Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, as always, is gracious, and I deeply appreciate that. Congress Daily today says: Vote on trade negotiating authority suffers another delay. This is a story about the House of Representatives deciding to delay a vote on what we normally call fast track. They have delayed it because the Speaker of the House says they need time to get all their ``ducks in a row.'' I simply point out to those who are working to get their ``ducks in a row'' in the House of Representatives to pass fast track trade authority, that when it comes to the Senate, there are not going to be ducks in a row to pass fast track trade authority for our President. I would not support it for President Clinton and I will not support it for this President, and I want to explain why. I believe a band of Senators who feel as passionately as I do about our trade policy believe it is not only undemocratic to cede to someone else the ability to go to negotiated trade agreements with the promise that no Senator has the opportunity to offer a change to that agreement when it comes to the floor of the Senate. But I also want to explain why I think those who have negotiated our trade agreements are not entitled to be given a blank check for trade negotiation authority by this Congress. Let me give a couple of examples to describe why. Here is what has happened to our merchandise trade deficit. It has ballooned from $132 billion in 1993 to $449 billion last year. It is exploding. We are exporting manufacturing jobs at a rapid pace, and this is a trade debt that we must repay in the future with a lower standard of living in the United States. This is serious. It is trouble and we must get it under control. We have had a trade deficit with Mexico. Let us look at what has happened with Mexico. In 1993, we passed the North American Free Trade Agreement. Before the agreement, we had small deficits with Mexico, $5 billion, and then $2 billion or $3 billion. Then, a few years before the agreement, we had a surplus with Mexico. What has happened since NAFTA was passed? We are drowning in red ink with the country of Mexico.

Mr. DORGAN. Yes, of course, I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DORGAN. I understand the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, are going to seek recognition. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized in morning business for 15 minutes following their presentation.

Mr. DORGAN. Of course, I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Congress will now reconvene following the August recess. We face some challenging and difficult times, especially dealing with fiscal policy. I noted this weekend on some of the news shows that Bush administration spokesperson, Mitch Daniels, who heads the Office of Management and Budget, made the following observations about our fiscal situation. He said, ``We have the second largest surplus in U.S. history. We are awash in cash.'' He used the term ``awash in money.'' And then he seemed to say: Well, there is not a problem here because we have this very large surplus. I think it is interesting to note that the economy in this country is weak. It has softened substantially. That which was expected to have been in surplus just months ago has now evaporated. The Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office both acknowledge that the surplus is largely gone. When Mitch Daniels uses the term ``surplus'' and says we are ``awash'' in money and we have the second biggest surplus in history, what is he talking about? He is talking about the Social Security trust fund. He is doing it pretty much the same way that Charles Krauthammer, a columnist for the Washington Post, has done it. He wrote ``no lock, no box,'' talking about a lockbox for Social Security trust funds. Robert Novak, a columnist for the Sun Times, wrote a column that says, ``Don't believe the Dem scare tactics.'' In effect, Mr. Novak said all of this notion about a Social Security trust fund issue is bogus. George Will weighed in with essentially the same message. What are they talking about? Mr. Novak says that Senator Conrad, my colleague from North Dakota, and I are effectively deceiving people about this. Let's look at this for a moment. Workers in this country, when they get their paycheck, discovers something is taken out of that, which is called Social Security taxes. They are told it is going to go into a trust fund. This money taken out for Social Security isn't taken out for the purpose of paying for the Defense Department, or paying for air traffic controllers, or paying for a farm program, or paying for food inspection; it is taken out of the paycheck and the worker is told this goes into a Social Security trust fund. The word ``trust'' is used in the trust fund because it is a trust fund in the classic sense. That trust fund invests its money in Government securities. The trust fund exists; it is real. If Mr. Novak, for example, purchases a U.S. Government savings bond for his grandson next Christmas, I hope he will not tell his grandson what he is telling readers, that somehow the savings bond he purchased has no value, that there is nothing there and the security is meaningless. I hope he will not tell his grandson that. We ought not tell the American workers that, either. When Mr. Mitch Daniels, the head of OMB, says we have the second largest surplus in history, what he is saying is, by the way, we have these surplus funds in the Social Security trust fund and we view them as surplus. The moderator on ``Meet the Press'' said, well, but these are trust funds, are they not? Are they not dedicated to Social Security? Mr. Daniels said, well, yes, but they are not really dedicated to Social Security. Well, that is new. The message ought to be, keep your hands off these trust funds, to everybody: The administration, the Congress, keep your hands off these trust funds. They do not belong to you. It is not the Government's money. It is money that came out of workers' paychecks to be put in a trust fund for their future. And we will need that when the baby boomers retire and put a maximum strain on the Social Security system. That is precisely why we are accruing surpluses at this point. It is not for the purpose of Mr. Daniels or others to say that we have this huge surplus of funds and look at the great shape we are in. If a business said, by the way, we made a huge profit last year but only if you consider the pension funds of our employees, people would say, are you crazy? You cannot consider pension funds as part of your profit, and yet that is exactly what some people are trying to tell us. Will Rogers once said: When there is no place left to spit, you either have to swallow your tobacco juice or change with the times. Well, there is no place left, and we have to change. Four months ago we were told there was going to be a surplus of $125 billion above the Social Security accounts. That is all gone. It has evaporated. It does not exist anymore. The question for the President and Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, is how do you reconcile all of these interests and needs with the current situation? The President wants $18 billion additional spending for defense. The surplus that would be used to pay for that does not exist at this point. It seems to me the President is going to have to come to Congress, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Rumsfeld, and others, and say here is the plan by which we are going to pay for that. That plan ought not include using the Social Security trust fund. I say to my conservative friends who write these columns that you do a real disservice, in my judgment, to the facts when you suggest that that which we take out of workers' paychecks to be put in a trust fund does not really exist in the trust fund. That is not true. The fact is, it forces national savings if we have a fiscal policy that recognizes these trust funds for the purpose they were collected in the first instance. Now we have a lot of people who are poised to get their mitts into that trust fund and use it for other purposes. I hope the administration and the Congress will hold firm and say, keep your hands off those trust funds. They do not belong to the Government. They belong to the American people. They are the ones who paid those taxes, and they were the ones who were told it was going to be put in a trust fund. The word ``trust'' ought to mean something. I will comment on another issue. This weekend I was enormously dismayed to see press reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post on the subject of national missile defense and the potential buildup of offensive nuclear weapons in China. The New York Times headline said: The U.S. will drop objections to China's missile buildup: strategy meant to ease Beijing's concern about plans for a weapons shield. According to the reports, the U.S. will tell China that it will not object to a missile buildup by that country. It says, ``The Bush administration seeking to overcome Chinese opposition to its missile defense program intends to tell leaders in Beijing it has no objections to the country's plans to build up its small fleet of nuclear missiles.'' It also says, ``One senior official said that in the future the United