Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask consent to be allowed to withdraw the amendment I offered dealing with funding for TV Marti and trade compliance.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have heard the discussions about the bill on the floor, the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. As the chairman and ranking member know, I have offered two amendments, one of which is fairly controversial. My proposition would be that I withdraw that amendment. I will chat about it for 1 minute. I understand from discussions we have had that the chairman and ranking member would approve my second amendment by a voice vote, and I propose I be allowed to withdraw the amendment dealing with eliminating funding for TV Marti and using that money instead to enhance enforcement and compliance in international trade. I will ask consent to do that in a moment. Things have changed very substantially and now is not the time for this discussion. That doesn't mean I don't believe during this appropriations process this year, either in conference or in some other device, we ought not do what I propose in my amendment. I believe very strongly in my amendment that identified $10 to $11 million of tragic waste of the taxpayers money and identified an area that cries out in a desperate need: our trading partners like compliance of enforcement of our trade laws dealing with China, Japan, Europe, Mexico, and Canada. Although I ask consent to withdraw the TV Marti amendment if we have reached agreement on the other amendment, I want everyone to understand that this is not necessarily the end of that discussion this year. But I think it is probably better not to continue the discussion at this time.

Mr. DORGAN. No.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me just say again that while I have withdrawn that particular amendment, I believe very strongly that we need to revisit this as we go along in this process. I think this is not the time to do that. I have talked to the Senator from South Carolina, who I know has some feelings about this as well. We will revisit this later in this process. Let me say how much I appreciate the work of the Senators from South Carolina and New Hampshire; they have done so much work on this bill.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from South Carolina would yield for a question.

Mr. DORGAN. I share his sentiments in trying to move this bill and complete it. I wonder what would prevent us from going to third reading. Is there an objection to doing that? Frankly, when a bill has been on the floor a long period of time, and people are on notice, it seems to me they have some responsibility to be here to offer amendments. So I ask the Senator, what would prevent us from going to third reading at this point?

Mr. DORGAN. One final point, if I might, if the Senator from South Carolina will yield. I would encourage the Senator to consider going to third reading on this bill, or at some point there needs to come a time when the Senate says it is time to go to third reading if people are not going to be here to offer amendments.

Mr. DORGAN. But there comes a time, it seems to me, that when, if you have an amendment, you have a responsibility to come and offer it, and let the Senate decide. If there are those who have amendments, I hope they will come to this Chamber. I know the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from New Hampshire have been in this Chamber, literally begging for people to come and get these amendments to the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. If I might inquire further, obviously no one wants to shortchange the opportunity of any Senator to offer any amendment at any point.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I listened to my colleague from Texas and I share her sentiments. There are unique moments in history, that are too often born of tragedy, when Americans stand together with a relentless determination to combat the forces of evil, and to reaffirm that our freedom is secure. This, regrettably, is one of those moments. Cowards struck innocent men, women, and children yesterday, but really all of America was their target. It was clearly an act of war, committed by madmen, directed against our country. Our hearts are broken, but our spirit is not. And the world should know that we will not give in to terrorists. Last evening, when I drove home from the Capitol at about 11 in the evening, clouds of black and gray smoke billowed from the Pentagon where one of those acts of terrorism occurred. This morning, when I come back to the Capitol at about 7 a.m., smoke still rose from the ashes of the Pentagon. Only F-16s and F-15s flew over our country's capital and in the airspace above New York City. All of America is affected by this deed in a very dramatic way--from young folks to old folks. Last evening, when I arrived home at about 11 o'clock, my 14-year-old son heard the door close, got out of bed, and came up to me and said: Dad, what happened? Who did this? I told my son--and all of us in Congress will tell America--that we will search for, find, and punish those responsible for these acts of terrorism. That is our pledge. We must now wage war on terrorism. And we must ask all the other countries in the world who believe in freedom as we do to join us in this effort to eradicate terrorism. Terrorist camps cannot be allowed to continue to train terrorists. Countries that harbor terrorist camps must, as the President said, pay a price for harboring them. We must rededicate ourselves to those tasks. Yesterday, I thought about the carnage that has occurred in our country, and the thousands of people who have undoubtedly lost their lives because of these acts of terrorism. It reminded me again of why our country has such an enormous burden of responsibility to lead