Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. On behalf of myself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Durbin, I introduce a piece of legislation today that deals with the repeal of certain travel provisions or restrictions and certain trade sanctions with respect to Cuba. Last year, in the Senate Appropriations Committee, I offered legislation dealing with removing the embargo that exists on the shipment of agriculture commodities around the world. The fact is, we have some people around the world we don't like. We say: We are going to punish you. We don't like Saddam Hussein. We say: The way to punish you is, we are going to slap an embargo on your country, and in that embargo we are going to include food and medicine. We say the same to the leaders of Libya, Cuba and North Korea. It has been my strong feeling that we ought never have an embargo on the shipment of food and medicine to anywhere in the world. With those embargoes, we shoot ourselves in the foot. When we don't sell food to those countries, other countries will sell food to them. Why on Earth would we ever want to use food as a weapon? I thought we put that behind us 20 years ago. Yet we continue to do it with respect to certain undesirable countries. I offered legislation in the appropriations bill last year. It came to the floor of the Senate, and we moved through the Senate into conference. We had a lot of discussion about it. The fact is, we made some progress, essentially lifting sanctions and embargoes on the shipment of food and medicine to Iran, Libya, Sudan and North Korea. But there is more yet to do. In conference we got stiffed by some interests who decided at they wanted to even take a step backward with respect to the ban on travel to Cuba. They took the legislation we enacted and added to it a further restriction by codifying all the restrictions that now exist on travel to Cuba and preventing a President from loosening the travel restrictions. They have written these restrictions into law, which makes them tighter. That made no sense. They also added provisions that ban all American financing, even private financing, for agricultural sales to Cuba. That is a step backward, not forward. Let me read what two Members of the House who represent south Florida said when this was passed: The prohibition will make it as difficult as is possible to make agricultural sales to Cuba. Closing off Clinton's tourism option for Castro is our most important achievement in years. We are extremely pleased. I understand why they are pleased. I am not. What was done by this Congress and just by a few people was wrong. We ought not make it difficult to sell food or move food or medicine to Cuba or anywhere else in the world for that matter. It is not in our interest, and it is not in the interest of others around the world for us to behave in that manner. Does anyone think, as I have asked repeatedly, that Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein or others miss a meal because we have decided that we will not ship agricultural products or food to Iraq, Cuba? Does anybody think they have missed a meal? All these policies do is punish poor people and hungry people and sick people. This country is better than that. We ought to start acting like it. This Congress ought to provide policies that say when 40 years of embargo to Cuba do not work, it is time to change the policy. I happen to support lifting the embargo completely. But now we are just talking about the first piece: allowing the shipment of food and medicine to Cuba. Then there is the issue of travel to Cuba. How on Earth can one make the claim that travel and exchange and movement between the United States and Cuba somehow undermines our interests? It does not. In my judgment, the more contact, the more travel, the more movement there is between the United States and Cuba, the more we will undermine the interest of the Communist Government of Cuba. That, after all, ought to be our objective. Our objective ought to be to find ways to see if we can't create a new circumstance by which we persuade the Cuban Government to be open, democratic, and give the people of Cuba an opportunity for the freedoms they deserve. We have had an embargo for Cuba for 40 years. It has not worked. There comes a time when you say something that hasn't worked for 40 years ought to be changed. This is a baby step in making the change that is needed. Even at that, we faced significant problems last year. There are a number of people in the Senate who have worked on these issues for a long while. Senator Roberts, Senator Dodd, former Senator Ashcroft, myself, and others have worked on these issues dealing with agriculture and travel and other issues for a long while. Senator Roberts is on the floor. I know he visited Cuba some months ago. I also have visited Cuba. I found it unthinkable, standing in a hospital in an intensive care room one day with a little boy who was in a coma, he had been in an accident, hit his head, was in a coma. He was in an intensive care room. There were no machines. I have been in intensive care rooms and have heard the rhythm of machinery pumping life into patients. Not in that room because they don't have the equipment. This little boy had his mother by his bedside holding his hand. They told me at that hospital they were out of 240 different kinds of medicines--240 different medicines they didn't have. They were out of it. I am sitting there thinking, how could it serve any interest, any public policy purpose, to believe that our withholding the shipment of prescription drugs to Cuba is somehow advancing anybody's interest? It is simply unthinkable. The same holds true with food. Our farmers toil in the fields of this country and they produce a product that is needed around the world. We are told that half of the world goes to bed with an ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry. A quarter of the world is on a diet. Then we have farmers here in America struggling to find gas to put in a tractor to plow the ground, to plant a seed, to raise a crop, only to go to the elevator in the fall and be told the crop has no value because there is an oversupply of crops. The farmer hears the debate over the embargoes and sanctions we have against countries because we don't like their leaders. We won't ship food and the farmer get hurt. You talk about a policy that is grounded in foolishness--this is it. More than foolishness, it is cruel. It is not what represents the best of this country. This country is a world leader. This country produces food in prodigious quantity. It is something the rest of the world desperately needs. To withhold it anywhere in the world is unbecoming of this country. On a moral basis, this country has a responsibility to always, always decide that the shipment of food and medicine is going to be available anywhere in the world and that we are not going to have embargoes that include the withholding of medicines anywhere in the world. Dictators will always get something to eat and medicines to treat their diseases. Our policy punishes the sick, hungry, and poor people. It ought to stop. The bill I introduce today for myself, Senators Roberts, Baucus, and Durbin simply rescinds those provisions of the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act that tightened sanctions on Cuba. I know I have been on the floor a lot talking about these issues, but I feel strongly about them. We have the opportunity in this Congress to undo what we did last year--undo the bad parts. We did make some progress last year. Yes, we made some progress, but not enough. I want our policy to be unequivocal and plain, that nowhere in this world, anywhere, in our relationships in the world, will we use food or prescription drugs, or medicine, as a weapon. That would represent the best of this country's instincts. In my judgment, it will be accomplished when we have the opportunity to vote on it. The fact is, there are 70 or 80 votes in the Senate by people who believe in that position. We have just a few hard-core folks that are still living in the fifties. They drive up here in new cars, wear new suits, but they are living in the fifties, serving in the Congress in 2001, still pushing policies that don't work. A few people, a small cabal of people in this Congress, have prevented us from doing what we all know we should do, eliminate these kinds of sanctions and embargoes anywhere in the world. Mr. President, I am happy to have introduced this today. I hope colleagues will carefully consider it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. It is all about fairness and equity. Under the current program, even though all of the support prices are too low, wheat and feed grains are being treated unfairly and ought to be brought up to where they should be and we would have a right to expect them to be. I have included all of the significant numbers and support price proposals in the Record. I hope my colleagues will join me in seeing if we can at least take an interim step and pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to talk about farming. The pages of the calendar have now turned. It is a new year, but our family farmers face the same struggle, and in fact, in many ways, the struggle gets worse. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation titled the FARM Equity Act of 2001 that is designed to equalize the presently disparate commodity Marketing Assistance Loan rates of the current farm bill, commonly referred to as Freedom to Farm. The legislation would increase all commodity loan rates up to soybean and minor oilseed loan levels based on historical price ratios amongst the commodities. The FARM Equity Act would also treat all commodities equally in that it would place a price floor under all commodity loan rates, not just a select few. The FARM Equity Act will leave soybeans at the current loan level-- $5.26 per bushel. This price is about 85 percent of the Olympic Average of soybean market prices from the years 1994 to 1998. All other crops will be equalized up to this same price ratio related to each crops respective Olympic Average during the same time period. Equalized loan rates for wheat would be $3.14 per bushel, for corn--$2.09 per bushel, for rice--7.8 cents per pound and for cotton--52.6 cents per pound. All these loan levels would become minimum loan levels. When Freedom to Farm was passed, supporters intended that this new farm legislation would remove all government interference or influences from planting decisions. ``Let farmers take their cues from the market place'', was heard often during the debate. ``From now on, farmers will not plant their crops with an eye towards Washington--they will plant what the market tells them to plant.'' I doubt anyone believes, let alone could debate the point with a straight face, that this major premise of Freedom to Farm--the notion of market based planting decisions--has become a reality. To the contrary, at the present time, the major influence on what type of seed goes into the ground on our nation's farms is the level of Market Assistance Loan rates available for the various program crops. There can be no dispute that soybeans, and the other minor oilseed crops, have a much higher loan rate--when compared to historical price ratios--than wheat, corn and the other minor feed grains, cotton and rice. Likewise, there can be no dispute that the unprecedented increase in soybeans and oilseeds acreage seen the last couple of years, is due in large part, to these arbitrarily set unequal loan rates. Farmers have little choice but to plant more acres of oilseeds for the higher loan value, even thought the cash and future markets clearly signal for them to do otherwise. Does anyone remember ``Green Acres,'' the old TV show from the sixties that poked fun of the city slicker--and country folks, for that matter--who moved out from New York City to start farming? One of the episodes had to do with deciding what crop to plant. I can't remember the exact order of events, but the gist of it was this. Oliver Wendell Douglas--played by Eddie Albert--listened to the market report while having breakfast the morning he was going to start spring planting. The price of corn was up, while soybean prices were down, so Oliver finished breakfast and away he went to the general store to buy some corn seed from Sam Drucker. Oliver then headed out to his field to plant corn. About noon, Oliver came home for dinner. Now I know to most this meal is lunch, but trust me, on the farm--it is called dinner; farmers also have a meal called supper that takes place in the evening. But, let's get back to Oliver. While he was eating his dinner, the noon markets came on, and wouldn't you know it, corn was