Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. I have listened with some interest not only to the Senator from Nevada but to other of my colleagues who are speaking about the issue before the Senate. I know the Senator from Nevada is talking about the budget problems we have. The fact is, we don't have enough money for education, health care, and a range of things. That is why we have not had the appropriations bills brought to the floor for those areas. The Senator from Nevada is talking about those issues. The issue that has been raised by the Senator from California is the issue of royalties paid with respect to the extraction of oil. My understanding of this issue--and I know there has been a discussion of it at some length here--is that in integrated oil companies, where you have oil companies raising oil and then selling it to themselves, the value of the oil they are pulling from the ground is an issue they largely decide and report to the Government and say: By the way, that oil didn't have much value; therefore, I am not going to pay you much in royalties. So when the folks get out there and look at these sweetheart transactions from companies which own each other, one to another, they discover that this oil has been radically undervalued, and the interests that have been denied the rightful opportunities here are the American public; the American people haven't gotten their royalties. They have not received the fair amount of royalties. When the oilers go look at this, they say, you can't do that, you can't undervalue this, and therefore cheat the public out of what is theirs. I guess the dispute here is a circumstance where someday we want that to continue to exist: Let them continue to sell oil to themselves, and price the way they want to, and avoid paying royalties. The Senator from Nevada makes the point that when we do that, we end up not getting the money we should get for the American public, and these royalties belong to the public. Second, we don't have the resources we need, then, to make the investments in children, health care, and other things. That is the point, I think, the Senator from Nevada makes. I find it interesting. I was a State tax administrator in the State of North Dakota before I came to this body, and I will give you another example that is almost exactly like this. We had to value railroads. We had to establish a value on railroads for tax purposes. The railroads said to the State of North Dakota, well, the value of the railroads is computed by describing all of the stock and all of the debt, assuming you bought all the stock and assumed the debt. That is what the railroads told the State. The railroads said: By the way, the value of our stock is par value, which is printed on the certificate. Of course, that is not the value of the stock. But for many years the State of North Dakota accepted par value on the stock as representative of the value of the railroad. They radically underpaid their taxes because of it. When I became tax administrator, having taken a look at that, I decided that was not going to stand. Of course, the railroads didn't like it at all when we changed the method. That is exactly what is at stake here with respect to the oil companies. They sell oil to themselves and underprice it so they can avoid paying royalties to the American people, who are owed these royalties, and they don't want this interrupted. They say: We don't want to change the way we are doing this; we like it. Of course they like it, because they are not paying the royalties they owe to the American people. The Senator from Nevada makes the point that it is not fair.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to let my colleagues know that I am a cosponsor of S. 1473, the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Act. I believe this bill is an important step in the right direction, though I still have serious concerns about the discrepancy of funding levels between rural and urban Empowerment Zones. First, let me say I strongly support the Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Community concept. Areas that are designated as Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities combine tax credits and social service grants to promote long-term economic revitalization. These communities take a grassroots approach to revitalization by building partnerships with local government, non-profit groups and the private sector--thus allowing the federal government to support the work done on a local level. The problem, Mr. President, is that Round II Empowerment Zones are not fully funded and are not receiving the same tax benefits as Round I Empowerment Zones. Will Rogers once said, ``I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.'' I'm afraid this holds all too true for those who have struggled to see the Round II Empowerment Zones live up to their expectation. When the Griggs/Steele Empowerment Zone in eastern North Dakota was designated a Round II Empowerment Zone last year, the federal government made a commitment to help leaders in these communities create