States and China might also discuss resuming underground nuclear tests.'' Let me ask a question: Does anyone think this will be a safer and more secure world if we say it does not matter whether China builds more offensive nuclear weapons? Does anyone believe it enhances world security and makes this a safer place in which to live if we give a green light to China and tell that country that it does not matter to us, you just go ahead and build up a huge nuclear arsenal? It defies all common sense. We ought to be the world leader in trying to convince countries not to build up their nuclear arsenals, to reduce rather than increase their nuclear arsenals. We ought to be the world's leader in saying not only stop nuclear testing, which we did a long while ago, but to have everyone, including this country, subscribe to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. Regrettably, this Senate turned down that treaty almost two years ago. However, this country still needs to be a leader to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We need to be a leader in a way that helps persuade other countries not to build an offensive nuclear threat. Some people, including myself, think that is just daft for our country to say we would like to spend tens and tens of billions of dollars--some say the current proposal would be about $60 billion, other people say it would be well over $100 billion--to build a national missile defense system and in order to do so we will say to China, by the way, you go right ahead and build up your offensive nuclear capabilities. What on Earth could we be thinking of? We need to push in the opposite direction. We need to say to China and Russia and others, which are part of the nuclear club in this world, that we want to build down, not up. We do not want to see an increase in offensive nuclear weapons. This is exactly what many of us have feared, by the way. The discussion about abandoning the ABM Treaty, which has been the center pole of the tent for arms control and arms reductions, the abandonment of that which is being proposed by the White House and some of their friends in Congress, is a substantial retreat from this country's responsibility to be a leader in trying to stop and reduce the threat of nuclear war. Is it really going to provide more security and more safety for this world if the administration says we do not care about an ABM Treaty, we will just abandon it and not care about the consequences. Or if the administration says we do not care if our building a national missile defense system of some type if it leads Russia to stop cutting its nuclear forces and if it leads China to have an offensive nuclear weapons buildup. Does it matter to us? It sure does. Since the dismantlement of the Soviet Union well over a decade ago now, there have been really just two major nuclear superpowers. There were two nuclear superpowers involved in the cold war, us and the Soviets. Now we alone and the country of Russia have very substantial nuclear capability. It is estimated there are over 30,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenal of both countries, 30,000 nuclear weapons. We need to be reducing the threat of nuclear war. We need to be building down and reducing the stockpile of nuclear weapons. We ought not as a country be saying it does not matter much to us whether China builds up its offensive nuclear weapon capability. It sure ought to matter to us. It will be a significant part of our future if we allow that to happen. I hope we can have an aggressive discussion on this subject in the coming month or so. This country ought to care very much about whether the country of China is going to increase and build up its offensive nuclear capability. This country ought to care a great deal about that, and this country's policy ought not be giving a green light to other countries to say we do not mind. We should not be saying: You let us build a national missile defense, and we will just say you go right ahead and increase your stockpile of nuclear weapons. That is a policy that will not create a safer world, in my judgment. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to leave town for the August recess, and most of my colleagues are perhaps already on an airplane, it might be useful to describe what has happened at the end of the legislative business we completed a couple of hours ago. This past week, we considered legislation dealing with some emergency help for family farmers. In fact, it was actually kind of hard to get that legislation even considered because the Republicans in the Senate filibustered the motion to proceed. For those who do not understand the mechanics of how the Senate works, in plain English that means they demanded a debate on whether we should even debate the bill. A motion to proceed and a filibuster on the motion to proceed meant we had to debate whether we should even start debating. If that sounds a little goofy and a little arcane to regular folks who sit around and talk about issues in a straightforward way, it is because it was arcane and, at least in this Senator's judgment, ``goofy.'' But sometimes, that is just the way the Senate works. However, I certainly would not want to change the rules of the Senate. We had to debate the motion to proceed and deal with a filibuster, and then we got the legislation to the floor. The legislation was written to help family farmers during tough times. Family farmers across this country have confronted a total collapse in prices for that which they produce. In most cases, in my State at least, they are trying to run a family operation. They are living on a farm, with neighbors a good ways away. They have a yard-light that illuminates that farm. They often have cattle, a few horses, some chickens, and in some cases a half dozen or so cats running around. They have a tractor, a combine, a drill or a seeder. They are all equipped to go about the business of farming. Family farmers all across this country go out when the spring comes, when it is dry enough to get in the fields, and they plant some grain. They hope then, after they plant their seed, nothing catastrophic is going to happen that would prevent it from growing. They hope it does not hail. That might destroy their crop. They hope it rains enough. They hope it does not rain too much. That would also destroy the crop. They hope it does not get disease, it could, and that could destroy the crop. They hope insects do not come, and they could, and those insects could destroy the crop. All these things, the family farmer must cope with. But, there is one more thing family farmers must deal with. They have all this fervent hope and trust, having invested all they own in these tiny seeds they planted in the ground. Then in the fall, they hope they can fuel up the combine and go out and harvest that crop. When they do that, they put it in a truck haul it to the elevator. The country elevator receives that grain when they raise the hoist and dump that grain into the pit. The grain trader then says to that farmer: Yes, we know you worked hard. We know you and your family planted in the spring. We know you and your kids and your spouse drove the tractor and drove the combine. We know you have your life savings in this grain, and that you managed against all odds to finally harvest it. But, this grain is not worth much. This food you have produced does not have value. The market says this food is not very important. Those family farmers, who struggle day after day in so many different ways to try to make a living on the family farm, are told that which they produce in such abundance and that which the world so desperately needs somehow has no value. Talk about something that makes no sense, this is it. We have at least 500 million people in this world who go to bed every single night with an ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry. At the same time, our family farmers are losing their shirts because they are told the crop they struggled to produce has no value. A world that is hungry and family farmers producing food the market says has no value? Is there something not connecting here? You bet your life there is something not connecting. It is interesting to see what we have done in the last several weeks. The priorities around here are not so much family farmers. The priorities, if one closes their eyes and listens to the debate, are: missile defense, Mexican trucks, the managed care industry. Those are all the priorities, but when it comes to talking about the extra needs of family farmers during tough times, we are told they do not need that extra $1.9 billion. Enough votes were available in the Senate to pass that legislation. We had 52 votes in favor of it. I went to a real small school. I graduated from a high school in a class of 9, but I figured out enough from math to understand when one has 100 votes and 52 vote yes, that means yes wins. We had enough votes to pass this legislation, and we had a vote on it. We received 52 votes. But guess what. It did not pass. Why? Because there was a filibuster. President Bush and the Republicans in the Senate said: We are going to filibuster this--which requires 60 votes to break --because we do not want to give that extra aid to family farmers. All we are talking about