with the House and time to get the bill to the President. Because we have had long discussions and good discussions today on a number of amendments, I am inquiring on the part of both the manager and the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Indiana whether we have a capability of exploring a list of amendments that might be available at this point.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. One final question, if I might. I suspect the Senator from Iowa has been asked a dozen times now, before 11 o'clock, when we are going to finish this session of Congress or when we are going to finish this bill. I think everyone around here kind of wants to know when this session of Congress might end. That makes it all the more urgent we finish our work on this bill because this bill, the stimulus, Defense appropriations, and a couple of others need to be completed. I appreciate the work of the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Indiana. And I know the Senator from Mississippi is going to have an amendment. I really hope we can have a good debate on important farm policy and then proceed along and see if we can get this bill into conference in the next 24, 48 hours. I appreciate the work of the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further, I know it is certainly the goal of the Senator from Iowa to get a bill through the Senate, have a conference, and then get it on the President's desk for signature before we conclude this session of Congress. While I know that is ambitious, it certainly is achievable. I think we have the opportunity to finish this bill today or tomorrow. I know the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee is very anxious to go to conference. Is the Senator aware that the chairman of the House committee has indicated he is very anxious to begin a conference, which suggests if we can get a bill completed through the Senate, and get it to conference, we will be able to perhaps get it out of conference and on to the White House?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I certainly share the Senator's interest in trying to conclude this farm bill or consideration of the farm bill. I am wondering, is there any opportunity at some point today to attempt to get a list of those who have amendments who wish to offer them on this legislation?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for one additional question, the commodity title is important here. We have an amendment that is now pending and I believe another major amendment that will follow it at some point, offered by two of our other colleagues. Both of these amendments tend to chip away at the commodity title and support for family farmers. The amendment pending does that. The amendment pending just eviscerates price supports for family farmers. But there is another one coming that is a major initiative that also just squeezes down this price support in a way that really doesn't provide much help at all to family farmers. It is very important, in my judgment, for us to turn back these two amendments because if we don't, we will be here scratching and clawing and debating a farm bill that doesn't really have much merit with respect to the livelihood of families who are trying to make a living on American farms. So our job, it seems to me, is to try to defeat the amendments that, in the commodities title, shrink that support for families who are trying to live on this country's farms. If I might, I held a hearing in the State of Iowa with my colleague, Senator Harkin. We had testimony about the big crop farms and all the big agrifactories in this country that are growing up, the behemoth enterprises. Everyplace a family farmer looks, they see somebody buying their grain, somebody buying their livestock, somebody hauling their grain. If they look at the railroads, mostly they are looking at monopolies. They say to the farmer: By the way, here is the price. If you don't like it, tough luck. If I might take one moment to say to the Senator from Iowa, Do you know a farmer in North Dakota, my State, pays more to ship grain from North Dakota to the west coast than a farmer from Iowa does moving grain from Iowa through North Dakota to the west coast? Why? Because the railroad says they have to. A farmer from Bismarck, ND, puts a carload of grain on the track at Bismarck and ships it to Chicago--let me give you the breakdown on the transaction here. If he ships a carload of grain 400 miles, Bismarck to Minneapolis, they charge him $2,300. But if a farmer in Minneapolis puts a carload of wheat on the track in Minneapolis and ships it to Chicago, about the same distance--$2,300? No, $1,000. So the North Dakota farmer pays $2,300 to send a carload of wheat 400 miles, and the farmer on the next segment, Minneapolis to Chicago, pays $1,000--less than half. Why? Because on the second segment there is competition; on the first there is not. The monopoly says: Here is what you are going to pay, and you will pay through the nose, and if you don't like it, tough luck. For