jobs and economic opportunity. Unfortunately, however, this Empowerment Zone still hasn't received one dime of federal funding. Those who live in the Griggs/Steele Empowerment Zone are now beginning to question the commitment of the federal government to make good on its promises. I am co-sponsoring this bill because I think Congress has a responsibility to do the right thing and fully fund Round II Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities throughout this country. Having said that, I am very concerned about the discrepancy in funding between rural and urban areas. Like far too many proposals we debate here in Congress, this bill disproportionately grants much more funding for urban areas than rural areas. Of the $1.75 billion this legislation would provide over 9 years, urban areas receive almost 86% of the total funding. Although I recognize that we've made some progress and narrowed the gap that existed between rural and urban areas in the original proposal, I hope we can do more to help rural areas of this country currently facing so many challenges to economic prosperity. Despite my concerns about the bill on these grounds, I am cosponsoring this legislation because I recognize that Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities need this funding in a timely manner to accomplish the economic revitalization the federal government promised. I will continue to work to ensure that rural Round II EZ/ECs receive the full funding and tax benefits they deserve.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the bankruptcy bill which is before the Senate all first-degree amendments must be filed by 3:15 p.m. and second- degree amendments be filed by 5:30 p.m. My understanding is both the majority and minority have cleared this unanimous consent request.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Iowa yield for a moment to allow me to propound a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might inquire, I had sought consent to speak for 10 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. DORGAN. I was speaking in morning business.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today there was an announcement by the Commerce Department about this country's monthly trade deficit. This month our trade deficit in goods and services surged to a high of $25.2 billion just for the month. If you are just worried about manufactured goods, it's much higher than that; but for goods and services, the trade deficit was $25.2 billion just this month. It is the 7th consecutive month. We have a very serious trade deficit problem and nothing seems to be being done about it. I want to show my colleagues a chart that describes what is happening with both exports and imports in this country. Incidentally, this will be met with a large yawn tomorrow in the newspapers. I assume the daily papers here in Washington, DC, will go to the same so-called experts for comments about what is causing the trade deficit. They will give the same comments they have given month after month, year after year. In fact, in the old days they used to say that the reason we have a trade deficit is because we have a fiscal policy deficit and as soon as we get rid of the budget or fiscal policy deficit, we will not run a trade deficit. Of course that is not the case. The trade deficit continues to grow at an alarming pace, even when the Federal budget deficit is largely erased. The question is whether this Congress and this administration will decide that the current trade policy, which is drowning this country in red ink, will be changed and if so how it will be changed. I find it interesting that we are now headed towards a World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, in late November and early December. During that first week of December, our trade officials will go to Seattle and talk with representatives from other countries around the world, talking about our trade policies. If ever there was a need for this country to decide its current trade strategy is unworkable, it is now, at this moment. I thought it would be interesting to talk a little bit about what our trade officials have been doing while this huge trade deficit continues to explode. Recently, this country got angry with the European Union for, among other things, the European Union's refusal to lower barriers to the import of bananas into Europe. We do not produce bananas, but large American companies produce bananas in the Caribbean. They wanted to ship these bananas into Europe, but Europe didn't want their bananas. This got us upset, so this country is taking tough action against Europe. We said, Europe, if you don't shape up this is what we are going to do. We are going to impose 100 percent tariffs on your products and selected the products we want to impose 100 percent tariffs on. We went through a similar dispute with the European Union over imports of beef with growth hormones. And we imposed 100 percent tariffs on selected products. Let me show you what they are, among others: Roquefort cheese. That is getting tough, imposing a 