the world, and especially why we need to lead the world in combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in cutting the number of nuclear weapons, and in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. Yesterday it was a commercial airliner full of jet fuel. In the future it could be a vial of deadly biological agents that can kill a million people. Or it could be a suitcase nuclear device in the trunk of a rusty car parked on a dock in one of America's largest cities. If ever we must understand our world leadership responsibility to stop the spread of nuclear and biological weapons, it is now. Over a century ago, after the carnage of the Battle of Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said: . . . we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Today, in this time and in this place, we should let those words from nearly 140 years ago again inspire our nation's steely resolve that those who died yesterday did not die in vain. America's response to the deadly crime that took them from us will be dedicated to destroying the ability of terrorists to wage this kind of war, and giving those who live a new birth of freedom from the fear and the impact of terrorist acts. Today the U.S. Congress says to those in New York, in Virginia at the Pentagon, in Pennsylvania, and all around America--those who lost their lives, those who loved them, their relatives, their friends--You are not alone. Our country grieves with you. And our country reaches out to you. You are not alone. Finally, Madam President, Shakespeare wrote: Grief hath changed me since you saw me last. We are all changed. Yesterday changed all of us. Our world has changed since yesterday. We all carry the heavy burden of grief, and we all carry the responsibility today to ensure that our response is swift, severe, and just. And we all carry the opportunity today to hold high the torch of freedom, and to say to the world: Yes, America's heart is broken, but America's spirit will not bend. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment does exactly what I described with respect to the numbers. That is all I have to say about the amendment. If there are others who wish to speak on it, I will be happy to entertain questions or engage in a discussion with them. If not, I ask consent to offer a second amendment to this legislation. I therefore ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may offer my second amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from South Carolina will yield, my hope is that as he continues to consider this issue, he will be the last to come to the aid of Fat Albert, having heard my discussion about Government waste and knowing his position on Government waste. My hope is he will be the last in line to be supportive of the aerostat balloon called Fat Albert, a balloon that broadcasts a signal no one can see at 3:30 in the morning.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will not continue further. I have been appreciative of the efforts by the Senators from South Carolina and New Hampshire to allow me to offer these amendments. I know they will set them aside to proceed with other things on the bill. I will continue to work with those in the authorizing committee on a couple of these issues. But it is my hope we will be able to consider both pieces of legislation favorably. I know one of them is--or can be--controversial; it should not be. As I said, even waste has a constituency, I guess, in Congress and perhaps in some parts of the country. But I think, to the extent we can--especially as we suffer an economic downturn in this country--when we see waste, we really ought to eliminate it. On behalf of the American taxpayer, we ought to take action. So my hope is that the Senate will find its way to be supportive of both amendments I have offered. Mr. President, I understand there will be a request to set these aside. I will be happy to work with the chairman and the ranking member to see if we can find a way to clear one or both of these amendments as we proceed. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there is nothing quite like the sight of the Senator from South Carolina in full voice in support of things he cares about passionately. Among them are trade and related issues. He is kind of like a jockey on a horse who are is running when he is moving on these issues. Then I watched him turn to the support of Fat Albert. He had the body language of someone headed toward a dental chair. There is no one, in my judgment, less capable of defending Fat Albert, based on his good record of public service, than the Senator from South Carolina. I would only like to refer to the 1994 CRS report to Congress about TV Marti. It said TV Marti is worthless. It does not reach the population. It is easily jammed. It broadcasts at 3:30 in the morning. Nobody sees it. I am not interested in being soft on Castro, nor am I interested in being hard on the American taxpayer. So my point is very simple: Let's get rid of wasteful spending. I understand why some have to defend Fat Albert, but Fat Albert is indefensible. So let's get rid of that $10 million and move on and invest in something that really does strengthen this country and our manufacturing center. Let's demand and insist that other countries with whom we have trade relationships own up to those trade relationships and begin to exhibit fair trade practices with this country. Again, let me say to my friend, the Senator from South Carolina, I have always enjoyed the Senator from South Carolina when he gets a full head of steam on the issue of international trade. He is interesting to listen to and knows his stuff. I hope he agrees with me that we should increase the number of people engaged in monitoring the compliance and requiring the enforcement of our trade laws with respect to other countries. Compliance