down, and soybeans were up. Well, Oliver was all upset, since he had already planted some of the corn. Lisa, Oliver's wife, told him just exchange the seed for a different kind, ``I always return what I buy back to the stores; why can't you just exchange the corn for some soybeans, if that's what you want to plant now?'' Oliver agreed with his wife, and went out and dug up the corn seed, put it back in the sack, and headed back to the supply store to trade it in for soybeans. Sam Drucker thought he was nuts, of course, and everyone had a good laugh. Preposterous of course, this parody of farmer indecision where seed is actually picked out of the ground, but I mention this episode only because today, Oliver Wendell Douglas wouldn't have his ear turned to the market reports to decide what to plant. He would simply seed soybeans because everyone knows the loan price is the only price that matters these days. In fact, one market advisor in the Midwest is promoting a ``Plan B'' this year that encourages farmers to plant even more soybeans than last years record acreage because of the high loan rates in hopes of decreasing corn acres enough to increase those prices. Probably not a bad idea, given the present market prices and high nitrogen costs. But, it's a clear indication of how skewed the present loan levels actually are. Just how much effect on U.S. crop acres are these unequal loan rates having? We need look no further than the annual acreage reports issued by USDA. In 1994, US farmers planted a little over 61.6 million acres of soybeans. This past year, a record 74.5 million acres were planted to soybeans, an increase of over 20 percent. For all wheat, USDA tells us the complete opposite is taking place. The acreage planted in the U.S. has declined over 12 percent during this same period, from 70.3 million acres down to 62.5 acres. A few weeks ago, USDA reported that the winter wheat acreage seeded last fall is down 5 percent from the fall before. The 41.3 million acres planted for harvest this coming summer is the smallest acreage devoted to winter wheat since 1971. To those who will say that we shouldn't change the components of the present Farm Bill in mid-stream, I say, we have repeatedly changed it each of the last three years now. We have had three emergency spending bills due to the low commodity prices. We have changed payment limits on the Loan Deficiency Payments. I might add, equalizing loan rates will do more for medium sized family farms than uncapping LDP limits. Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman also used his administrative authority to keep the loan levels at current levels. Just last month, he froze commodity loans at 2000 levels for the 2001 crop. Had he not, the loan for wheat would have fallen to $2.46, while corn would have dropped to $1.76. Even soybeans would have fallen, although not to what the formula calls for. You see, soybeans have a price floor at $4.92 a bushel. If not for this mandated floor specified in the law, the formula in Freedom to Farm would have called for a price of $4.58 per bushel. Now, I am pleased that the Secretary of Agriculture did this. I found it interesting that I received a few calls from angry farmers when the former Agriculture Secretary froze loan rates for the coming year at 2000 levels. They thought he should have raised them and had determined his actions were vindictive and meant only to keep commodity loans at these low levels. As I have stated, Secretary Glickman prevented present law from dropping loan prices even further. I don't want to see anymore reductions in loan levels for any of our crops. I want all crops to be treated fairly, and equally. I want all crops to have the same relative level of price protection. And if one or two crops have a loan floor that prevents further erosion in loan protection, then all crops should enjoy such a loan floor. That's why I have introduced this legislation. This is not to say that the loan levels in this legislation are adequate. They are not. This is only the first step in many that we need to take to fix broken farm policy. And this legislation will put all crops on equal footing as we enter the debate on what will eventually replace Freedom to Farm. I would prefer that loan levels would be higher, that they would reflect the cost of production. Maybe later we can have some common sense farm policy that would do such a thing, but for now, I think this is the least that we should do, as far as loan rates are concerned. Although it is not mentioned in this legislation, as part of this interim step to preserve our farms, I believe we should restore the automatic 20 percent reduction in Agricultural Market Transition Payments that will take place this year. It should be restored to the 2000 levels for the remaining two years of Freedom to Farm, or until we replace this legislation altogether. I know others are thinking this needs to be done, and I want to go on record as supporting this restoration of AMTA payments. Before I close, I want to point out the steady erosion of the loan levels for most crops over the years. This year, 2001, if this legislation isn't enacted, the national loan for wheat will stand at $2.58 per bushel. In 1983, the wheat loan was $3.65 per bushel. For corn, the present loan rate is $1.89, while in 1983 it was $2.65 per bushel. For rice, this year's loan is $6.50 per cwt. In 1983, the rice loan was $8.13 per cwt. Cotton's loan this year stands at 52.9 cents per lb. 1982 saw a cotton loan rate of a little over 57 cents per lb. Now, I saved soybeans until last, for good reason. Of all the major crops, soybeans stand alone in that it has a higher loan rate today, than in the early 1980's. The soybean loan stood at $5.02 twenty years ago, while today, the loan is $5.26. All the other crops dropped, some more than others, percentage wise. All, except for soybeans. I would also like to point out that the cost of production has skyrocketed for all crops the past twenty years. This year alone, farmers are facing an astronomical increase in anhydrous ammonia prices--the major form of nitrogen fertilizer--due to the skyrocketing natural gas prices. As you may know, natural gas comprises 78 percent of anhydrous' cost of production. Because of this, family farmers in North Dakota, and across the country, are facing a possible doubling of their nitrogen fertilizer costs, from the low $200's per ton last year to well over $400 per ton this year. The cost of fertilizer is just one of many examples where farm costs have skyrocketed. Others include their crop protection products, insurance costs, machinery costs, etc. The list goes on. No other segment of our economy has been asked to take less and less for their labors. As I have stated earlier, this legislation, the FARM Equity Act of 2001, is only an interim step. It is not a new farm bill, nor is it the answer to the problems. But I believe we should take action now to equalize the loan rates. Let's pass this legislation that would leave soybeans and other oilseeds at their present loan level while raising other crops up to the same relative level, based on historical market price relationships as soybeans. It is fair. It is equitable. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, we have families living all across this country out in the country trying to make a go of it on a family farm: Plant some seeds, raise a crop, then harvest that crop, take it to the grain elevator, and try to raise enough money to keep going and pay the bills. In addition to having collapsed prices for that which they produce, farmers now see the cost of their inputs dramatically increasing. The cost of anhydrous ammonia, the most popular form of nitrogen fertilizer, is up dramatically because of the spike in natural gas costs. Farmers are beset in every direction: Monopolies in transportation, near monopolies in the grain trade business, and a collapse of the prices for that which farmers produce. It is an awfully difficult time. So what can be done about this? My first hope would be that this Congress would rewrite the current farm bill. I do not think it works very well. I do not think we ought to get rid of all of it. The planting flexibility makes sense. Let's keep it. But clearly the current farm bill has not worked very well. Let's rewrite it and provide a price support or a bridge across price valleys for family farmers that give them some hope that if they do a good job, and work hard, they have a chance to survive out on the family farm. But I am told that rewriting the farm bill is not going to happen this year because it expires at the end of next year. I understand that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the Senate does not want to hold hearings on trying to rewrite the farm bill this year. He certainly has the capability of blocking that. I respect him, but I would disagree with him about this issue. But it is likely we will not see progress in rewriting the farm bill this year. So then, what should we do? In my judgment, we ought to at least take an interim step that would restore some balance to the current price protection that exists, as anemic as it is. We ought to provide some balance and equality to that price protection with respect to those of us who come from the part of the country that produces mostly wheat and feed grains. We have a circumstance now where the current price support, which is, in my judgment, too low, nonetheless has an inequity about it that offers a price support substantially higher for oil seeds than it does for wheat and feed grains. I am not here to suggest that we take the price support for oil seeds down. I am suggesting that it is unfair to wheat and feed grains and we ought to bring their price support up to provide some equity and fairness. And there is a way to do that. I would like to show a couple charts of what has been happening. This chart shows crop acres. You can see, going back to 1994, that soybean acreage is increasing and wheat acreage is declining, both substantially. What is happening this year is, a number of farmers are making decisions about what to plant, and it has nothing to do with what the markets suggest they should plant. It has to do with what their lender would calculate is best for them to plant given the farm program price support loan levels of the various crops. The loan deficiency payment for oil seeds is much higher than for wheat and feed grains on a comparable basis, because the loan levels that determine the loan deficiency payments are likewise, much higher for oil seeds than the other crops. So the result is, they are making planting decisions, once again, based on the farm bill rather than on the market. It is because we have inequitable price support programs. You can see what has happened with the loan rates over time. With soybeans, loan rates have increased slightly over the last twenty years, while wheat, corn and other feed grain loan rates have declined substantially during the same time period. My point is this. We ought to be able to provide equity in these loan rates by bringing the loan rate for wheat and feed grains up to an equitable level relative to oilseed levels. Doing so would, likewise, provide an equitable loan deficiency payment for all crops and would stop this calculation of, What should I plant relative to what the farm program thinks I should plant? As Freedom to Farm passed, its supporters were saying: Let's have the market system send signals on what ought to be planted. That is not happening at the moment. It is the farm program that is determining what is being planted because of the skewed loan support prices. It is the farm program that is actually promoting that incentive to plant one thing versus another thing. I am not suggesting we fix it by reducing the loan rate or the loan deficiency payment for oilseeds. We ought not do that. We ought to bring the loan rate for the others up because those levels are too low, when compared to oilseeds. It is unfair to them. Some will remember the old television program ``Green Acres'' from long ago in the 1960s. Eddie Albert played a character named Oliver Wendell Douglas, who had a pig named Arnold. He was a city slicker who moved to the country. It was a television program that poked fun at both the city slicker and maybe also at country folks. It was a comedy. In one episode, Oliver is having breakfast one morning. He is trying to figure out what to plant. He hears the morning grain market report on the radio, and the price of soybeans was going down and the price of corn was going up. So he decided to go down to the general store and get himself some corn seed. All morning he planted corn. At noon, Oliver came in for dinner. Back home they call it dinner in the