chemicals--spray, fertilizer--it is the same thing: Here is what you pay. Farm equipment, same thing. Virtually everywhere the farmer looks, grain trade--they ship that kernel of wheat and puff it up or crisp it or shred it and put it on the shelf, and they sell the grain the farmer got nothing for for $4 for a small cardboard box. It is just the farmer who doesn't get a due return, but the people who crisp it and puff it are making money hand over fist. The only people losing their shirts for 6 years are the family farmers because commodity prices have collapsed. The family farmers have taken a financial bath. They are hanging on by their financial fingertips, and everybody who touches the product that farmers produce has been making money with it. The railroads are making big money hauling it. The cereal manufacturers are making big money crisping it and popping it. It is just the farmer. And people say it doesn't matter. It matters to this country. This country's character is formed by who we are, what we have as elements of producers. The fact is, we need family farmers as part of our culture. They create the family values that move from family farms to small towns to big cities and nourish and refresh this country. They are a very important part of our economy. The Senator from Iowa has been very generous with his time, but I want to say on--I know he is speaking against this amendment--this amendment takes the commodity title and says we are going to reduce support for families. That is not the right approach; it is exactly the wrong direction; and it means we have not learned anything in the last 6 years. What we should have learned in the last 6 years is that we need countercyclical price supports. As the Senator said, that is a 50- cent word, but what it means is you provide help to the people who need help--not Freedom to Farm--which says we provide help no matter what the price is. When people need help, we lend a helping hand because they are helping this country mightily. They are our all-stars. I thank the Senator for his leadership and his help in opposing this amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know the Senator is in the middle of a presentation, but the description of the underlying amendment sounds very much like the current law, Freedom to Farm, which had at its roots the notion that farmers should essentially accept whatever the marketplace offers and we do not need a farm program, so they set up 7 years of declining payments, after which there is no farm program. The presumption was that this would ``transition''--that was the operative word in Freedom to Farm--farmers out of a farm program. The experience of the past 6 years is it has been a miserable failure. It does not work. It sounds like the proposition here is to do less of the same. The old ``more of the same''--this is less of the same, and the same didn't work. I ask the Senator from Iowa if he believes as I do that I do not give a hoot in terms of the commodity portion. I don't give a hoot about a bushel of grain. I care about a family who is trying to raise that grain or produce that grain on a farm. I care about the network of producers who represent family farmers living under this, trying to raise a family and raise a crop and whose hopes and dreams rest on the question of whether, when they get that crop off the field, everything is favorable that year when they take it to the elevator. It rests on the question, Is there a decent price somewhere above or near the cost of production? The answer in the past 5 or 6 years has been no. The more you sell, the more you raise; the more you produce, the more you are going to lose. So isn't it the case that really, while conservation and nutrition are very important--and in my judgment no one fights harder for that than the Senator from Iowa; he takes a back seat to no one. But isn't it also the case that the so-called commodity title with respect to what it represents in support for families, support for those economic all-stars in America, family farmers, ranks right up there with all the other considerations? In my judgment, it is right at the top of the considerations of why we should do a farm bill. Would the Senator concur with that?

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN. Is it not the case that in the other area--we have nutrition, conservation, and then commodities--area, commodities, which is the support basically for that which the family farm is producing, that is the area where we need the help? The Senator from Iowa has produced a piece of legislation that in nutrition and conservation has substantial increases, and we are trying to preserve significant help for farmers who are out there trying to make a living during collapsed prices. I ask, is it the belief of the Senator from Iowa that what we need to do is now make sure that we have a decent price support for family farmers during tough times, especially a countercyclical price support that kicks in when commodity prices collapse? Is that the Senator's intent?

