Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I intend to support the legislation the Senator just described. The Senator from Pennsylvania described a condition with the steel industry that relates to, among other things, the lack of enforcement of trade laws. In North Dakota, we don't produce steel. We don't have a foundry that produces a substantial amount of steel. We don't have steelworkers. However, we have farmers in almost exactly the same set of circumstances. At least part of that reason is because of bad trade agreements, or trade agreements that have not been enforced. A number of Senators, I am sure, will support the initiative tomorrow. I think tomorrow is actually a vote on the motion to proceed. I believe it is important to stand up for our economic interests. It is not about protectionism; it is about standing up for our country's economic interests and making sure we enforce trade laws. If someone is dumping in our country--whether it is steel or wheat--we ought to expect, as a steel industry or as family farmers, that our Federal Government will take action to enforce our trade laws. I agree with the statement of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I think a number of Senators, tomorrow, will be in agreement on that basic premise. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a vial filled with chopped up copper. This copper came from the wiring of a nuclear submarine the Soviet Union used to operate on the high seas with missiles and warheads pointed at the United States. This submarine is gone. Its wiring has been chopped up. It was done so under an arms control agreement. We did not sink it. It was dismantled under an arms control agreement. We must continue to work in every way to make progress in nonproliferation agreements and test ban treaties, and one of those steps of progress, I hope, with the cooperation of all our colleagues, will be to debate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the next week, 2 weeks, month or 2 months, in the summer of 1999.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, since I have a few minutes, I will speak about the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. There was a piece in today's Washington Post which caught my eye, written by Mr. Paul Nitze, a former arms control negotiator and ambassador-at-large in the Reagan administration. It was coauthored by another gentleman. They made this point: Approval of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by the Senate is essential in order for the United States to be in the strongest possible position to press for the early enforcement of this vital agreement. Failure to act will undercut our diplomatic efforts to combat the threat from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I admit, I am not an expert in this area. I am not on the relevant committees, but I take a great interest in the question of the proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems for nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons known to mankind, the most destructive weapons that have ever been developed on this Earth. There are numerous reasons why nations in this world seek to develop nuclear weapons. They are considered by some nations as a measure of their standing and prestige in the world. Others view them as the ultimate insurance policy. But, in fact, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the sheer number of nuclear weapons make this a pretty unsafe world. The proposition has been, going back to President Eisenhower's time, that we ought to achieve a treaty banning the testing of nuclear weapons. In May of 1961, President Eisenhower said: Not achieving a test ban would have to be classed as the greatest disappointment of any administration, of any decade, of any time, and of any party. President Kennedy's speech at American University 36 years ago addressed the need for a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He said: A test ban would help check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. We must check the spiraling arms race. Since the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, the leaders of this Nation have worked and labored with other countries to fashion an agreement that would ban further testing of nuclear weapons. Imagine their satisfaction if they could know that today 152 nations have signed such an agreement, including China and Russia. Although 152 nations have signed such an agreement, we have not yet acted on that agreement in the Senate, and it is my profound hope that sometime in the near future, in the next weeks or the next couple of months, in this summer of 1999, that the Senate will review, debate and vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I have spoken a couple of times in this Chamber on this issue. I am not critical of anyone. There are strongly held views. I do not even know how the vote would go if we had this vote. But I feel very strongly we should have this debate and vote. I have in this desk a reminder of the danger that existed in this country during the cold war that just ended with the old Soviet Union. I ask unanimous consent to show it to my colleagues.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, in response to the Senator from North Carolina, I am going to introduce a bill. That will take about 4 or 5 minutes. Then I want to make a brief statement, perhaps 5 minutes or 7 minutes or so, on the test ban treaty. My intention would be probably no more than 10 or 12 minutes.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator from North Carolina allowing me to speak. We are on a very important piece of legislation, and he is managing it. These are all very important issues. I wish my colleagues well as they work through their bill in the next day or so. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 1252 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I wanted to ask a question about the characterization that the Senator made with respect to the action that was taken to send the amendment to the desk. It is not an amendment of the agricultural interests here. I know the offering of the amendment--I sent the amendment at the request of Senator Daschle. I know that was not a surprise. Senator Daschle announced last Thursday it was going to happen if there was not some sort of understanding reached with the majority leader. I wanted to say this. The underlying bill is very important, the agriculture appropriations bill. It does not, however, contain the emergency response to the farm crisis that we must add to it at some point here. I hope we will do it in a bipartisan way. But the interest that Senator Daschle has in trying to move forward with debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights doesn't in any way diminish the interest and importance of the agriculture appropriations bill.