Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is very curious. My friend from New Mexico, when I asked the question about whether the bill is pending or at the desk, as was his implication, said that may or may not be the case. It either is or is not the case. The answer is, it is not the case. I don't want people to come to the floor and say the stimulus program that came from the Senate Finance Committee is somewhere around here and the majority leader doesn't wish to bring it back to the floor. It was on the floor, we had a vote on it, and in fact every Member on the other side of the aisle voted to take it off the floor. I think when the Senator says that may or may not be the case, this is a matter of fact. I don't want people to leave the implication that somehow there is a bill sitting at the desk, ready to come to the floor, but Senator Daschle chooses not to bring it to the floor. In fact, the bill at the desk is the House bill. That bill came from the House Ways and Means Committee. It was a partisan bill, written by Chairman Thomas and the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee-- the very process the Senator from New Mexico criticizes. That was passed by the House of Representatives 216 to 214. That is what is now at the desk. It came to the floor of the Senate, and we had a debate. It is also the case that every bill, including the House bill, the Senate Republican bill, and the bill the Senate Finance Committee passed, had a point of order that could be lodged against it. The only point of order that was lodged was against the bill that Senator Daschle tried to bring to the floor of the Senate. So it is, in my judgment, a curious thing for those who voted to take the bill off the floor of the Senate and have us cease its consideration with a point of order, to now wonder aloud--repeatedly, in the last couple of weeks--where is the bill? I said before this is not exactly a ``Where's Waldo'' exercise, a game that most fathers have played with their children. We know where the bill is. It was here. It is now gone--not because of something we did. We wanted that economic stimulus and recovery bill to be passed by the Senate and to go to conference. It is gone because it was taken off the floor on a point of order--a point of order which, incidentally, we did not raise against anything else. The point of order would exist against the House-passed bill and against the Senate Republican bill. Because of that, the decision was made to try to find a way to create a negotiation between the House and the Senate--and hopefully with the cooperation of the President--to see if we could construct some kind of stimulus package. Is that an optimum way to do it or the best way to do it? I don't think so. The best way to have done this, in my judgment, would have been to consider the bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee and in regular order offer amendments to it, have votes on it, and then go to a conference. That would have been my preference. I must say to my friend from New Mexico that I have great admiration for his legislative skills. He is a great speaker and good thinker, and I think the suggestion he has with respect to the payroll tax is, in fact, stimulative. The point is he has some suggestions that have some stimulus capability to them. But to go out and then go through 5 or 6 minutes of the same sort of thing we heard on the talk shows all weekend about Senator Daschle and say that is not what it is all about, let's forget what I just said--you know, somehow that doesn't make much sense to me.

Mr. DORGAN. On the point the Senator from New Mexico made about the economic stimulus or recovery plan that came out of the Senate Finance Committee, the Senator from New Mexico indicated that was at the desk-- or I guess first he asked where is it; and then, it is at the desk, why isn't it pending? Isn't it the case the bill at the desk is a House bill which was passed by the House on a clearly partisan 216 to 214 vote. In fact the bill out of the Senate Finance Committee is not at the desk, but a point of order was made against it. I believe the Senator from New Mexico supported the point of order that took the Senate Finance Committee bill off the floor, and it is not pending. I want to correct that because I think the implication of the Senator was, well, that bill is at the desk, why isn't it here? Is it not the case it was pending and a vote was held on a point of order? And I believe the Senator from New Mexico supported the point of order and therefore it is not pending.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. This issue is simply an issue of what kinds of investments do we believe need to be made to protect this country, what kinds of homeland security and homeland defense investments do we believe need to be made. In fact, if you read, day after day, the press accounts from Governor Ridge, and others, they will say that they agree with all of the recommendations we are now talking about. It is unfathomable to me that we should continue, month after month, now saying we will not put any additional Customs agents on the northern border. I do not think anybody in this country can take comfort from that. Everybody understands you must provide security on our borders, you must provide additional security on the northern border. If not, we do not have border security. If you do not have border security, you have an added risk of a terrorist being successful. That is why the timing issue here is critical. This is just about the question of whether we ought to do what Senator Byrd is suggesting now or later. If we do not do it now, 6 months or a year from now it will be done by the administration. And God forbid some terrorist act would occur in the interim that we could have well prevented with this additional vigilance, with the resources provided in this amendment. So I would ask the Senator from West Virginia to continue his efforts on the floor of the Senate and see that we are able to enact this amendment. I know some believe that this is confronting the President. It is not at all. It is helping this country and helping this administration do now what they say, in any event, they want to do later. It makes much more sense, it seems to me, for us to make this investment for America today. I thank very much the Senator from West Virginia for yielding.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might make one additional inquiry of the Senator from West Virginia. I want people to understand, as I know the Senator from West Virginia does, that when we have a disagreement here--which is only about the timing of when we ought to do what we should do for this country's homeland defense and homeland security--it is not a circumstance where we are confronting this President in a way that says, we are not supportive of what you are doing for America. In fact, there is, in my judgment, general support and admiration for this President's leadership with respect to the prosecution of the war against terrorism. I think they have had a spectacular success. I indicated to Secretary Rumsfeld just a few moments ago how much I admire his service and respect what he has done. I think the President also has shown outstanding leadership in a number of these areas. So this is not a confrontation with this President during a period of conflict. There is no disagreement about support, widespread, passionate support, for this administration and the administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might inquire further of the Senator from West Virginia, I have traveled to those border ports of entry. My State has a long common border with Canada. I have been there at 10 o'clock in the evening when the port of entry closes. I have seen what they do. On that paved road between the United States and Canada, at closing time, they put out an orange rubber cone in the middle of the road, and that is our security past 10 o'clock at night. As I have indicated, an orange rubber cone cannot walk, it cannot talk, it cannot shoot or tell a terrorist from a tow truck. And the polite people who violate our ports of entry, they apparently stop the car, after the port of entry is closed, and they actually move the rubber cone, drive through, and put the cone back. Those who are not so polite come running through at 60 and 80 miles an hour and just shred the rubber cone. The point is, terrorists will always find the weakest link. For this country to have good security, adequate security, that gives people confidence, you have to have security of all of your borders. And it has not been the case with the northern border. It is the case that the Port Angeles point of entry is where the so- called millennium bomber tried to come through, and a very alert Customs agent caught the millennium bomber who was intending to bomb the Los Angeles Airport. It is also the case that Middle Eastern folks were inquiring in a small Canadian town just 100 miles north of the border of North Dakota about the capability of crop-spraying airplanes. This was at the time Mohamed Atta was doing the same thing in Florida. And others were doing the same thing in other parts of the country--150 miles from Minot Air Force Base where we have our B-52s housed. The point is, we must be concerned about all of our borders. I deeply appreciate the Senator's amendment dealing with the northern border security, which was left out--with respect to the Customs Service, especially--of the President's request. If I might say, as I continue to inquire, it seems to me the proposals offered by the Senator from West Virginia are proposals that everyone supports. The head of homeland security, Governor Ridge, says, yes, we need to do these things. The administration says, yes, we need to do these things. The disagreement is about timing. The issue is, should we do them sooner or later? The administration says, let's do them later. The question is, Is there risk for this country in waiting until later? Will terrorists wait until later? I do not think so. I think the American people will be better served by our deciding to make these investments now and protect this country now. The issue of sooner or later ought to be, in my judgment, resolved by this Senate in favor of sooner, taking protections sooner for the American people, taking the steps necessary to minimize the risk of terrorism. Now, let me make one final point as I ask a question. The administration, just in the last couple of weeks, has once again indicated to the American people there is a high threat of a terrorist act, according to some reasonably credible evidence that exists. This is the third time we have heard this. I am not critical of that at all. I believe it is their obligation to inform the American people under those circumstances. But if, in fact, it is the case that there are credible pieces of information about terrorist threats against this country that could cause great harm to the American people, isn't it also reasonable and logical, then, for us to understand the urgency of making the very changes that the Senator from West Virginia is now counseling we make with respect to homeland defense and homeland security? I ask the Senator from West Virginia, Do you not believe that the issue here is not policy, not whether we should do these things, but the disagreement is about when they should be done, and that the administration is simply saying, we do not necessarily disagree with what you want to do, we just believe it ought to be done later? Is that the case? (Mr. CORZINE assumed the chair.)