and enforcement has decreased rather than increased, and as a result, our trade deficit has dramatically ballooned. Amendment No. 1543 Having said all that, let me now turn to my next amendment. I will be mercifully brief. I will offer this amendment because I think it is important to have this discussion and to pass a piece of legislation such as it. This amendment deals with the Small Business Administration. Many of you will remember the disaster in the State of North Dakota when the city of Grand Forks--the Red River Valley, in fact--experienced a very large flood in 1997. The city of Grand Forks, a city of nearly 50,000 people, had to be nearly completely evacuated. It is almost an unprecedented event in this country, in the last 150 years, to have a city of that size be nearly completely evacuated as a result of a flood. In the middle of that flood, a fire broke out in the downtown business section. So we had a raging flood of the Red River, that had required the evacuation of a city. Then, we had a roaring fire in the middle of that downtown that had been evacuated. You might remember on television the images of firefighters trying to fight a fire in the middle of a flood. It was really quite a remarkable sight. That disaster, as other disasters in this country, prompted the Small Business Administration, and other agencies, including FEMA and HUD, to come in with some assistance. We do that in times of disaster. Our Government programs are meant to say to people who are down and out, flat on their back, hit with a natural disaster: We are here to help you. Here is a helping hand. We want to help you during troubled times. So we did that. One of the things we did was provide Small Business Administration low-interest loans, 4-percent loans. There were some grants and other things as well, but the centerpiece was an SBA loan to a homeowner or a business that had been dramatically flooded and was in very difficult trouble. What I did not know at the time, and what I think many of you perhaps do not know in this Chamber, is that those loans by the SBA, including the disaster loans I am now discussing, were later packaged together and then sold to the highest bidder. Companies that are engaged to bring money together to invest in Government loans decide: We are going to now buy a package of loans from the SBA. Then they bid 50 cents on the dollar or 60 cents on the dollar, and they buy the loans from the Small Business Administration. I never thought much about that. I suspect most people have not thought about that. The problem is when the SBA sells disaster loans, you have the potential for a second disaster for a family or business. Here is why. The SBA, when it serviced those disaster loans itself, was always reasonably flexible in dealing with people. Oh, we want people to pay those loans back. That is for sure. But if someone got stuck in a tough situation, the SBA would work with them. For example, if a business had to sell one asset and replace it with another asset that was more efficient and if the old asset had an SBA disaster lien on it, the SBA would say: Yes, we will work with you on that; we will transfer the lien. And the business was able to deal with that. Now these disaster loans are sold to financial companies, and the financial companies say: We are sorry, we don't intend to transfer any liens. We are sorry, there is no flexibility here. We are not going to do what the SBA did for you. I will give you an example--there are many--but I will offer an example of a woman in Grand Forks, ND. This is one of many letters I have received: I'm another flood victim trying to find a way to transfer the current loan I have from the SBA to another property. My SBA loan was sold to [blank--I will not name the company--] and I've been told by them they don't transfer loans, period. So I am out of luck. Personal circumstances made it necessary for me to sell my property. And I need this low interest rate in order to afford another property to get back on my feet. She had the disaster. The disaster still hurts, but something happened in her circumstance where she had to sell that property and replace it with another property because of family circumstances. In the past, the SBA always would have said: Yes, we will work with you to transfer the lien, as long as we still have a lien on the property. The new investors--now that the loans have been sold--say: We're sorry, we won't change the interest rate on you. We won't change the terms of the loan. But there is no flexibility. Any changes at all might cost you a huge fee. And in some cases they say: There's no fee because there are no changes. We have no flexibility. So I have talked to the head of the SBA. I had a visit with him, in fact, on Friday of this past week. He understands there can be some problems in these areas. He told me he is going to try to put an advisory panel together to see if they can work on individual cases. But I really believe we ought not be selling disaster loans. I do not object to selling other loans, if they want loan processing to be done by someone else in ordinary circumstances, but I do not believe disaster loans represent ordinary circumstances. I believe disaster loans ought to be serviced by the SBA. That way, the SBA controls and maintains the policies with respect to how these loans are treated. My preference is that the SBA go ahead and sell whatever loans they want, except disaster loans. The SBA, I believe, has a responsibility and an obligation to service those disaster loans. CBO tells me there is no scoring on this amendment. So I am offering the amendment. I do not know whether a copy of my amendment is at the desk. If not, I will send it to the desk at this point.

Mr. DORGAN. Perhaps the Senator from South Carolina should seek recognition, after which I will seek to be recognized.

