Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows: At the appropriate place, add the following:

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I consume.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to two members of my staff, Justin Walker and Kristin Hedger, today.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to let my colleagues know about a woman who, this morning, is working at the post office in Knox, ND. Knox, ND, is a little town of 42 people, but it is big enough to have a post office. Just recently, the postmaster of the Knox, ND, post office, a woman named Vivian Seter, retired. Upon Vivian's retirement at age 73, Maggie Miller took over the job. Now maybe my colleagues are thinking there is nothing unusual in that. But Maggie is 83 years old, and she just took over the running of the post office in Knox from her 73-year-old friend Vivian. The post office has cut its hours a bit since Maggie took over, so it is open now from 8:30 until 10:30 a.m. In fact, in about 10 minutes from now, central time in Knox, ND, Maggie will be hanging it up for the day. But for now, at age 83, after working 62 years in the postal system, Maggie has assumed the reins of the Knox Post Office. The reason I mention this today is that I have talked a lot over the years about rural values. There is something quite remarkable and unique about life in the small towns of rural America. I represent a wonderful State, North Dakota, with a lot of small communities. Knox, ND, is one of them. There are also a lot of hard-working, remarkable people in these small towns, and Maggie Miller is one of them. Again, she has been working for the postal system for 62 years, and I read in the newspaper that the postmaster from Rolla, ND, had to come train her for her new position. Vivian, the retiring postmaster, joked: She has only been doing this 62 years, so she needs a little training. The article I read about her said that last year Maggie, who was age 82 at the time, bowled a 204. Then she broke her wrist and has had to take the summer off. But Maggie being Maggie, she vows to make a comeback to her bowling league. When I saw this story in the paper, I just had to call Maggie. When she answered the phone, I said: Maggie, this is Byron Dorgan calling from Washington, DC. I wanted to tell you that it is wonderful that you are stepping in as postmaster at age 83. Maggie said: Tell me another one. I said: No, Maggie, it really is Byron Dorgan. And she said: I bet it is. So Maggie, if you happen to be watching this debate in Congress, I really did call you. I say congratulations. You have a lot of spunk. I am proud of all the things you have done and of the values that you represent of folks in small towns helping each other and working together. I know the post office in many small towns is the hub of the community, and I am confident you will serve Knox well. Congratulations to Maggie and to the town of Knox.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Kansas. I believe I am a cosponsor of his resolution. If not, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DORGAN. I think the Senator from Kansas has described it well. I am proud that the Senate has adopted the resolution. I think what Habitat for Humanity has done is really quite remarkable. I am glad he calls attention to it on the floor of the Senate today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will speak for a few moments about the issue of the sanctions on food and medicine that exist in this country with respect to other countries. I have a chart that describes what has happened to our family farmers. I represent a State with a lot of wheat growers. This chart shows what has happened to the price of wheat. As my colleagues can see, it has collapsed. Over a period of a few years, the price of wheat has just flat collapsed. I guess it is because the grain markets have determined that the food our family farmers produce does not have much value. So our farmers, at a time when their prices have collapsed, are struggling mightily. They have a very difficult time trying to deal with collapsed prices. Yet all their expenses continue to increase. They have a difficult time understanding what is happening in the world relative to their prices and to people around the world who need what they produce. This is a picture that is in stark contrast to the graph that shows a collapse in the price of wheat. This is a picture of hunger. This picture is all too typical in some parts of the world. Starvation, deprivation, desperate hunger, hundreds of millions of people go to bed with an ache in their belly because they didn't have enough to eat. Millions and millions of children don't have enough to eat. Every eight seconds, one child dies because of hunger and hunger-related causes. Yet a family farmer who plows the ground in the spring and tends to the crop, and is lucky enough to get a crop off in the fall, takes that load of wheat to the elevator only to be told by the grain trade: The food you have produced doesn't have value. Farmers wonder if so many people in the world are so hungry, if so many live in starvation, and suffer from deprivation, and go to bed hungry, why is it that the food we produce in such abundant quantity in this country has no value? As we talk about this disconnection--indeed, it is a disconnection of what we produce and what the world so desperately needs and the hunger that exists around the rest of the world, and then for our producers to be told that what they have produced doesn't have value--we have a policy in the United States that says: There are certain countries in this world whose behavior is such that we want to impose an economic embargo. Included in that embargo, we, as a country, want to prohibit the sale of food and medicine to those other countries. That is current policy. In fact, almost 11 percent of the wheat export market in the world has been off limits to our family farmers because of sanctions that we have applied against other countries. North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and others have been told, the United States of America will not move grain and medicine to these countries because they are behaving outside the norm of international behavior and therefore, we impose sanctions. Those sanctions include food and medicine. That is wrong-headed public policy, and it should never have happened in the first place. It is a bipartisan mistake by administrations over the years that have included food and medicine in the economic sanctions. We should never include food and medicine in sanctions we impose against other governments. We should never use food as a weapon. We should never include medicine as a part of a sanction-- to use medicine as a weapon. We ought to decide now that we are going to change that policy. A bipartisan group of us, myself in the Appropriations Committee, joined by Senator Slade Gorton from the State of Washington, with the support of Senator Ashcroft, Senator Dodd, and a group of others, have offered an amendment in the Appropriations Committee to say: No more; let us abolish all sanctions on food and medicine shipments everywhere in the world. It passed. It is in the Agriculture appropriations bill that will come to the floor of the Senate. That is not new. We passed it last year as well, by 70 votes in the Senate. Because of one issue, it got hijacked by some legislative leaders and did not become law. They are planning to hijack it again. The issue is Cuba. We have legislative leaders who say Cuba is a different story. We must maintain sanctions against the shipment of food and medicine to Cuba. They want to retain the entire embargo with Cuba. But the 40 years of embargo has failed. The question is--when you have an experiment, a laboratory experiment, and this is a real experiment, a real laboratory, for 40 years you have an embargo against Cuba and it doesn't work--who will be the first to stand up and say: This does not work; maybe we ought to do something else? We are not talking about the entire embargo with respect to Cuba. We are just talking about the issue of food and medicine and the sanctions that now apply to shipments of food and medicine to Cuba. The legislative leaders are intending to hijack this position once again. Our intent to repeal that sanction is going to be hijacked once again, unless we find a way to stop it. The Washington Post today wrote an editorial, ``Food for Cuba.'' They make the point that there is no justification for having sanctions on food and medicine for Cuba, and there is no justification. It is interesting that the debate over normal trade relations with China produces all these folks who come to the floor of the House and Senate and say: We must engage with China. Engaging with a Communist nation will inevitably move that nation in a more constructive direction. More trade and more direction towards open markets will inevitably improve things in a country such as China. If that is the case, why is it not