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator from West Virginia a question about the issue of border security for which he provides in his amendment. I am especially interested in the issue of the security of our northern border. We have twice as many Customs agents on the southern border between the United States and Mexico as we do on the northern border between the United States and Canada. With respect to the Border Patrol, we have roughly 500 Border Patrol agents on the northern border between the United States and Canada to control those 4,000 miles. We have 9,000 agents on the southern border between the United States and Mexico. I note that the Senator has included in his amendment some resources to deal with this border issue. The reason I ask the question is you cannot provide security for this country unless you provide security for our country's borders--not just some of the borders but all of the borders because the terrorists will seek the weakest link. There was recently a story of a fellow from the Middle East who was shipping himself in a container to Toronto, Canada--a suspected terrorist. He put himself in a container. He had a food supply; he had a heater; he had a global positioning satellite mechanism; he had a cell phone; he had a toilet. He had all the comforts. He had food. When they found him in this container on a container ship having tried to ship himself to Toronto, Canada, he got out of the container, and they said he was very well dressed. He looked quite well. The question is, If he is shipping himself in a container to Toronto, Canada, to come into this country to commit a terrorist act, do we have the resources on the northern border to be sure that we are going to catch suspected terrorists or those associated with terrorists who are trying to come into our country? At the moment, on the northern border, Customs agents are working 12 to 14 hours a day, 6 days a week, and have ever since September 11. The President did not request additional resources for new Customs agents. He requested some additional resources to pay for overtime, which they will have to do given these outlooks. But the fact is, we need more agents. We need new resources. It is very interesting that a request was made by the administration for Border Patrol agents and for immigration agents but not for additional Customs Service agents. The Senator, with his amendment, has provided for additional resources for our border protection and border security, especially on the northern border. Is that not the case?

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from New Mexico, the chairman, will remember that at a hearing we held with the Department of Energy, I asked the Deputy Secretary what our goals and aspirations were for the next 25 and 50 years, and what kind of energy plan do we have for 50 years from now? What do we aspire to do? What kind of national objectives do we have with respect to supply, and what kind of energy? The answer was, we are going to have to get back to you on that, because they don't have plans 25 and 50 years from now. The reason I asked the questions, the Senator will recall, is when we debate, for example, Social Security, everybody talks about what will the balance be in the account 30 years from now or 50 years from now. When we talk about energy, nobody is thinking ahead. That is the point of the bill that has been introduced today. I am proud to be a cosponsor of it. This bill says you have to have balance here and, yes, you have to produce more. But if that is all you do, is produce more natural gas, oil, and coal, then you are consigned to a policy that I call yesterday-forever. Yesterday-forever as an energy policy for this country is shortsighted and foolish. The legislation being introduced today under the leadership of the chairman of the committee is balanced. It includes production, yes, but significant conservation. Conserving a barrel of oil is the same as producing a barrel of oil, along with significant efficiencies and significant new emphasis on limitless energy and renewable energy. I drove a car on the grounds of this Capitol Building that was run by a fuel cell. There are new technologies, new approaches, new kinds of fuel that are limitless and renewable year after year that we also ought to embrace. Federal policy ought to be the lead in embracing that as a matter of public interest in this country. So let me again say to the Senator from New Mexico, it has been more than a decade since we have had a comprehensive policy change in energy in this country, one that is thoughtful and balanced and really provides initiative to move us in the direction that would be productive for this country. I think the Senator has provided leadership on a draft of something that is very comprehensive and remarkably refreshing, as compared to what the other body did. I think the other body is saying what we did yesterday, let's do more of tomorrow. That is not a very thoughtful policy. Let's do a lot of good things that work to move us in a new direction to meet our energy needs. Again, I asked if he would yield for a question, and I guess I could ask a question, but I did want to say to him that this is good policy. It is not the case that the long-term energy needs of this country will be served in a very comprehensive way if we are able to pass this bill as-is tonight. We won't do that. But does the Senator not believe that this will really advance this country's energy policy in a significant way?