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

Mr. DORGAN. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, thank you and I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I actually have two amendments. I will talk about the first, offer the amendment following my discussion of it, and then ask that it be set aside by consent and offer the second amendment. I will take a moment to begin discussing the first amendment. The first amendment is an amendment to increase the amount of resources we are putting in this appropriations bill to deal with trade compliance and trade enforcement. The area of international trade is a very important area, and we are losing a lot of ground despite what one hears from some in Washington, DC. I will put up a chart which shows the trade deficits we now have. This chart shows the ballooning trade deficits year after year after year. These are the merchandise trade deficits. They have risen from $132 billion a year in 1993 to over $450 billion a year in 2000, and will likely to go even higher in the year 2001. Our trade deficits are out of control. They are growing larger and larger and larger. Now this trade deficit comes from the following sources: In the year 2000, we had an $81 billion trade deficit with Japan; an $84 billion trade deficit with China; a $56 billion trade deficit with the European Union; a $50 billion trade deficit with Canada; and a $24 billion trade deficit with Mexico. Many of our trading partners, as we all know, have a very poor record of complying with trade agreements. This red book, which my colleague from South Carolina frequently holds up in debate, is a book called ``Foreign Trade Barriers.'' It is a rather thick book that describes all of the trade barriers American producers and workers confront when trying to send American products abroad. Let us talk for a moment about China, Japan, Canada, and Mexico. Do you know that the number of people at the Department of Commerce who are monitoring our trade with China has declined from 10 to 7 people between 1994 and the year 2000? We used to have 10 people monitoring our trade with China; last year we had only 7. What do we have with China? An $84 billion trade deficit. In 1992, China agreed to eliminate import licenses. Shortly after that agreement was signed, Beijing announced a new series of import registration requirements that covered many of the same products. They have reneged on commitments to make public the rules and regulations affecting foreign trade and investment. But that is just an example of how we negotiate agreements. We just negotiated a new bilateral agreement with China. Nobody seems to ever care whether the other country complies with its half of the bargain. With respect to China, we used to have 10 people monitoring trade with China. Now we have seven, at a time when our trade deficit with China is $84 billion. How about Japan? With Japan, we have an $81 billion trade deficit. In 1992, we had 17 people monitoring trade with Japan with respect to trade enforcement. In 2000, it was seven. So we went from 17 people down to 7 people monitoring trade agreements with Japan. Is that moving in the right direction, with a country that has an $81 billion trade surplus with us or we a deficit with them? I do not think so. With respect to Canada and Mexico, the number of trade monitors has gone from 33 to 13 people. Our ballooning deficit with both Canada and Mexico continues to increase. We used to have 33 people monitoring trade compliance and trade enforcement with Mexico and Canada. Last year, we had only 13. The Senator from South Carolina has brought a bill that moves in the right direction. It is the right step. It increases these areas. I propose to further increase them to the point where we have a more robust ability to enforce and monitor these trade agreements. My amendment proposes to add $10 million for these activities. This is less than the $30 million that the Senate Budget Resolution called for, but it's a step in the right direction. I will state where I want to get the money, but first let me continue on this trade issue and why it is important. I spoke last week about international trade and why I get so upset about it from time to time. I mentioned in the area of trade, we have problems with China, Japan, Korea, Europe, Mexico, Canada. I mentioned we have nearly 570,000 motor vehicles coming into this country from Korea every year. Do you know how many vehicles we send to Korea? A little more than seventeen hundred. Think of that. Today in Canada, they are loading molasses with Brazilian sugar. It is called stuffed molasses. Do you know what it is? It is a scheme. It is a fraud in international trade. Stuffed molasses is a way to artificially take Brazilian sugar and move it from Canada into this country in contravention of our trade agreement. Does anybody care much about it? No, not much. China, I could go forever on China. Japan, the same thing. I could talk forever about the trade impediments and the barriers to try to get American products into those countries or to stop unfairly subsidized products from those countries coming into our country. I come from a State where we produce wonderful potatoes up in the Red River Valley. We produce a lot of potatoes. Some are turned into potato flakes which are used in fast food. Try to send potato flakes to South Korea. Do you know what happens when you try to send potato flakes to Korea? They impose a 300-percent tariff on potato flakes. Outrageous. And we have a huge deficit with Korea. How about with Mexico? We have a very large deficit with Mexico. Incidentally, before NAFTA we had a tiny surplus, and then we passed a trade