100 percent tariff on Roquefort cheese. Goose livers--that's going to scare the devil out of the Europeans, a 100 percent tariff on goose livers. How about chilled truffles? That is getting tough. And animal bladders. So this country cranks up all its energy because we can't get bananas we don't produce into Europe. In our dispute over beef hormones, we decide that we are going to clamp down on goose livers, truffles, and animal bladders. That is a trade strategy? I don't think so. If down at Trade Ambassador's office, down at Commerce or elsewhere, you want to do something to help this country's trade balance, then get serious about it. Do something to stand up for this country's producers. Force open foreign markets and demand--literally demand--other countries to stop the dumping of products into our marketplace below their acquisition cost, injuring our producers. I have talked for a moment about goose livers, truffles, Roquefort cheese and animal bladders. Let me talk about something that is a bit different--durum wheat that is being hauled into this country from Canada in record supply. In North Dakota we produce 80 percent of all the durum produced in America. Durum, by the way, is ground into semolina flour and then turned into pasta. If you eat pasta, you are likely eating something that came from a field in North Dakota. Guess what is happening? Our farmers are losing money hand over fist, and at the same time Canadian farmers are dumping massive quantities of durum wheat into our marketplace, undercutting our farmers and injuring them badly. What are we doing about it? Nothing. We don't lift a finger. We are willing to go to war over truffles and goose livers. We are willing to take tough action against the Europeans with Roquefort cheese. Do you think anybody will go to the northern border and decide to stop unfair trade coming into this country, injuring our family farmers? No. Not with this trade strategy. This Congress and this administration need to understand that this is a very serious problem. Today's announcement of a $25.2 billion trade deficit for the month of July suggests again that we must take additional action. As we head towards the December meeting of the World Trade Organization, and as we see this morning's announcement about the trade deficit, I hope meetings here in the Congress, and with the administration, will allow us to develop a trade strategy that better represents this country's economic interests, stands up for this country's producers, and demands open foreign markets. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Vermont wants to speak on the bill that is going to be pending so at this point let me yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, with respect to the question offered by the Senator from Florida, my understanding is that the caps established in the Balanced Budget Act represent aggregate caps and one can have individual subcommittees coming out with spending levels, and if those spending levels in the aggregate, with all the subcommittees, exceed the caps, you have a problem. This particular subcommittee has worked very hard to try to produce an appropriations bill that is responsible. Nearly one-half of all Federal law enforcement is in this particular subcommittee. People do not understand that. But Customs, Secret Service, and a range of other law enforcement activities to fight drugs and crime exist in this bill. Almost one-half of Federal law enforcement is in this piece of legislation. I will not repeat what the Senator from Colorado described about what we did in the subcommittee. But I think it is responsible and thoughtful and most every Member of the Senate thinks it is a pretty good investment. One of the things we didn't do in this piece of legislation is fund courthouse construction. Does there need to be some money invested in courthouses around the country to rehab some old courthouses and rebuild some? Yes, but we simply didn't have the money. We were short of resources. We had to make some difficult choices. That was one of them. It is not that the Senator from Colorado and I believe there is not a need; there is a need. But we just weren't able to respond to that. I would like to add to his comments with respect to the work that has been done both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on this bill. On my staff, Chip Walgren, Barbara Retzlaff, and Dylan Presman did excellent work, and Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, and Lula Edwards of the majority staff have done wonderful work. It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Campbell. He is easy to work with. He is thoughtful and wants to do the right thing. It is a pleasure to work with someone with that kind of interest. The subcommittee bill is a piece of legislation that strengthens the Government's commitment to fight drugs and crime, and the Department of the Treasury, as I indicated, has a critical law enforcement role. That is funded in this piece of legislation. One of the pieces of legislation inside this bill is called the GREAT Program--Gang