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, is it not the case that the piece of legislation that the Senator from Iowa brought to the floor of the Senate in both conservation and nutrition substantially improves what was written in the bill approved by the House of Representatives?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is we are in a period of general debate with no amendments to be offered. I wish to make a couple comments at this point that relate to some things that have been said during the debate on this farm bill. First of all, I am pleased we are at this point. Many of us have struggled hard to make sure we get a farm bill on the floor of the Senate. We are here and we will have a good debate. My hope is we will be able to have some amendments offered and deal with those amendments. We have just had one amendment with a very close vote. I would like, very much, to see us finish this bill by at least tomorrow evening or the next evening and have a conference with the House of Representatives. I hope our goal might be to put a bill on the President's desk for signature before this Congress leaves for the year. I know that is the goal of the Republican chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. He produced a bill in the House. He said very much that he wants to get to conference with us. So this would be a bipartisan effort with Chairman Combest in the House and those of us who wish to finish a farm bill this year in the Senate. My hope is we can move forward very quickly. We should consider amendments, and have significant debate on amendments, but it will serve this country's best interests, and certainly the interests of farm families in America, if we produce a good farm bill. Why are we here? We are here because we have a farm bill that does not work. Freedom to Farm, which is now existing law, just doesn't work. Almost all of us concede this point. It is not unanimous, but it is about as close to unanimous as you can get on public policy. There are still a couple of discordant voices who will insist that Freedom to Farm does work. For the last 4 years, we have had to do emergency bills at the end of the year to try to deal with the shortfall in farm revenue because commodity prices have collapsed and collapsed dramatically. If we didn't do something to respond to that, we would not have family farmers left. I suppose that requires answering the question: Does it matter whether we have family farmers? Some would say it doesn't matter who farms the land. But, that is kind of an antiseptic view of the culture we live in. They would say the organization of our food production is really pretty irrelevant. We could have the largest corporate agrifactories farming America from California to Maine. They would just drive a tractor one way all day and then back the next day. They would just plow furrows and plant seeds, and giant agrifactories will certainly produce food. That is true. But as they produce that food, something else will be dying; that is a part of American culture that is very important to our country. The seed bed of family values has always moved from our family farms to our small towns to our big cities and nourished and refreshed America. That has always been the case. It is not only important for social and economic reasons, it is important for security reasons to maintain a network of family farms. Europe has done that. Europe has been hungry in the past, and it decided: We will not be hungry again. We will not rely on some huge mammoth operation. We will have a network of family farms dotting the landscape of rural Europe. And they do. They have price supports. That is the kind of economy they want. Those are the kinds of food producers they want--a broad dispersed network of producers, families living on the land. Small towns in Europe are radically different than small towns in this country these days. In most of Europe, small towns are thriving and growing and alive and have a heartbeat. In this country, across so much of our heartland, small towns are shrinking. They are shrinking inevitably. My home county in my hometown is exactly the mirror of what is happening in so much of our country, going from 5,000 people to 3,000 people in 25 years. Maybe it doesn't matter to some. Does it matter in public policy? I believe it does. We ought to have a farm plan that reflects decent price supports, reasonable price supports, that gives family farms an opportunity to make a living during tough times. That is what this is about. The legislation brought to us by the Senate Agriculture Committee is good legislation. It is certainly not perfect. I intend to offer an amendment as soon as I have the opportunity that will further target some of the benefits so that we don't give an amount of benefits that are inappropriate to the largest producers in this country which has happened in the past. I hope we can prevent that from happening now. I do intend to offer an amendment. I suspect others will as well. My goal is that we aggressively debate the amendments, call for a vote, and then try to see if we can't finish the bill and get to a conference with the House of Representatives. It is interesting that the Department of Agriculture was created in the 1860s by Abraham Lincoln. When the Department of Agriculture was created, they had nine employees in the early 1860s. It is now a behemoth organization. My belief about the Department of Agriculture is, no matter who is in charge of the administration, Republican or Democrat, we don't need a department if the end goal is not to support this statement: It is our goal to foster and maintain a network of family-based food producers in this country. If that is not the goal of our agricultural policy, we don't need a U.S. Department of Agriculture; just let happen whatever happens. But if you believe, as the Europeans do and I do and others, that the economy that you will get is the economy that you want and that you construct instead of just letting something happen, you can have an economy that fosters and maintains a network of family producers. Our family farmers produce more than just food. They produce communities. They produce a value system that is important. Each farm out there that lives under a yard life, trying to raise a family, represents a blood vessel that flows into a network of vessels that creates communities and a rural lifestyle. That is very important. It is not the case that family farming is somehow irrelevant these days. It is not the case that food production is irrelevant. A substantial portion of the people in this world go to