agreement and turned it into a huge deficit. We try to send high fructose corn syrup to Mexico, and they put the equivalent of a 33- to a 73-percent tariff on it. The fact is, this country does not stand up for its economic interests. Too many people in this country do not seem to care. This burgeoning trade deficit will make a difference. It will be repaid someday in some way by a lower standard of living in this country. We ought to get it under control now. We ought to do it by insisting on other countries owning up to the trade agreements they have reached with us and by insisting in this country that our own trade negotiators begin to negotiate trade agreements they do not lose in the first week of the discussion. What am I proposing? I am proposing that we reverse the trend we have regarding a reduction in the number of people enforcing our trade agreements and monitoring compliance of these agreements. As I mentioned, this number has gone from 10 people monitoring China down to 7 people; from 17 people monitoring Japan down to 7 people; from 33 people monitoring Canada and Mexico to 13 people. I am suggesting we reverse that trend. How do we reverse it? By adding $10 million as a first step back to this appropriations bill. How would I get the money to do that? To get the money to enforce our trade laws, I propose we cut funding for something called TV Marti. TV Marti, boy, that will spark some interest among some. Let me describe what TV Marti is. TV Marti is the basis by which we broadcast television signals into Cuba to tell the Cubans the truth. The Cubans need to know the truth. They can get a lot of Miami radio stations and from Radio Marti. I support Radio Marti. It costs $14 or $15 million a year. Having been in Cuba, I understand the Cubans listen to and appreciate the broadcasts. Good for Radio Marti. Count me as a supporter. But nobody sees TV Marti. Each year we spend lots of money on TV Marti, despite the fact that it is absurd to do so. Here is the television picture seen on TV Marti in Havana. Does it look like snow and only snow? It does, because it is jammed. The signal does not get through. It is a jammed signal. We spend a substantial amount of money, about $10 million a year, on TV Marti. TV Marti has 55 employees, broadcasting 4\1/2\ hours a day, from 3:30 a.m.--yes, that is right, 3:30 a.m.--until about 8 a.m. We broadcast a jammed signal, 4\1/2\ hours a day, starting at 3:30 a.m. We spend $10 million a year to broadcast a signal no one can see. That is what we do as taxpayers. Is that a good deal? I don't think so. I think we ought to cut that and use the money to enhance our compliance in the area of international trade. To make the rest of the case, I will describe more about TV Marti. As I said, I fully support Radio Marti. I know it is effective. TV Marti, on the other hand, is a total, colossal waste of the taxpayers' money, providing no picture to anyone, and does so at 3:30 in the morning. Last year, we spent $10.8 million beaming TV Marti to Cuba, where the viewership was approximately zero. Since the inception, we have spent about $150 million of taxpayers' money on TV Marti. We continue to broadcast 4\1/2\ hours a day--31\1/2\ hours a week--from 3:30 a.m. until 8 a.m. What we broadcast are fuzzy lines, as I indicated before. TV Marti's broadcast to Cuba has been consistently jammed to the public. No one can view the programs. To lessen the effects of jamming, the TV Marti signal is randomly shifted east and west of Havana during broadcast hours. Those who want to watch a snowy jammed signal that one cannot see have to catch it as a signal that moves around Havana somewhere between 3:30 in the morning and 8 a.m. TV Marti is seen by those who would visit the visa department at our Interest Section in Havana where they play videotapes of the program. Thus, it reaches those who have already decided they want to leave Cuba. We have plenty of evidence there are people who want to leave Cuba. I don't know that we have to tell the Cubans the difference between living in the United States and in Cuba. People living in Cuba understand what is happening in Cuba. Let me talk about the question of whether we want to spend money on something that is not effective. We broadcast TV Marti through an antenna and a transmitter mounted on a tethered balloon 10,000 feet above Cudjoe Key in Florida. This is a picture of Fat Albert. Fat Albert is the aerostat balloon which we send up to 10,000 feet which broadcasts a line of sight signal to Cuba that is jammed at 3:30 in the morning. A Cuban television set can have snow. Fat Albert, of course, is not invincible. Television is easy to jam. TV Marti is easy to jam. TV Marti's signal, according to experts, is able to be jammed by several off-the-shelf antennas and 100-watt transmitters, the power of a light bulb. The antennas cost about $5,000 each to block the signals. Why waste money when the message can get through by radio and you can't get the message through by television signal? Transmitting by aerostat balloon is not perfect. They have to be taken up and down. They regularly require maintenance. They are affected by weather conditions. TV Marti employs 55 people and keeps spending money even if the balloon cannot go up for various reasons. TV Marti did not broadcast from October 1999 to October 2000 because it lost its transmission balloon in a storm. Fat Albert got lost in a storm and they did not broadcast for an entire year. But they continued to operate at TV Marti at $27,000 a day. This was not the first time that a Fat Albert-type balloon had problems at Cudjoe Key. In the early 1990s, a Fat Albert balloon broke from its cable and landed in the Everglades 