is a bridge over price valleys. We are talking about a small bridge during tough times. During this discussion, some friends of mine came to the Senate and said: Things are better on the farm, prices have improved. When prices for grain hit a 25-year low and then improve slightly to only an 18-year low, I suppose one could say things are better. I ask those who say things are better to take a look at their bank account. Have they lost 40 percent of their income? If so, then come here and understand the empathy that ought to be shown to family farmers. If not, do not talk about slight improvements. Has anybody in the Senate, in recent years, raised a 250-pound hog? I don't think so. If they had, they would be aware of the time during these last several years in which a 250-pound hog brought less than 10 cents a pound. A 250-pound hog from the farm to the market brought less than $25 for the entire hog. Someone bought that hog, processed it and sent it to the market to be laid on a grocery store shelf. But at the grocery store, the meat from that hog cost $300 to the folks who bought it. This was the same hog that brought only $25 to the family farm. Is there something wrong with this? Unless one has gotten less than $25 for a hog recently--and that has happened in recent years to those who produce hogs--do not talk to me about slight improvements. Yes, the price of hogs has increased, but tell me: What kind of loss did family farmers incur when they went through that $25 price valley? Commodity prices have collapsed in a very significant way. In most cases, they have stayed way down. We need to do something about it. I prefer that farmers get all of their income from the marketplace, but at this point that is not possible. The grain markets have collapsed. Until we find a way for that market to come back, if we want family farmers in our future, we need to provide a safety net. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to write a new farm bill, and we were trying to provide an emergency piece that will get them to the point where we get this new farm bill in place. That is what this debate was about. We lost today, no question about it. One can describe it a lot of ways. There was once a general who lost badly in a battle, and the press asked him what happened. He said: As far as I am concerned, we took quite a beating. He was pretty candid about it. We lost this morning. North Dakota farmers lost $60 million, but this morning was just the bell for the end of round one. There will be other rounds, and this issue is not going away. The $1.9 billion is not going away. That $1.9 billion is available to help family farmers. Senator Harkin from Iowa brought that help in a bill that did not have a budget point of order against it. It has been provided for in the budget. It was available, and we ought to make it available when it is needed. It is needed now. We lost today, but we will be back in September or in October. I believe in the end we will prevail on this issue. Let me make a final point. Some say: Why is it I care so much about family farming? Why don't I deal with other issues, other businesses? My State is 40 percent agriculture. What happens to family farmers has an impact on every Main Street and every business on every Main Street in the State of North Dakota. It is not just the economic issues that concern me, however. I think our country is more secure, and I think our country is a better place when we have a broad network of producers living on the farms in this country producing America's food. Europe does it that way because they have been hungry in their past and they decided never to be hungry again. They want to foster and maintain a network of producers across Europe. We ought to do the same. The family farm is not just an economic unit. It is that, to be sure, and it is an economic unit that is destined to fail when prices collapse if we do not do something to help. But it is much more than just an economic unit. Family farms produce more than just a bushel of wheat. Family farms produce a culture that is important to this country. They produce community. They produce values. They are a seedbed--and always have been a seedbed--for family values in our country. Family values that have for years been rolling from family farms to our small towns to our large cities. Family farms are not just some piece of nostalgia for us to talk about. Those who support big corporate agriculture and would not mind seeing a couple big corporations farming America from California to Maine say the family farm is yesterday. They say, good for you, good for supporting yesterday, but it is yesterday. It is like the little old diner, as I have said before, that is left behind when the interstate comes through: It is nice to look at, does not mean much, but it is not a viable part of our modern society. They are dead wrong. They are as wrong as can be. The family farm is important in this country. It is important to its culture, and it is important to its future. When we have a debate about these issues, we discover the answer to these questions: Whom do you stand for, whom do you fight for, and what are your priorities? Some say: My priorities are to let Mexican trucks into this country. That was the big debate we had for the past week and a half. My priorities are to build a national missile defense system and it does not matter what it costs, they say. My priorities are to stand with the managed care industry and the big insurance companies in the debate on a Patients' Bill of Rights. That is what they say. Those are not my priorities. My priorities are to say I stand for family farmers. I stand for the interests of family farmers and the role they should play in our country's future. But they cannot and will not play that roll, unless we help them over tough times. Let me go back to one final point. This is a big world with a lot of people living in it. I have traveled much of it. It is true that all over this world, even as I speak, people are dying from hunger and hunger-related causes, most of them children. About 40 to 45 people a minute die from hunger and hunger-related causes. My old friend--the late Harry Chapin, who died many years ago, this wonderful singer, songwriter, storyteller--used to devote half the proceeds of all of his concerts every year to fight world hunger. He said this: If 45,000 people died tomorrow in New Jersey, it would be headlines around the world, but the winds of hunger blow every single day across this world and cause death. Nary a headline anywhere. My point is, we have wonderful family farmers who struggle and risk all they have and work very hard to produce the best quality food produced anywhere in the world. They produce this food in a world that is rife with hunger, in a world in which young children suffer by not having enough to eat in so many corners of our globe. And then our family farmers are told the food they produce has no value. This country is the arms merchant of the world. We ship more military equipment and sell more military equipment than any other country in the world by far. I would much prefer we be known as a country that helps feed the world, as a country whose family farmers labor hard to produce good quality food, and we find a way to connect that with the needs that exist in this world and give children a chance. This issue is a big issue, an important issue. Our family farmers have a big stake in it. This morning in North Dakota, our family farmers lost $60 million that they should have received to help them over these tough times. We are going to be back. We lost round one, but we are not giving up. We are going to come back and get that assistance for family farmers. Why? Because we think it is important not just for family farmers, but because we think it is important for our country and for our country's future as well. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member Bond for their foresight and leadership in providing a $256 million, or 6 percent, increase for the National Science Foundation. I also appreciate their willingness to provide $85 million for the NSF Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, EPSCoR, program. EPSCoR is a proven program that is helping researchers in historically underfunded States to improve their competitiveness for federal R&D. The managers of this bill have been gracious enough to accept an amendment from me that increases the EPSCoR funding in the Senate bill to $90 million in fiscal year 2002. This modest $5 million increase does not need to be offset because it comes out of the amount already appropriated through the NSF Education and Human Resources line-item. EPSCoR helps these States to build infrastructure and expertise in areas of scientific importance to the States and the Nation by providing seed money that allows smaller research universities to hire faculty, obtain equipment, support the development of young faculty members, and other vital tasks that the Stanfords and MITs of the world take for granted. While I am glad that the EPSCoR level in the Senate bill is $10 million above the current level and the President's budget request, we are still falling woefully short of the level needed to help under- funded States. The top 5 States--California, New