bed hungry because they don't have enough to eat. I am told that 500 million people in this world go to bed every night with a powerful ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry. Yet in my home State and many others, our farmers are hauling freight to the elevator only to be told that the food they produce in such abundance has no value. There is a powerful disconnection there. If you take a look at producers, family farm producers, and what happens to the grain they produce, you discover it is not that there is not value to it. It is the question of who is able to get the proceeds from that value. If you have a kernel of wheat and the farmer hauls it to the elevator, the grain trade says, this wheat doesn't have any value, what you have produced is pretty irrelevant to the world; then someone buys that wheat and puts it into a grocery manufacturing plant, a cereal plant; they puff it up and that kernel of wheat is now puffed wheat. It is put into some cellophane, put in a box, and sent through to a grocery store somewhere. And that little box is going to sell for $4.50 for a box of puffed wheat. Who made the money? The person that bought the tractor, bought the seed, bought the fuel, bought the fertilizer, spent the nights and days planting and then hoping and then harvesting? Did that family farmer make the money? No, it was the manufacturing plant that puffed it and put it in a box and sold it as breakfast cereal. They made the money. For the farmer, that food dollar has been shrinking and shrinking. We have fewer and fewer family farmers and more expensive grocery cereals and more people hungry overseas. Somehow this is a puzzle the pieces of which don't fit. We need to make sense of it in the Senate with a farm bill that recognizes the value and the worth of families that produce America's food and produce food for a hungry world. I have been places in the world where people were hungry. I have leaned over the crib in a neonatal clinic of a terribly poor country and had a young child who was starving reach up to me because I was the only one that young child had. I was only going to be there a couple of minutes. The doctor said to me: That child is going to die. I have been to refugee camps and hospitals in the worst parts of the world. I have seen hunger. I have seen death. It needn't happen in this world that the winds of hunger blow every day and 45,000 children die. It needn't happen if we decide that we are going to use what we produce in such great abundance to help produce a more stable world. We send weapons around the world. We are the arms merchant to the world. We send more weapons than any other country under any other circumstance year after year. Somehow that which the world needs most, food, we are not able to connect very well to meet the needs of the world and the needs of those who produce it here at home. My hope is that we can decide with this farm bill that family farmers matter, families who struggle to make a living matter, and we are going to do something to help them when grain prices collapse. There may well be others who want to speak. I will not go on except to say this: My family came to the prairies of Hettinger County, ND, many years ago. Many years ago, a Norwegian immigrant, recently widowed with six children, decided to move to the prairies of western North Dakota, pitch a tent and build a house and start a farm. One can only begin to think of the courage it took for a widow who just lost her husband to a heart attack, who had come over from Norway to decide to get on a train with her children and go homestead, with the promise of the Federal Government saying if you go and improve that land and you build a farm on that land and do the things that are necessary, we will give you the 160 acres. That was the homestead plan. That woman, named Caroline, did that and she had a son who had a daughter who had me. That is how I was born in southwestern North Dakota. But I will bet that many, many serving in this Chamber have exactly the same stories of their heritage--people who decided they wanted to stake their dream and their hope on trying to raise food from a family farm and raise a family on a family farm, be independent, and do the things they wanted to do to make that soil produce bountiful food supplies. Now, what we have seen in recent years is so many broken dreams and so many families deciding that which they have invested their life savings to do is now gone and they can't continue. We can do better than that as a country. That is what this debate is about. Some say it is about this amount of money--no, it is not about that. It is about whether this country wants family farmers in its future. Does it believe the production of its food supply ought to be done by families? Does that contribute to this country and promote security and strengthen this country? I think it does. People look at family farms and say they are like the old diners who came and went. It is nice to think of it, but it is really not part of tomorrow's economy. They are wrong. Family farming is not out of favor. It is an important part of what this country is and what it can be in the future. That is why we have to pass this farm bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. If I might inquire further, the farm bill comes from the Senate Agriculture Committee, and in both areas of nutrition and conservation at a very substantial increase over present funding and over the funding of this proposal in the bill offered by the House of Representatives.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would yield for one additional comment. I hope, very much, this is a breakthrough. The majority leader has said we will accept, he will accept, our caucus will largely accept the proposals on the Republican side coming from the House, take one of the significant proposals from the Republican side in the Senate, package those together with a couple of small modifications, and try to embrace them as we deal with this country's economy. I hope this is a huge breakthrough. If I might just say to the majority leader, I know there has been criticism in recent days about roadblocks here or there. It is sometimes very difficult to see who is manning the barricades in the Congress. But I must say, from personal knowledge, it has not been the majority leader who has ever wanted to block the stimulus package. It is the case, is it not, I ask the majority leader, that you are the one who brought a stimulus package to the floor of the Senate for debate before it was so rudely interrupted by a point of order? Is that not the case?