Resistance Education and Training Program. One day not too long ago, I was invited to go over to Anacostia to a junior high school for a ceremony where some young kids were graduating from the GREAT Program, the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program. This is a school, by the way, that has had significant gang problems and a great deal of crime. One of the police officers who is assigned to that school full time came to the meeting we had on Capitol Hill. He was describing the problems in that school--horrendous problems. We called to see if perhaps the GREAT Program could be taken to that school because they weren't participating. That program was taken over to the school, and the first graduates received their diplomas. I went over that day with the commissioner. It was really quite remarkable. It is a wonderful program to invest in to try to educate young people about the dangers of gangs and drugs and crime. Part of this legislation is to make the right kind of investments to prevent activities in this country that we know are destructive. This piece of legislation continues to reform the IRS. It modernizes the Federal Election Commission. Several pieces we have put in this bill are the first steps in modernizing the FEC --the first steps that have been taken for a long, long while. I commend this legislation to my colleagues. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will approve the work of this subcommittee. The conference with the House was difficult, but I think it produced a result that is fair and one that will merit the support of the Members of the Senate. Again, I thank Senator Campbell, who I think does a remarkable job, and his staff and the staff that has worked so hard on my behalf on the legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Minnesota yielding for a question. I suppose some people get irritated about those of us, Senator Wellstone, myself, Senator Conrad, Senator Harkin, and others who come to the floor to talk so much about the plight of family farmers. But at a time when our newspapers trumpet the growing economy and the good news on Wall Street with a stock market that keeps going up, at the same time we have a full-scale crisis in rural America with grain prices for family farmers in constant dollars being about where they were in the Great Depression. I held a meeting with Senator Wellstone in Minnesota. I held a hearing with Senator Harkin in Iowa. During the August break we held a hearing in North Dakota under the auspices of the Democratic Policy Committee, and we heard the same thing we have been hearing; that is, we have a serious problem with low prices. You cannot solve this without dealing with prices. Farmers are paying more for what they purchase and getting less for what they sell. I wanted to just mention two items and then ask the Senator from Minnesota a question. We had a Unity Day rally in North Dakota; 1,600 farmers came. The most memorable moment, I guess, was from a fellow named Arlo, who was an auctioneer. He told of doing an auction sale at this family farm. A little boy came up to him at the end of the sale and grabbed him by the leg, and with tears in his eyes, shouted up at him, he said: You sold my dad's tractor. The auctioneer, named Arlo, he kind of put his hand on the boy's shoulder to calm him down a bit. The boy wasn't to be calmed. He had tears in his eyes. He said: I wanted to drive that tractor when I got big. That is what this is about. The mother who lost her farm, who wrote to me and said during the auction sale her 17-year-old son refused to come out of the house to help with the auction sale, refused to come out of his bedroom. That was not because he is a bad kid, but because he so desperately wanted to keep that family farm and was so absolutely heartbroken and could not bring himself to participate in the sale of that farm. That is the human misery that exists on today's family farms. They are the canary in the mine shaft, with this kind of economic circumstance. Somehow there is a suggestion that what matters in this country is the Dow Jones Industrial Average and not a beautiful wheat field or cattle in the pasture or a hardware store on Main Street. Somehow it is just all numbers and it doesn't matter whether we have a lot of farmers or a couple of corporate farms. I ask the Senator from Minnesota during his travels--I know Senator Wellstone was not only in Minnesota but all around this country in August at farm unity rallies--if he heard anyone, anywhere, believing the so-called Freedom to Farm bill made any sense at all? That is the Freedom to Farm bill that pulls the rug out from under family farmers and says it doesn't matter what the market price of grain is, you operate the market. You don't need a safety net. A lot of other folks in the country have safety nets, but the farmers are told, no, you don't need a safety net. Did the Senator find anybody in this country who said: I wrote that bill, I stand behind that bill, that bill makes good sense, and that bill is working? (Mr. BUNNING assumed the chair.)