the case with Cuba, also a Communist country? Why is it the case that engagement with China is productive in moving them towards better human rights and towards a more constructive direction, but it is not the case in Cuba? The answer is the current embargo that exists with Cuba makes no sense at all. Sanctions against the shipments of food and medicine, not only to Cuba but to the other sanctioned countries in the world, is not moral policy. It is not moral for this country, in my judgment, to use food and medicine as part of sanctions. It is wrong. I started by talking about farmers. Yes. I have an interest to try to make sure farmers have the opportunity to serve markets. Those who support Freedom to Farm. I don't; I don't think it has worked. We need to ask the same question with respect to markets. If you say the Freedom to Farm approach is something that is important for farmers, what about the freedom to sell? Freedom to Farm--what about the freedom to sell? Farmers are told they have the freedom to farm. What about the freedom to sell their products to Cuba, or the freedom to sell their wheat to Iran, or the freedom to sell their wheat to Libya? If we have in the coming weeks the kind of chicanery that went on last year to hijack this policy, to hijack those Republicans and Democrats who say we must end these sanctions on the shipment of food and medicine to all countries--and, yes, including Cuba--if they intend to hijack that again through legislative chicanery, they are going to have a whole load on their hands, because they did it last year and they were successful, but they are not going to do it twice. If there is an up-or-down vote on this to eliminate the sanctions on food and medicine with respect to all of these countries, including Cuba--there were 70 votes in the Senate last year, and there was a majority in the House. By an overwhelming margin Republicans and Democrats in the Congress believed that we ought to eliminate sanctions on food and medicine shipments. The only conceivable way they can detour our effort is to prevent a vote in the House and to try to strip out the provision that the Senate Appropriations Committee put in when that bill comes to the floor of the Senate. I serve notice to all who think about these issues that it is not going to happen the way it happened last year. You might have the muscle and you might have the cards up your sleeve to try to derail this once again. But it is going to cost in terms of the way this place works. We have a clear, large majority in the House and the Senate on the side of the American farmer, who believe they ought to have the freedom to sell in these markets; on the side of those who say this policy of using food as a weapon is fundamentally immoral; on the side of doing the right thing with Cuba and yes, other countries; consistent with what we described and talked about with respect to China. We have a large majority in the House and the Senate to do the sensible thing this year. I am not prepared to step aside and quietly go away on this issue. If leaders do to us what they are suggesting in the papers, they will try to do to us what they did last year successfully through legislative slight of hand. Our farmers deserve better than that. Hungry people around the world deserve to look at this country and understand that this country will never, never ever impose sanctions on food and medicine. This country in its zeal and desire to take aim at a dictator hits hungry people, hits poor people, and hits sick people. We are not hurting dictators. Does anybody here believe that Fidel Castro has ever missed a meal because we have an embargo or sanction on food and medicine? Does anybody here ever think that Saddam Hussein has missed dinner because we have not sent food to Iraq? We haven't hurt dictators. All we have done is hurt sick people, poor people, and hungry people around the world with this foolish policy. And, at the same time, we have hurt our farmers here at home. This must stop. It must stop this year. And it must not be a halfhearted notion of putting on the brakes halfway and saying we will eliminate the sanctions with respect to these couple of countries but we can't do it with respect to Cuba. Nonsense. It must be done across the board, and it must be done this year. Those, as I have said, who think they are going to hijack this policy are in for a long, hot summer. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if this was a dance contest, I say to the majority party: You win. I have never seen a shuffle like this. We are not stalling, they say, and yet this conference committee has had more than six months to reach an agreement and there has been no movement. Do not take it from me, take it from Dr. Norwood, a Republican Congressman from the State of Georgia. He says: It is impossible to take this conference process seriously. That is from a Republican. While this Congress fiddles, people die. Yes, they die. Senator Reid and I had a hearing in Nevada. A mother named Susan Roe spoke up at this hearing about her 16-year-old son, Christopher. Christopher is now dead. He died October 12, 1999. He had leukemia. Chris's pediatric oncologist recommended that he receive a bone marrow transplant, his only hope for long-term survival. But before Chris could receive a bone marrow transplant, his cancer needed to go into remission. Chris's oncologist felt that the only drug available that would help him achieve remission was a Phase III investigational drug known as B43- PAP. However, this treatment he needed for a chance at life was denied him. At the hearing, Susan held up Christopher's picture and told us, through tears, how, as her son lay gravely ill, he looked at her and said: Mom, I just don't understand how they could do this to a kid. Yes, people die while this Congress fiddles. This debate is about whether there should be a Patients' Bill of Rights. This amendment says, among other things, that every patient has a right to know all of their medical options, not just the cheapest. If you need to go to an emergency room for care, you have a right to get it. If you stand with patients, you will support this amendment. This legislation ought to have been passed last year, but the fact is, it is locked in conference. There is a giant stall going on. The only difference between this conference and a glacier is that a glacier at least moves an inch or two a year. The Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from Massachusetts and others have every right and responsibility to bring this proposal to the floor of the Senate because we insist that this Congress take seriously the need to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr President, I rise to recognize a recent achievement of the University of North Dakota's flying team. At the end of May, UND won the National Intercollegiate Flying Association national championship. This is the eleventh such title for our University. This national championship team placed first in the flight and ground events by scoring 162 points in the 10 different events--32 points more than its closest competitor. Erich Hess won first place in Top Pilot honors and secured the Craig Morrison award by receiving the top combined scores in Computer Accuracy, Simulated Comprehensive Aircraft Navigation and Preflight. Brain Visocky received second place in Top Pilot honors and took first place honors in the Short Field Landing event. Ten other committed students at the John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences helped lead UND to its first place victory. I commend Coach Al Skramstad and Assistant Coach Eric Brusven for their work in helping these students rigorously prepare for this annual event. Winning the national championship is a significant achievement that could not have been realized if it were not for an enormous commitment on the part of both the students and their instructors. The University of North Dakota is located in Grand Forks, ND, and I'm honored to have graduated from this great university. The John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences has always played a significant role at the University as an international leader in collegiate and contract aviation education and training services. With more than 1,500 students, the School of Aerospace Science is the second largest college at UND. And so today I salute the University of North Dakota and its extraordinary championship flying team.