Mr. DORGAN. As a member of the Energy Committee, I am pleased to work with Senator Bingaman. He has done an extraordinary job. We have had many Members of the Senate come to the floor of the Senate talking about the urgency of having a new energy policy. I agree with that urgency and that the policy should be new, and I agree it ought to be a balanced, comprehensive policy. The other body, the House of Representatives, wrote an energy bill that I classified as kind of a dig-and-drill bill that is not changing anything very much. It is just trying to produce more of that which we have been using. This legislation enhances production of oil, natural gas, and coal in an environmentally acceptable way. We agree with that proposition. But it is also the case that we believe much more needs to be done. I wonder if the Senator from New Mexico would describe again the components, other than enhanced production, which we have in this comprehensive plan--the components of conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy, which I think are so important to a balanced energy plan. I wonder if the Senator from New Mexico would especially talk about conservation because I think that is a significant portion of any energy policy that would work in the long term for this country.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are now, as I understand it, in a 30- hour postcloture period following the cloture vote on whether we should proceed to consider the farm bill. I don't quite understand this, frankly. We ought not to have had a vote on whether we should proceed to the farm bill. Of course, we should proceed to the farm bill. Who on Earth thinks we should not proceed to write a farm bill. The current farm bill is a miserable failure. Not many people in the Senate have farmed under that farm bill, as a matter of fact. Those who have had to try to raise a family and operate a family farm under this current farm bill, Freedom to Farm, understand it is a miserable failure. The whole premise of the current farm bill was a failure. The premise was, whatever happens in the marketplace, that is all fine and that is all farmers need to know. And if the marketplace collapses and farmers don't have support for their products and they go broke, God bless them; the country doesn't care. America will be farmed from California to Maine, and we will have giant agrifactories. We will still get food on the grocery store counters. Under the philosophy of Freedom to Farm, family farmers are kind of like the little old diner left behind when the interstate highway comes through--kind of nice to talk about, nice to think about, nice to remember, but they are not part of today. People who think that way couldn't be more wrong. The seed bed of family values in America has always come from family farms. It is the road to small towns and big cities and has nurtured and refreshed this country in many ways. Family farming ought not be out of fashion. It ought not be yesterday's policies. It ought to be what we aspire for tomorrow's food supply. Family farming ought to be an important part of this country. Why do we need some special help for farmers? Why do we have a farm bill? That is a good question. In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was created in the 1860s by Abraham Lincoln with nine employees. My feeling is we don't need a Department of Agriculture if the sole purpose is not to foster a network of families that farm this country. If our goal is not to foster a network of family producers for America's food supply, then I say put a padlock on USDA, turn the key, and get rid of it. We don't need it. If the goal, however, is to foster a network of family food producers because we believe, both for social and economic purposes, it strengthens and enhances this country, then let's write a farm bill that does that. Let's write a farm bill that supports that. The current one does not. We haven't had one that supports that for a long while. It is interesting, I come from western North Dakota, a very sparsely populated part of the country. We had a little dispute recently in western North Dakota with prairie dogs. I got right in the middle of the dispute. I can't stay out of a dispute like that, I guess, much to my detriment. Here is the situation. It relates to what is happening in western North Dakota. We are in western North Dakota becoming a wilderness area. There is no Federal designation. We don't need one. We are fast losing people. My home county was 5,000 people when I left it. It is now 3,000 people. I left a small county in southwestern North Dakota. It is actually pretty big in geographic size. I left to go off to college. It was 5,000 people; now it is 3,000 people. The adjoining county just south of the badlands in western North Dakota is Slope County, about the same size. Actually, it is almost as big as one of the small eastern States. It has 900 people; seven babies were born in that county last year. So I come from a part of the country that is losing population hand over fist. People are moving out, not in. Family farmers and ranchers are not able to make a living so they leave. Their dreams are broken. All that they aspired to do to live on the land and make a living with their family, all those dreams are gone. Then this past spring, the U.S. Park Service, which is also in western North Dakota, had a problem. Out in the badlands of North Dakota we had a little picnic area, and it belonged to the taxpayers and the Federal Government. It was our picnic area. The prairie dogs, fury little creatures, took over this picnic area. Prairie dogs are very much like rats except they have a button nose and furry on the tail, and they multiply quickly. So the prairie dogs took over the picnic area. Our Federal Government sprang into action. They just sprang into action and did an environmental assessment--an ``EA,'' they called it. They did a finding of no significant impact--some sort of SNIFF; there are acronyms for these major things they do. They jumped right into action. You know what the conclusion was? If the prairie dogs have taken over the picnic area, then move the picnic area. It is a quarter of a million dollars to move the picnic area. That doesn't make much sense to me. I said: Why don't you move the prairie dogs? We are not short of prairie dogs, we are short of people in western North Dakota. We are not short of prairie dogs; move them. They said: We can't do that. I said: When I was a kid, 14 years old, the rats took over our barn and my dad asked if we could have a program to get rid of the rats. And myself and two other 14-year-old boys very quickly pointed out to the rats that the dumping grounds for our town was about a mile away, and lo and behold we got rid of the rats. I said: Hire three 14-year-old boys from western North Dakota to get rid of the prairie dogs, and it won't cost you very much. We will reclaim our picnic grounds. I said: The point is, I am really interested that you are going through this machination with respect to prairie dogs and picnic areas, when I can't get anybody interested in the fact that our State in the western part and in most rural counties is systematically being depopulated. Family farmers are going broke, ranchers are going broke, people are moving out. We can't get anybody interested in what all that means and the consequences of it, but you have a few prairie dogs move into a picnic area and, by God, the whole Government has studies going on and they are going to spend money to move picnic grounds. I said that is a strange set of priorities, in my judgment. I have gone off a bit, but in fact it is hard to get people interested in the real issues. The real issues in western North Dakota are that family farms are losing their shirts. Ranchers have had a big struggle there and people are moving and nobody seems to care much. But they care about a few prairie dogs. As an aside, I lost the issue. They moved the picnic grounds. Then, about a month later, after all this big controversy, I read in the newspaper that a guy from Oklahoma had invented a truck--he created a truck with a hose on the truck that had a vacuum attached to the hose, and he would stick the hose in prairie dog holes and suck them out of the holes. And it threw them into the back of this truck, which he had padded with mattresses so they didn't get hurt. I said: That is an interesting approach--to suck the prairie dogs out of the holes and then throw them into this truck with mattresses and they don't get hurt. Then 2 weeks later, on the national news I saw that in Japan they were selling prairie dogs for $250 apiece as pets. I am thinking to myself that here is a solution to a problem. Hire that guy from Oklahoma, suck those prairie dogs out of the holes, ship them to Japan, reduce our Federal trade deficit, save the taxpayers a quarter million dollars, and reclaim our picnic grounds. Of course, that was way too simple for the Park Service. I digress a bit only to say this: When you get a prairie dog problem, you have the whole darn Government running to see what they can do about it. But when you have a problem with family farmers making a living, who invest all they have in the spring to plant a seed and get on the tractor to plant that seed, and then they hope beyond hope that the insects won't come, that it will rain enough--but not too much--so they won't have crop disease, that they won't have hail, and that if they are lucky, in the fall they will be able to get out there with a combine and harvest the grain and put it in a 2-ton truck, only to find out when they drive that truck with a load of wheat to the elevator, the elevator and grain trade will tell them: This food you produced doesn't have any value. This food you produced on your farm doesn't have value. That family farmer on that farm scratches his head and says: What is this about? Our food has no value? We have a world in which a half billion people go to bed every night with an ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry, and we are told the food we produce in abundance has no value. Are we not connecting the dots somehow? Is something missing here? The farmer who is told his food has no value goes to the grocery store on the way home and picks up a box of puffed wheat, or puffed rice, or Rice Crispies, or shredded wheat. What they discover is that someone discovered that grain had value. It wasn't the person who produced it, who risked their money to produce it. It was the person that puffed it, crisped it, crackled it, popped it, put it in the box, and sells it for 100 times what family farmers are getting who took all the risks to produce it. There is something fundamentally wrong there. My point is this: We have struggled to write a farm policy that recognizes the value and the worth of family farmers to this country. Some say: Why