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am introducing today a piece of legislation called the Standardized School Report Card Act, along with my colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Byrd. Every 6 to 9 weeks every parent in this country who has children in our public schools gets a report card to tell him or her how that student is doing in school. Rarely, however, do parents get a report card telling them how the school is doing for the students. A number of States already do have school report cards--about 36, actually--but they vary around the country. Some have almost no information. Others are hundreds of pages long and very difficult to understand. Regardless, however, most parents never see a report card for their child's school. I think it would be useful, and my colleagues do as well, to ask that there be a uniform or standardized school report card that will allow parents to understand what they are getting for the dollars they are investing in that school. What is their school doing versus the neighboring town's school? How are the schools in one State doing versus schools in another State? How can you compare what the parents and taxpayers are getting with respect to the dollars invested in education? The Standardized School Report Card Act will require schools to report on eight key, basic areas in their report card and do so in an easily understandable manner. The eight areas graded in the report cards would be: students' performance, attendance and graduation rates, professional qualifications of teachers, average class size, school safety, parental involvement, student drop-out rates, and access to technology. Some might say this legislation is unnecessary because there are already some States that do have school report cards. As I have already indicated, that is true. However, the content varies widely, so they are not good tools for comparison. In my home State of North Dakota, the State Department of Public Instruction has designed a school district profile that is published for each school district. It does include a lot of interesting information, but a numbers of areas that are required under this legislation are not covered at all. My point is that we have a public education system in this country on which we spend a great deal of money. We send our young boys and girls to the classroom door, and we invest money, we build the schools, pay teachers, and buy the books. The question is, What do we get for all of that? Most of the classrooms I have visited are led and taught by wonderful teachers. I am very impressed by many of the schools I have had an opportunity to visit across the country and especially in North Dakota. As a nation, when we spend $350 billion a year to provide an education to elementary and secondary students, parents and taxpayers need some uniform way to understand how there school is doing versus other schools. How is our State doing versus other States relative to the investments we are making in education? That is the basis for the school report card legislation which I am introducing today. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bingaman and Byrd in introducing this bill, and I hope others of our colleagues will join us in cosponsoring it.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Yes.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am asked to send an amendment to the desk for Senator Daschle. I do so at this point and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DORGAN. The share the farmer gets from the food dollar has diminished about 20 percent. All the other interests that touch what the farmers produce make a lot of money, and many of them are making record profits right now. The farmer raises the grain; buys the tractor, plows the ground in the spring, tends the land; and takes all the risk. They harvest it and work hard. Family farmers don't make much money. Now they are losing a lot of money. Even in the best of years they don't make that much money, taking into account all the unforeseen risks. They put the product on a railcar to market; it goes to a cereal manufacturing plant. The rail car company makes money and the railroad companies are making record profits. The grain trade makes profits. The grain goes to a cereal plant and they take that wheat and inject it with some air. Now it becomes puffed wheat. They package it in a bright colored, big box, with cellophane wrapping that can't be opened in the morning and they send it to a grocery store. Farmers, last year, lost their shirt on the very same wheat that was puffed up by air and produced by the cereal manufacturers. The farmers lost their shirt; the cereal manufacturers make record profits. Something is wrong. Those who haul it, those who trade it--every step along the way the big economic interests are making big profits. It is the folks who grow it that are told: No, somehow you don't matter. On this Earth, every single month, we add another New York City in population; every single month we add another New York. Yet, the farmer is told by the grain trade--when the farmer loads the truck and takes it to the elevator--that this grain isn't worth very much; this food isn't worth very much. We are told half a billion people go to bed every night with an ache in their belly and it hurts to be hungry. Most of them are kids. Half a billion go to bed every night with an ache in their belly because they are hungry. Far more people are malnourished than that. And we are adding a New Yorker to the City every month, yet we have farmers in Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, Mississippi, and Wisconsin going broke because they are told--after all of their work, all of their risk, all of their dreams--that the grain they produce doesn't have value. They load the truck, go to the elevator, and get the message. The message is, food doesn't have much value. Within recent months, we had people come to Capitol Hill to testify about the famine in the Sudan. We had testimony by people talking about old women climbing trees to gather leaves to eat because there is nothing to eat, and our farmers are told: Your food has no value. If we get past the question of, does food have value, there is a larger question. Who farms in this country, and does it matter? Family farmers are more than just planters. It is the family farm around my hometown of Regent, ND, that provides the blood vessels which make that small community live. It is the family farmer who helps build the church. It is the family farmer who helps keep the main street open. It is the family farmer who helps create a rural lifestyle. This is more