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

Mr. DORGAN. If I can further inquire of the Senator from Minnesota, he is going to be joined and is joined by a number of our colleagues who insist we do something about this farm problem. It is not satisfactory to watch the auction sales occur across the heartland of this country. If you take a look at what is going on in our country and evaluate where we are losing population--I have a map I have shown many times on the floor of the Senate where I have outlined in red all of the counties that have lost more than 10 percent of its population, and we have a huge red circle in the middle of America. Those counties are losing population. We are depopulating the farm belt in this country because somehow we are told the future of agriculture is the future of corporate agriculture, corporate agrifactories. We can raise hogs by the thousands; we can raise chickens by the millions; we do not need real people driving tractors; we do not need real people living on the land; corporations can farm America from California to Maine. When that happens, if that happens, this country will have lost something very important. I do not know whether the Senator from Minnesota has read Richard Critchfield. He is an author who has passed away. He was from Fargo, ND, originally. He went on to become a world- renowned author. He wrote a lot of books about rural America. One of the things he wrote about was the refreshment of family values in this country always rolled from family farms to small towns to big cities. The seedbed of family values was always coming from America's family farms--raising a barn after a disaster, the pie socials, the gatherings on Saturday in the small town to celebrate the harvest, the family values that come from living on the land, raising food for a hungry nation, raising children in a crime-free environment, building a school, building communities, building churches, building a way of life. Somehow we are told those are values that do not matter. What matters is the marketplace, the market system, so if huge grain companies decide when a farmer plants a crop and harvests a crop and takes it to the market that the crop is not worth anything, that is the way life is. At the same time that farmer is driving a crop to the elevator and told the food does not have any value, we have old women climbing trees in the Sudan foraging for leaves to eat because they are desperately on the verge of starvation. There is something broken about this system. Family farmers are told with the Freedom to Farm they are free. Are you free from monopolistic railroads that overcharge? They do. In our North Dakota, our Public Service Commission said they overcharge over $100 million just in our State, and most of that is from farmers. Are you free of grain trade monopolies that choke the economic life out of farmers? They are not free from that. Are you free from mergers and concentrations so that in every direction a farmer looks they find two or three firms controlling it all? Do you want to fatten up a steer and ship the steer to a packing plant? Good for you because you have three choices that slaughter 80 percent of the steers in America. Do you think that is a deck that is stacked against you? Or how about this, free from trade agreements that stack the deck against family farmers? Try to take a load of durum wheat into Canada. I did once. We had millions--12 million bushels--of Canadian durum wheat shipped into this country undermining our market in the first 6 months of this year alone. I went up with a man named Earl in a 12-year-old orange truck with 200 bushels of durum. All the way to the border, we found these trucks with millions of bushels of wheat coming south. I know I have told the story before. If people are tired of hearing it, it does not matter to me a bit. I will continue talking about it because it talks about the fundamental unfairness of our trade. We got to the border with Earl's orange truck and 200 bushels. We were stopped at the border because you cannot get that American durum into Canada. Why? Because our trade agreements that have been made by trade negotiators who have forgotten who they work for are incompetent trade agreements that sold out the interests of family farmers in this country. Farmers have every right to be very angry about it and ought to demand it changes. Those are a few areas--mergers and concentration, grain trade, railroads, bad trade agreement, and a Freedom to Farm bill that says price support for farmers do not matter much. We know how wrong that is. The question for this country of ours is this: We ramped up as a nation a few years ago to save Mexico in times of serious financial crisis. Will a country that is willing to ramp up its effort to save a neighbor, will a country that is willing to commit $50 billion to save Mexico decide that it is worth saving family farmers in times of crisis? We have people who say it is not worth that, we ought not take the time, we do not have the ability, we do not have the money, we do not have the ideas, they say. This is not rocket science. It is easy. I say, change the Freedom to Farm bill to a bill that says how about freedom to make a decent living. If you grow food and are good at it, there ought to be a connection between efforts and reward. We ought not have the notion there are minimum wages and minimum opportunities and all kinds of other safety nets across the country, but for families who stay on American farms and raise their kids and support small towns, there is nothing but a bleak future because corporations are taking over what they do, and that is just fine for the future, some will say. It is not fine for the future. This is about who