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I'd like to take a moment to tell you about some wonderful kids. Recently, two youth volunteers from each state, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, came to Washington, D.C. with their parents. They were being recognized at the Fifth Annual Prudential Spirit of Community Awards for their outstanding acts of community service. These kids are heroes. They set the example of selflessness and caring for others to follow and it was truly inspiring to hear their stories of service to the public and their communities. I was honored to serve as co-chair of the National Selection Committee along with Senator Susan Collins. Ten students were chosen as National Honorees--five high school and five middle school students--and each received $5,000, a gold medallion and a crystal trophy for their school. The ten honorees will also have a total of $250,000 in toys and clothing dedicated to needy children in their names. I'd especially like to congratulate the two volunteers chosen as finalists from my state of North Dakota: Jason Koth of Grand Forks and Scot Miller of Fargo. Jason, a senior at Grand Forks Red River High School, wrote, produced and directed a play to raise funds for the Make-A-Wish Foundation. It was called ``The Sun in My Eyes'' and he wrote this play in memory of his handicapped brother. Jason said, ``I wanted to tell people to stop fighting over unimportant things and start opening their eyes to the beautiful people that surround them.'' His play raised over $1,300 for the foundation and helped send a terminally ill child on his dream trip to Disney World. Scot, a ninth grader at Discovery Junior High in Fargo, became involved in several volunteer projects to help his community. When he learned that the public library needed donations to complete its expansion plan, Scot led a recycling drive to raise money and created an ongoing recycling program in his neighborhood. He is also president of his school's Builder's Club, a student organization dedicated to promoting volunteer efforts within his community. During his summer months, Scot spends four hours a day volunteering as a junior recreation leader for the local parks department. I'm so proud of Jason and Scot. They should feel great pride for their hard work and the impact they have made in their communities and the lives of others. Their efforts are truly inspiring. Mr. President, Senator Collins and I would like to honor all 104 Prudential Spirit of Community Honorees by reading their names in the Record. The ten students selected as National Honorees are: Linda Arnade, 17, of Palm Bay, Florida, who discovered that septic tanks in her community were causing groundwater contamination after testing more than 400 residential wells. She then launched an education and monitoring program to alert the public of this important health and environment risk. Brett Byrd, 13, of Camas, Washington, who helped raise more than $100,000 in his mother's memory for breast cancer prevention by performing concerts along with his brother and their rock band. Megan Doherty, 16, of Lemont, Illinois, who raised more than $56,000 to bring 29 young cancer victims of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster to her town for life-saving medical treatment. Marcus Houston, 18 of Denver, Colorado, who developed an educational program called ``Just Say Know'' that teaches middle level students what it takes to achieve academic, social and athletic success in high school. Andrew Leary, 17, of Vernon, New Jersey, who led a two-and-a-half year effort to establish the first permanent soup kitchen in the northern part of his rural county. He also helped raise $35,000 to operate the facility. Joshua Marcus, 13, of Boca Raton, Florida, who created ``Sack It To You,'' a non-profit corporation that has provided backpacks filled with school supplies to more than 2,500 needy children. Jarrett Mynear, 11, of Nicholasville, Kentucky, who raised more than $18,000 to distribute new toys each week to young patients at a children's hospital. Since the program started, Jarrett has been featured on many local television shows, as well as the nationally syndicated ``Rosie O'Donnell Show,'' to promote his cause. Shelarese Ruffin, 17, of Atlanta, Georgia, who developed an intervention program that enables middle and high school students to confront and overcome drug abuse and other discipline problems instead of being expelled from school. Danielle Shimotakahara, 13, of North Bend, Oregon, who waged a high- profile campaign to remove violent coin-operated games from places where children congregate in her town. She also testified at a U.S. Senate hearing on the effects of violent games on children. Sagen Woolery, 12, of Warner Robins, Georgia, who started a summer meal service called ``The Kid's Kitchen'' for needy children and their families. The service, operated completely by 8-to-12 year-olds, has served more than 3,200 people in her community and also provides toiletries and school supplies for needy children who come to the kitchen. The state honorees are: Jose Alvarez--Puerto Rico. Sarah Anderson--South Dakota. Meredith Arensman--Kentucky. Linda Arnade--Florida. Sarah Austin--Maryland. Shannon Babb--Utah. Beau Ballinger--Wyoming. Jason Blau--Illinois. Katie Bolenbaugh--Minnesota. Milton Boyd--District of Columbia. Alsion Brown--Colorado. James Buck--Maryland. Sara Bulaga--Vermont. Brett Byrd--Washington. Kevin Cable--Tennessee. Jonathan Cheek--Virginia. Reid Coggins--South Carolina. John Coiner--West Virginia. Kendyl Collins--New Mexico. Dennis Cordova--New Mexico. Maria Cruz--Puerto Rico. Kalila Dalton--Kansas. Dana Davis--Tennessee. Danielle Devlin--New Jersey. Kimberly Dickard--Mississippi. Katherine Dillon--Kansas. Megan Doherty--Ilinois. Tanya Ewing--Alaska. Caroline Faflak--South Dakota. D. Ashley Feldman--Pennsylvania. Toni Fowler--Alabama. David Frayser--Nebraska. Shawn Garner--North Carolina. Christopher Gardner--Nevada. Benjamin Geisinger--Massachusetts. Tiffany Georges--Nebraska. Paul Gordon--Washington. Zachary Growe--Maine Aracely Gurrola--Arizona. Jesse Hanna--Montana. Brittany Heath--Texas. Robin Hill--Montana. Marcus Houston--Colorado. Jacob Kaskey--Ohio. Jason Koth--North Dakota. Amy Lavicky--Oklahoma. Andrew Leary--New Jersey. Christi Lockwood--Connecticut. Joshua Marcus--Florida. Natalie Mason--Indiana. Sarah McClintock--Wisconsin. Caithlin McGee--Delaware. Ann McGinnity--Wisconsin. Meghan McGinty--New York. Scot Miller--North Dakota. Shifra Mincer--New York. Elizabeth Moss--Nevada. Alison Mostrom--Iowa. Jarrett Mynear--Kentucky. Leanne Nakamura--Hawaii. Kendra Neilson--Oklahoma. Chavis Newman-Keane--Alaska. Matthew Nonnemacher--Pennsylvania. Blaire Nuzem--West Virginia. Ryan Olson--Virginia. Catherine Oswald--Rhode Island. Gustav Owen--New Hampshire. Jennifer Parker--Arkansas Monica Pasternak--Connecticut. Audrey Ells Payne--Vermont. Allan Peetz--Indiana. Michael Perez--Arkansas. Desirae Plourde--Maine. Taryn Pream--Minnesota. Jonathan Quarles--Michigan. Tiffany Ringold--Idaho. Stephanie Rochel--Massachusetts. Hannah Rogers--Alabama. Shelarese Ruffin--Georgia. Erica Rymer--South Carolina. Amy Schlueter--Missouri. Eleanor Sherman--California. Gregory Shilling--Louisiana. Danielle Shimotakahara--Oregon. Sandy Short--Idaho. Adam Smith--Louisiana. Jennifer Stanton--Oregon. Robyn Strumpf--California. Kristen Stryker--Ohio. Meredith Swain--North Carolina. Mackenzie Sweeney--Missouri. Matthew Ternus--Iowa. Daniel Tessier--Rhode Island. Jennifer Thornhill--Texas. Julia Tobias--New Hampshire. Lisa Torres--Wyoming. Ryan Tripp--Utah. Gopalkrishna Trivedi--Michigan. Paul Varnado--Mississippi. Lakeshia Wallace--District of Columbia Aubrie Weedling--Hawaii. Sagan Woolery--Georgia. Mia Yocopis--Arizona. Christopher Zeigler--Delaware

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Johnson has been working on this issue for a long while. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a last question?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment addresses a critical need. I ask him if he sees in South Dakota what we know and see in North Dakota with respect to the veterans' health care system. The system is not working. We have a fellow in north central North Dakota who went to Vietnam and took a bullet in the brain and is severely disabled for life. Because of that, he has muscle atrophy and a range of other health problems and had to have a toe removed. The VA system said to his father: Haul him over to Fargo, ND, and we will do that in the VA system. In other words, take this severely disabled person, put him in a car, drive him nearly 200 miles to the east and have this procedure done-- not a major procedure--and then drive him 200 miles back, and that is the only way we will cover that expense. The father said: Is this the way to treat a son who served his country in Vietnam and was shot in the head and is now consigned to a very difficult life? Is this a way to treat him? It is not. The health care system is not working. The VA system is not able to meet the needs. I ask the Senator from South Dakota, is it not the case, in his opinion, that the cost of veterans' health care is part and parcel of the cost of defending this country? It ought to be part of the cost of defense because it is a promise we made and have not kept to veterans in this country when we said: Serve your country, and we will provide you a health care system that works for your needs.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from South Dakota yield?

Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from South Dakota. I assume he agrees with me we are not in any way attempting to denigrate the wonderful men and women who work at the VA health care centers around the country. Many of them do an extraordinary job. But they are not funded well enough. We do not have the resources to do the job we should. I just want to mention, on a Sunday morning some while ago, I was at a VA hospital presenting medals that had been earned, but never received by an American Indian. His family came, but also at this VA hospital, the doctors and the nurses came into his room. I pinned those medals on the pajama tops of this man named Edmund Young Eagle. He died 7 days later. He was very ill with cancer. But it was an enormously proud day for him because he served his country in Africa and Europe in World War II. The fact is, this man served this country around the world. He never complained about it. The day I pinned the medals on his pajama tops, you could see the pride in his eyes. I appreciated the fact that at this VA hospital the doctors and nurses came around and were part of that small ceremony. But there are so many people such as Edmund Young Eagle and others who served their country, have never asked for much, but then need health care, only to discover that the system for delivering that health care is not nearly funded well enough, while in the Congress, somehow we are more eager to say that defense relates to the things in the Defense Department and that the VA health care system is somehow not part of that obligation. It is part of that obligation. That is why I am pleased to support this amendment. As I mentioned, I say to Senator Johnson, he has been working on these issues for a long while. I hope the Congress will embrace this approach now so that we can be as proud of what we are doing for veterans and for their health care needs as Edmund Young Eagle was proud that day of serving his country. Isn't it the case that we have dramatic needs--underfunding in these facilities--and that the Senator's approach to dealing with this would say it is a priority in this Congress to address the health care needs of veterans and we believe the health care needs of veterans are part and parcel of this country's defense requirements?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a picture of a man named Kyle Bell. This brutal criminal killed Jeanna North, an 11-year-old girl from Fargo, ND. After being convicted and imprisoned, Kyle Bell escaped. How did he escape? When North Dakota authorities were going to transport him to a prison out of State for safekeeping, a prison in the State of Oregon, they contracted with a private company called TransCor to haul him there. As he was being transported across the country by bus with a dozen or more other prisoners, this child killer escaped. While stopped at a gas station, two guards with this private company were sleeping; another was apparently buying a cheeseburger. Kyle Bell went out through the top of the bus and this child killer walked away. When I discovered what had happened, I thought to myself, that cannot be. We are turning child killers over to private companies to be transported across the country? But it is true. Then I discovered the record of these companies. You can be a retired sheriff and call your brother-in-law and say: Let's buy a mini van and let's go into the business of transporting criminals. In fact, in one state, a man and his wife showed up with a little mini van to pick up five convicted murderers. The warden of the penitentiary said: You have to be kidding me. They weren't kidding. That is who the State hired to transport these murderers. And of course the murderers escaped in short order. What I have discovered is we have private companies being hired by State and local governments to transport violent criminals around the country, and those companies have no requirement to meet any standards at all. That doesn't make any sense. I have introduced a piece of legislation I call Jeanna's Bill that says if any local or State government is going to contract with a private company to haul a violent criminal, they must meet some basic standards. They must meet some regulations. If you haul toxic waste, you must meet regulations. Haul cattle, you must meet regulations. Haul circus animals, you must meet regulations. But some of our States and local governments are willing to turn killers over to private companies who have no such standards to meet at all. I received a letter in the last few days from the Governor of Nevada. I want to say I pass him my compliments. The Governor of Nevada was sending a convicted murderer named James Prestridge to North Dakota for safekeeping under the Prisoners Exchange Agreement. Mr. Prestridge, along with another fellow convicted of armed robbery, was being hauled to North Dakota by a company that is called Extraditions International. Mr. Prestridge, this convicted murderer, escaped, as did John Doran, an armed robber. Mr. Doran was found just south of the Mexican border with a bullet through his brain, and Mr. Prestridge was recently apprehended. I wrote to the Governor of Nevada and said: I hope if you still intend to send this convicted murderer to North Dakota you will do it through the U.S. Marshals Service. They will haul violent offenders anywhere across this country for a flat fee and they don't lose them. I got a letter back from the Governor of Nevada. He said: In response to your request that Nevada stop using private transport companies, please be advised our prison system has ceased its business relationship with Extraditions International and that all of this State's out of state inmate transfers are now being staffed by our prison system. Good for him. He said, incidentally, Mr. Prestridge is now not going to be sent to North Dakota. Good for us. But good for him that he changed the policy. In our State, in the most recent days, the company that let this fellow go, the company whose negligence allowed a convicted child killer to walk away and evade authorities for some months, settled with the State for $50,000. The State sent them a bill for $102,000 and the company said: We won't pay it. We'd pay you $50,000. And then the State says this company is a pretty good company and we will use them again. My State is making a mistake, in my judgment. I would like every State to make a decision when they are going to transport violent criminals around this country, do it with law enforcement officials, do it with the U.S. Marshals Service. They will do it for a flat fee and then some American family won't have to worry that, when they pull up at a gas station, next to them at the pump is a mini van with two inexperienced folks hauling three murderers. What is that about, in terms of public safety? It seems to me we ought to have enough common sense in this country when we have convicted someone of killing children, when we have convicted someone of murder or violent crimes, at least we ought not to turn them into the arms of someone inexperienced in the private sector, a company that has to meet no standards at all with which to transport them. That doesn't make any sense to me. So I say to the Governor of Nevada: Good for you. It is the right decision. I would say to our State: Change your mind. Decide this company should not haul violent offenders in North Dakota and that when you are going to transport a violent offender, the U.S. Marshals Service ought to be used to do it. I say to every State official across this country: Until we get in place basic standards these companies must meet, you ought not use them for transporting violent offenders. Were I a chief executive of a State, I would not use them anyway because I do not think people who kill children, as in the case of Kyle Bell, ought to be turned over to anyone other than law enforcement authorities to transport them to another place of incarceration.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, with great respect to my colleague from Idaho, and I did not come to the floor of the Senate to talk about this, let me say when any of my colleagues stand up and talk about gun control issues that the minority wishes to pursue--let me explain in a sentence or so what we are trying to do. It is not to restrict the opportunity of anyone in this country who has the right to own a gun. We are trying to close the gun show loophole to prevent convicted felons from getting a gun. Go to a gun store to buy a gun in this country and you must run your name through an instant check because we do not want convicted felons to have weapons. They cannot, by law, possess weapons. Go to a gun store and you have to run your name through an instant check. If it comes up that you are a convicted felon, you do not get the gun. But go to a gun show on a Saturday morning as a convicted felon and buy a gun and you do not have to have your name checked against anything. Go get your gun at a gun show, if you are a convicted felon and want a weapon. We are trying to close that loophole. Every American should support closing that loophole and should support it now. That does not affect any law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun. All it does is says let's keep guns out of the hands of felons. No one in this Chamber should believe convicted felons ought to be able to go into a gun show and gain access to a weapon they are not by law entitled to have. I did not come to the floor to speak about that, but I did want to respond to the pejorative suggestion that people on this side of the aisle want to injure the rights of law-abiding citizens to possess weapons. That is just wrong. We are trying to close a loophole that every American ought to support closing--to keep felons from getting guns.