are farmers different? Why don't you recognize the value and the worth of the person on Main Street who runs the hardware store, or the barber shop, for that matter? Well, the family farm is the only enterprise in our country that has the risks I have just described-- planting a seed, borrowing all the money they can to plant the seed, and hope beyond hope that all the other circumstances that could completely wipe them out financially do not do that between when they plant the seed and when they harvest it; and then they go to the grain elevator with no understanding that their product is going to have any value at all. They are the only small enterprise that has all of those concurrent risks at the same time. The question for this country about its security and about the nature of its economy is: Do we want to maintain a network of family producers producing our food or not? It is very simple. Europe has made that decision. Long ago, Europe decided it wants family producers to be producing food for Europe. Why? Because Europe has been hungry in its past and doesn't want to be hungry again. It believes food production by family units is a matter of national security for Europe. We ought to believe the same for the United States. I grew up in a town of 300 people. When I was a boy, in my hometown, I would go on Saturday night to my hometown and it was full of cars. The barber shop was open until midnight. The barber was cutting hair there at all hours of the night on Saturday night. It was like a festival on Saturday evening in my hometown. That is not the case anymore. Family after family after family have gone broke--forced to leave the family farm because they could not make a living raising their grain and the livestock and selling them at prices that the grain trade and the exchanges provided. Now, one might say that is just the way things are and there is really nothing you can do about that. Europe didn't decide that. They said: We want to maintain a network of family producers for our national security. We believe food security is critically important, and we want to maintain a network of family farm producers for that purpose. Go to Europe and to a small town in rural Europe on a Saturday night and see what you find. You will find that those small towns are alive, as I described my small town was many decades ago. They are alive and thriving. Why? Because the blood vessels that create the economy of a small town come from family farms to these small communities and nourish those small communities. In many ways, this debate is about values. What kind of an economy do we want? What do we cherish? What do we think is valuable about this country? It is always interesting to me that if you are big enough, strong enough, powerful enough, have enough resources, and you come to this Congress, I am telling you, people stand at attention and say, yes, sir; no, sir; what do you want, sir. I could give a lot of examples of that. Tom Paxton wrote a song a long time ago, many decades ago when the Congress gave Chrysler Motors a bailout. Mr. Paxton, a great folk artist, wrote, ``I Am Changing My Name to Chrysler.'' It is interesting, even as we now are struggling to get through a motion to proceed on a postcloture, 30-hour discussion, just to get to the farm bill to try to help those families out there, even as we do that, we have a package to try to stimulate the economy that comes over from the House of Representatives that says: Do you know how we do that? We give Ford a $1 billion rebate check for the alternative minimum taxes they paid in the last 13 years. We give IBM a $1.4 billion tax rebate check for the last 13 years. Maybe Mr. Paxton should write a new song called ``I Am Changing My Name to Ford.'' The point is this: The individual family farmers around this country don't have the kind of clout and power and opportunity to access their Government that some of the largest enterprises in this country do. Family farms play an important role in our economy and in our culture. For social and economic reasons, I believe this country ought to want to foster and nurture a network of family farmers across this country producing America's food. We can do it another way, and in some areas we do. In California, they have areas where one company milks 3,500 cows every day three times a day. God bless them, in my judgment. They have every right to do that. I suggest we have a price support under the milk produced from about 100 cows and say: If you want to milk 120 or 3,020 cows, God bless you, but that is at your risk, not ours. We will provide a price support of the milk on the first 100 cows you milk. That is what we ought to do with respect to providing a safety net for family farmers. Let me speak for a moment about the farm bill that was written in the Senate Agriculture Committee. Certainly it is not perfect. It is not exactly the bill I would write. I would prefer more targeting in the bill to be more helpful to family-size farms. This bill is sure a whole lot better than the underlying farm law. I was here when we debated Freedom to Farm, which I thought was a catastrophe and I voted against it, and I am pleased I did. I want to see somebody stand up in this Chamber and say how well Freedom to Farm has worked. It almost bankrupted a lot of family farmers except for the fact every single year we had to pass emergency legislation to fill the gaps between Freedom to Farm which was such a miserable Swiss cheese piece of legislation that really did not help family farmers at all. When the Freedom to Farm bill was passed, we had high grain prices, and we had people around here thinking that it was going to last forever; we are always going to have high grain prices, so we will just give these farmers declining payments over 7 years, not with respect to what the current market prices are; we will just pay them, and things will be great. It was an absurd proposition. The fact is, prices collapsed almost immediately, and they stayed down and they are down today. The current, underlying farm law does not work at all. It is a miserable piece of public policy that should never have been enacted but was, and we have had to make the best of it by the end of each year passing some emergency legislation to respond to the needs that were unmet in Freedom to Farm. The Senate Agriculture Committee has passed legislation that does a policy U-turn, and that policy U-turn says: Let us go back to at least some form of countercyclical help, getting help only when you need it. That makes good sense to me. That countercyclical help is the help that I hope will give family farmers a message from the U.S. Congress that says: You matter; you count; we want you as part of America's future. Those Senators who come from farm country have had the same kind of calls I have had and the same experience as I have had. Some say: Those are anecdotes that are emotional but do not mean very much. They mean everything. Arlo Schmidt was doing an auction sale in North Dakota. He was auctioning a farm that had gone broke. A little boy came up to Arlo at the end of the auction sale. He was about 8 or 9 years old, Arlo told me. The little boy was angry. He had tears in his eyes. He grabbed Arlo Schmidt around the leg, looked up at him and said accusingly: You sold my dad's tractor. Arlo patted him on the shoulder to comfort him some, and the kid would have none of it. He said: I wanted to drive that tractor when I got big. The point is, that little boy felt that he, too, wanted a chance to farm, but his family lost their dream, and the result was an auction sale. Those auction sales all around the country, those poster sales of those broken farms reflect a failure of farm policy. This is a hungry world. It is an enormously hungry world, and we produce food in such great abundance. The economic all-stars of food production are family farmers. There is something fundamentally wrong when we cannot make the connections between what we produce in great abundance and what the world needs. As I speak today, there are tens of thousands of children who will die from hunger and hunger-related causes every hour, and nobody thinks much about that. I had a friend who was a singer many years ago who died in 1981. His name was Harry Chapin. He was a wonderful singer. He devoted one-half of the proceeds of his concerts every year to fight world hunger. Harry Chapin used to say if every day 45,000 children die of hunger and hunger-related causes, it is not even in the newspaper; there is not even a news story about it. But if in New Jersey, 45,000 people died in one day, it would be headlines. The winds of hunger blow every minute, every hour, and every day, and it is not even newsworthy. We have family farmers with hopes and dreams to produce America's food and to produce food for the world only to be told that which they produce has no value. There is something dramatically wrong with that. I will finish by saying this: I regret we are here today dealing with this bill. We should have been on this bill long ago. I especially regret we had to have a vote on a motion to proceed. We are having a debate on whether we are going to proceed to the agriculture bill. I have the deepest respect for Senator Lugar of Indiana. I listened to his speech. I could not disagree with him more. He knows I have spoken many times about the Nunn-Lugar program, for which I will have admiration forever for Senator Lugar. What he has done in some areas is so wonderful and so important to this world. But in agriculture policy, I could not disagree with him more. It is important for us to have aggressive debate about this so that the country gets the best of what all of us have to offer. I am hopeful at the end of the day that we will get past this postcloture debate, get on the bill, offer amendments, and get this bill done. Today is Wednesday. We ought to finish this bill this week. We ought to have a final passage vote on Friday, go to conference next week, finish the conference report, and put it on President Bush's desk for signature at the end of next week. That is what we ought to do. I commit myself to doing that. I hope others will as well. Today, let us make that commitment to America's families who are desperately trying to make a living and hold on to that dream of making the family farm work. In this hungry world, especially at this time when we talk about security, food security, and contributing to the world's food supply by our country's economic all-stars, the family farmers, it is something that merits the attention and merits the writing of a good farm bill by the Congress, and it merits us doing that now, this week, and next week, and finishing that product so we can have the President sign it before the end of this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we in the postcloture period for debate?