70 miles away where it was recovered by a team with a helicopter. And a balloon like Fat Albert escaped in 1981--before TV Marti started, of course--and local fishermen caught it and tethered it to the bow of the boat. As the sun warmed up the blimp, it started to rise higher and higher and actually lifted the fishing boat out of the water and the poor folks in the fishing boat had to dive off the boat. So much for Fat Albert and so much for tethered balloons. That is how we broadcast a blocked signal to Cuba. We have an aerostat balloon, Fat Albert, broadcasting a jammed signal to Havana, Cuba, at 3:30 in the morning so people with a television set are unable to see a picture. And this is paid for with U.S. taxpayers' funds. One might be able to ask the question with a straight face, is this good public policy? Does it serve the taxpayers interests? With Radio Marti, the answer to that would be yes. Radio Marti works. The signal gets through to Cuba and people listen to it. I think it is an effective piece of public policy. TV Marti has been supported, notwithstanding the fact it does not work, by this Congress year after year because even waste has a constituency. No more, in my judgment. Let Congress, where we are wasting money, stop wasting money and invest that money in something that is important for this country. In this case, we have a crying need to better enforce our trade laws and make sure that other countries comply with the trade laws that they have entered into with us. Let's not see a continued degradation of our ability to comply and enforce our trade laws with China and Japan and Europe and Mexico and Canada. Let's enhance that. Let's not degrade it. Yet, what we have seen in recent times is a substantial diminution of our ability to require others to comply with our trade laws and to enforce those trade laws. My proposition is simple: Abolish that which is wasteful, TV Marti. And, yes, we will get people coming to the floor who say: Gosh, this would be the wrong signal to send to Fidel Castro. He doesn't get the signal nor do the Cuban people get the signal. This is not about signaling anybody except the American taxpayer that we will quit wasting money. I am sure people will make the point: We should not give aid and comfort to Fidel Castro. I am not interested in that. I am interested in giving aid and comfort to the American taxpayer. Cuba is a country that, in my judgment, needs a new government; its people deserve a new government. The approach that we use to deal with it ought not be an approach that wastes American taxpayers' money. It ought to be an approach that is effective, investing in the things that can help us give the Cuban people some assistance. Radio Marti does that. TV Marti does not. I hope that if we decide to abandon a failed policy, we do not get into a debate about this failed policy somehow giving comfort to Fidel Castro. It does not make any sense to me. In 1991 and 1994, the President's Task Force on U.S. Government International Broadcasting found there was not enough of an audience for TV Marti to continue funding it. That was nearly a decade ago when that judgment was made. A decade later we are still doing it. In 1994, it was concluded it was pointless and wasteful to continue TV Marti's operations unless the viewing audience could be substantially expanded. The viewing audience in 2001 is about the same as it was in 1994, nearly zero. It is time, in my judgment, long past the time, to use these funds in a more effective way. We should pursue a public policy that will strengthen the United States and help it with respect to its problems in international trade. So that is my proposal. As I indicated, I know it will be controversial for some, not perhaps because I want to invest more in making sure we better enforce our trade law and have people monitoring its compliance with respect to other countries. It will be controversial because I propose abolishing the $10 million of funding for TV Marti. Again, let me say almost everyone will concede that virtually no one in Cuba sees the signals of TV Marti. As I mentioned before, Radio Marti is effective, but TV Marti is a colossal and tragic waste of taxpayers' money. I hope my amendment will be accepted as one that is thoughtful, useful, and one that will advance this country's interests. Mr. President, I am going to ask the amendment at the desk be called up at this point.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that Mark Zaineddin, a legislative fellow of the Department of Commerce, be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on my amendment.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, with respect to the announcement by my colleague from Nevada, I am a bit confused what is happening in the Senate. We have the month of September to finish our appropriations bills. We have had no conferences on any appropriations bill at this point. We have 13 of them to do. We have a very short period of time in which to finish the work of the appropriations committees in the House and the Senate. It is inexplicable to me that we are at this moment at 5 o'clock in the afternoon unable to go to another appropriations bill. They are ready to come to the floor. We are being blocked. There are objections to the motion to proceed to an appropriations bill. It makes no sense to me. This Senate must do its work and pass the appropriations bills. It will have to be sooner or later. It is much better if it is sooner. This is the work of the American people passing appropriations bills that contain the money for essentially the operation of Government. We have so much work to do and so little time in which to get it done. The