York, Massachusetts, Colorado, and DC--received 48 percent of total NSF funding in 2000. One State alone receives twice as much NSF funding as the 21 EPSCoR States combined. California received $452 million in NSF funding in fiscal year 2000, which is 15 percent of the total NSF funding. The 21 EPSCoR States, plus Puerto Rico, share only 7 percent of total NSF funding, $207 million. In 1990, the NSF EPSCoR budget was only $8 million. While it is true that this funding has grown steadily in the years since then, these increases have been extremely modest in comparison to total Federal R&D expenditures. In fact, even with the additional co-funding that NSF provides to EPSCoR grantees, the $90 million, plus the $25 million in co-funding, in total EPSCoR funding provided under my amendment would still represent only 2.5 percent of the total NSF budget in fiscal year 2002. I have already heard from a number of my colleagues who support my amendment and 17 Members of the Senate joined Senator Nickles and me in sending a letter to the subcommittee requesting this funding level. EPSCoR is good Federal policy. At its most basic, scientific research is about ideas. When you have research institutions in 5 States receiving half of the basic science research funding, a whole universe of ideas are left unexplored. EPSCoR has been invaluable to States like North Dakota becoming more competitive for Federal research dollars. North Dakota's total NSF funding increased by 307 percent from 1990- 1999. The number of competitive NSF awards that North Dakota researchers received increased by 71 percent between 1993-1998. More than 30 topnotch young faculty were brought to North Dakota, through the support of EPSCoR, that would otherwise have gone elsewhere. Those EPSCoR-supported researchers have successfully competed for more than $12 million in Federal and private R&D funding. EPSCoR is also a key to economic development in EPSCoR States like North Dakota. A single, typical $100,000 research grant generates $230,000 back into the local economy, according to an analysis by NDSU. EPSCoR-supported researchers were awarded 12 patents between 1986-1999. Michael Chambers, whose early research was supported by an EPSCoR award, has now founded Aldevron, a biotech company in Fargo. The Small Business Administration named Michael its Region 8 Young Entrepreneur of the Year in 2000. The NSF EPSCoR program has also funded an innovative program in North Dakota that supports university faculty and students in providing technical expertise to North Dakota companies with scientific questions and problems. More than 180 students, a dozen faculty members, and 75 companies have benefitted from the program so far. For instance, Dr. Joel Jorgenson of Fargo designed an on-board recorder, monitoring and read-out system to solve a problem for Global Electric MotorCars (GEM) of Fargo, which is now the nation's largest manufacturer of Neighborhood Electrical Vehicles. GEM has since been acquired by Daimler-Chrysler and will be doubling its 130-employee workforce by the end of 2001. Dr. Robert Nelson with North Dakota State University devised a means for Ottertail Power Company to detect when and where a fault has occurred on its power line, increasing the efficiency of the transmission lines. Despite the progress being made to help EPSCoR States improve their competitiveness, they still tend to lag behind--especially in winning large-scale center and multidisciplinary awards. Addressing this challenge is the next step needed to improve competitiveness, and full funding for EPSCoR at the $90 million level called for by the amendment I have offered is key. I think $90 million for the NSF's Education and Human Resources for the EPSCoR program is important to ensure full implementation of the NSF EPSCoR's new infrastructure program. The additional $25 million in cofunding will ensure a robust NSF EPSCoR program next year. I thank the Chair and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for agreeing to include my amendment. low-income housing assistance in new york and massachusetts

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I'm pleased to be joined by Senator Stevens in introducing legislation that we believe will develop high- tech employment opportunities in small towns and rural communities by using the H-1B visa program in a meaningful way for rural States. Over the past several decades, hundreds of communities in rural America have seen their populations shrink by more than a third. Devastated by the overwhelming loss of people and businesses, or outmigration, these rural communities have been stymied in their efforts to grow their economies and create jobs for their people. Most of these areas have also not benefited from the recent technology- driven growth in the economy. The combined effects of this economic stagnation and isolation have made it extremely difficult for these small rural towns to attract high-tech companies and recruit the skilled technology workers that they need to participate in the new economy. The proposal we are introducing today builds upon legislation signed into law by President Clinton last fall that provided the Nation's high-technology companies with the stopgap measure they needed to secure skilled workers for unfilled positions by increasing the annual number of foreign workers that can receive H-1B status to 195,000 over the next three years. That legislation, which I supported, was an appropriate short-term response to the problems caused by a scarcity of qualified labor that threatened the nation's continued economic growth. The bill that Senator Stevens and I are now introducing is called the ``21st Century Homesteading Act.'' It would establish up to six H-1B visa demonstration projects in qualifying rural areas, including those devastated by population loss. This legislation is designed to encourage high-technology firms to grow their businesses and increase employment in those distressed rural areas that need them the most. It would do this by both awarding grant funds and targeting a small portion of the total annual H-1B visa allocations to economic development planning districts in eligible areas. The major provisions of the 21st Century Homesteading Act are as follows: Six demonstration programs. The bill authorizes and requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct up to six demonstration H-1B visa projects to be implemented through the award of grant funding to qualifying economic development planning districts in rural areas. Application process. To apply for grant funds, economic development planning districts would be required, among other things, to submit an application to the Secretary, sign a resolution of support to bring high-tech development opportunities into that district, and execute a declaration of need confirming that the area has experienced substantial outmigration, has high unemployment or poverty rates, or has a population that is 10 percent or more Native American. Local transfer of visa fees. The amount of each grant awarded to eligible districts would be equal to the H-1B visa fees paid by petitioning employers. Grants can be used only to provide education, training, equipment, and infrastructure in connection with the employment of H-1B workers within that district. Total of 12,000 H-1B visas. Up to 12,000 H-1B visas could be issued to eligible aliens for employment through these demonstration projects--and no one planning district could issue more than 2,000 H-1B visas. New account for program funds. A separate ``Twenty-first Century Homesteading Account'' would be established in the Treasury general fund. The H-1B visa fees paid for foreign workers in approved demonstration projects would be deposited into that account and remain available to the Agriculture Secretary until expended to carry out such projects. Let me be clear on three points. First, we do not intend with this legislation to replace skilled American workers with their foreign counterparts. Under current law, H-1B visas are temporary and firms that significantly rely on them must have attempted to hire U.S. workers and attest that a U.S. worker is not laid off during a significant period of time before and after an H-1B worker is hired. Our legislation would not change these and other restrictions. Furthermore, the 21st Century Homesteading Act also requires designated economic development planning districts to establish training programs for other workers who live in that district. Second, this legislation permits an allocation of no more than 2,000 H-1B visas for each of the six demonstration projects that are authorized. Thus, even if all 12,000 H-1B visas were ultimately allocated to the full six demonstration projects, that number would still represent less than one-tenth of the total H-1B visas permitted in the first year. This small allocation of H-1B visas should have little or no impact on the overall efforts of companies seeking H-1B workers in other parts of the country. In fact, to date, only 117,000 of the 195,000 H-1B visas available for this year have been approved, so allocating a small portion for these demonstration programs should not present a problem. And third, this legislation in no way increases or decreases the overall levels of immigration into the country. It simply targets a very small number of existing employment visas to those communities that have not benefited from the recent technology boom, and which are likely to benefit the most from the addition of new residents with the necessary skills to help attract and retain high-tech employers. Finally, I would note that the prospect for these demonstration projects is not merely a theoretical exercise. This approach was raised with me by economic development officials in North Dakota who stand ready, willing, and able to apply for economic development planning district status. In my judgment, this group has already demonstrated the kind and level of commitment that is needed to make this initiative successful. There is great need in rural America, especially in states like mine. But often this need is not properly addressed here in Washington because of what I think is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem of outmigration and the economic maladies associated with it. The 21st Century Homesteading Act is an effort to fine tune one of our federal policies in order to address the shortage of skilled labor and lack of job growth in many rural communities. I urge my colleagues to support this important demonstration initiative for rural America.