middle of the day; some people call it lunch, but we call it dinner. He came back for dinner and discovered on the radio that the price of corn was down and the price of soybeans was up, according to the noon market report. And he said to his wife: It is kind of hard to figure out what to do here. I just planted corn because the radio said corn was up. Now corn is down, soybeans are up. His wife said: When I go to the store and get something that doesn't work, I take it back. So this old character on ``Green Acres'' went out to the field, walked down the furrows and pulled out all of his corn seeds and went back to the store to trade them in for soybean seed. Of course, the old boy who ran the store that sold him the seed thought he was pretty goofy. My point about this story is, Oliver Douglas wouldn't have to listen, under today's circumstances, to the radio market reports to evaluate what he ought to plant, to find out what is down or what is up. In today's circumstances, when you take a look at the farm program, what is up is a better loan rate for oilseeds, and what is down is an anemic loan rate for wheat and feed grains. What can be done about that? Bring wheat and feed grain loan rates up to where they ought to be. That only brings wheat to $3.14 a bushel, but it is a far sight better than where it is today, at $2.58. So today, I am introducing a piece of legislation that equalizes loan rates. It will not penalize oilseeds. It will leave them where they are. Good for them; I want that. I support that and will fight for that. But it will take the loan rate for other program crops, including wheat, corn, and rice, cotton, and put those loan rates where they ought to be relative to some equity vis-a-vis oilseeds. I am going to include in the Record a list of all the program crops and where I propose we establish their loan rates. The loan rates for the various crops were determined by fixing them at the same percentage of their 1994-1998 5-year Olympic Average of market prices as the soybean loan rate is with respect to its 1994-1998 5-year Olympic Average of market prices. This is only an interim step. We must do much more, and I have other ideas on what we ought to do. But for now, at least as a first step, let's provide some fairness for those who are producing wheat and feed grains. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the Olympic Average price data to which I referred.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. On behalf of myself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Durbin, I introduce a piece of legislation today that deals with the repeal of certain travel provisions or restrictions and certain trade sanctions with respect to Cuba. Last year, in the Senate Appropriations Committee, I offered legislation dealing with removing the embargo that exists on the shipment of agriculture commodities around the world. The fact is, we have some people around the world we don't like. We say: We are going to punish you. We don't like Saddam Hussein. We say: The way to punish you is, we are going to slap an embargo on your country, and in that embargo we are going to include food and medicine. We say the same to the leaders of Libya, Cuba and North Korea. It has been my strong feeling that we ought never have an embargo on the shipment of food and medicine to anywhere in the world. With those embargoes, we shoot ourselves in the foot. When we don't sell food to those countries, other countries will sell food to them. Why on Earth would we ever want to use food as a weapon? I thought we put that behind us 20 years ago. Yet we continue to do it with respect to certain undesirable countries. I offered legislation in the appropriations bill last year. It came to the floor of the Senate, and we moved through the Senate into conference. We had a lot of discussion about it. The fact is, we made some progress, essentially lifting sanctions and embargoes on the shipment of food and medicine to Iran, Libya, Sudan and North Korea. But there is more yet to do. In conference we got stiffed by some interests who decided at they wanted to even take a step backward with respect to the ban on travel to Cuba. They took the legislation we enacted and added to it a further restriction by codifying all the restrictions that now exist on travel to Cuba and preventing a President from loosening the travel restrictions. They have written these restrictions into law, which makes them tighter. That made no sense. They also added provisions that ban all American financing, even private financing, for agricultural sales to Cuba. That is a step backward, not forward. Let me read what two Members of the House who represent south Florida said when this was passed: The prohibition will make it as difficult as is possible to make agricultural sales to Cuba. Closing off Clinton's tourism option for Castro is our most important achievement in years. We are extremely pleased. I understand why they are pleased. I am not. What was done by this Congress and just by a few people was wrong. We ought not make it difficult to sell food or move food or medicine to Cuba or anywhere else in the world for that matter. It is not in our interest, and it is not in the interest of others around the world for us to behave in that manner. Does anyone think, as I have asked repeatedly, that Fidel Castro or Saddam Hussein or others miss a meal because we have decided that we will not ship agricultural products or food to Iraq, Cuba? Does anybody think they have missed a meal? All these policies do is punish poor people and hungry people and sick people. This country is better than that. We ought to start acting like it. This Congress ought to provide policies that say when 40 years of embargo to Cuba do not work, it is time to change the policy. I happen to support lifting the embargo completely. But now we are just talking about the first piece: allowing the shipment of food and medicine to Cuba. Then there is the issue of travel to Cuba. How on Earth can one make the claim that travel and exchange and movement between the United States and Cuba somehow undermines our interests? It does not. In my judgment, the more contact, the more travel, the more movement there is between the United States and Cuba, the more we will undermine the interest of the Communist Government of Cuba. That, after all, ought to be our objective. Our objective ought to be to find ways to see if we can't create a new circumstance by which we persuade the Cuban Government to be open, democratic, and give the people of Cuba an opportunity for the freedoms they deserve. We have had an embargo for Cuba for 40 years. It has not worked. There comes a time when you say something that hasn't worked for 40 years ought to be changed. This is a baby step in making the change that is needed. Even at that, we faced significant problems last year. There are a number of people in the Senate who have worked on these issues for a long while. Senator Roberts, Senator Dodd, former Senator Ashcroft, myself, and others have worked on these issues dealing with agriculture and travel and other issues for a long while. Senator Roberts is on the floor. I know he visited Cuba some months ago. I also have visited Cuba. I found it unthinkable, standing in a hospital in an intensive care room one day with a little boy who was in a coma, he had been in an accident, hit his head, was in a coma. He was in an intensive care room. There were no machines. I have been in intensive care rooms and have heard the rhythm of machinery pumping life into patients. Not in that room because they don't have the equipment. This little boy had his mother by his bedside holding his hand. They told me at that hospital they were out of 240 different kinds of medicines--240 different medicines they didn't have. They were out of it. I am sitting there thinking, how could it serve any interest, any public policy purpose, to believe that our withholding the shipment of prescription drugs to Cuba is somehow advancing anybody's interest? It is simply unthinkable. The same holds true with food. Our farmers toil in the fields of this country and they produce a product that is needed around the world. We are told that half of the world goes to bed with an ache in their belly because it hurts to be hungry. A quarter of the world is on a diet. Then we have farmers here in America struggling to find gas to put in a tractor to plow the ground, to plant a seed, to raise a crop, only to go to the elevator in the fall and be told the crop has no value because there is an oversupply of crops. The farmer hears the debate over the embargoes and sanctions we have against countries because we don't like their leaders. We won't ship food and the farmer get hurt. You talk about a policy that is grounded in foolishness--this is it. More than foolishness, it is cruel. It is not what represents the best of this country. This country is a world leader. This country produces food in prodigious quantity. It is something the rest of the world desperately needs. To withhold it anywhere in the world is unbecoming of this country. On a moral basis, this country has a responsibility to always, always decide that the shipment of food and medicine is going to be available anywhere in the world and that we are not going to have embargoes that include the withholding of medicines anywhere in the world. Dictators will always get something to eat and medicines to treat their diseases. Our policy punishes the sick, hungry, and poor people. It ought to stop. The bill I introduce today for myself, Senators Roberts, Baucus, and Durbin simply rescinds those provisions of the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act that tightened sanctions on Cuba. I know I have been on the floor a lot talking about these issues, but I feel strongly about them. We have the opportunity in this Congress to undo what we did last year--undo the bad parts. We did make some progress last year. Yes, we made some progress, but not enough. I want our policy to be unequivocal and plain, that nowhere in this world, anywhere, in our relationships in the world, will we use food or prescription drugs, or medicine, as a weapon. That would represent the best of this country's instincts. In my judgment, it will be accomplished when we have the opportunity to vote on it. The fact is, there are 70 or 80 votes in the Senate by people who believe in that position. We have just a few hard-core folks that are still living in the fifties. They drive up here in new cars, wear new suits, but they are living in the fifties, serving in the Congress in 2001, still pushing policies that don't work. A few people, a small cabal of people in this Congress, have prevented us from doing what we all know we should do, eliminate these kinds of sanctions and embargoes anywhere in the world. Mr. President, I am happy to have introduced this today. I hope colleagues will carefully consider it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN. It is all about fairness and equity. Under the current program, even though all of the support prices are too low, wheat and feed grains are being treated unfairly and ought to be brought up to where they should be and we would have a right to expect them to be. I have included all of the significant numbers and support price proposals in the Record. I hope my colleagues will join me in seeing if we can at least take an interim step and pass this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to talk about farming. The pages of the calendar have now turned. It is a new year, but our family farmers face the same struggle, and in fact, in many ways, the struggle gets worse. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation titled the FARM Equity Act of 2001 that is designed to equalize the presently disparate commodity Marketing Assistance Loan rates of the current farm bill, commonly referred to as Freedom to Farm. The legislation would increase all commodity loan rates up to soybean and minor oilseed loan levels based on historical price ratios amongst the commodities. The FARM Equity Act would also treat all commodities equally in that it would place a price floor under all commodity loan rates, not just a select few. The FARM Equity Act will leave soybeans at the current loan level-- $5.26 per bushel. This price is about 85 percent of the Olympic Average of soybean market prices from the years 1994 to 1998. All other crops will be equalized up to this same price ratio related to each crops respective Olympic Average during the same time period. Equalized loan rates for wheat would be $3.14 per bushel, for corn--$2.09 per bushel, for rice--7.8 cents per pound and for cotton--52.6 cents per pound. All these loan levels would become minimum loan levels. When Freedom to Farm was passed, supporters intended that this new farm legislation would remove all government interference or influences from planting decisions. ``Let farmers take their cues from the market place'', was heard often during the debate. ``From now on, farmers will not plant their crops with an eye towards Washington--they will plant what the market tells them to plant.'' I doubt anyone believes, let alone could debate the point with a straight face, that this major premise of Freedom to Farm--the notion of market based planting decisions--has become a reality. To the contrary, at the present time, the major influence on what type of seed goes into the ground on our nation's farms is the level of Market Assistance Loan rates available for the various program crops. There can be no dispute that soybeans, and the other minor oilseed crops, have a much higher loan rate--when compared to historical price ratios--than wheat, corn and the other minor feed grains, cotton and rice. Likewise, there can be no dispute that the unprecedented increase in soybeans and oilseeds acreage seen the last couple of years, is due in large part, to these arbitrarily set unequal loan rates. Farmers have little choice but to plant more acres of oilseeds for the higher loan value, even thought the cash and future markets clearly signal for them to do otherwise. Does anyone remember ``Green Acres,'' the old TV show from the sixties that poked fun of the city slicker--and country folks, for that matter--who moved out from New York City to start farming? One of the episodes had to do with deciding what crop to plant. I can't remember the exact order of events, but the gist of it was this. Oliver Wendell Douglas--played by Eddie Albert--listened to the market report while having breakfast the morning he was going to start spring planting. The price of corn was up, while soybean prices were down, so Oliver finished breakfast and away he went to the general store to buy some corn seed from Sam Drucker. Oliver then headed out to his field to plant corn. About noon, Oliver came home for dinner. Now I know to most this meal is lunch, but trust me, on the farm--it is called dinner; farmers also have a meal called supper that takes place in the evening. But, let's get back to Oliver. While he was eating his dinner, the noon markets came on, and wouldn't you know it, corn was down, and soybeans were up. Well, Oliver was all upset, since he had already planted some of the corn. Lisa, Oliver's wife, told him just exchange the seed for a different kind, ``I always return what I buy back to the stores; why can't you just exchange the corn for some soybeans, if that's what you want to plant now?'' Oliver agreed with his wife, and went out and dug up the corn seed, put it back in the sack, and headed back to the supply store to trade it in for soybeans. Sam Drucker thought he was nuts, of course, and everyone had a good laugh. Preposterous of course, this parody of farmer indecision where seed is actually picked out of the ground, but I mention this episode only because today, Oliver Wendell Douglas wouldn't have his ear turned to the market reports to decide what to plant. He would simply seed soybeans because everyone knows the loan price is the only price that matters these days. In fact, one market advisor in the Midwest is promoting a ``Plan B'' this year that encourages farmers to plant even more soybeans than last years record acreage because of the high loan rates in hopes of decreasing corn acres enough to increase those prices. Probably not a bad idea, given the present market prices and high nitrogen costs. But, it's a clear indication of how skewed the present loan levels actually are. Just how much effect on U.S. crop acres are these unequal loan rates having? We need look no further than the annual acreage reports issued by USDA. In 1994, US farmers planted a little over 61.6 million acres of soybeans. This past year, a record 74.5 million acres were planted to soybeans, an increase of over 20 percent. For all wheat, USDA tells us the complete opposite is taking place. The acreage planted in the U.S. has declined over 12 percent during this same period, from 70.3 million acres down to 62.5 acres. A few weeks ago, USDA reported that the winter wheat acreage seeded last fall is down 5 percent from the fall before. The 41.3 million acres planted for harvest this coming summer is the smallest acreage devoted to winter wheat since 1971. To those who will say that we shouldn't change the components of the present Farm Bill in mid-stream, I say, we have repeatedly changed it each of the last three years now. We have had three emergency spending bills due to the low commodity prices. We have changed payment limits on the Loan Deficiency Payments. I might add, equalizing loan rates will do more for medium sized family farms than uncapping LDP limits. Former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman also used his administrative authority to keep the loan levels at current levels. Just last month, he froze commodity loans at 2000 levels for the 2001 crop. Had he not, the loan for wheat would have fallen to $2.46, while corn would have dropped to $1.76. Even soybeans would have fallen, although not to what the formula calls for. You see, soybeans have a price floor at $4.92 a bushel. If not for this mandated floor specified in the law, the formula in Freedom to Farm would have called for a price of $4.58 per bushel. Now, I am pleased that the Secretary of Agriculture did this. I found it interesting that I received a few calls from angry farmers when the former Agriculture Secretary froze loan rates for the coming year at 2000 levels. They thought he should have raised them and had determined his actions were vindictive and meant only to keep commodity loans at these low levels. As I have stated, Secretary Glickman prevented present law from dropping loan prices even further. I don't want to see anymore reductions in loan levels for any of our crops. I want all crops to be treated fairly, and equally. I want all crops to have the same relative level of price protection. And if one or two crops have a loan floor that prevents further erosion in loan protection, then all crops should enjoy such a loan floor. That's why I have introduced this legislation. This is not to say that the loan levels in this legislation are adequate. They are not. This is only the first step in many that we need to take to fix broken farm policy. And this legislation will put all crops on equal footing as we enter the debate on what will eventually replace Freedom to Farm. I would prefer that loan levels would be higher, that they would reflect the cost of production. Maybe later we can have some common sense farm policy that would do such a thing, but for now, I think this is the least that we should do, as far as loan rates are concerned. Although it is not mentioned in this legislation, as part of this interim step to preserve our farms, I believe we should restore the automatic 20 percent reduction in Agricultural Market Transition Payments that will take place this year. It should be restored to the 2000 levels for the remaining two years of Freedom to Farm, or until we replace this legislation altogether. I know others are thinking this needs to be done, and I want to go on record as supporting this restoration of AMTA payments. Before I close, I want to point out the steady erosion of the loan levels for most crops over the years. This year, 2001, if this legislation isn't enacted, the national loan for wheat will stand at $2.58 per bushel. In 1983, the wheat loan was $3.65 per bushel. For corn, the present loan rate is $1.89, while in 1983 it was $2.65 per bushel. For rice, this year's loan is $6.50 per cwt. In 1983, the rice loan was $8.13 per cwt. Cotton's loan this year stands at 52.9 cents per lb. 1982 saw a cotton loan rate of a little over 57 cents per lb. Now, I saved soybeans until last, for good reason. Of all the major crops, soybeans stand alone in that it has a higher loan rate today, than in the early 1980's. The soybean loan stood at $5.02 twenty years ago, while today, the loan is $5.26. All the other crops dropped, some more than others, percentage wise. All, except for soybeans. I would also like to point out that the cost of production has skyrocketed for all crops the past twenty years. This year alone, farmers are facing an astronomical increase in anhydrous ammonia prices--the major form of nitrogen fertilizer--due to the skyrocketing natural gas prices. As you may know, natural gas comprises 78 percent of anhydrous' cost of production. Because of this, family farmers in North Dakota, and across the country, are facing a possible doubling of their nitrogen fertilizer costs, from the low $200's per ton last year to well over $400 per ton this year. The cost of fertilizer is just one of many examples where farm costs have skyrocketed. Others include their crop protection products, insurance costs, machinery costs, etc. The list goes on. No other segment of our economy has been asked to take less and less for their labors. As I have stated earlier, this legislation, the FARM Equity Act of 2001, is only an interim step. It is not a new farm bill, nor is it the answer to the problems. But I believe we should take action now to equalize the loan rates. Let's pass this legislation that would leave soybeans and other oilseeds at their present loan level while raising other crops up to the same relative level, based on historical market price relationships as soybeans. It is fair. It is equitable. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, we have families living all across this country out in the country trying to make a go of it on a family farm: Plant some seeds, raise a crop, then harvest that crop, take it to the grain elevator, and try to raise enough money to keep going and pay the bills. In addition to having collapsed prices for that which they produce, farmers now see the cost of their inputs dramatically increasing. The cost of anhydrous ammonia, the most popular form of nitrogen fertilizer, is up dramatically because of the spike in natural gas costs. Farmers are beset in every direction: Monopolies in transportation, near monopolies in the grain trade business, and a collapse of the prices for that which farmers produce. It is an awfully difficult time. So what can be done about this? My first hope would be that this Congress would rewrite the current farm bill. I do not think it works very well. I do not think we ought to get rid of all of it. The planting flexibility makes sense. Let's keep it. But clearly the current farm bill has not worked very well. Let's rewrite it and provide a price support or a bridge across price valleys for family farmers that give them some hope that if they do a good job, and work hard, they have a chance to survive out on the family farm. But I am told that rewriting the farm bill is not going to happen this year because it expires at the end of next year. I understand that the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the Senate does not want to hold hearings on trying to rewrite the farm bill this year. He certainly has the capability of blocking that. I respect him, but I would disagree with him about this issue. But it is likely we will not see progress in rewriting the farm bill this year. So then, what should we do? In my judgment, we ought to at least take an interim step that would restore some balance to the current price protection that exists, as anemic as it is. We ought to provide some balance and equality to that price protection with respect to those of us who come from the part of the country that produces mostly wheat and feed grains. We have a circumstance now where the current price support, which is, in my judgment, too low, nonetheless has an inequity about it that offers a price support substantially higher for oil seeds than it does for wheat and feed grains. I am not here to suggest that we take the price support for oil seeds down. I am suggesting that it is unfair to wheat and feed grains and we ought to bring their price support up to provide some equity and fairness. And there is a way to do that. I would like to show a couple charts of what has been happening. This chart shows crop acres. You can see, going back to 1994, that soybean acreage is increasing and wheat acreage is declining, both substantially. What is happening this year is, a number of farmers are making decisions about what to plant, and it has nothing to do with what the markets suggest they should plant. It has to do with what their lender would calculate is best for them to plant given the farm program price support loan levels of the various crops. The loan