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to speak about an issue that is of great importance to my State and to all agricultural producers around the country. That is the issue of the sanctions on food and medicine that now exist in our relationships with some countries around the world. Our country has been in the habit of saying: We don't like certain countries, we don't like the way they behave, so we are going to slap economic sanctions on these countries and we have included sanctions on the shipment of food and medicine. So countries such as Libya, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and others, are in a circumstance of having economic sanctions enacted against them to punish them, and we have included in those sanctions food and medicine. A group of us are trying to change that. We do not think it is the moral thing to do. What is this country doing, saying to others that we will not allow them to have access to food and medicine? Taking aim at dictators and hurting poor people, sick people, and hungry people is hardly something about which we ought to be proud. This is not a moral policy. I come from a farm State, so I care about having access to these markets as well. I admit that. Aside from the market side of this, which is important--after all, these countries against whom we have sanctions on food and medicine represent almost 11 percent of the world's wheat markets, and we have said to our farmers: By the way, 11 percent of the world's wheat market is off limits to you. Why? Because we decided we do not like these countries and we are going to make them pay a price. Part of the price we are going to exact is the ability for them to access food and medicine from the United States. Of course, other countries access it from Canada, Europe, or others. We are the country that decides to withhold food and medicine from these countries. Last year, we had a vote in the Senate on that. Senator Ashcroft, I, and many others who pushed to repeal the sanction on food and medicine won with 70 out of 100 votes. We were hijacked by the House of Representatives in conference. I was one of the conferees. They just flat out hijacked us. When it was clear to them we were going to win the issue in conference, they adjourned the conference, never to see them again, and they stripped the provision. I offered the same provision in the Senate Appropriations Committee, and it is now in the Agriculture appropriations bill. That is coming to the floor of the Senate. We have 70 Senators who said they think it is wrong to continue sanctions on food and medicine. The message in the Senate is: Stop using food as a weapon. It is the right message. There are a lot of people in the House of Representatives who apparently are willing to do that except for Cuba; Cuba is a special case, and they will not withdraw sanctions on food and medicine with respect to Cuba. In fact, that is what derailed it last year. I am one person, but I tell my colleagues that I am not going to allow, to the extent I can prevent it, the hijacking of this issue again this year by just two or three people who decide they are going to strip this provision and then have the House and Senate deal with the broader appropriations issues that do not include this provision. We have spent a lot of time on this issue. This country is wrong in applying sanctions with respect to food and medicine shipments to countries such as Cuba. Yes, Cuba. I was in Cuba last year. I have no truck with the Castro government. I think the Cuban government and its economic system have collapsed. But the sanctions that exist with respect to this country's actions against Cuba have represented Fidel Castro's greatest excuse to the Cuban people. He says: Of course my economy does not work; of course my country is in trouble. The United States has had its fist around our neck for 40 years. It is Fidel Castro's greatest excuse, in my judgment, for an economic system that has failed Cuba. It does not make sense, in my judgment, for us to exact a penalty on the Cuban people, on poor people, on hungry people, and on sick people in Cuba, in North Korea, and elsewhere to continue these absurd sanctions on food and medicine. We can have a broader discussion at some other time about whether the embargo that exists with Cuba ought to be lifted. That is a different subject, a broader subject. Incidentally, I have strong feelings about that as well. This is a narrower issue: Do we believe it appropriate to continue sanctions with respect to the shipment of food and medicine to countries such as Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and others? The answer ought to be a resounding no. My colleague, Senator Slade Gorton from the State of Washington, is in the Chamber. He was a cosponsor of this in the Senate Appropriations Committee. He, I, and John Ashcroft have issued a statement that says to all within hearing distance that if you think you are going to hijack this issue again this year, think again, because we have 70 votes in the Senate that say we ought not use food and medicine as a weapon, and we intend to insist this year that we prevail on this issue. I cannot speak for anybody else, but the statement we issued is pretty self-explanatory. I am here to give fair warning to those who want to do what they did last year that it is going to be a pretty difficult proposition if they intend to hijack this issue. We have the votes. Vote on it in the Senate, and it will pass by an overwhelming margin. Allow a vote in the House, and it will pass by an overwhelming margin. The only way those who want to defeat this proposition because it contains Cuba--which is an irrational position, for those who think through this a little bit--the only way they can possibly defeat it is to try to use some hijinks in the process to avoid an up-or-down vote. I and others intend to see we have a full opportunity to have votes in the House and the Senate on it. If the House leadership does what it did last year, I say to them: Fair warning, I am going to be here on the floor of the Senate objecting to a whole series of things. We need to straighten this out now. This country, at this time, on this issue, says we will no longer use sanctions with respect to the shipment of food and medicine. It does not work, it is not a moral policy, and it ought to stop now. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments about the conference report that is before us today. As I do, I want to compliment some folks for a lot of hard work: My colleague, Senator Conrad, especially, who has played such an integral role in this; Senator Harkin, Senator Lugar, Senator Grassley, Senator Roberts, to just mention a few--for a whole series of folks in different areas have played significant roles in trying to bring this to the floor of the Senate. Frankly, while there are some things I would have done differently in constructing this legislation--particularly the emergency aid--I am going to vote for it. I think this is a good day for family farmers in my State and the country. We have a fellow in North Dakota named Arlo Schmidt. Arlo is an auctioneer. He told me one day about an auction sale he had conducted awhile back. What happened during that sale describes so well the passion and the hurt that exists in farm country when grain prices collapse and family farmers lose their hopes and their dreams. This auction sale had occurred on a family farm, owned by a family who was not able to make it. They had gone broke because prices collapsed. It was not their fault. A whole series of things conspired to say to this family they could not farm anymore. They were losing their hopes, their dreams, and their future that day. At the end of the auction sale, a young boy who lived on that farm-- he was 10 or 11 years old or so--came up to the auctioneer. The young boy was very angry with him, so angry, that he said to the auctioneer: You sold my dad's tractor. Arlo said he put his hand on the boy's shoulder to try to console him a little bit, but the boy looked up at him through some tears and angrily said: I wanted to drive that tractor when I got big. The young boy wasn't accepting any of that comfort from the auctioneer. He wanted to drive that tractor when he got big. That boy felt like a lot of families feel, living on a family farm. The farm was much more than a business. It was a way of life. Family farmers cannot make a living when grain prices collapse. The underpinning basis of Freedom to Farm was, let's not care about price supports or safety nets; let's operate in the open market, the free market. Well, there wasn't an open market when Congress passed it; and there's not one now. It seems to me, after about 3 years of applying tourniquets, somebody ought to ask the question: Isn't there some serious bleeding going on here? We have brought to the floor--including this bill--emergency help three times in 3 years. All of this emergency help is to try to take the place of the safety net that does not exist in Freedom to Farm. It seems to me it would be wise for us now--after we pass this bill-- to learn from our mistakes. If we have to do this every single year, let's do it in a thoughtful way and the right way. Let's repeal Freedom to Farm and replace it with a safety net that works for family farmers, a safety net that says to that family who has those hopes and dreams: if you work hard and you do a good job we will give you an opportunity to make it, even during tough times. This legislation has a lot of things in it. No. 1, it improves the Crop Insurance Program. I salute that effort by my colleagues. Many of us have had input, although I did not play the major role on this. The fact is, this improvement is a collaboration of Republicans and Democrats that is significant. This legislation increases premium subsidies to help family farmers buy up better levels of coverage; a better depth of coverage at less cost for family farmers. In North Dakota, it solves some peculiar problems. We have had problems year after year in which farmers have lost a substantial amount of their crop to wet cycles and, therefore, their production is decreased. Because of this, every single year their insurance coverage under crop insurance is decreased. They have been caught in a Catch-22 from which they could not escape, and it did not make any sense. This bill addresses those issues. This is an important and significant piece of reform to the crop insurance bill. Let me also say this proposal before us today includes emergency economic assistance for family farmers. This assistance is what I talked about earlier. My colleague, Senator Wellstone, was absolutely correct on this subject. We ought not use doubling the AMTA payment, year after year after year, as a method of providing economic assistance to family farmers. It is not the most efficient and not the most effective way to deliver this assistance. I am going to vote for this bill. If I had written this legislation, I would have written it differently. This replicates what we have done the last 2 years. This is the third year in a row we have increased AMTA payments. This will send money to people who have not seen a farm for a couple of years; have not gassed up a tractor in the spring to plow a straight furrow for awhile. They are not farming now. They are going to get money under this bill, and it does not make any sense to me. What we ought to be doing is extending emergency help to family farmers living out there on the farm, and who are struggling to make a living. This help should be going to family farmers who are confronted with collapsed prices; all who have found that when you raise a bushel of grain for $4 a bushel and then have to sell it for $2.50, you are going to be in trouble. You cannot continue to make it that way. There ought to be a safety net for those folks, the folks who are really farming. Regrettably, the mechanism to distribute that emergency economic aid has been the double AMTA payment. I think we could have done much, much better than that. My hope is that following the passage of this conference report--and I will vote for it even though I disagree with the mechanism of the economic assistance package, and I do compliment those who helped bring this to the floor--my hope is that when this is done, we will all understand that if we have to do this year after year after year, it is time to learn from it. We really ought to be able to learn when something doesn't work. Let's just admit our farm policy doesn't work and change it. I started by talking about family farming. Some will say--they are careful about the circles they say it--but they say the family farm is just yesterday. This is all nostalgia about an economic unit that does not work anymore. This view is just wrongheaded. We have the kind of economy we intend to have. We can have the kind of economy we create in this country. We can decide we want big corporate agrifactories from California to Maine producing America's food, or we can decide to have a network of families working on farms producing America's food. Europe has made that decision. Go