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise today in support of this amendment. The current standard for acceptable arsenic levels in drinking water was established in 1942 and, as early as 1962, recommendations were made by the U.S. Public Health Service that the 50 parts per billion standard should be changed. The science indicates that at 50 parts per billion (ppb), the cancer risk from arsenic is 1- in-100. EPA regulations are supposed to regulate to a 1-in-10,000 arsenic risk. Today's amendment simply directs the administration to put a new standard into effect immediately and gives communities the right to know the arsenic levels in their drinking water. However, I am concerned about the potential impacts that reducing the level of arsenic in drinking water might have on small or rural communities, like many in my home State of North Dakota. North Dakota has approximately 35 communities that might be especially hard hit by a more stringent arsenic in drinking water standard. That is why I am a cosponsor of legislation sponsored by Senator Reid that would increase funding for small communities to help treat drinking water systems for arsenic and other contaminants. I am pleased that Senator Jeffords has committed to examine these critical funding issues in conjunction with providing his support for today's amendment. The World Health Organization and the European Union have adopted a 10 parts per billion standard. Even if the United States does not adopt a 10 parts per billion, at 50 parts per billion, the United States' arsenic standard is on par with that of Bahrain, Bolivia, Egypt, Indonesia, Oman, China, and India. Countries who have adopted a 10 parts per billion standard include: the entire European Union (in 1998), Laos (in 1999), Syria (in 1994), Namibia, Mongolia (in 1998), and Japan (in 1993). Australia has had a 7 parts per billion standard since 1996. As I said, it is time to move in the direction of a safer, more protective, standard. While arsenic levels may fluctuate over time, what is most significant from the standpoint of cancer risk is long-term exposure. Studies have linked long-term exposure to arsenic in drinking water to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate. Noncancer effects of ingesting arsenic include cardiovascular, pulmonary, immunological, neurological, and endocrine (e.g., diabetes) effects. Short-term exposure to high doses of arsenic can cause other adverse health effects, but such effects are unlikely to occur from U.S. public water supplies that are in compliance with the existing arsenic standard of 50 ppb. A March 1999 report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the current standard does not achieve EPA's goal of protecting public health and should be lowered as soon as possible, according to the EPA. So, we should act immediately to adopt a new standard, as this amendment would require. We also must provide funding that is critical to accomplishing this goal.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I shall not object. I did want to indicate I wanted to speak on this bill, on the amendment, but I will certainly defer to the morning business request.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I came to speak on the amendment in the bill. I agreed to a unanimous consent request to allow a Member on the minority leader's side to do 20 minutes of morning business on this subject. I have waited to have an opportunity to speak for about 8 to 10 minutes on the issue of Mexican trucks.

Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, of course, object to the request to speak, my understanding is we are on the Department of Transportation appropriations bill. I came over intending to speak on that matter, on the amendment that has been discussed most recently. The Senator from Nevada wishes to be recognized following the Senator from Colorado; is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Mississippi, the minority leader, is most generous. There was not an agreement. When the Senator from Colorado sought 20 minutes in morning business, I was here waiting to speak on the bill. He certainly was entitled to speak in morning business. I thank the Senator for his generosity. I rise to address the issue of Mexican trucks. My friend, the Senator from Arizona, has spoken about it today. My friend, the Senator from Texas, has spoken. After all the debate, it is important for everyone to understand, there is nothing here about punishment or being punitive to the country of Mexico. That is not what this is about. Some of my colleagues have said we are being discriminatory. That is not true. The truth is, this issue is about highway safety. Senator Murray from the State of Washington has put a provision in the appropriations bill that is not only appropriate but needs to be kept in this bill in order to assure safety on America's highways. Frankly, I wish she had chosen to use the House language which was presented by Congressman Sabo. It is stronger language. It would prohibit, during this coming fiscal year, the use of funds in this legislation to certify Mexican trucks desiring to go beyond the 20-mile limit. I wish Senator Murray had included that. She did not. She chose to take a different approach. She has taken an approach that also will provide a measure of safety for American highways. What is this issue really about? It is not about whether we are violating a trade agreement. No one can credibly argue that any trade agreement at any time under any circumstances requires this country to sacrifice safety on its highways. It is about using common sense to understand when and under what circumstances shall we allow Mexican long-haul truckers to go beyond the 20-mile limit that now exists. Some will say: Let's immediately allow Mexican long-haul trucks to operate throughout the United States. That is what President Bush says. On January 1, we intend to allow long-haul Mexican truckers into this country beyond the 20-mile limit. He says we will provide inspections and so forth. The fact is, there will not be sufficient inspections. There are not sufficient inspection stations. There are not sufficient inspectors. There are not sufficient compliance officers. There is not a ghost of a chance of that happening. Everyone knows it. I sat in a 3- to 4-hour hearing in the Commerce Committee with the Secretary of Transportation and the Department of Transportation Inspector General. All of us understand that the numbers of inspectors and compliance officers requested for the border fall short of what is required for safety monitoring. To those who say we can allow access throughout the United States to Mexican trucks on January 1 and those traveling on our highways will be protected, the numbers don't add up. We will not be protected. There are not the resources available to hire the number of inspectors or the compliance officers to allow this to happen. Are there reasons for us to be concerned if you don't have a regime of inspections? The answer clearly is yes. I would refer again to a news report about long-haul trucking in Mexico that featured in the San Francisco Chronicle in March. This article simply mirrors what most of us know about the lack of standards in Mexico. A reporter went down and traveled for 3 days with a Mexican long-haul trucker. In 3 days this Mexican long-haul trucker drove 1,800 miles and slept 7 hours. Yes, that is right; in 3 days, he slept a total of 7 hours. He didn't run into safety inspections because safety inspections are not common in Mexico. The driver didn't keep a logbook because, although they are required in Mexico, drivers don't keep them. The fact is, in Mexico, they don't have limitations on hours of service, and so a truckdriver can drive 3 days and sleep only 7 hours and will not be in violation of Mexican laws. The question is, Would you want the truckdriver in the San Francisco Chronicle article to cross the U.S.