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a couple questions.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I shall not take all 8 minutes. I understand there is a long line of people wishing to speak on this conference report later. First of all, I compliment the chairman and ranking member from the Senate side. I think they have done an extraordinary job on the conference report. I appreciate the work they have done on a range of issues. I think the Senate owes them a debt of gratitude. I could spend some long period of time talking about the important provisions in this Transportation conference report. I know it took a long while to get to this point. Senator Murray, chairing the subcommittee on the Senate side, and others who have worked on this bill for some length of time undoubtedly wish this had been completed much earlier, but there were a series of things that prevented it from happening. In any event, at the end of this session we have a conference report that contains a lot of important items for this country's transportation system. I compliment Senator Shelby and Senator Murray and thank them for their work. I do want to say--and I will say it briefly--there are two items in the conference report that provide some heartburn for me. The conference was required--or forced, I guess--to accept a provision dealing with the spending of $400,000 to put airport signs up that describe National Airport really as Reagan National Airport. This conference report, because the House insisted, requires the Metro Airport Authority to spend $400,000 changing signs so that people will not be confused that they are at the airport when, in fact, the signs now say ``National Airport.'' George Will had a little something to say about that in a piece in April of this year. He said: Travelers too oblivious to know they are at an airport, when large, clear signs say they are, should be given those little plastic pilot wings that are issued to unaccompanied children taken into protective custody. The conservatives want to get Congress to order Metro officials to spend several thousand dollars to add Reagan's name to the station signs and all references to the station on the maps. He is talking about the station at the Metro stop. He said: Reagan had a memorable thing or two to say about bossy Federal institutions meddling in local affairs. I want to make the point that the House of Representatives has insisted on this for some long while. I regret they forced their will into this conference. I think it is a waste of $400,000 that probably could have better been used, if the House had thought clearly about this, for security. We have a range of security needs, given post-September 11, on a range of transportation systems. I would have much rather seen, if the $400,000 is to be spent, that it be spent on Metro security. I know the Senators from Washington and Alabama share my concern about that. Let me make one additional point, and that is on the issue of Mexican trucks. The House of Representatives had a provision that actually prohibited the Mexican trucks from coming into this country beyond the 20-mile limit. The Senate provision was not as strong but was a pretty good provision. I would have preferred a stronger provision. The provision that came out of conference is weaker than both. I understand the work that Senator Murray and Senator Shelby did. I am not here to criticize their work. I respect the work they did in conference to try to resolve this issue. They make the point--and it is an accurate point--that this is a restriction on funding for 1 year during the appropriations year. So this issue will not be concluded with this judgment in this conference committee. This issue will be a part of the interests of the authorizing committee, oversight by this subcommittee, and also will be a part of the interest of others of us in the Congress who still believe it will be unsafe to have any wholesale movement of Mexican trucks beyond the 20-mile border limit. It is interesting to me that we now have a limitation on the movement of Mexican trucks in this country, and yet Mexican truck drivers with Mexican trucks have been apprehended in North Dakota, which, of course, is significantly beyond the 20-mile limit from the Mexican border. And it is true they have been apprehended in a good many other States as well. We have a lot of difficulties, problems, and concerns trying to merge two different kinds of economies with respect to transportation, two different kinds of systems dealing with short- and long-haul trucks, and two different safety standards, different standards with respect to both drivers and trucks. I wish we had in fact had the House position, which originally came to conference with a prohibition until adequate safety standards were in place and adequate inspection opportunities were in place. That, regrettably, is not the case. And I am not here to suggest that our two Senators--Senator Murray and Senator Shelby--in any way weakened this provision. I am here to say the conference itself forced that weakening. I think that will not and cannot be the last word on this subject. Those on the authorizing committee and those of us who will return to this subject in the appropriations process next year will have more to say. But having spoken on both of those issues, let me again say to my colleague, Senator Murray, and my colleague, Senator Shelby, they operate in good faith and do an extraordinary job. They run a subcommittee that is very important to this country, especially again in relation to post-September 11, the issue of transportation, the security of our transportation systems in the country. Our transportation industry is so important to this country's economy. There is no way you can overstate it. The appropriations bill offered to us today by Senators Murray and Shelby is an appropriations bill that I think the Senate will want to approve. This conference report will get the Senate's approval today. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, how much time am I allowed?