to Europe and visit the rural communities in the countryside. You will discover small towns are doing well. There is life, there is a heart, and there is pulse in small towns. Why? Because Europe has decided they want a network of family farmers producing their food. The result of this decision is a rural economy that is thriving and working. Europe has a safety net for family farmers they can rely on which gives them hope for the future. Regrettably, we have not had that same continuity in this country. On the other hand, we in this country have lurched back and forth from farm policy to farm policy. Finally, we fell off the cliff with Freedom to Farm, saying we have this new idea--not a very good idea, incidentally--but a new idea called Freedom to Farm. Now, after 3 years of tourniquets, having had to pass three successive economic assistance packages to make up for the deficiency, we all ought to understand that we have to change the underlying farm bill. This legislation includes a substantial amount of resources at a time when those resources will be critically important to our family farmers. I have said, and I will say it again--I think repetition is probably important, at least to make this point--while I think there is a better way to move these resources to rural America, it is critical at this point, given the collapsed grain prices, to send these resources out now. This help will give farmers some hope. Our family farmers are not some anachronism that does not fit in today's economy. As I said, there are some who think it is like the little diner that got left behind when the interstate came in--it is nostalgia to think about, but not really a significant part of our future economy. People who think that way, in my judgment, are fundamentally wrong. Go to rural America and learn from where the seedbed of family values comes. Understand the value of rural values in this country and the rolling of those values from family farms to small towns to big cities, and what it has done to nourish and refresh the values of our country. Then tell me somehow families living on America's farms don't count and don't matter. The fact is, they face economic challenges almost no one else faces. A small family unit trying to run a farm puts a seed in the ground and has no idea whether that seed will grow. It might get too much rain; it might not. Maybe this seed won't get enough rain. It might hail; it might not. Maybe insects will come. Maybe not. Maybe crop disease will destroy it. Maybe not. If they survive all those uncertainties, maybe they will get it off in time to go to an elevator and discover they have lost $1.50 a bushel for every bushel they raised. They get hit with this loss after all their months of work, starting with the tractor in the spring to plow the furrows to plant the seeds all the way to the combining in the fall to get it in off the field and into the grain elevator. The lack of connection here is striking. So many hundreds of millions of people are hungry and our grain markets tell us the food produced by family farmers has no value. It is a striking paradox. In conclusion, I thank my friends, Senator Harkin and Senator Lugar, for whom I have great regard, for what they have done in this legislation. I urge my colleagues to come back, after we pass this legislation--and I shall gladly vote for it--to reform the fundamental farm program itself. If we do that, we will not then have to be continually passing emergency economic assistance packages, as we are doing today with the crop insurance reform bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 10 minutes following the presentation of the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, what piqued my interest last Friday and this morning was the announcement of the trade deficit. It is interesting to me, the deafening silence that occurs in this Chamber and around this town especially regarding the monthly announcement of our trade deficit. I prepared a chart that shows our growing and alarming bilateral merchandise trade deficits. This is last year, 1999. As announced on Friday, our monthly merchandise trade deficit rose to $37 billion. We have a surplus in our services trade balance, so if services are included the net effect is a $30 billion merchandise and services deficit. In other words, we buy $1 billion a day more from other countries than we sell to other countries--$1 billion a day. What does that mean? It means that is the debt we have and the liability we incur. Does it matter? We had people doing handstands and having apoplectic seizures on the floor of the Senate for years and years about the fiscal policy deficit. They would come and talk about the Federal budget deficit, what a god-awful thing it was--and it was--$300 billion a year and rising out of sight. With respect to this merchandise and services deficit--$30 billion a month net, $37 billion with respect to merchandise or manufactured goods, over $1 billion a day--one cannot find anybody who pays any attention to it or cares much about it. Why? Because the institutional thinkers in this country, once again on Friday, were genuflecting, as they always do when this news comes out, about how the deficit is not such a bad deal. This trade deficit means America is growing faster than other countries. If we are growing faster than other countries, then naturally we will be buying more from abroad and perhaps selling less to them. We will therefore have this trade deficit. These are the same economists, the same ``thinkers,'' who told us in 1994: Why do we have a trade deficit? Because we have a fiscal policy deficit. If we get rid of the budget deficit, we will get rid of the trade deficit. I can give names, but they are embarrassed when I read their quotes with their names. They are the same economists who said we have a trade deficit because we have a budget deficit. They said the trade deficit will be gone once the budget deficit is gone. No, that is not the reason at all. We do not have a trade deficit because we are growing faster than other countries. That is an absurd contention, just absurd. We have a trade deficit with China because our country is growing faster than China? No, China has an economy which is growing very rapidly. Our trade deficit with China, which is very close to $70 billion a year, is because we are buying more from China than they are buying from us. Is that because they do not need things? No, it is because they are buying from other countries instead of us. Why do we allow that to happen? Because we are weak-kneed and do not have a backbone. Our country has never had the backbone to say to other countries: You must have a reciprocal trade relationship with us. If we are going to treat you in a certain way and we welcome you into our marketplace, then we must be welcome in your marketplace. We have never had the backbone to do that. On Friday, the merchandise trade deficit with Japan increased from $6.7 billion to $6.8 billion. That means, with Japan, we have a merchandise trade deficit approaching $80 billion. How many years do you have to have $50 billion, $60 billion, $70 billion, $80 billion trade deficits with the same country before someone will stand up and say: There is something wrong here. They keep selling us all of their goods, but they buy what they need from others. I represent, for example, ranchers. I know I mentioned this before. I represent farmers and ranchers and others. Every pound of American beef going into Japan today has a 38.5-percent tariff on it. This is a country that has a nearly $80 billion trade surplus with us, or we have a deficit with them. Send a T-bone steak from Dickinson, ND, to Tokyo, Japan, and there is going to be a 38.5-percent tariff on the T-bone steak. What is that about? Does one think we would be considered a massive failure in international trade as a country if we had 38.5- percent tariffs on products imported into our country? Of course we would. Yet we have a trade relationship with Japan that allows them to have a 38.5-percent tariff on beef--this is after we reached an agreement with them, by the way. We had a big trade agreement for beef producers about 10 years ago. At the end, one would have thought these folks just won the Olympics. They celebrated and had a day of feasting and rejoicing because this country had this great trade agreement with Japan. Yes, we have gotten more beef into Japan, but every pound of beef today that goes into Japan has a 38.5-percent tariff on it. That is outrageous. I will go through a couple of other countries to close the loop. Mexico. We have a trade agreement with Mexico called NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. I remember the two economists, Hufbauer and Schott. They said if we do this trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, this country will have 300,000 or so new jobs. At the time, we had a trade surplus with Mexico. That trade surplus with Mexico is now over a $20 billion trade deficit. Immediately after we passed NAFTA, signed a new trade agreement with Mexico, and reduced tariffs on United States goods going into Mexico, Mexico devalued its currency and washed out any gains. In fact, the devaluation was much higher in terms of its effect on the tariffs, so it more than washed out any gains. A trade surplus with Mexico was turned into a very large trade deficit. The trade deficit with Mexico in March was $1.9 billion--for just a month. What about Canada? Canada had a modest trade surplus with us, or we had a modest trade deficit with Canada, and then we passed NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. The announcement Friday said the goods deficit with Canada is now $3.9 billion, almost $4 billion. Our annual deficit with Canada is somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 billion to $40 billion. With respect to the European Union, Friday the announcement was that the merchandise trade deficit with the European Union rose from $3.5 billion in February to $5.7 billion in March, the most recent month for which data has been reported. I will comment on our trade deficits with Japan and Mexico a little later. I taught economics briefly in college. I understand about economists. It is much less a discipline than it is some psychology pumped up with helium. It is just being able to say anything at any time about almost any subject. This is what the economists say. In today's Wall Street Journal, Mr. Wiegand says: This deficit will start to shrink as the Federal Reserve continues to raise interest rates to slow the U.S. economy. Oh, yes, that is probably a pretty good solution: Drive the economy into the ditch. That will probably take care of it. I do not dispute them. If Alan Greenspan continues to choke the neck of the American economy and drives this economy into the ditch, yes, I suspect we will probably be buying less from abroad. It is probably not very good medicine to kill what ails us, in my judgment. The person who wrote this article in today's Wall Street Journal did not provide the name of the analyst. These are just anonymous analysts: Analysts say they remain sanguine because the underlying fundamentals that fuel the deficit remain unchanged. America's economy is stronger than the economies of trading partners, and that's why we have these trade deficits. That is absurd, just absurd. Why do we have a big trade deficit with Japan? It is because we lack a backbone. For 15 years, we have allowed