-Mexico border into this country, after having slept only 7 hours in 3 days while having driven 1,800 miles in a truck that could not meet this country's safety standards because it had a broken windshield? I don't think anybody would want him to cross into this country and travel on America's highways. That clearly compromises safety on our highways. So, the Senator from Washington has placed a provision in this legislation. She had to put it on this appropriations bill because the President indicated he intends to move on January 1. Really, the only option to stop the President's intentions is to put the provision in the appropriations bill and give us some assurance of safety on America's highways. That is what this dispute is about. I agree that there is room for different opinions, but on this legislation, the facts are quite clear. I sat in a hearing for hours on this subject, hearing from the Department of Transportation's Inspector General. The Inspector General's report represents the base of facts here. The Mexican trucking industry does not have the same standards we do. There is no requirement for such standards. The inspection stations that should exist in the United States don't exist. Those inspection stations that do exist are not open sufficient hours to for proper inspection. If trucks happen to be inspected, at the vast majority of sites, there aren't enough spaces to park the trucks with serious safety violations. You can't send them back to Mexico because, for example, they may not have brakes. These are insurmountable problems to overcome prior to January 1. That is why the Senator from Washington has done what she did. She needed to put restrictions in this legislation that I think are necessary to assure highway safety. My understanding is that the Senator from Kentucky would like me to yield for a unanimous consent request. I would be happy to yield to him for that purpose, providing I am recognized following that.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, in the interest of time and in the interest of responding to the Senator from Mississippi, who graciously allowed me to be recognized, I will complete my statement only by saying this: My colleague from South Carolina made a statement about the issue of the NAFTA trade agreement. I saw another colleague smile to himself as to what my colleague, Senator Hollings, said. The NAFTA trade agreement has been awful. Some people walk around here and think it is one of the best things that ever happened to this country. I have no idea why they think that. This is a trade agreement that turned a trade surplus we had with Mexico into a huge deficit and a growing deficit. It took a modest deficit with Canada and doubled it very quickly. It is beyond me how someone can view that as progress. I think, in fact, it has injured this country in many, many ways. I was intrigued by a statement by Senator Gramm, who said, ``Do you know what the Mexicans have said? They have said if we put this provision in this appropriations bill restricting President Bush's ability to allow Mexican long-haul trucks to come into this country beyond the 20-mile limit, Mexico is going to retaliate against us on the issue of high-fructose corn syrup.'' High-fructose corn syrup. I wonder if my colleague knows that Mexico has already been dealing with high-fructose corn syrup in a way that essentially abrogates the NAFTA treaty and, in fact, Mexico has been found guilty of violating the trade agreement on the corn syrup. Mexico is already in violation on syrup, and they are threatening that somehow if we don't take the Murray language out of the bill they are going to take action on corn syrup. I am sorry, they already took that action and it violated the NAFTA trade agreement. Incidentally, nothing that protects America's highways, in my judgment, should ever be considered a violation of a trade agreement. The next time somebody says there is a violation of NAFTA or a trade agreement, I will simply observe that on corn syrup, which has been the one area raised on the floor, the only violation that exists is Mexico violating a trade agreement with the United States. So I find it intriguing that there is this sort of blame-our-country- first on all these issues. Our country has been open; it has been willing to embrace all kinds of trade expansion opportunities almost everywhere in the world. But every time we turn around we discover that either a trade agreement was negotiated in an inappropriate way or someone is refusing to enforce a trade agreement. This is a circumstance that is very simple. Senator Murray has put in a rather simple, easy-to-understand amendment. We ought to be willing to stand behind it on behalf of safety on America's highways. This is not about anti-Mexico. It is not about sending a discriminatory message to anybody; it is about standing up for safety on America's highways. We are nowhere near ready to be able to allow Mexican long-haul trucks into this country. Their safety standards are nowhere near compatible with ours, and it would compromise safety on our highways to allow Mexican trucks to operate throughout the United States beginning on January 1. That is what the Murray amendment says. That is why we are trying to keep that amendment in this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will not spend much time now, but I find it incongruous that my colleague from Kansas talks about delay. When we tried to bring this bill to the Senate, we had to file a cloture motion to proceed to debate the bill. I repeat, we could not even proceed without filing a cloture motion--so much for delay. That really is pretty irrelevant to farmers out there who are today doing chores, hauling bales and plowing ground while worrying whether they will be able to continue to operate their family farm. The question is: Is somebody going to step in and give them the right help and say they matter, and that we want them as part of our future? That is the question. The phrase was used, if we pass this legislation and deny the amendment by Senator Lugar, we will be borrowing from the future. I tell my colleagues how to quickly borrow from the future for this country, and that is to sit by and watch farm bankruptcies and farm foreclosures. Family farms being lost is borrowing from America's future as well. We stand in suits and ties--we dress pretty well here--talking about the agricultural economy in some antiseptic way. None of us has had a drop in our income to 1930s levels in real dollars--none of us. Has anybody here had a huge drop in income back to 1930 levels in real dollars? I do not think so. But, family farmers have suffered a collapse of this magnitude to their income. We have had people say things are better today on the family farm; prices are up; Gee, things are really going along pretty well and looking up. If you take 15- or 25-year lows and say prices have improved slightly, you could make the case they have improved slightly, but you still have dramatically lower income than you have had for many years. Another thing that must also be considered is this year's dramatically higher input costs, such as fertilizer and fuel prices. The only people who, in my judgment, can say things are much better are the people who are not getting up in the morning to do chores or trying to figure out how to make a tractor work to make a family farm operate on a daily basis. The question is not so much what does Washington think; the question is what do family farmers know. I will tell you what they know. They know they are hanging on by their financial fingertips struggling to see if their family can stay on the farm when they are receiving 1930s prices and paying inflated prices for every one of their inputs when putting in a crop. The amendment before us is to cut this funding for family farmers by $1.9 billion. It is an honest amendment. You have a right to propose a cut, and you have a right to say farmers do not deserve this much help. It is not accurate to say if this amendment is adopted that farmers will receive a double AMTA payment. The fact is, they will not. This amendment will reduce the amount of help available to family farmers. It is interesting to me that we have had four successive years of emergency legislation to respond to the deficiencies of the current farm program. I can remember the debate on the farm program--a program I voted against. This was nirvana. Boy, was this going to solve all our problems. We now know it solved none of our problems. Year after year we have had to pass an emergency bill. Why? To fill in the hole of that farm program that did not work. We need to get a better farm program. We are about the business of doing that. In the meantime, we need to save family farmers and help them get across those price valleys. Everything in this country is changing. Go to a bank and in most places that bank is owned nationally with little branches around the country. Do you want to get something to eat? In most cases, you are going to get something to eat at a food joint that has ``mom and pop'' taken down and it has a food chain logo on top. Do you want to go to a hardware store? Local hardware stores are not around much anymore. Now it is a big chain. The last American heroes, in my judgment, are the folks on the farm still trying to make a living against all the odds. Sometimes they are