deficiency payment for oil seeds is much higher than for wheat and feed grains on a comparable basis, because the loan levels that determine the loan deficiency payments are likewise, much higher for oil seeds than the other crops. So the result is, they are making planting decisions, once again, based on the farm bill rather than on the market. It is because we have inequitable price support programs. You can see what has happened with the loan rates over time. With soybeans, loan rates have increased slightly over the last twenty years, while wheat, corn and other feed grain loan rates have declined substantially during the same time period. My point is this. We ought to be able to provide equity in these loan rates by bringing the loan rate for wheat and feed grains up to an equitable level relative to oilseed levels. Doing so would, likewise, provide an equitable loan deficiency payment for all crops and would stop this calculation of, What should I plant relative to what the farm program thinks I should plant? As Freedom to Farm passed, its supporters were saying: Let's have the market system send signals on what ought to be planted. That is not happening at the moment. It is the farm program that is determining what is being planted because of the skewed loan support prices. It is the farm program that is actually promoting that incentive to plant one thing versus another thing. I am not suggesting we fix it by reducing the loan rate or the loan deficiency payment for oilseeds. We ought not do that. We ought to bring the loan rate for the others up because those levels are too low, when compared to oilseeds. It is unfair to them. Some will remember the old television program ``Green Acres'' from long ago in the 1960s. Eddie Albert played a character named Oliver Wendell Douglas, who had a pig named Arnold. He was a city slicker who moved to the country. It was a television program that poked fun at both the city slicker and maybe also at country folks. It was a comedy. In one episode, Oliver is having breakfast one morning. He is trying to figure out what to plant. He hears the morning grain market report on the radio, and the price of soybeans was going down and the price of corn was going up. So he decided to go down to the general store and get himself some corn seed. All morning he planted corn. At noon, Oliver came in for dinner. Back home they call it dinner in the middle of the day; some people call it lunch, but we call it dinner. He came back for dinner and discovered on the radio that the price of corn was down and the price of soybeans was up, according to the noon market report. And he said to his wife: It is kind of hard to figure out what to do here. I just planted corn because the radio said corn was up. Now corn is down, soybeans are up. His wife said: When I go to the store and get something that doesn't work, I take it back. So this old character on ``Green Acres'' went out to the field, walked down the furrows and pulled out all of his corn seeds and went back to the store to trade them in for soybean seed. Of course, the old boy who ran the store that sold him the seed thought he was pretty goofy. My point about this story is, Oliver Douglas wouldn't have to listen, under today's circumstances, to the radio market reports to evaluate what he ought to plant, to find out what is down or what is up. In today's circumstances, when you take a look at the farm program, what is up is a better loan rate for oilseeds, and what is down is an anemic loan rate for wheat and feed grains. What can be done about that? Bring wheat and feed grain loan rates up to where they ought to be. That only brings wheat to $3.14 a bushel, but it is a far sight better than where it is today, at $2.58. So today, I am introducing a piece of legislation that equalizes loan rates. It will not penalize oilseeds. It will leave them where they are. Good for them; I want that. I support that and will fight for that. But it will take the loan rate for other program crops, including wheat, corn, and rice, cotton, and put those loan rates where they ought to be relative to some equity vis-a-vis oilseeds. I am going to include in the Record a list of all the program crops and where I propose we establish their loan rates. The loan rates for the various crops were determined by fixing them at the same percentage of their 1994-1998 5-year Olympic Average of market prices as the soybean loan rate is with respect to its 1994-1998 5-year Olympic Average of market prices. This is only an interim step. We must do much more, and I have other ideas on what we ought to do. But for now, at least as a first step, let's provide some fairness for those who are producing wheat and feed grains. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the Olympic Average price data to which I referred.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would extend for five additional years the Federal tax incentive that is currently available for facilities that produce electricity from wind. Despite all of its promise, wind energy is still a relatively untapped clean source of energy in our region and across the country. U.S. wind energy capacity in today's electricity marketplace is about 2,600 megawatts. That's enough to serve about 600,000 typical American households. In 1999, the Administration committed our country to a goal of producing five percent of our total electricity needs--about 80,000 megawatts--from wind power by the year 2020. Wind energy is one of the world's fastest growing energy technologies. As a result, wind energy can--and should--play a larger role in helping this country move toward greater energy independence. Soaring energy prices over the past year provide a stark reminder of the importance of reducing our reliance on foreign energy sources and keeping a diverse energy supply here at home. In addition, for states like North Dakota, wind energy offers needed economic opportunities for farmers and other rural landowners. North Dakota is the top-ranked state for wind energy potential and is often referred to as the ``Saudi Arabia'' of wind by industry experts. Together, North and South Dakota could supply two-thirds of the nation's current electricity supply with their wind energy capacity, according to a Department of Energy analysis. Greater wind development would also bring new jobs to many rural communities. Moreover, struggling family farmers could earn an extra $2,000-$3,000 annually for each 750 kilowatt wind turbine placed on the farm, while removing only a small fraction of land from the farmer's overall operation. Congress and the Administration have made some important progress in the effort to promote greater wind energy development. Congress has increased federal funding for wind and other renewable energy research and development at the Department of Energy over the past several years. It also has provided a substantial federal income tax credit that is vital for continued private sector investment in wind generation facilities. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service awarded its first-ever wind energy loan a rural electric cooperative serving the Upper Midwest will use to finance the construction of wind turbine generators and power lines to help distribute wind-generated power to rural communities. Regrettably, Congress and the Administration have undermined their very own efforts by failing to ensure that the federal income tax credit provided to facilities producing electricity from wind is available over the long term. I recently cosponsored a wind energy conference in North Dakota. It was attended by more than five hundred people, including developers, industry experts, utility executives, rural landowners, public officials and others. This was double the number of expected participants, which demonstrates the growing interest in this renewable energy resource. Among other things, I heard from wind energy developers who emphasized that one of the major obstacles to greater deployment of new wind technologies is the continued uncertainty surrounding the availability of the wind energy production tax credit. This credit is now scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Industry experts tell me that financial lenders will soon stop providing needed capital to new wind initiatives. As a result, projects already underway will quickly come to a halt. Many developers will simply be unable to build and purchase equipment, secure financing, obtain the required environmental permits and bring wind turbine generators on-line by year's end. One of the best ways to give developers the certainty and help they need to bring new state-of-the-art wind turbines to the marketplace at a competitive rate is to provide a sufficiently long period of time for them to access the credit. That's exactly what the bill I'm introducing today would do. Specifically, my bill would extend the current production tax credit for qualifying wind facilities that are placed in service on or before December 31, 2006. The wind energy production tax credit has had broad bipartisan support in the Senate and the House of Representatives in previous years, so I am optimistic that we can pass this legislation quickly in this new Congress. I urge my Senate colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with me to get it enacted into law as soon as possible. If we don't, many new wind energy initiatives will come to a standstill at a time when this country can least afford it.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would extend for five additional years the Federal tax incentive that is currently available for facilities that produce electricity from wind. Despite all of its promise, wind energy is still a relatively untapped clean source of energy in our region and across the country. U.S. wind energy capacity in today's electricity marketplace is about 2,600 megawatts. That's enough to serve about 600,000 typical American households. In 1999, the Administration committed our country to a goal of producing five percent of our total electricity needs--about 80,000 megawatts--from wind power by the year 2020. Wind energy is one of the world's fastest growing energy technologies. As a result, wind energy can--and should--play a larger role in helping this country move toward greater energy independence. Soaring energy prices over the past year provide a stark reminder of the importance of reducing our reliance on foreign energy sources and keeping a diverse energy supply here at home. In addition, for states like North Dakota, wind energy offers needed economic opportunities for farmers and other rural landowners. North Dakota is the top-ranked state for wind energy potential and is often referred to as the ``Saudi Arabia'' of wind by industry experts. Together, North and South Dakota could supply two-thirds of the nation's current electricity supply with their wind energy capacity, according to a Department of Energy analysis. Greater wind development would also bring new jobs to many rural communities. Moreover, struggling family farmers could earn an extra $2,000-$3,000 annually for each 750 kilowatt wind turbine placed on the farm, while removing only a small fraction of land from the farmer's overall operation. Congress and the Administration have made some important progress in the effort to promote greater wind energy development. Congress has increased federal funding for wind and other renewable energy research and development at the Department of Energy over the past several years. It also has provided a substantial federal income tax credit that is vital for continued private sector investment in wind generation facilities. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service awarded its first-ever wind energy loan a rural electric cooperative serving the Upper Midwest will use to finance the construction of wind turbine generators and power lines to help distribute wind-generated power to rural communities. Regrettably, Congress and the Administration have undermined their very own efforts by failing to ensure that the federal income tax credit provided to facilities producing electricity from wind is available over the long term. I recently cosponsored a wind energy conference in North Dakota. It was attended by more than five hundred people, including developers, industry experts, utility executives, rural landowners, public officials and others. This was double the number of expected participants, which demonstrates the growing interest in this renewable energy resource. Among other things, I heard from wind energy developers who emphasized that one of the major obstacles to greater deployment of new wind technologies is the continued uncertainty surrounding the availability of the wind energy production tax credit. This credit is now scheduled to expire at the end of the year. Industry experts tell me that financial lenders will soon stop providing needed capital to new wind initiatives. As a result, projects already underway will quickly come to a halt. Many developers will simply be unable to build and purchase equipment, secure financing, obtain the required environmental permits and bring wind turbine generators on-line by year's end. One of the best ways to give developers the certainty and help they need to bring new state-of-the-art wind turbines to the marketplace at a competitive rate is to provide a sufficiently long period of time for them to access the credit. That's exactly what the bill I'm introducing today would do. Specifically, my bill would extend the current production tax credit for qualifying wind facilities that are placed in service on or before December 31, 2006. The wind energy production tax credit has had broad bipartisan support in the Senate and the House of Representatives in previous years, so I am optimistic that we can pass this legislation quickly in this new Congress. I urge my Senate colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with me to get it enacted into law as soon as possible. If we don't, many new wind energy initiatives will come to a standstill at a time when this country can least afford it.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say in response to the remarks of the Senator from Nevada, I certainly agree with his comments. It is not a circumstance where I believe there is any ill will anywhere in this Chamber on those issues. It is hard for a party that has been the majority for there now to be a circumstance where they are not the majority. In fact, they are in a body that is split evenly, 50/50. That is not easy. That is hard to deal with. I understand that. I do not suggest there is ill will anywhere. I am sure they are trying to grapple through these issues and how to respond to that. But I must make another comment. This is not unusual. It has not happened in this body, but it has happened plenty of times around this country. On many occasions, somewhere over 30 occasions, the legislative bodies in the States--either a State Senate or a State House of Representatives--has discovered itself to be evenly divided, tied with respect to the number of Republicans or Democrats. Incidentally, I sent a report to Senators on this and, in every case, they had to reach an agreement. You know, they said: What we have is a membership that is equally divided, so how do we respond to this? Some State legislative bodies said we will have 50/50 splits on the committees. Some said we will have cochairs. Some said we will have rotating chairmanships. They have made all kinds of accommodations for it. In fact, in one State they actually just flipped a coin and decided who was in the majority by a coin toss. There are so many different mechanisms for States to make these decisions. We have not had to make those decisions until now. What I hope will happen is that Senator Daschle and Senator Lott, in the coming couple of hours, because time is of the essence here, will be able to reach an agreement that is fair to every Member of this Chamber and fair to both political parties. We don't want that which we don't deserve. But we do believe that if, by virtue of the decisions made by the American people, we have 50 percent of the membership of a body of 100, we have the opportunity to have that same percent of the membership on the committees, because that, after all, is where the work originates that eventually comes to the floor of the Senate. I graduated in a high school class of nine--top five, incidentally. I understood from either lower math or higher math, that when you have 100 seats and 50 are Republicans and 50 are Democrats, that is called a tie. That is the basis of all of this negotiation. Let us hope in the next few hours our two leaders can reach final agreement. Then we will turn, next week, to a circumstance where we have the capability of organizing and making all of the committee assignments and move on to deal with the nominations sent to us by President-elect Bush. If such an agreement is not reached, of course, if there are some discordant voices in the Senate who say, ``It doesn't matter it is 50/ 50, we insist on having a majority in every circumstance in every way,'' if that is the case, of course those many of us who feel very strongly about the need to have the opportunity to have a 50/50 split on the committees would not want to allow that to happen. There will then ensue, of course, a battle about organizing. Let's avoid that. Let's not do that. Let us, today, in the next couple of hours, resolve this in the right way and in a fair way. If we do that, we will have best served the American people's interest.

Mr. DORGAN. The point is, we wish Senator Daschle and Senator Lott well and hope they succeed in reaching an agreement, and we pledge our cooperation to help them do that.

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have been in a quorum call this morning and for some part of yesterday. I know news reports are explaining to the American people that we are in the process of organizing in the Senate at this point and it has been a bit difficult because, for the first time in the history of our country, the Senate is evenly split as between Republicans and Democrats. There was an occasion in the last century, about 120 years ago or so, in which there was an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. But there were also two Independents serving in the Senate at the time. Having read a bit about that period of time, my understanding is the Independents had quite an interesting time bargaining as between the two political parties about what their respective roles might be, should they choose to assist one political party or another. But that is not the case in this circumstance. We are evenly split. The American people caused that to happen. They sent 50 Republican Senators and 50 Democrat Senators here to the Senate. It is my hope that the negotiations currently underway between the Democratic leader, now the majority leader, Senator Daschle, and the Republican leader, Senator Lott, will bear fruit and that we will be able to organize in a manner that is consistent with the wishes of the American people. The American people have, by their desire, said that they want a split Senate, in fact a dead-even tie. That would say to us that after January 20, the Vice President-elect, Richard Cheney, will have the opportunity to give the Republicans an additional vote in this Chamber for the purpose of organizing. That is certainly true. But it is not the case that the Vice President, in his presiding role according to the Constitution, is going to play a role in any committee in this Congress. There is no such role for the Vice President. Therefore, in each and every committee we have a representation from 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans, a selection, then, of which is made to the committee membership. We feel very strongly that those committees ought to have a membership of 50/50. Yesterday, we had the first hearing in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on which I serve. Senator McCain, who is the chairman of that committee--actually yesterday it was Senator Hollings who was technically the Chair, and Senator McCain works very closely with Senator Hollings--Senator McCain, in his opening statement, said: The way this committee works, we don't report things out of this committee that represent a partisan division. We work our issues out between the Republicans and Democrats. What we bring to the floor of the Senate, he said, from the Commerce Committee, represents a consensus among the members of the Commerce Committee. He is right about that. He is a person who has chaired that committee all of the years that I have served on it in a circumstance where he really searches for ways to find common ground between the two political parties. Much to his credit, I must say, Senator McCain has said he believes a 50/50 split on the committee is appropriate, given the fact that the Senate is split 50/50. I only mention that because just yesterday he made the point that a 50/50 split will not make much difference in committees where you work in a bipartisan way, and we do that--and he does that. But it is my hope that now, in the coming hours, that Senator Lott and Senator Daschle will be able to reach an agreement that is fair and one that allows us to do our work and allows us to organize our committees. I feel very strongly the product of that work should at the very least provide a 50/50 membership on the committees.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to briefly talk about the Federal Reserve Board and our economy because it is important we have some discussion on what is happening in our economy. I have been watching in recent days the announcements both by the Federal Reserve Board and also the way the press in this country has portrayed the discussions about a softening or weakening economy and the Federal Reserve Board's attempts to respond to it by cutting interest rates. Let me first say uncharacteristically that the Fed did the right thing a few days ago by reducing the Federal funds rate by 50 basis points. The interest rates imposed by the Fed have been historically too high. Seven months ago, the Federal Reserve Board increased interest rates for the sixth time, and that was 50 basis points. Do my colleagues know why the Fed did that 7 months ago? Because the Federal Reserve Board said America had an economy that was too strong and growing too rapidly. The reason I want to have this brief discussion today is to say this economic slowdown people talk about is not an accident. The Federal Reserve Board believed the economy was growing too rapidly. They worried, therefore, that it would ignite a new wave of inflation. In my judgment, that was not a logical conclusion of the economic growth we were seeing, but nonetheless, Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board deliberately wanted to slow down the economy. What is the result of all of that? Let me read a couple of headlines: ``Slowing Factory Activity Hints at Recession. Sharp Drop Is Weakest Monthly Reading Since 1991.'' USA Today. ``GM to Idle Eight Plants Next Week.'' Associated Press, January 4. ``Sears to Close 89 Locations.'' This morning's Washington Post. ``E-Toys to Eliminate 700 Jobs.'' ``Covad to Lay Off 400 Workers.'' I think one gets the point. This economy is slowing. The Federal Reserve Board increased interest rates six times since June 1999, the last time 7 months ago, by 50 basis points, believing that despite higher productivity growth by the American workers there would be a new wave of inflation, and intending that it had to respond to an economy that was growing too rapidly. In my judgment, they were mistaken. I said so at the time on the floor of the Senate. Seven months later after saying the economy was growing too rapidly, we have all these news reports that, gee, this economy is slowing. I wish the reporters would ascribe that slow growth now or the slowdown of the economy to the Fed's actions. This was medicine administered by an economic doctor 7 months ago and the months previous to that on five other occasions because the Fed believed our economy was growing too rapidly. It was the wrong medicine at the wrong time. The result is a slowdown, in many cases, perhaps, a slowdown that is more dramatic than the Fed intended. Because of that, 2 days ago the Fed decided it would decrease the Federal funds rate by 50 basis points. The problem is that does not always take effect quickly. It takes some while for it to course its way through our economy. A 50-basis-point reduction is not enough. The Federal funds rate, and therefore all other interest rates, are still high historically relative to the current rate of inflation. It is, therefore, a tax on the cost of money. An average American household, because of the previous six interest rate increases imposed by the Fed, is now paying $1,700 a year in additional interest charges. Think of the chaos that would have caused had someone come to the floor of the Senate and said: We have a proposal. We think the economy is doing too well, and we would like to ask every American family to pay $1,700 more a year in taxes. Think of the debate about that. Higher cost of credit is a tax on the American people artificially imposed by the Fed. Interest rates that are higher than are justifiable. Real interest rates, above the rate of inflation, are still extraordinarily high, and in my judgment, represent a wrongheaded