Japan to throw their goods into our marketplace and keep their marketplace relatively closed to American goods. The same is true with China. The same is true with many other countries. This country needs to have the backbone to say to other countries: Here is a mirror. Look closely because what you see in that mirror is what you will get. You are welcome to come into our country with your goods and services. Our consumers welcome them, and we welcome them. But you should understand, the price for admission to the American marketplace is that your markets be open to our producers, to the products of our workers and our production plants. If it is not, then you are going to pay a price for that. About 30 to 40 percent of Chinese exports are sent to the United States. We are a ``cash cow'' for China's hard currency needs. There is no substitute on Earth for the American marketplace. China needs this marketplace. The closing of this marketplace would lead China to collapse immediately. Mr. President, 30 to 40 percent of their exports are to the U.S. economy. So we say to China: That's all right. You keep shipping all your products here. Ship us your shirts and your shoes and your trousers and your trinkets. You keep shipping all the merchandise you want to the United States, and that's fine if you want to prevent us from accessing your marketplace. We just negotiated a bilateral trade agreement with China. We had folks up all night over in Beijing and here. They were working back and forth and trading and doing the things you do when you negotiate a trade agreement. They finished a trade agreement. The vote we are going to have in the House this week, and subsequently, perhaps a week or two later in the Senate, is not about this trade agreement. We do not get the opportunity to vote on the bilateral trade agreement with China. The vote is going to be: Do we accord China permanent normal trade relations? I have voted for normal trade relations in the past. The only difference in this vote is: Shall it be permanent? But it is not a vote on the bilateral trade agreement with China. Frankly, I do not know how I am going to vote on permanent NTR. At this point, I am leaning, perhaps, to vote in favor of it, but only if it includes a commission to monitor trade compliance--because China has made other agreements with us and has not complied with them at all--and only if it provides some responsible monitoring of human rights in China. But having said all that, these votes are not about the bilateral trade agreement. We do not need PNTR to do what we should do with China. In Washington, DC, because there are so many interests here that are working on this PNTR issue, you can't turn on the television without seeing another ad by big interest groups that are saying: You must vote for China PNTR. Regrettably, they misstate it. They say: If we don't vote for PNTR, the Chinese marketplace will not be open. That is absurd. It does not make any sense at all. The vote on China PNTR isn't about whether the Chinese marketplace is open; it is a vote on whether normal trade relations with China will be made permanent--just that; and only that. It is not even a vote on the bilateral trade agreement we reached with China last year. Having said all that, as I said, I voted for normal trade relations previously. I think China is going to be a significant influence in our lives, and I prefer it be a good influence rather than a bad one. I happen to think that involvement is preferable to noninvolvement. But that does not excuse the relationship that exists between China and the United States in which our trade negotiators come so far short of reaching an agreement that is in our interest. I will give you an example. China has 1.2 billion people. On the issue of automobiles in the recently negotiated agreement with China, after a phase-in period, there will remain in China a 25-percent tariff on any automobiles the U.S. would send to China. Any automobiles that China would send to the U.S. would have a 2.5-percent tariff. So China will retain a tariff that is 10 times higher than the U.S. on vehicles moving back and forth. This is a country that has a nearly $70 billion surplus with us. I ask the question: Why? Why would a negotiator sit across the table and agree to a proposition that China can have a tariff that is 10 times higher on automobiles than we can? The answer? The answer is: It is so much better than it was. The old tariff on automobiles was so much higher. We brought it down so far. I said: Why don't you sit down at the table, and hitch up your belt, and say, All right, let's begin negotiating reciprocal policies and the same tariff. Why can't our negotiators do that? Our trade negotiators would say: Oh, you can't do that because we are starting from different points. It is time we start from the same point. It is time we demand that our trade negotiators begin dealing with this trade deficit with respect to what is really causing it. These economists are wrong when they say the problem is that our country is growing too fast, other countries are growing too slow, and therefore we have a big deficit. The reason we have a big deficit is that when China wants to buy airplanes China says: We are going to manufacture the airplanes in China. That is not the way you do business. If they are going to sell us all their commodities, then they have a responsibility to buy from us what we have to sell. If they need airplanes, they ought to buy airplanes built in the United States of America. If they need wheat, they ought to buy wheat from the United States. In other words, trade relationships ought to be reciprocal. But our trade negotiators never require that. Is this a criticism of the current administration? You bet--the past administration, and every administration for the last 20 years. None of them have had any backbone. I stand here and talk about this because the trade deficit report came out last Friday, and it said that the merchandise and services trade deficit was $30 billion in a month. That is roughly $340 billion a year more in manufactured goods that the United States bought than it sold. I know I will have people listening to this who will say: That guy is just a protectionist. They are wrong. I am not a protectionist in the definition of the word used pejoratively. One who seeks protection is somebody who wants to build a wall around the country and keep everybody out. That is not my view of it at all. We have a global economy. We have an expanding reach of opportunities around the world. But this country has to understand that times have changed. After the end of the Second World War, for the first 25 years, our trade policy was almost universally foreign policy. We would engage with another country with one hand tied behind our back, and say: Do you want some help? Here is a trade policy that is concessional to you because you're struggling, you're flat on your back, your economy is devastated because of the Second World War. We want to help you get back on your feet. Therefore, our trade policy was largely foreign policy. That was fine because we could beat anybody with one hand tied behind our back. But the second 25 years post-Second World War have been different. We have shrewd, tough, economic competitors. We have still tied the hands of America's producers and America's workers, and have provided concessional terms in trade negotiations to virtually every other country. That is the only basis that you could excuse a recurring trade deficit with Japan that is $50 and $60 and, now, $70 billion a year-- year after year after year after year. The only thing you can call that is neglect--yes, by Republican administrations and Democratic administrations. That is neglect. People who hear this will say: That guy just doesn't understand that you can't see over the horizon. He does not understand all this. The problem is, I think I do understand it. In the budget deficit debates, we used to have people come to the floor and say: Think of it in terms of your own family. If you're running up a deficit, you have to pay it sometime, don't you? Think of the trade deficit in terms of your own family unit. If the country is your family, and you are buying much more than you are selling and, therefore, incurring a deficit that continues to grow, is that a problem? Will it at some point come back and bite you? Will that be a problem for this country? Will it inhibit America's economic growth? Will the fact that the current accounts' deficit--measured by recurring trade deficits--allows foreigners to hold American dollars with which they can make decisions about whether to invest in this country, and how to invest in this country, be a problem for this country? I think it is. My only point is that last Friday should not pass without notice--a Friday in which we say the merchandise and services trade deficit is now $30 billion this month alone. That news occurs at the same time the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board says our country is growing too rapidly and we need to slow it down with another one-half of 1 percent interest rate increase. Well, I am telling you, I think the combination of those two pieces of economic news ought to be very sobering to all Americans. Yet, as I said when I started, there is this deafening silence in the Chamber. Almost nobody will come and talk about the trade deficit because they will be branded by especially the corporate world as people who don't understand, who want to build a wall around this country, people who are protectionists. Yes, I want to protect America's economic interests. Of course, I do. I am an American and, of course, I want to do that. But I believe the protection of our interests involves understanding that the economy has changed. This is a global economy but we must have fair trade rules. If we decide as a country that nothing matters that we fought about for the last 100 years, and that the globalization of our economy somehow should pole-vault over all of those issues, then we will, in my judgment, have lost substantial ground. We had people die in the streets in this country. They were shot and clubbed to death because they fought for the basic principle of workers being able to organize. People died for that right in this country. Some companies will say: I know was a problem in America because you have all these collective bargaining issues. The way to get rid of that issue is we will take our manufacturing plant and close it. We will move to a country where workers can't organize, and we will not have those problems. People in this country fought so long for a minimum wage and a livable wage. A company might say: We can solve that issue. We don't have to deal with minimum wages. We will move this plant from the United States to Bangladesh, and we won't have to pay minimum wages. People fought a long time over the issue of child labor. They may say: Well, we can solve that. We will move our plant overseas and we will put 12-year-olds in the plant and we will pay them 12 cents an hour. We will work them 14 hours a day, and we won't have to meet plant safety standards. That is an easy way to pole-vault over those issues. How about dumping chemicals into the streams or into the air? A company can say: We can solve those issues. You know that plant where we are going to hire kids to work, and pay them 12 cents an hour, and work them 14 hours a day, and not worry about safety? We can