milking cows, sometimes hauling bales, always doing chores. They also put in a crop while praying it does not hail, that they do not get insects, that it does not rain too much, that it rains enough. And if these family farmers are lucky enough to get a crop, they put it in a truck and drive it to an elevator, they find out that the price it is worth is really only in 1930 dollars. They find out the food they produce has no value. The farmer who risks everything for himself and his family is told: Your food has no value. In a world where people go to bed with an ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry, our farmers are told their food has no value. There is something disconnected in public policy. The question is, are family farmers like the little old diner that is left behind when the interstate comes through? It is a romantic notion to talk about them, but that is yesterday's dream. Is that what family farms are? Some think that. Some think our future is mechanized corporate agriculture from California to Maine. I think the family unit and family agriculture which plants the seeds for family values that nourish and refresh our small town and big cities--the rolling of those valleys from small towns to big cities-- has always represented the refreshment of character and value in this country. Family farms are important to our future. This amendment is asking that we cut back by $1.9 billion the amount of emergency help that family farmers need just to keep their heads above water until we can get them across this price valley. We need a bridge across these valleys for family farmers. We need a better farm program to provide that bridge. In the meantime, we need this legislation and we need to defeat this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, there is a pretty wide gap between what Washington thinks and what farmers know. This, after all, is about family farmers. That is what the issue is: emergency help for family farmers. There are a whole lot of folks in the country struggling to make a living. Prices family farmers receive--the price for commodities--have collapsed to 1930 levels in real dollars. I heard some people say: Things are improving. Yes, the price of cattle has improved, there is no question about that, but I guarantee, there is no one who serves in the Senate who has seen their income diminished in any way that resembles what has happened to family farmers. Grain prices are still at a very significant low. When one takes particular grains and say they are at a 17-year low or 25-year low and then say they have improved slightly from that, the improvement ``slightly'' does not mean very much. It doesn't mean much to family farmers if slight improvements in the prices they receive means they are going to go broke probably a few weeks later. The fact is, our family farmers are in desperate trouble. The point I make is this is an emergency supplemental bill dealing with agriculture. It is in the budget, it is provided for, and we are trying to get some help out as soon as we can to family farmers. Last Friday, inexplicably we were confronted with the question of having to file a cloture motion on the motion to proceed. In plain English, that means the other side said we had to have a debate about whether or not we were going to have a debate on this issue. We said: This is an emergency issue to help family farmers. These are, pardon me to others, America's last heroes, in my judgment. These are families out there struggling, working under a yard-light trying to keep it together. They are harvesting a crop--if they are lucky enough to get a good crop--and trucking it to the elevator only to find they are getting pennies on the dollar, 1930s prices in real value. The fact is, they are hanging on by their financial fingertips trying to stay alive. And then when we came to this issue, we were told we have to debate whether we are going to be able to debate. I am sorry, there is something wrong with that. There is something that misses the urgency of what ought to be done by the Senate to help families who are in trouble. I help a lot of people. I am someone who believes I have a responsibility to invest in other States, in other regions. I support mass transit. We do not have a subway system in Bismarck, ND, but count me as a supporter because I believe it is important for our country to do that for other areas. I support programs in virtually every other area in this country because I think it strengthens this country. Investment in family farmers strengthens our country as well. This is just a small bridge. We have to build a bigger bridge for them in the new farm program which comes next. To get from here to there, we are trying to do this emergency supplemental for Agriculture. It is just inexplicable to me that we even had to debate whether we would be allowed to debate. Once we got cloture, which says, ``It is OK, you won the debate; we can now debate,'' we find ourselves at a parade rest. It is like watching paint dry, except paint seems to dry more quickly than good debate on this bill. I ask the Senator from Iowa--if the Senator from Nevada will yield to him--on other appropriations bills we have traditionally worked with each other, have we not? Both sides say all right, how many amendments do you have; this is how many we have; can we get time agreements; can we work them out; can we find an end date so we can get these done? We have always done that. I hope we can do that on this piece of legislation because it is so important. The only way we are going to accomplish anything, I fully understand, is to be able to elicit cooperation from both sides. We have to cooperate. I understand that. Anybody can stop this place. Throw a wrench in the crank case and it comes to a stop quickly. That is easy to do in the Senate. Are we in a position, I ask the majority whip, where we are able to get perhaps the other side to say to us, and our side to say to them: Here are the total amendments we have. Let's work through them and find ways to reach an understanding of how we will get this bill passed. Are we able to do that? If not, why not?

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield further?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further for a question, I know my colleague from Iowa perhaps wishes to inquire as well. I understand--and I think the Senator from Nevada understands--we cannot get anything done in this Chamber without cooperation. There is no question about that. Unless we all cooperate and find a way to compromise, with some goodwill, the Senate will not get its work done. We must get through certain legislation by a certain time. Unless we find a way to cooperate, it does not happen. That is because the levers in the Senate are substantial and can slow things down. As I said yesterday, no one has ever accused the Senate of speeding on a good day, but the ability to slow the Senate down or stop it is an ability that almost any Senator has. I also understand this is a difficult time in a lot of ways, and I understand there are some who are pretty negative about some of the things we propose to do; for example, the transportation and the trucking issue. On the legislation dealing with emergency help to family farmers, the Senator from Iowa has put together a bill that I think is terrific legislation, and I am proud to support it. It is very helpful and very important to family farmers. I know there are some who take a negative view of it and I respect that. I must say, when I think of that, I think of Mark Twain who was asked once to engage in a debate. He said: Of course, as long as I can have the negative side. They said: We have not yet told you what the subject is. He said: It does not matter. The negative side requires no preparation. It is very easy to oppose almost anything. What we need to do is to ask for some cooperation. We are going to have to pass an emergency supplemental bill to help family farmers. We know that. We have provided for it in the budget. We know we need to get this done, and everyone in this Chamber knows it has to be done this week. We ask for some cooperation. We have so much more to do than just this bill. Is it not the case that we also have to do the VA-HUD appropriations bill; we need to finish the Department of Transportation appropriations bill; we have to get this emergency supplemental appropriations bill done; we have the export bill we have to get done--all of this between now and the end of this week? My great concern is there seems to be no activity in the Chamber, and it is not because we do not want to get to a final conclusion on this legislation. It is because those who want to thwart us from making progress can easily do so, and at least have been doing so now for some number of days, beginning at least at the start of last week and perhaps partly the week before. I ask the Senator: Is there a prospect of being able to make some progress with this emergency legislation? If so, how can we do that and how can we enlist the cooperation of the other side and say we need to have our amendments and have our shot at these amendments and have a vote? if we lose we lose, but we at least move the bill and go to conference. I ask my colleague from Nevada, how can we accomplish that?