public policy. We will see if we get out of this with a slowdown that is a soft landing and slow, gradual growth once again, or whether the Fed has really miscalculated and increased interest rates so much that it took this economy off track. I hope it is not the latter. I hope it is the former. I am not wishing a bad result, but I am saying the next time someone talks about this economy--I heard some conservative commentators say this is the Clinton slowdown. This slowdown is engineered by the Federal Reserve Board. They talked about it, they insisted upon it, they voted upon it, and now 7 months later, we bear the fruit that might be a bitter fruit. I want people to understand. I kind of yearn for the day--and I was not here then--when we debated interest rate policies all across this country. Read the economic and financial history of this country and you will find that a century and a half ago, the question of interest rates and monetary policy was debated from bar rooms to barber shops all across this country. As late as 50 years ago, a quarter point increase in the Federal funds rate imposed by the Fed would be front page headlines and debated at great length, but not anymore. The Fed acts imperviously to public input. It is the last dinosaur in town. It operates behind locked closed doors. The American public is not allowed in, and no President will comment much about the Fed because they are worried they will upset the market. So they went on their merry way 7 months ago believing they ought to slow down the American economy. The next time you hear about this economic slowdown, understand it was engineered by the Federal Reserve Board and let us hope they take aggressive additional action--not just the 50 basis points a couple days ago--but aggressive additional action to put interest rates where they ought to be relative to the rate of inflation and stop overtaxing the American families by engineering the higher cost of credit they have caused in the last year and a half that is unjustifiable. It probably is shouting in the wind to talk about the Federal Reserve Board, but it is, nonetheless, therapeutic for me, so I continue to do it. I very much hope we can continue an economy that produces the rewards of new jobs and new opportunities and hope for all Americans. We need a balanced fiscal policy and a balanced monetary policy to do that. The Fed controls monetary policy absolutely. We control fiscal policy. We will have, I assume in a matter of weeks, people bringing to the floor of the Senate very substantial proposals for tax cuts, as some say, $1.3 trillion or $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, to respond to this very issue of an economic slowdown. Again, I say this slowdown was deliberately engineered by the Fed. We need to be very careful, however, on fiscal policy which we control not to put this country back in the same peril of budget deficits in the future. It would be very irresponsible to begin permanently disposing of a surplus that is projected in the future but that has not yet occurred. If we have a surplus, and I hope we do, that results from a growing economy, a fair amount of it ought to be used to reduce Federal debt. If during tough times we run up Federal indebtedness, during good times surely we must pay it down. What better gift to America's children than that? If we have surpluses in the future, and I hope we do, some of it, in my judgment, can and should go back to the American families who pay their taxes and could use some tax relief, but not just with a formula that deals with income taxes. Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. If we are going to send money back in the form of tax relief--and we should if we have these surpluses, after we have allocated some to reducing the Federal debt--then let us make sure we understand we send it back based on the total tax burden the American families face, and that includes the payroll tax. Finally, if we have surpluses--and I hope we will--some of it should be devoted as well to the investments in the things that make America a better place in which to live: Sending our kids into the best classrooms in the world, building our infrastructure, providing for our health, and those kinds of issues as well. Mr. President, you have been generous with time today. Again, let me hope that this day ends with good news for all of us in our ability to organize. We will continue these debates later in January. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as America honors and remembers those who have served in our armed forces, I want to recognize the service of Mr. Gervase Miller, a North Dakota native who served his country during World War II. Mr. Miller was drafted into the Army in September 1942 and was away from home while his wife was pregnant with their first child. Although deaf in one ear, Mr. Miller served with distinction for more than three years in China, Burma, and India. Mr. Miller was a part of the 1575th Heavy Shop Engineers, a group of men who helped to build roads in Burma and then drove heavy supply trucks in this dangerous territory. Throughout his service in the Army, Mr. Miller earned three Battle Stars and one Bronze Star for his heroic actions. He finally came home for good in December 1945. He was discharged as a Technician, 5th Grade. It is men like Gervase Miller who won World War II for the Allies and helped to guarantee the rights and freedoms that we all enjoy today. Today, Mr. Miller lives in Parshall, North Dakota, with his wife Bernice. They have four children and 9 grandchildren. As his family gathers for Christmas this year, I want to send out warm holiday greetings to him and a word of appreciation for his service to our country more than 50 years ago.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation. Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year ago on December 8, 1999: Walter Bryant, 23, Philadelphia, PA; Bernardo Gonzales, 69, San Francisco, CA; Demetris Green, 24, Kansas City, MO; Arian McCollough, 23, Philadelphia, PA; Diante Whitfield, 16, Oakland, CA; and Unidentified Male, 60, Honolulu, HI. We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue. The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to enact sensible gun legislation now.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Federal Reserve Board meets on Tuesday of next week. The Federal Reserve Board has increased interest rates six times since June 1999 in search of inflation. They are terribly afraid that there is inflation either under the bed, or in the closet, or just around the corner, out in the garage, near the driveway, or somewhere inflation exists. Of course, all the evidence suggests that the core rate of inflation is very low--well within moderate levels. In fact, the Producer Price Index released this morning suggests that the core rate did not increase at all in November. The Consumer Price Index will be released tomorrow, and I suspect it will show something very similar. Next week when the Federal Reserve Board meets, in my judgment, it will behoove them to reduce the additional tax on money they have imposed with six increases in the Federal funds rate. Let me describe why I think we ought to do that. This economy is slowing. After unprecedented economic growth in this country, this economy is slowing. The evidence is all around us. Manufacturing activity for the fourth straight month ending in November has declined. The National Association of Purchasing Management recently reported that its purchasing index had dropped to 47.7 percent from 48.3 percent. Auto makers are idling plants. The real output of cars and trucks fell by some 20 percent over the second and third quarters. Car and light truck sales have fallen for the past 6 months with the largest drop in over 2 years in November. The number of manufacturing jobs declined by 220,000 in the last 4 months. Factory orders are falling. Factory orders plummeted 3.3 percent in October in its weakest showing in 3 months. Housing starts and sales are off. Retail sales are well off. Yesterday, the Commerce Department reported retail sales fell by an unexpected 0.4 percent in November. I will not go on at great length. But the evidence is all around us. This economy is slowing. The Federal Reserve Board says it wants to slow the economy. The debate now is what kind of landing will occur--a ``soft'' or a ``hard'' landing, in the lexicon or jargon of economists. Nobody knows. I taught economics in college briefly, and I have said I overcame that experience. The fact is that economists don't know what is going to happen in the future. The field of economics, as I have said previously, is nothing more than psychology pumped up with a little helium. They tell us what they think is going to happen in the future. Prior to the last recession, 35 out of 40 leading economists in this country predicted that next year would be a year of continued economic growth. That is what the field of economics produces. What is going to happen in the future? I worry that this slowdown could very easily move this country into a recession. We have to be careful about that. The Federal funds rate that the Fed has established is too high. It results in a prime interest rate that is too high. It results in higher interest rates paid by every American on their consumer debt, and on their real estate debt, and so on. That is higher than it should be. As a result of the Fed's six interest rate increases, the average household in this country pays about $1,700 a year more in interest charges. If we were going to have a tax on the American people, we would have great debate about it. This is a tax on money, and it is has required an average household to pay $1,700 a year more in interest charges. There is no debate on that. It is done behind the closed doors down at the Fed. They have their wish. The economy is slowing down. The question is, Will they have the sense next week to decide to reverse course and understand two things? One, there isn't any real inflation problem; and, two, they are overcharging for money, and they ought to begin reducing short-term interest rates because they have increased them too much. These are the folks who go behind closed doors and make these decisions. There is no public discussion or debate here. Here are the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the presidents of the regional Federal Reserve banks. They serve on a rotating basis as part of the Open Market Committee and as part of the decisionmaking down at the Fed. Next Tuesday they will close the door. The American public isn't allowed in. They will make decisions about what kind of tax we will have on money. Six interest rate increases have been ordered by these folks over the last year and a half. They have slowed down the American economy. Looking at housing starts, autos, and retail sales across the board in economic activity, in my judgment, they are tinkering with the notion of allowing this country to experience the beginning of a recession. That would be most unfortunate. I want people to understand. Here are the names of the folks who are there. Here is their education, background, and their salaries. I think it is important for us to understand who is making public policy behind locked doors. Next Tuesday, when they talk about monetary policy, I think the American people ought to understand that the question of the interest rates and the amount of interest they pay on their credit cards, home equity loans and so on depend on what these folks are doing with respect to the Federal funds rate. It is very important. I worry very much that this economy may well head towards a recession unless we do something to reverse the course that the Fed has taken.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know that the Federal Reserve Board reads everything. They are voracious readers of the economists who gather this information, provide it to the Fed, and assimilate it and make judgments. Let me give a factoid for their consideration. I have no idea what it means. The Oscar Meyer Weinermobile, one of the vehicles that runs around the country, had an opening for a driver in the newspaper the other day. They were placing a help-wanted ad for a driver for the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile. They got 800 college graduates applying. I have no idea what that means. It just occurred to me as the Fed looks at information about the economy, they might look at interesting things about this economy: Where it is headed, what is happening, who is employed, who isn't, and what might happen, 3, 6, and 12 months from now, and don't relent on interest rates and steer us back toward a longer term economic growth prospect.