we are as a country, who we want to be. It is about the soul of this country, and if this country, as Thomas Jefferson used to say, does not care about broad- based economic ownership and opportunity for the American people, then it will quickly lose its political freedoms as well. Political freedom relates to economic freedom. Economic freedom comes from broad-based economic ownership, and nowhere is that more important and more evident than in the production of this country's food. I ask the Senator from Minnesota one question: Isn't it the case that there are 7 million people in Europe farming who get a decent price for their farm product because the countries of Europe have been hungry and have decided, as a matter of national security and economic and social policy, they want families living on the farm operating European farms? Isn't it the case that is the policy in Europe--and God bless them and good for them--and that policy is contrasted with folks, some in this Chamber, who say that ought not be the policy? Our policy ought to be to say whatever happens happen; if corporations farm America, that is fine. Isn't that the case? Isn't that the dichotomy of the two policies?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. If my colleague will yield, this is remarkable. I was eating Grape Nuts, actually, when I read that this morning. That is not always a pleasant experience unless you have plenty of sugar. And then you get the newspaper and you read a headline that says, ``GOP Seeks to Ease Crunch With 13-Month Fiscal Year.'' I am thinking to myself, I have been around this place for some time and have grappled with a lot of fiscal policy problems. If we had thought of this a long while ago, we would not have all of these problems. If you have a problem, just change the calendar. That would raise of course the question of what to name this new month. I suppose if they were really serious they could do what all the sports stadiums do, and just sell the name. How much money could you raise with a Microsoft month or a US Airways month? I suppose there are all kinds of possibilities along this line. But I think most people would look at this and say that it is not very serious governance--when you have a problem you cannot fix you create another month and then pretend you fixed it. Some State legislative bodies have a rule that they must adjourn by a particular time. So what they do occasionally, is to take a black cloth and cover the clock. Now we have budgeteers who think the way to solve a fiscal problem is to add another month to the calendar. I don't know. We hear a lot of Byzantine and bizarre suggestions in this Chamber from time to time. But this one has to rank right up there. As a young schoolboy in the southwestern ranching country of North Dakota, I learned the days of the months through a little ditty. We all know it. Perhaps now it should be changed: Thirty days hath September, April, June, and November, All the rest have 31, Except the Republicans, They have an extra month. This is going to be confusing to a whole generation of schoolchildren if the GOP decides they are going to mess with the calendar. We have had the lunar calendar, the solar calendar, the Gregorian calendar--I assume my colleague explained much of the history of the calendar. Perhaps the creative minds here in the Senate will make history when they try to find their way out of the corner into which they have painted themselves. Let me yield the floor at this point to my colleague from North Dakota.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have had an opportunity to discuss this a bit, the gimmickry of doing all of these things. I was talking to my colleague, Senator Byrd, who has spent a great deal of time on the floor telling us about Roman history. We were just discussing the front page of this morning's newspaper with the headline about the easing of the fiscal crunch by creating a 13th month. Senator Byrd indicated that Julius Caesar in trying to reconstruct the calendar, somewhere around 46 B.C., decided he was going to have a 15-month year. Senator Byrd knows about all of these things. He has given wonderful lectures on the floor of the Senate about the rich history of the Roman Empire. I just now learned this from our distinguished colleague. So apparently, I would say to Senator Conrad, what we are discussing today has been done before. Julius Caesar did it, and he added 3 months to the calendar, apparently.

Mr. DORGAN. Certainly.

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield, it seems to me that lends credibility to the question of whether or not this ought to be done. Those of us who wonder whether this is a good idea might take lessons from the history that is offered by Senator Byrd.

Mr. DORGAN. They have already weighed in. They would prefer it fall in the summer. My children are in seventh and fifth grades, and if there is to be an extra month, they would prefer it fall somewhere in the summer.

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield, there is nothing to stop the Senate at 13 months. This relates to the whole aging process, which I think would be of great interest to a number of Senators. If this Senate enacted a longer year, and perhaps went to 15, 18, or even 19 months, we would have folks running for election who are 75 years old but who could claim they are only 68.

Mr. DORGAN. That's right, or Microsoft month or U.S. Steel----

Mr. DORGAN. No. In fact, I was thinking this morning when I read this that we probably should have some kind of a contest, to create a name. Then too, as I indicated earlier, almost everyone today is selling names. If this is institutionalized as a month without a name, clearly one could offer it for sale.