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Medicare Cholesterol Screening Coverage Act of 2001, along with my colleagues Mr. Campbell and Mr. Bingaman. This bipartisan legislation, which also has been introduced in the House of Representatives, would add blood cholesterol screening as a covered benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. The most recent guidelines from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute recommends that all Americans over the age of 20 be screened for high cholesterol. Yet current Medicare policy only covers cholesterol testing for patients who already have heart disease, stroke or other disorders associated with elevated cholesterol levels. Thus, enactment of this bill will help save lives of the approximately one- third of Medicare recipients not already covered for cholesterol testing. High cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke, the Nation's number 1 and number 3 killers of both men and women. Cardiovascular disease kills nearly a million people each year in this country, more than the next seven leading causes of death combined. In particular, Americans over the age of 65 have the highest rate of coronary heart disease, CHD, in the Nation and about 80 percent of the deaths from CHD occur in this age group. It is not surprising that cardiovascular diseases account for one-third of all Medicare's spending for hospitalizations. Obviously, in order to slow the onset of CHD, it is first necessary to identify those with elevated cholesterol, which is why passage of this bill is so critical. The importance of identifying those at risk for CHD is illustrated by the results of just released research from Oxford University. This study showed that in elderly people, lowering of cholesterol was associated with a one-third reduction in heart attack and stroke and a substantially reduced need for surgery to repair or open clogged arteries. Clearly, this bill can save lives. Yet despite the importance of identifying this major, changeable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, screening for cholesterol is not covered by Medicare. I have felt for a long while that our health care system, and Medicare in particular, needs to place a greater emphasis on preventative health care. Implementation of the measures in this bill can potentially decrease the incidence of cardiovascular disease resulting in reduced illness, debilitation and death. Early detection of illness is often an important factor in successful treatment and has been effective in reducing long-term health care costs. Previously, Congress in its wisdom, has acted to provide for other screening tests including bone mass measurement, and screenings for glaucoma and for colorectal, prostate and breast cancer. Now we must take another step in the right direction by extending Medicare coverage for cholesterol screening. It is only right that the Congress do what it can to help implement the guidelines of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, and it is only right that we provide these benefits for all Medicare recipients. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this piece of legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me describe the last big trade debate before the vote on GATT; it was NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Is there anybody left in this Chamber who thinks that made any sense? We were promised 350,000 new jobs in a study that all of the business interests held up to say look at how great this is going to be. We passed the NAFTA trade agreement, and we turned a trade surplus with Mexico into a huge growing deficit very quickly. We turned a deficit with Canada that was not so awfully large into one that was very large. So NAFTA--the U.S. trade agreement with Canada and Mexico--turned both of these trade relationships into huge deficits. How can that be in this country's interest? We were told, well, the situation with Mexico will be simple. We will be the beneficiaries of the products of low-wage, low-skilled labor from Mexico. Guess what the three largest imports from Mexico are to the United States? Automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics. All are the products of high-skilled labor--all of them. In fact, those who sold us on NAFTA were dead wrong. I am hoping if we ever have a debate on trade promotion authority--which I hope we can defeat--that we can hear from some of the same folks who extolled the virtues of a trade agreement that was so bad for this country and American producers and workers. My point is, I don't want a harmful trade agreement to happen again. We have done the United States-Canada free trade agreement, NAFTA, and GATT, all of which led to bigger and bigger trade deficits year by year. The trade deficit has grown to $452 billion. Every day, over $1.5 billion more in goods are coming into this country than we are able to export. No country will long remain a strong economic enterprise if it sees its manufacturing base dissipating. That is exactly what is happening as a result of these trade deficits. My point is that the House can have another celebration at the end of this week if they pass trade promotion authority, but they should not think it is going to happen quickly in this Congress. I and others will steadfastly oppose trade promotion authority in the Senate. What I want is negotiators who might decide to put on a uniform. We send people to the Olympics with uniforms. They actually wear a jersey that says ``USA.'' It would be nice to have a trade negotiator put on a jersey so they understand who they are representing when they get behind closed doors in a negotiating room, and it would be nice if the next agreement is fair to this country, fair to our producers, and fair to our workers. It has been a long time. I hope we might see that in the future.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, first of all, I listened to the remarks of my colleague from Utah and thought they were interesting remarks, on point, and I appreciate them. I have heard some comments from colleagues this morning who are repeating things we have heard previously in this Senate Chamber. I want to comment about a couple of them and then talk about a vote that is occurring in the other body late this week and on which we expect to vote in the Senate at some point. It is a vote on something called fast-track trade authority. We had some discussion earlier today in the Senate about, the stimulus package referring, of course, to the package of legislation that would try to provide some lift to this country's economy. The question was asked: Where is the stimulus bill? The answer is very simple. The piece of legislation designed to try to stimulate this economy was brought to the floor of the Senate, and then the Republicans decided to make a point of order against it, which they did, and they took it from Senate consideration. A point of order exists against the bill that Senator Daschle brought to the floor of the Senate. It would exist against the Republican bill. A point of order would also exist against the bill written by the House of Representatives. A point of order exists against all of the bills designed to try to stimulate this country's economy. But the point of order was made against the bill that was brought to the floor by Senator Daschle. So those who now ask, Where is the stimulus bill? if they voted to sustain the point of order, need not ask that very loudly. The stimulus bill is where they put it. We were debating it on the floor. It was under active consideration. And now it is not. Why? Because a substantial number of Members in the other party decided to take it from the floor of the Senate. We need a stimulus bill. Our economy is in significant trouble, in my judgment. We ought to pass a piece of legislation providing lift to this economy. The President, and others, have asked the question, What is the Senate doing? The Senate is trying to pass a bill that provides temporary and immediate help to this economy. The House of Representatives, on the other side of this building, decided they were going to do something quite different with respect to stimulus. They decided to pull out a bunch of old, leftover tax policies, package them up, and call it a stimulus plan. For example, one of their proposals to help this country's economy was to give tax rebates, for taxes paid since 1988, for corporations under the alternative minimum corporate tax. What does that mean? It means a rebate check for $1.4 billion will go to IBM, a rebate check for $1 billion will go to Ford Motor Company. The fact is, virtually all economists tell us we have substantial overcapacity in our economy. Providing tax rebates for the biggest companies in the country is going to do nothing to help this economy. It is just one more scheme to provide tax rebates, tax checks to the biggest interests in the country, and it has nothing much to do with improving this country's economy. We do need a tax plan and a spending plan that stimulates this country's economy. Senator Daschle brought one to the floor of the Senate. But it is not here any longer because the minority party in the Senate decided they wanted to make a point of order and take it from the floor. So I find it interesting that we have people coming to the floor, again and again and again, saying: The stimulus package is important. Where is it? I recall a story about raccoons once, that raccoons have a fastidious way of washing everything they eat. When they find something to eat, they apparently go find water, and then they use their little hands to fastidiously wash what they intend to eat. It is just a habit raccoons have. But sometimes raccoons cannot find water, so they pretend there is water. They go through the same motions, acting as if they are washing their food, despite the fact there is no water. We have some of that pantomime activity in the Senate. It is an interesting thing to watch. Saying, Where is the stimulus package? is almost exactly like that. It is sort of a pantomime piece of information: Where is the