Mr. DORGAN. I agree with that. One could find important uses for it, or perhaps give it back to the taxpayers. But this is a circumstance where the Federal Reserve Board, according to the GAO investigation that was done, has a rainy day fund. Can you imagine having a rainy day fund in a climate where it never rains? The Federal Reserve Board can never lose money. It will never lose money, and has never lost money. They accumulated a rainy day fund of some $3.7 billion. It is more now. Here you have this last dinosaur on America's hill--the Federal Reserve Board--that operates in secret behind closed doors that creates its own rainy day fund. The GAO says they don't need it. They shouldn't have it. It ought to be given back. Guess what. A couple of years after that study was complete, has that rainy day fund been divested by the Fed, and given back to the taxpayers? The answer is no. Of course not. Why? Because this Congress usually won't touch the Fed with a 10-foot pole. There is this language about monetary policy that prevents almost anybody from even talking about it. That is one of the reasons I wanted to talk today about what happens next Tuesday. Our economy, in my judgment, is in some difficulty. It has gone down dramatically. We have a new President who will be sworn into office, and may well inherit an economy that is slowing down, and could even be heading towards a recession, at least in part, because the Fed has decided they want to slow down the economy. Six times they increased interest rates; they create a new tax on money, impose a new burden on every American family, and nobody thinks much about it. It is time to turn that around. The prime interest rate is too high by at least two percentage points, and as a result, all other interest rates in this country are too high. Why? Because the Fed has pegged the price of money at an artificially high rate because they want to slow the economy down. The fact is they run the risk of pushing this economy off the track of unprecedented long-term economic growth and into the ditch of a slowdown into a potential recession and increased Federal deficits. I hope the Fed will think long and hard next Tuesday about this subject and decide it is time to begin reducing interest rates following the six rate increases they have imposed on the American people. I will speak more about this. My expectation is we will probably finish this session this week, so I will not speak on the floor of the Senate next week. But before the Fed meets on Tuesday, I want to give more advice on Monday. They seldom take my advice, but I think they would be wise, if they want to ignore my advice, to at least listen to some of the good economic thinkers around this country who worry a great deal that what is happening to our economy is it is slowing and threatening to head into a very difficult period. Now is the time, not later, to do something. The Fed talks about preemptive strikes against inflation. My friends, there is no inflation at this point. All the evidence suggests inflation is well under control. What about a preemptive strike by the Federal Reserve Board preventing the economy from heading toward a recession? That would make sense next Tuesday. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the American people last evening heard a concession speech by Vice President Gore and a speech by Gov. George W. Bush, who is now the President-elect. I supported Vice President Gore. I wish the result had been different in this election. But we have a process for contesting elections, and that process was finalized by the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court. I accept those actions, and we now have a new President-elect. We went through some difficult times after the election day, and those times inflamed the passions of many Americans. The fact is, the American people created almost a dead even tie in casting votes for the Presidency. It wasn't just the Presidency. It was a 50-50 split in the membership of the Senate, and nearly a 50-50 split in the House, and as I indicated, a near tie vote for the Presidency. That is not likely to happen again in our lifetime. It is not unusual for the person on the losing end to want to make certain that all the votes are counted and counted correctly. So that is why we went through that process. I know many passions were inflamed as a result of it. In fact, some of my colleagues--not so much in this body but in the other body--were using words such as ``stealing elections,'' and so on. I regret that those words were used. I don't think it contributes to what we ought to be doing. That is all gone and done. As of last evening, we have a President-elect who addressed this country, and we have a Vice President who conceded that election. Despite the fact that Congress is divided almost evenly between the Republicans and Democrats, all of us wish the new President-elect well. It will behoove all of us to work together and extend ourselves to each other and try to create some unity, and move forward on things on which we can agree. There will still be policy differences, I might say, and we should aggressively debate them. But I think the American people want us to try to work together to find areas of bipartisanship, and we will do that. I, for one, am interested in seeing us make the progress on important issues for our country. Let me make this comment as well. We not only will now have a new President. This new President inherits an economy that is going through some changes, some subtle and some not so subtle.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me, for 1 minute, add my voice to those today who paid tribute to Senator Ashcroft for his service in the Senate. As I indicated earlier, some think because we are engaged in heavy debate from time to time that we are not friends. Across the aisle, Senator Ashcroft and I worked on a piece of legislation, one which we passed early on when he came to the Senate dealing with Federal funding of physician-assisted suicide. We worked together, and it was passed. It is now law. We worked a great deal for a long period of time on lifting sanctions with respect to the sale of food and medicine. It is a fight that will continue even after Senator Ashcroft leaves the service of the Senate. Also, a couple of times, I joined Senator Ashcroft and the quartet on the Republican side with the Singing Senators, along with my colleagues, Senator Daschle and Senator Boxer. I think on one other occasion I joined Senator Ashcroft and the quartet. I have seen Senator Ashcroft in action in a number of ways. My expectation of his public service is that it is not at an end. I appreciate the service he has given to this country and to the Senate. I appreciate having had the opportunity to work with him. I know him to be smart and tough and tenacious on the issues about which he cares deeply. I wish him well.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I saw the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, talking about her colleague, Senator Slade Gorton. I wanted to come over and say a word about Senator Gorton. I know people who perhaps watch the proceedings of the Senate see the tug and the pull of debate on public policy and probably think to themselves, gee, those people don't get along very well, or maybe those people don't like each other very much. The fact is, most of us get along well and enjoy each other's company. Slade Gorton is one of those Senators, a Republican, someone with whom I have severed on the Appropriations and Commerce Committees. We get along well, like each other, and he has been extraordinarily helpful to me. He is a Senator who always did his homework. There are some with whom you visit about the issues, you get kind of a glassy- eyed stare because you know that this isn't an issue on which they are connecting with you or haven't studied very much. I didn't find that with Slade Gorton. He was always prepared and had always done his homework. And while at times he could be a bit frustrating because he took a position on an issue that you might have felt was the wrong position, he always had an opportunity to explain it because he had done his homework. He was a fellow with an independent and stubborn streak, somebody who was patient and helpful. I enjoyed the opportunity to serve with him in the Senate. He actually was elected to the Senate for the first time the same year I was elected to the U.S. House in 1980. We had an opportunity to be on a panel discussion way back in 1980 and talked about our entry into that Congress. One of the things Slade Gorton told me was that he had bicycled across North Dakota. I was surprised by that, but apparently he and his family had bicycled all across America. And in doing so, they had bicycled across I-94 or highway 2 through the State of North Dakota. We had a chance to talk a little about his acquaintance with North Dakota from a bicycle. This is not a eulogy. We have a number of Members of the Senate who are leaving us, distinguished people who have given immense public service to this country. I have deep admiration and respect for all of them. Because my colleague from the State of Washington was talking about her colleague, Senator Gorton, I wanted to come to say that I have enjoyed serving with him. He has been very helpful to me in a range of ways on both the Commerce Committee and the Appropriations Committee. I wish him well as he leaves his service here in the Senate. I will come to the floor at some point to speak about the other Senators who have contributed so much and who are now leaving the Senate Chamber. I thank Senator Murray for doing this. She is a remarkable Representative from her State, as was Senator Gorton. We will now be joined by another Senator, Ms. Cantwell, from the State of Washington, and I look forward to working with her as well.

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, I worry very much that we are facing a slowdown in our economy that could be very significant. I hope Mr. Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board in December will decide they should begin to cut interest rates. Six increases in interest rates since June 1999 have clearly slowed growth in this country in a way, in some respects, that put us in a perilous position, with the liquidity crisis and a range of other issues that could very well derail the longest and strongest period of economic growth in American history. I will speak more about this later because I see Senator Grassley is about ready to speak on bankruptcy. I do want to say this. I have come to the floor previously when the Federal Reserve Board was searching for evidence of inflation--searching in closets, under beds, in virtually every crevice, trying to find some evidence of inflation, and used that fear to increase interest rates six times. We have had the highest real interest rates for many years in this country, and they threaten, in my judgment, to derail this economic growth. I hope the Fed in December will think seriously about beginning to reduce interest rates to preserve an opportunity for continued growth. Mr. President, I yield the floor.