also dump the raw chemicals into the water and into the air. Well, that raises the question, I am afraid: Should there be an admission price to the American marketplace? Should the admission price be at least that there are fair rules of trade? I have asked folks, and one honestly said to me he thought it was fine. If the marketplace decided that you can amass the capital and employ kids in unsafe conditions and pay them pennies, if you can produce a product the consumer wants, it is fine for that product to be in our marketplace. I respectfully disagree with that perspective. Globalization requires the attendance of rules, in my judgment, that relate to the kinds of issues we fought over for 100 years in this country. Others would say, well, you are trying to export American values. There you have it. That is exactly what is necessary in the global economy--exporting the values of saying that fair competition is not competition with 12-year-old kids being paid 12 cents an hour. Fair competition is not competition between a plant in Pittsburgh that has to meet air pollution standards and water pollution standards, competing with a plant owned by the same company somewhere that can dump all of their chemicals into the streams and into the air. Those are our range of issues with which we have to deal. All of those issues, incidentally, relate to a very significant and unhealthy growth in this country's trade deficit. Let me come back for a moment to the vote that will be very controversial on China's permanent normal trade relations. Last week-- and I know I digress here--I was thinking of coming to the floor and submitting in a bill that says the Federal Reserve Board cannot go into a room and lock the door in something called the ``Open Market Committee'' and continue to call it open. I was thinking of putting in a bill that requires them to call this a ``closed market committee.'' If they are going to lock the American people out, they should not call it an open committee. Just as I was thinking of doing that--and I decided against it for the moment--we ought not to call it normal trade relations with China, or Japan, or, for that matter, Europe; we ought not to call normal trade relations a circumstance that give us a $50 billion, $60 billion, $70 billion, or $80 billion trade deficit. There is nothing normal about our trade relations with Japan. There is nothing normal about having a $50 billion, $60 billion, or $70 billion trade deficit every single year. That is abnormal. Now, I could not get the votes, perhaps, to rename that ``abnormal trade relations,'' but it is not normal, and we ought not to consider it normal to have this sort of circumstance exist. In the last decade, it has gotten worse, not better. The mantra of so-called ``thinkers'' who are quoted--incidentally, they are the same people because when reporters write the stories, they call the same people, ``thinkers''. These same people have put the same quotes in the stories every month for 10 years. Even though the times have changed and the thinkers were demonstrated to not be accurate, they just change their story. That is why the story has changed now from their original saying that when we had a budget deficit you are therefore going to have a trade deficit. They say now that wasn't it; now it is because we are growing too fast. There must be some familial relationship here with the Chairman of the Fed because he also thinks we are growing too fast. It must be the same group of thinkers. There must be a genetic code that exists between these folks. Again, I digress. I came to the floor to simply say I don't want Friday's notice of this dramatic increase in the trade deficit to not be discussed at least at some length in the Senate. It is important that we discuss it and begin to provide remedies for it. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I noticed in the Washington Post this morning an editorial I wanted to comment on briefly. Those noted experts on agriculture and the farm program who write editorials for the Washington Post have written an editorial today entitled ``A Deal Too Sweet'' about the sugar program. I can just see them sitting out there in their Big Ben coveralls dumping sugar into their coffee, cogitating about America's sugar program and America's farm program. I want to suggest to them to look in a different direction. They see a program in this country where sugar prices are kept far too high, in their judgment. They believe the market for sugar would produce prices at just a fraction of what the sugar program currently provides sugar producers. I fear the Washington Post just does not understand the sugar program or the market. Most sugar in this world is traded contract to contract between countries. Very little is traded in the open market. What is traded in the open market is the surplus or the dumped sugar. This dumped sugar is traded at very low prices, but that does not reflect the cost of sugar that is traded between countries. For a number of reasons, the sugar program is not working as well as it had in the past. For a long period of time the sugar program provided both stable prices for consumers and also stable income, or stable support for sugar producers. Is this a worthwhile goal? I think it is. We have seen times in this country when the sugar prices spiked up, up, way up, which was a terrible disadvantage to America's consumers. We have seen circumstances as well where farm income has dipped way down. That was devastating to producers. At least with respect to this commodity, sugar, we developed a program that provides stability for both consumers and producers. This makes sense to me. The sugar program has not worked as well in recent months and years. The reason, in my judgment, is because the current underlying farm program has not worked. As prices have collapsed for most other commodities, and as we have pulled the rug out from under producers with a farm program called Freedom to Farm, we have had more acreage put into sugar production in this country. In addition to that, we have had molasses stuffed with sugar coming in from Canada, which is just another method of transporting sugar into this country in excess of the amount agreed to by our trade agreements. We have a significant threat from Mexico, despite what we thought was an agreement on sugar, so we have a whole series of threats to those who produce sugar--cane and beet--in this country. The Washington Post would make the case: Let's just get rid of the sugar program. Others will probably make the same case. It would be interesting to ask the following question, and perhaps get an answer from the Washington Post and others who believe this. The question would be: While sugar prices have fallen by a fourth since 1996, has anyone seen a reduction in the price of sugar at the grocery store? Let me repeat, prices to the producer have fallen by one-fourth; has anyone seen a reduction in the price of sugar at the store? What about candy bars, cereal, ice cream, cookies? The answer is no. In fact, during that same period of time, while the price of sugar to the producer has fallen by a fourth, those prices-- candy, cereal, ice cream, cookies, and cake--are up 7 to 10 percent. The point is this. This program has worked and can work again if we have a decent farm bill. But it will not work in the long term unless we amend and change the Freedom to Farm legislation which is the underlying problem with all farm commodity prices. This is not the time, and we should not allow those who preach it to decide the sugar program ought to be repealed. The sugar program has worked, and it is good for sugar producers and consumers in this country. I wanted to make the case that those who editorialize about it, including this morning's editorial, in my judgment, are wrong. I respect their opinion, but I think they are wrong. It is, once again, a question not just for those who produce sugar--in my part of the country, there are family farmers who raise sugar beets--it is a question of do we want to have family farmers in this country's future. Some say family farmers are a little old diner that got left behind when the interstate came through. Yes, it is nostalgic, yesterday's news, let's just get on with big corporate farms. I do not believe that. I believe family farmers contribute to the value and culture of this country in a significant way. If we decide there is no virtue between the crevices of mathematics and concentration--if we decide family farms do not matter--this country will have lost something significant, in my opinion. One part of needed farm policy change, but an important part for those who produce sugar beets in our country, is the retention of a decent sugar program that provides some stability of income for producers. I hope my colleagues will understand this in the coming weeks and months as we begin discussing the farm program and related issues such as the sugar program.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are a lot of issues in the Senate with which we ought to be dealing. Most of the important issues we are avoiding. Now, there exists in this Congress something called a Patients' Bill of Rights. It is in conference and we can't get it back. Why? Because big money interests have decided they want to block it; they don't want a Patients' Bill of Rights. We ought to have that on the floor of the Senate and the House, out of this conference, and we should pass a decent Patients' Bill of Rights. We ought to be able to employ the opportunities to offer amendments on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act when it is here and strengthen this country's education system. But are we able to do that? No. We also have a juvenile justice bill that is trying to close a loophole in gun shows. When you buy a gun, you have to run your name through an instant check to see whether you are a felon. If you are a felon, you don't have the right to own a gun. It would close the gun show loophole. Now you can go to a gun show and buy a gun and you don't have to run your name against anything. A felon can buy a gun, regrettably. That is not anti-gun; it is a moderate, thoughtful step to extend the instant check. That is in the juvenile justice bill. That is not on the floor of the Senate. This Senate has been at parade rest for some long while. It is time to take action on the things the American people want us to act on. We ought to deal with a Patients' Bill of Rights, and we ought to bring to the floor of the Senate the legislation that deals with the gun show loophole in the juvenile justice bill. We ought to have an opportunity to debate the Elementary and Secondary Education Act without somebody hovering and saying: Before you do that, I have to approve the amendments you offer. There are no gatekeepers here. The rules of the Senate don't provide for gatekeepers. In the coming months, we have the opportunity to address health care, education, juvenile justice, and things that matter in this country. The only reason they are not on the floor of the Senate with extended debate, or out of conference which exists now, is because the leadership doesn't want them on the floor of the Senate. I must say that in the coming weeks and months we intend to do everything we can possibly do within the rules of this Senate to make sure those are the issues we debate in the Senate this year.

Mr. DORGAN

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