stimulus package? Those who ask the question know exactly where the stimulus package is. They are the ones who took it from our consideration in the Senate. It is on the calendar but not on the floor because a point of order was made against the stimulus package. Another point made this afternoon was about the energy policy. We do need to develop a new energy policy in this country. Last week, Senator Daschle came to the floor of the Senate and made a commitment. He said in the first work session after we come back next month, we are going to be considering the energy package: a comprehensive energy package, not just one piece, but a comprehensive energy package that deals with supply and conservation, efficiency, renewables, as well as energy security. That bill is going to come from a number of different committees in the Senate. It makes sense, to me, to do it that way. Energy policy is not just--any longer--about supply and demand. It is also about security. Especially since September 11, we now understand the issue of energy security must be discussed and debated when we construct a new energy policy. The security of nuclear energy production plants, the security of transmission lines, the security of the thousands of miles of pipelines: All of that is important in the context of energy policy as well. So we will have an energy bill on the floor of the Senate. Senator Daschle is committed to that. But he wants to do it the right way. The right way is to consider all of the elements of good energy policy. Part of it is production, part of it is conservation, dealing with supply and demand. It is important to point out, with respect to that piece of an energy policy, that some in this Senate and some in Congress would counsel that our energy policy for the future should be yesterday forever, just do what we did yesterday and keep doing it tomorrow--dig and drill--and somehow that will represent a comprehensive energy policy for this country. I happen to believe we need additional production of energy. There is no question about that. We can, should, and will, in my judgment, produce more oil, natural gas, and coal, and do so in an environmentally acceptable way, to extend our country's energy supply. But if that is all we do, we have miserably failed the American people. It is, as I said, a policy that says yesterday forever. We need to do much more than just expand our supply through digging and drilling. We need, it seems to me, to pay great attention to conservation. Conserving a barrel of oil is the same as producing a barrel of oil. We can achieve substantial savings through thoughtful conservation, the right kind of conservation. We can and should adopt that as a policy as well. For example, we should look at the efficiency of appliances. We can also make great progress with respect to the efficiency of those appliances we use in our everyday lives. And then there are renewable and limitless sources of energy: Fuel cells, ethanol, biomass--a whole series of technologies that represent policies for the future that can really promote new and exciting forms of energy, many of them renewable and some of them limitless. That is what a comprehensive energy policy can and should be. It has to be much more than just a policy that says let's just provide some tax breaks to those who are going to dig for coal and drill for oil. That doesn't make any sense. That is not a substitute or an excuse for a policy. That is one part of a series of things we ought to consider as we consider a new energy policy. One of the interesting things to me about energy policy is that we don't have a long-term strategy precisely because of the thinking of some who have expressed on the floor that we have to have something now that opens up ANWR. That is exactly the attitude that has put us in the position of not having a long-term strategy. If Members come to the Chamber to talk about Social Security, everyone talks about what the expectations are 30 and 50 years from now. Everyone says what is the situation 25, 30, and 50 years from now with respect to the Social Security system. I asked the Energy Department, when they testified, what kind of expectations we have 25 and 50 years from now with respect to energy. What will energy use be? What kind of energy will we use? What are we promoting? What kind of policies do we have with respect to energy usage that would allow us to become more independent? The answer was: We don't have a plan. There is no one who can say: Our aspiration, as a nation, is to have a certain mix of energy production, of renewables and other forms of energy that will extend our energy supply. There is no such plan. Nobody thinks out 25 or 50 years. As I indicated the other day with respect to my own circumstances, my first car was one I restored. As a young boy, I bought an old Model T Ford and restored it. Interestingly enough, a 1924 car is gassed up the same way you do a 2001 car. You pull up to the pump, you take the cap off and stick a hose in it, and you pump gas. Nothing has changed in 75 years. Everything else in our life has changed. But you still gas up a Model T Ford the way you gas up the newest car on the road today. You would think perhaps something could change or would change or will change if we embrace and adopt thoughtful energy policies, and that is what Senator Daschle wants to do. He wants to bring to the floor a broad, comprehensive package of energy policies that will really advance this country's long-term energy and economic interests. That is what we will do in the first work session after the first of the year. That makes good sense. So those who come here day after day asking where is the stimulus package, it is where you put it. You knocked it off the floor of the Senate. We want to bring it back with a package that is really temporary, immediate, and gives real help to the American economy. When they ask the question, where is the energy policy, it is coming to the floor in the first work session after we get back in January, and it is going to be much more than the limited notion of digging and drilling forever. It is going to be a comprehensive energy policy that does advance this country's energy and economic interests. The subject of fast-track trade authority is one I have spoken about without great effect on the Senate floor for many years. Apparently, on Thursday of this week, the House of Representatives is determined to bring to the floor of the House something called trade promotion authority, which is a fancy way of saying ``fast-track trade authority,'' by which an administration can go off and negotiate a trade agreement, bring it back to the Congress, and the Congress is prevented from offering any amendments. We are then required then in both the House and the Senate, to vote up or down on these trade agreements. The House may well have the votes to provide fast-track trade authority to this President. I do not know. I don't know what the votes are in the Senate. I do know that if the House of Representatives passes fast-track trade authority, it will be slowed dramatically when it gets to the Senate. I did not support giving fast-track trade authority to President Clinton. I do not support giving fast-track trade authority to President Bush. Why? Let me show with a chart what has happened with this country's international trade. Some say this is going well for America. It is hard for me to see how that is the case when we have a ballooning trade deficit reaching alarming proportions--a $452 billion merchandise trade deficit last year alone. That is nearly $1.5 billion a day that we take in more in imports than we are able to export. It weakens this economy to run up these kinds of trade deficits year after year. We can talk about the different trade rounds. We could talk about the Tokyo round and GATT and this round and that round. Every time we have another trade agreement, we seem to have a larger trade deficit. Some say it is because the dollar is too strong; or we have too big of a Federal budget deficit. It doesn't matter what the excuse is. Economists will give an excuse of the moment. None of them really washes. Every time we have a new trade agreement, we tend to see larger trade deficits. What is the circumstance of international trade? Fast track says we give an administration the ability to go negotiate an agreement, bring it to Congress, and Congress must vote yes or no without any amendments. The Constitution says, article I, section 8, Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes. So the responsibility is really with the U.S. Congress. Fast track abridges that responsibility. I could talk for an hour on the subject of international trade and what has happened to us. I understand that we need to expand trade. We want to expand trade. We want to broaden our opportunities in trading with other countries. I agree fully with that. But I insist that part of this country's effort with respect to trade policy ought to be to demand fair trade rules with our trading partners. In the first 25 years after the Second World War, we could trade with anybody in the world with one hand tied behind our back, and it didn't matter because we were bigger, better, stronger, and more capable of trading than anybody else in the world. We could do that. And most of our trade at that point was foreign policy. It was not economic policy; it was foreign policy. We created trade agreements that represented our foreign policy initiatives with those for whom we wanted to provide some help. In the second 25 years after the Second World War, when others became smarter, better, tougher, with stronger economies, it wasn't quite as easy for us to compete. So now we have a circumstance where we have a growing number of trading partners that are very shrewd and very strong. Over many years Japan, European countries, Canada, and others have become, in many cases, formidable trading partners and with whom we have experienced very large trade deficits. China is another example. What has happened with these countries with whom we have these trade relations? With respect to Japan, we