appropriations bills and the question of whether this fiscal policy adds up is very important for everyone. This town and, in ways, the country are asking a lot of questions these days about a softening economy, a surplus that used to exist that has now largely vanished, and a fiscal policy that was put in place when it was expected there would be nothing but surpluses as far as the eye could see that now does not add up at all. I want to show a quote on a chart from Mr. Mitch Daniels, the head of the Office of Management and Budget in a statement he made on Sunday on ``Meet the Press'' because it is central to this question about fiscal policy. What are the resources? How many resources do we have? How do we use those resources? Mr. Daniels says we have the second largest surplus in the history of the country. We are ``awash in cash,'' he says. But, of course, what he is talking about is the Social Security trust fund and the money in the trust fund. There used to be $125 billion expected above that, which indeed is a surplus, but that is now gone. That has evaporated. What is left belongs to the Social Security trust fund. When he says we are ``awash in cash,'' he is talking about Social Security trust fund moneys. Mr. Russert, the moderator of ``Meet the Press,'' said: The surplus is money that you got through payroll taxes, which are designated towards Social Security. And to tap into that is a violation of what George Bush pledged during the campaign. To which Mr. Daniels replied: Well, it's not designated for Social Security, Tim. It is not designated for Social Security. That is from the head of the Office of Management and Budget from this administration who says that the trust funds are not in the trust fund. The taxes that come out of all the workers' paychecks in this country, called Social Security taxes, that are put into a dedicated trust fund, we are told now by the head of the Office of Management and Budget that this money is not designated for Social Security. He could not be more wrong or more unsuited for that job if he really believes that. It is possible this is a mistake. It is not a mistake in transcription. That is what he said, but it is possible he misspoke. If he did, let's hear that. If he did not misspeak, if this is what he believes, he is sadly mistaken. This is a big, big issue. This is a $162 billion issue in this year alone. It is a half-a-trillion-dollar issue in the next 5 years. It is essential to the construct of a fiscal policy that works to understand that this money does not belong to them; it does not belong to the Government; it belongs to the American workers. They paid it. It is their taxes, and they were told it was going to go into a trust fund. The message ought to be: Keep your hands off those trust funds. All of us face difficulty as a result of a softening economy. I am not here pointing fingers at who is to blame and who is not to blame. The fact is, we have had an economy that always has had a business cycle: an expansion side and a contraction side. Nobody has ever changed that. We suffered a contraction. We went through a period when everybody thought the stock market would always go up and never go down. That is not the case. We went through a period when everybody thought there was one way the economy moves: upward, steadily, relentlessly. Now they are experiencing what we learned in economics. I actually taught economics for a while, and I have overcome that, as I often say. We taught the business cycle. The business cycle is inevitable. There is an expansion and a contraction. It all has to do with people's confidence in the future. Sometimes there is more confidence and sometimes less confidence. The point is, we all now inherit this economy that has softened. It is incumbent on us all to get together and work together; that the President and the Congress understand the plan that existed before, anticipating surpluses forever, is a plan that now does not add up. It is desperately short of the resources to do that which the President wants to do. It would make good sense, in my judgment, for the President to join us in an economic summit of sorts to work through a new plan that represents an understanding that there is a new reality to this economy and the numbers in the current plan do not add up. Let's create a plan together that makes sense for the American people, one that invests in the American people's future and one that tries to provide the stimulus and incentive to help promote confidence and start this economy, once again, on an upward trend. That is what we have a responsibility to do. Fingers that are pointed mean very little at this point. We are all in this ship of state together. It is not as if there is an engine room with dials, knobs, gauges, and levers so that if we can just get Alan Greenspan, or someone in charge of fiscal policies, to move these gauges and levers just right so the ship of state will move. That is not the way the economic engine behaves. This ship of state moves forward and the economy grows when people have confidence in the future. The American people, the bond markets, and stock markets do not have confidence in a fiscal plan they know does not add up. That is why it is important for the President to recognize that reality and work with us to construct a new plan.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to speak about a different subject, international trade. I will do it briefly because I understand my colleague, Senator Byrd, wishes to address the Senate. I certainly do not want to disadvantage him. If my colleague, Senator Byrd, will indulge me for a few more minutes, I want to make a comment about international trade.