Mr. DORGAN. First of all, I compliment the majority leader for this proposal. I think there is a real urgency for us to do something to provide some lift or some stimulus to this country's economy. We are both at war and in a recession. I think we owe it to the American people to take a no-regrets policy here, to take steps in the right direction to try to deal with this weakened economy. If I might just say, virtually every economist in this country believes that what you should do to provide a stimulant to this economy is to propose policies that are both temporary and immediate. And that which the majority leader has objected to, with respect to the acceleration of the rate cuts for the top two rates in the income tax code, does not give temporary and immediate help. They in fact cause longer term fiscal policy problems. But I ask the majority leader, isn't it the case that all of the proposals you have reacted to, with respect to the announcement by the House and also the proposal offered by Senator Domenici, meet the test of being both temporary and immediate? Isn't it the case that that would represent the character of all of those elements of the plan you have just described that you would accept?

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the majority leader will yield to me.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield on a point?

Mr. DORGAN. Yes. The Senator from New Mexico said something I am not sure is accurate, and I wonder if I might ask a question about that.

Mr. DORGAN. I am glad to extend the time.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I may continue, I find this really interesting. I believe this past spring the Budget Committee sent out a wholly partisan document supported only by the Republicans after they refused to meet with the Democrat members of the committee. I don't think we are interested in a lot of finger pointing. I think the American people are interested in a question of who is going to offer proposals that constructively help this American economy. I am going to say some things about the House bill because the House bill is what comes to the conference. It is not a question of may or may not be good. The House bill is atrocious. Does anybody in this country think that, with an economy that is very weak, with an economy with a substantial overcapacity, the way to resolve the problems of this economy and provide lift and opportunity in this economy is to give Ford a $1 billion tax rebate check, or IBM, a $1.4 billion tax rebate check for corporate alternative minimum taxes paid going back to 1988? They won't do that for individuals who paid an alternative minimum tax but just for corporations at a time when there is overcapacity. Is there anyone who can find an economist who thinks this is going to help the American economy? It is not. How about the hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs? Every economist will concede that one way to stimulate this economy is to help those people who have lost their jobs with extended unemployment benefits. A fair number have no benefits at all and we should provide something to help them during these tough times. Every economist says that will help this economy because every one of those dollars will be spent almost immediately. That is the way you help this economy. There are other ways as well: A combination of tax breaks, yes--for business and others--rebates to be helpful to some people who didn't get tax breaks earlier this year; and, extend unemployment benefits. There are other things we can do. But what was done in the House of Representatives--you talk about the sounds of the hogs in the corn crib just grunting and shoving around doing what they can to cobble together a bill with left-over policies they didn't get done in any other tax bills is exactly what happened here. This has nothing to do with stimulus. That is not why I came to the floor. I am just curious. My colleague came to the floor to spend about 5 to 6 minutes talking about what the Democrats have done to make all of this partisan and political, and then said: But it is not my intention to cast blame or to talk about the Democrats--after the first 5 minutes talking about the Democrats and Senator Daschle. Let me make this point about this issue. We brought this stimulus bill to the floor of the Senate. It is not here now because a point of order was lodged against it, and every Member of the minority party in the Senate voted to sustain that point of order. That is why it is not here. The next time somebody asks the question, write it down. Take a 2-by-5 card and write it down for those who voted to sustain a point of order. Write a little note that says: I voted to take the stimulus bill off the floor of the Senate so it couldn't any longer be considered so you will know that. You don't have to repeatedly ask these questions. We have this negotiation going on. It is supposed to go on. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee went to California this weekend instead of meeting over the weekend as previously decided. I do not know about all of that. But at the end of the day, the American people deserve to have a package of proposals from this Congress that really gives a lift to this economy. This economy is in trouble. We have a responsibility to help. It is not going to help by people coming here and pointing this way or that way. As I said, there is not a Republican or Democratic way to stimulate the economy, but there is the right way and the wrong way. We have received some pretty good advice on which is which. My judgment is that in the coming days we can put together a proposal that will be helpful to this country. That is our obligation.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, of course I will allow the Senator from New Mexico to make a minute statement. The purpose of discourse on the floor is to ask questions and respond to questions. But if the Senator would like to have a minute--without my yielding the floor--I would be happy to do that.

Mr. DORGAN. In the end, the question before the American people about how you fix and provide lift to the American economy is not about Republicans or Democrats. It also is not about conservatives or liberals, and it is not about the House or the Senate. It is about right and wrong. There is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do it. Most of us are not certain what is right or wrong. But consult with the best economists in America, just consult with the best economists you can find in this country, and ask them: Which set of policies do you think give us the best chance for this economy to recover? You know that the answer is not this. The Senator will say that is what the House did: That is exactly what we are negotiating at this point because Chairman Thomas brings this to the negotiating table. What ``this''? Let me read--I will be happy to yield in a moment. Let me read from the Wall Street Journal--no liberal bastion, I might say. When President Bush and Congress sat down to another round of tax-cutting this fall in the hopes of stimulating the economy, business groups were welcomed to the table. Now, many of the country's biggest corporations are reaching for an oversized portion. The companies could end up grabbing refund checks worth hundreds of millions of dollars each, thanks to one of the many business breaks in the tax-cut package fashioned by House Republican leaders that could come to a House vote this week. Democrats' objections are to be expected, but even some Senate Republicans and Bush officials have distanced themselves. As you know, the Secretary of the Treasury called this ``show business.'' Those are the words to describe what the House of Representatives did. I don't come here to decide that one side is all right or one side is all wrong. But I am a little chagrined about what is happening here, about people talking about what the majority leader has or hasn't done, what the majority leader could or could not do. The majority leader did the responsible thing. He brought a stimulus bill to the floor of the Senate for debate. It wasn't his action that took it from pending consideration. It was a point of order made by the other side, Republicans, that actually took it off the Senate floor. I will, without losing my right to the floor, be happy to yield to the Senator from New Mexico for a question.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this past Saturday, the University of North Dakota's Fighting Sioux won the division II national championship football game. Anyone who watched that game on ESPN marveled at the game itself. It was one of the most exciting football games I have ever watched. It was decided in the last couple of seconds. The two teams played wonderful football. They played Grand Valley State of Michigan in division II. Grand Valley State had a 14-to-10 lead with just over 2 minutes left. The University of North Dakota actually had a fourth down with 50 seconds or so left at about the 41-yard line. It didn't look good. With 60 yards to the goal line, they passed and went down to the 1-yard line. And they drove it in. It was one of the most exciting finishes I have ever seen. As an alumnus of the University of North Dakota, I wanted to congratulate the coach and the team and say how proud we are of the division II football champions. We have been national champions in division I in hockey many times. We won our national championship in women's basketball, and now in division II football. The University of North Dakota Sioux had a wonderful day on Saturday. I congratulate these young men who made all of North Dakota proud. And I congratulate their coach. As a graduate of the University of North Dakota, I am enormously proud of what they have done. To recap, rare are the athletic programs that can claim the extraordinary success that the University of North Dakota has had over the last year: It has played national championship games in hockey, women's basketball and, on just this Saturday, football. As a graduate, I'm pleased to be able to