Mr. DORGAN. This has been a very frustrating time for a number of reasons. The Senate seems to have begun moving in slow motion, if that, in recent days and weeks. Last week I recall we had the Department of Transportation bill on the floor. We had very few workdays remaining before the August break and very important legislation to get finished or completed by then. Despite this, during proceedings on the Department of Transportation bill, the Senate was in quorum call after quorum call. No one would bring amendments to the floor. What we had, it appeared to me, was kind of a deliberate slowdown. Now, we have brought an emergency Agriculture bill to the floor of the Senate--an emergency supplemental. I understand some people would prefer to provide less money to family farmers who are in some trouble, some real trouble because of collapsed grain prices. They would like to provide less money. I understand that. They have a right to offer amendments to reduce the amount of help for family farmers. We had one such amendment today, and the amendment lost. It is a rather frustrating time because even to get to the emergency bill to help family farmers, we had to file a cloture motion to proceed, for gosh sakes, not even on the bill. It was a debate on whether or not we should debate the bill. This is an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. That was on Friday. Then on Monday, we had to vote on the cloture motion. Now we are at the end of the day on Tuesday. I ask the Senator a question, perhaps more appropriately answered by the manager of the bill, the Senator from Iowa: Are we facing a prospect of seeing an end to this so we might be able to get this passed, have a conference, and get it completed by the end of the week? Are there amendments still pending? Are there amendments on our side? I am told we are done with the amendments, we are ready to go to third reading, and yet we were in a quorum call before we took the floor. I understand the next amendment has nothing to do with this bill. Apparently there is one more amendment ready that is totally extraneous to an issue dealing with family farmers. It is also the case, I understand, that there are other amendments but no one knows what amendments or how many amendments or when we might finish. Are we in a circumstance where there is kind of a slow-motion march going on, not necessarily in the right direction? I might ask the Senator, if he knows, is there an end date we might expect the minority to be helpful to us in passing this legislation?

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to talk today about the emergency supplemental bill that will be on the floor dealing with the farm problem we have in this country. I just heard my colleague, Senator Harkin, the chairman of the committee. I commend him for what he has done. I think he made a great statement. I think he has written a good bill, and Congress ought to pass it posthaste. It is rather strange that we find ourselves in this position. We are in the position of debating the motion to proceed to go to the actual bill on the floor of the Senate. Let me say that again. We are debating the motion to proceed. We are debating whether we should proceed to a bill to provide emergency help to family farmers. I guess those who are stalling our being able to get to that bill are probably not facing, with respect to their personal income, the circumstances family farmers are facing. Soybeans have recently been at a 27-year low in price; cotton, a 25-year low; wheat and corn, a 14- year low; rice, an 8-year low. Prices have collapsed as if they had dropped off a cliff. They have stayed down for a number of years, only recovering slightly, at times. So family farmers, who are out there in the country and have invested sweat and equity in their family farm trying to make a living, have discovered that their income has completely collapsed. This has required Congress to try to patch up a bad farm bill with emergency aid year after year after year. We really need to write a better farm bill. I know Senator Harkin, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, is leading the effort to do that. I fully support him. In the meantime, we need to provide some emergency help. That is what this bill is designed to do. It is called an emergency supplemental to try to provide some help to family farms. If one needs more insight into what is happening to our family farms, one can probably see it in the circumstances described to me by a Lutheran minister one day this past year. This Lutheran minister works in New England, ND, as the pastor of the local Lutheran church. We were talking about the struggle that family farmers are having in our country, and especially there, which is near my hometown of Regent in southwestern North Dakota. She said to me: In our little town, where we have a shrinking population--this is a town of probably 800 people-- we have about 4 funerals for every wedding I conduct as pastor of our church. Four funerals for every wedding--I was thinking to myself about that movie ``Four Weddings and a Funeral.'' This is just the opposite: four funerals for every wedding. What is she saying with that data? What that means is the population in those rural areas is getting older. Young people are moving out. Family farmers are shutting down family farms because they can't make it, and those economies are just shrinking. The root of all of it is a farm program that does not work. It just isn't able to give families a feeling they can stay on the family farm and make a decent living. We are in this Chamber today on an emergency supplemental bill to try to help family farmers. The Senate can move ahead or it does not have to move ahead. This is not like milking. If this were a dairy operation, come 5:30, if you had 80 cows that were fresh and needed to be milked, you could not sit around the house twiddling your thumbs saying: I don't think I will milk this afternoon. You would have to go to the barn and start milking those cows. If it was spring planting time, you wouldn't have the opportunity to say: I won't go spring planting this afternoon. You have to fuel up the tractor and go plant some seeds. Farmers understand deadlines. Farmers understand that you need to get things done when it is time to get them done; this Senate ought to as well. Having to debate the motion to proceed is an outrage. Who is stalling here? And why? We ought not have to debate the motion to proceed to an emergency supplemental bill to help family farmers. On Friday, one of my colleagues on the other side said: I am holding it up because it costs too much money. I say: You have every right to try to reduce the amount of help for family farmers. Let the bill come to the floor and then offer an amendment. If you want to cut it by $2 billion or $4 billion, offer that amendment, and then let's have a vote. If enough Senators vote with you, you will have cut the amount of help for family farmers. I am not going to support that, but why would you consider holding up the bill because you have your nose out of joint that it costs too much? If you think it costs too much, then offer an amendment to decrease it. Let me say this. From my standpoint, I think this investment in family farms for this country is a bargain. A good deal deserves repeating: I think investing in families who are out there trying to make a living on the family farm is a bargain for this country in that I believe it strengthens this country. Europe does not have this kind of internal debate. Europe decided long ago that it wants to maintain a network of family farms across Europe. Why? Because it has been hungry. It doesn't want to be hungry again. How does it prevent that? They work to preserve a network of family farmers living on the land in Europe. Go to a small town in Europe some evening and ask yourself whether that town is alive. It is. Small towns in Europe are alive. They have life because of family farms, which are the blood vessels that flow into those communities, are doing well in Europe. In this country, family farms are flat on their backs, struggling to make a living because prices have collapsed. Has anyone in this Chamber who makes an income had it reduced by 40 percent? That is what family farmers face when they discover that the price for their crop has collapsed. They put the seed in the ground in the spring. They pray that nothing is going to happen to it: no insects, no hail, no excessive rain, but enough rain. They pray that nothing bad is going to happen. Then they harvest it in the fall and they put it on a truck and take it to the elevator, only to be told that in a world that is hungry, with 500 million people going to bed every night with an ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry, they are told: Your food doesn't have any value, Mr. Farmer. They wonder about the value contained in that statement.