Mr. DORGAN. Their the current accounts deficit. With Mexico alone, it is over $30 billion a year. In fact, our aggregate merchandise trade deficit is over a billion and a quarter a day, every single day. It is many trade partners including Japan, China, Canada, Mexico and Europe. It's a huge growing dangerous debt. How does all of this happen? Let me give a few examples. Vehicles in Korea. In 2000, Korea shipped 570,000 vehicles to the United States of America. How many vehicles did we produce and ship to Korea? Only 1,700. Is it because we do not make automobiles? No, that is not the reason. It is because if Ford makes a car and ships it to Korea, by the time it gets through all of their taxes, tariffs and other obstructions, it costs thousands more than it ought to cost. Therefore the Koreans do not buy it. First of all, one has trouble getting it, but if they get it in the country they do not buy it because it is thousands more than it should be. So the result is our automobile trade with Korea is extremely unbalanced. They send us 570,000 vehicles a year and we send them 1,700. That is vehicles to Korea. How about T-bone steak to Tokyo, beef to Japan? Do my colleagues know that every single pound of American beef we send to Japan has a 38.5 percent tariff on it, every single pound? To buy a T-bone steak in Tokyo is very expensive. Do you know why? Because they restrict the amount of beef coming in. We reached a beef agreement with Japan and our negotiators celebrated it. Twelve years later we still have a 38.5 percent tariff on every single pound of beef going to Japan. T-bones to Tokyo, that is unfair trade; cars from Korea. How about high-fructose corn syrup to Mexico? Here they levy the equivalent of a 43 percent to 73 percent tariff on corn syrup, despite being in violation of NAFTA. Or how about durum wheat to this country from Canada? Fundamentally unfair trade. There are millions of bushels coming across in 18-wheel trucks. The Canadians have a monopoly that would be illegal in this country called the Canadian Wheat Board. They ship wheat to this country at secret prices. When we say to them, ``open up your records,'' they simply thumb their nose at us and say, ``We do not intend to shed one bit of light on this. We do not intend to share any data with you at all.'' That is the way trade is. So I say to those in the House who are getting their ducks in a row to pass fast track trade authority, ``Well, go ahead and get your ducks in a row. But you should understand that ducks are not going to be in a row when that gets to the U.S. Senate.'' I did not believe President Clinton ought to have this authority, and he did not get it. I do not believe this President ought to have this authority, and, in my judgment, he is not going to get it. The first step, and I have said this to the Commerce Secretary: ``Do you want to talk about fast track? I will tell you what you ought to fast track. Why don't you put on the fast track a few trade solutions.'' I say to the trade negotiator and others, ``Get some good negotiators. Fit them with jerseys, just like we do with the Olympics. Make sure the jerseys have a big ``USA'' on the front so that occasionally our negotiators can look down at their chests and see who they are representing and for whom they are negotiating.'' Send them over to the negotiating table and say, ``Stand up for this country's interests.'' Do not build walls and keep things out of here. But our negotiators need to say, ``We expect fair trade.'' We expect them to stand up for this country's interests. Stand up for the American worker. Stand up for American business. Stand up for American products. We are sick and tired of unfair trade bargains that put us in a sea of red ink and put our employees and businesses at a disadvantage. That is true with Japan. It is true with China. I have not spoken about China. I should, but out of respect for my colleague who is waiting to speak, I will do that at a later time. Japan, China, Korea, Canada, Mexico, Europe. This country is drowning in a sea of red ink, in international trade deficits, and it ought to stop. I will not be a part of a Senate that is going to try to give fast track authority to a President. There will be a group of Senators who believe, as I do, that it is worth the passion, energy, and time to see that the priority in this country, and the priority in trade policy, is not to grant fast track authority to the Administration so they can go off and negotiate new trade agreements. Rather, we need to get some people who know how to negotiate solutions to the problems in the old trade agreements. Let us fix the problems they have already created instead of running off and trying to create new trade agreements. This is especially true when we have this trade deficit that is becoming an albatross around the neck of our children. A trade deficit that will and must be repaid. One that must be repaid with a lower standard of living in this country. That is why it is important now to solve this problem. It will not be solved by more trade if it is unfair. I am for expanded trade. I am for more trade. I am for all the things that people want to do to engage around the world in commerce, but I demand on behalf of this country, and on behalf of American workers and businesses, that trade agreements be fair to America for a change. Trade agreements with Japan, China, and others have been negotiated in an incompetent way. You can put a blindfold on. It does not matter whether it is Republicans or Democrats in office. Will Rogers once said the United States of America has never lost a war and never won a conference. He certainly must have been thinking about our trade negotiators. We can do a whole lot better than that. My point very simply is, on fast track, get your ducks in the row in the House, but understand when it gets to the Senate it is not going any further. There are plenty of us who are going to see that fast track is not passed in the U.S. Senate. Yes, we are for trade, but we are for fair trade. It is time to insist on fair trade and get rid of these ballooning trade deficits. Let me thank my colleague, Senator Byrd, from West Virginia. He is, as is always the case, most gracious to allow me to continue beyond the time allotted.