announce here on the Senate floor today that the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux won that national Division II championship football game. And they did so in truly epic fashion, coming from behind in the final seconds. Their opponent, Grand Valley State of Michigan, had taken a 14-10 lead with less than three minutes to play. After taking the ensuing kickoff, UND appeared to have stalled on their own 41 yard line where it was fourth down and four yards to go. But receiver Luke Schleusner caught a short pass from quarterback Kelby Klosterman, slipped what appeared to initially be a sure tackle, and ran 58 yards to within inches of the goal line. On the next play, with just 29 seconds left, Jed Perkerewicz darted across. It was an electrifying conclusion that marks the Sioux's first national football championship. As an alum, I have a special affection for the University and am enormously proud of its distinguished and remarkable achievements in athletics, research, and academics. Saturday's dramatic football victory fills the alumni, staff, students and friends of the university with understandable pride. And, importantly, our entire state of North Dakota shares the pride in this memorable triumph. And so I salute the school's administration, athletic program, football staff--led by coach Dale Lennon, and, most importantly, the young men of the University of North Dakota football team. The hard work, the long hours, and the pain have paid off. We can all learn important lessons about life from these champions--lessons about perseverance, about working together and helping each other, about being a good sport. In fact, one of the images from the game that's brightest in my mind is how the members of the Sioux team were repeatedly helping their opponents up off the turf and patting them on the back in an encouraging way it was an admirable display of sportsmanship. These scholar-athletes play football because they love the game and, in the process, serve as role models for youngsters. In fact, they can serve as role models for the adults of this world. And we can savor the feeling of having national champions in our midst. My congratulations to a truly superb team.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the underlying farm bill is on the floor of the Senate. When you talk about economic recovery and economic stimulus, what can promote economic recovery better in this country than to help those on America's farms? Recovery, in my judgment, begins at the roots. It seems to me that what has always nourished America has rolled from the family farms to the small towns and big cities. Whether it is economic opportunity or economic progress, family values have always nourished our country. Our farmers are in significant trouble. We have struggled and fought and scrapped and tried to get this bill to the floor of the Senate. We have the Secretary of Agriculture calling around saying don't do it. In fact, the Secretary of Agriculture pushed very hard to prevent the House from doing it, and Congressman Combest, who is of the other political party--God bless him--said: I am going to do it anyway. It needs to be done; it ought to be done now. And he did it, and ran a farm bill through the House. Good for him. We are struggling to get a farm bill through the Senate. Senator Harkin brought a farm bill from his committee, and it is now on the floor of the Senate. Let me read from a letter of December 10 addressed to Senator Daschle and Senator Lott. It says: The undersigned farm, commodity and lender organizations write to thank you for your efforts to expedite the debate and consideration of a new farm bill in the United States Senate, and urge that the legislation be completed in a timely manner without delay. We believe it is vitally important that this legislation be enacted this year to provide an important economic stimulus to rural America before Congress adjourns. We fully understand the policy differences exist regarding this important legislation, and would encourage a healthy debate on these issues. However, we are very concerned that the timeframe to pass this legislation is rapidly drawing to a close. We believe this will require the Senate to complete a thorough debate and achieve passage of the legislation by Wednesday evening, December 12th. I will include in the Record a list of who is who in American agriculture. It is virtually every organization: American Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union, National Corn Growers, National Cotton Council. Virtually every organization that represents family farmers is asking this Senate to do the right thing, to consider this farm bill, move it along today, tomorrow, or the next day, and offer amendments to try to get it out of the Senate and get it into conference so we can put a bill on the desk of the President for signature. My hope is that we can do that before we leave town. It is a struggle. It is not easy, but it is achievable. I ask unanimous consent that the letters be printed in the Record.