have had an $50 to $60 billion trade deficit every year, every year forever. It has recently grown to $80 billion. Should that be the case? I don't think so. They ship us all of their goods. We say: Good for them; our market is open to all of their goods. But did you know that 12 years after we reached a beef agreement with Japan, every pound of American beef going to Japan has a 38.5-percent tariff on it? Twelve years after our beef agreement, every pound has a 38.5-percent tariff on it. Send a T-bone steak to Tokyo, it has 38.5 percent tariff. Is that fair, 12 years after our agreement, with a country with whom we have a huge trade deficit? I don't think so. See how much luck you have sending pork chops to Peking, or how about potato flakes to Korea. Try shipping durum wheat to Canada. You could spend a long time talking about the abysmal trade circumstances we have as a result of improperly negotiated agreements. Let me give you one more example. This happens to be Korea. Last year, we shipped into this country 570,000 cars from Korea. Korea bought 1,700 from us. Let me say that again. It is important to understand the one-way relationship we have: 570,000 automobiles were shipped into the United States from Korea. Korea purchased 1,700 from us. A mid-priced car, a pretty decent car, costs twice as much in Korea. They don't want American cars in Korea. They don't buy them. The result is a one-way trade relationship with respect to automobiles in Korea. But I can describe the circumstances with fructose corn syrup with Mexico, potato flakes with Korea, beef in Japan. The list is endless. The question for this country is: When will our trade negotiators begin showing some understanding that they are negotiating on behalf of the United States of America and that they are trying to protect our country's interests? When will we send trade negotiators who will say to the Canadians that they can't ship all their durum wheat to the United States and not allow one little load of ours into Canada? That is not fair to durum producers in the United States. The point is this: Fast-track trade authority is a moniker for ``do you support American business?'' The business that wants fast track is international business. They want to buy from themselves and sell to themselves. In fact, what I want for this country is fair trade-- expanded, yes, but fair trade. I want negotiators who will negotiate fair trade agreements with other countries that will begin reducing this ballooning trade deficit that injures our economy. My hope is if the House of Representatives decides to pass the fast-track trade authority this week, the Senate will slow that down. I and others in the Senate--at least a dozen and more--will certainly want to have our way to be sure that we are not going to pass very quickly trade promotion authority for this President. As I said, I didn't support fast-track authority for President Clinton. I don't support it for President Bush. What I support is for this country to be hardnosed, to have a backbone, some nerve, some will, and to insist with China, Japan, Europe, Canada, Mexico, and others that we want trade agreements that are fair to American producers and to American workers. If the trade agreements are not fair, then they ought not be made. I know my colleague from New Mexico is waiting. Let me make a final comment to describe the circumstances. If I might ask if my time has expired.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mark Zaineddin, a fellow in my office from the U.S. Department of Commerce, be granted floor privileges for the day.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have today written a letter to the Attorney General and to the head of the Office of Management and Budget expressing my great concern over regulations that should now have been in place as a result of a law that was signed by the President last December. That law would have required regulations to be published by the Justice Department in July. No such regulations have been published. Here is the background of this issue. I, along with my colleague, then-Senator John Ashcroft, authored legislation that became law, when signed by the President, dealing with the transportation of violent criminals around this country. Private companies have been contracted by State and local governments to transport prisoners around America from one prison and one location to another. These private companies were transporting violent criminals, and all too often those criminals were walking away. We decided the companies that were hauling violent offenders were not adhering to standards or regulations and there should be some regulations. The President signed a bill, authored by myself and then-Senator Ashcroft, establishing regulations with respect to private companies that are transporting violent prisoners. The law is called Gina's bill. It is named for an 11-year-old girl in Fargo, ND, who was murdered brutally by a man named Kyle Bell. Kyle Bell was being sent to a prison in Oregon after being convicted of first-degree murder, being transported by a private company in a bus. They stopped for gas. One guard was asleep; the other apparently went in to get a cheeseburger. The other guard was filling the bus with gasoline. Kyle Bell slipped out the top vent of the bus, walked in street clothes into a parking lot of a shopping center and was gone for 3 months. They found him. He is now in prison. This has happened all too often: Violent offenders, including convicted murders, walking away from private companies that are transporting them. There should have been regulations in place in July of this year that establish how these private companies are transporting violent criminals. As for me, I don't believe any State or local government should ever contract with a private company to turn over a murderer to be transported somewhere. Law enforcement officials ought to transport convicted murderers. As long as some State and local governments are using private companies for that transport, those private companies ought to be subject to regulation as is required by the law signed by the President in December, regulations such as what kind of restraints are used, what color clothing is required to be worn by the violent offender being transported, the training of the guards, and so forth. Since July, when the regulation should have been in effect, in Wisconsin a private company was hauling a violent criminal and that violent criminal escaped and stabbed a law enforcement officer in the neck. Down South, a private company was transporting a violent offender. The violent offender escaped and went on a bank robbing spree. When we passed the law, I told the story of a retired sheriff and his wife showing up at a prison to pick up five convicted murderers with a minivan. The warden said: You have to be kidding; you and your wife are here to pick up five convicted murderers to transport them? He was not kidding. They put them in the minivan. Those five convicted murderers escaped, of course. That is why we wrote the law and why the President signed it. That is why in July the Justice Department had a responsibility to put the regulations in place. To date, nearly 5 months later, those regulations do not exist. I have written to the Attorney General and the Office of Management and Budget to say lives are at stake. The public safety is at stake. Get this done and get it done now. This law, called Gina's bill, named after this wonderful 11-year-old girl who was brutally murdered by Kyle Bell, is a law designed to keep violent offenders behind bars, keep them in the arms of law enforcement officials, and make certain if they are transported by those other than law enforcement officials, they are transported safely. I don't want any American family to drive to a gas pump somewhere and have a minivan drive up next to them with a retired law enforcement officer and his brother-in-law calling themselves a transport company hauling three murderers in the back seat and not having the basic safety standards in place to make sure that transportation is safe. I don't want any family to come up to a gas station and have that situation next to them and put them at risk. That is why we wrote this bill. That is why the President signed it into law. I hope my letter to the Attorney General and the Office of Management and Budget will stimulate them to do what they should have done in the month of July. I know there are reasons that bureaucracies act in a slow way and drag their feet from time to time. There is no good reason for this to have happened. I ask the Attorney General for his cooperation. I ask the head of the Office of Management and Budget to cooperate. Get this done. The Congress required you to do it after 180 days. That was July. This is December. It should have been done 5 months ago. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for just another moment, that is a reassuring answer. I know how strongly the majority leader feels about the need to write a farm bill. I observe that the House of Representatives has passed a farm bill. We have now passed one out of the committee under the leadership of Senator Harkin. We need to get it to the floor of the Senate and then to conference. The goal here is to get a bill on the President's desk for signature. This is about family farmers hanging on by their financial fingertips and struggling to survive. It is our obligation to get this done. I know it is not the fault of the majority leader. It was his full intention to bring that to the floor. It would have been on the floor today had we not faced the filibuster. I wanted to, once again, ask. And I received the answer that I expected I would. The majority leader is a strong advocate of family farms and the need for a better farm program. I am deeply reassured by that answer. I look forward to being here with the majority leader and with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee fighting hard for a farm bill that will give family farmers in this country a decent chance to survive. I thank the majority leader for his answers.