than just a question of, does food have value; it is, who is going to farm in our country? Some say: Let the corporations farm. They are fine; they can farm America from California to Maine. That is true. And we will have no population left in the middle part of our country. This map demonstrates what is happening in the middle part of our country. The red represents the counties that have lost more than 15 percent of their population. You can see what is happening. In the middle part of America, we are depopulating a significant part of our country. People are leaving, not coming. I was in two different counties on Saturday in North Dakota. One county lost 60 percent of its population, and one of them had lost 50 percent of its population in the last 25 years. Picture trying to do business in a small town, in an area that has lost 60 percent of its population. That is trying to do business in a depression. It matters who farms--not just what is the return, what is the price of grain, but that we do we have a system that encourages family farming. Is the family, as an economic unit, something that has merit and value? Some say, let the market decide that. The market is not an allocator of all goods and services in a fair way at all times. There are times when we have to be a referee in the marketplace. That is why we have had a farm program. If we hadn't had a farm program, we probably wouldn't have any family farmers now. When prices collapse and you have the valley, the only way family farmers get across the valley is by building a bridge called price support. Three or 4 years ago we were told: That is old fashioned; blow up the bridge. So Congress did--I didn't vote for that. It was called the Freedom to Farm bill. We blew up the bridge and pulled the rug from the family farmers. Let them go to the market. Whatever the grain trade says is the price, that is the market price. We found out that is absurd. That doesn't work. China, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and Europe are engaged in the kind of trade practices that restrict our products, there are sanctions against food--some of which have, fortunately, been revoked--the farmer finds it can't sell into certain markets, it is locked out of about 11 percent of the international wheat market. In my judgment, sanctions should almost never be put on. Hubert Humphrey used to say, send them anything they can't shoot back. It certainly makes sense to be able to send food to people who are hungry in the world. That has nothing to do with foreign policy or with guns. When there is a sanction, certainly farmers should have been paid. Why should farmers bear the cost of this country's national security issues? We have had the sanctions, have had a range of other trade issues and farmers have always been the victims. There is a way, it seems to me, for Congress, with both Republicans and Democrats to decide jointly that family farmers ought not continue to be victims in this country on trade policy or agricultural policy or policies dealing with market concentration. We need to do much better than that. Frankly, in recent years, I think we have let the farmers down. This bill is an appropriations bill. There is much in it that is important. I say to the Senator from Wisconsin, your work and the work of Senator Cochran is very important work, as is the work of both staffs on the subcommittee. I was pleased for the first time this year to be able to join the subcommittee. It is an important subcommittee that makes critical investments in a wide range of agricultural issues. At the end of the day, when all of this is clear, we must do something about prices for family farmers. If we don't do that, all of this other investment is not going to be very productive for our country. We must do something to address the question of price collapse. We offered an amendment in the emergency supplemental bill a couple of months ago. Senator Harkin and I offered that amendment. I recall, I think, it was midnight or so when Senator Harkin was recognized to offer it. He spoke, I spoke, and several others spoke. Then we had a vote. We made the points, I and Senator Harkin, about the difficult time in agriculture, the real crisis that exists at this point. The vote, I believe, was probably a vote on tabling or a vote up or down. We lost on a 14-14 tie vote, and that was only with the Senate conferees. I know the Senator from Iowa is going to offer an amendment, and I certainly intend to join him during this appropriations process, to have a discussion about that amendment, about an emergency farm bill that puts some resources into rural America to try to respond to this farm crisis. I am not now going to speak at much greater length on the amendment. I have more things to say, and I will say them at a more appropriate time. My expectation is this legislation will be on the floor for some while. I do want to speak at greater length about some of these farm issues, and my colleague from Iowa and others have a fair amount to say as well about these issues.

Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to make a few opening comments as a member of the subcommittee. The Appropriations Committee is an interesting and a very productive committee. I am a member of the subcommittee that is chaired by Senator Cochran from Mississippi and whose ranking member is Senator Kohl from Wisconsin. I commend them for the job they do. It is not an easy job. We have the classic problem of economizing. The definition by an economist of that is trying to fulfill unlimited wants with limited resources. That is not a very easy thing to do. As I start, let me again compliment the work of Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl. I will talk also about some of the challenges that we face that are not in any way addressed by this legislation. The legislation funds a range of issues with respect to the Department of Agriculture and agricultural programs. We need to do better in some of those areas. I specifically mention the human nutrition study programs that exist in USDA. The administration had proposed a very substantial investment in those programs. We have not been able to meet that. I hope we can, because the work that goes on in those human nutrition labs is very important work in the nutrition area. There are a number of other areas where we need to do better in research and agricultural-related areas, but I want to talk a bit about the crisis that faces our family farmers. We are going to have a Democratic Policy Committee hearing on Wednesday morning here in the Capitol from 9:30 to 11:30 on this subject: the farm crisis. We have a very serious problem on America's family farms. Frankly, we need to address it. I hope we can do that in a bipartisan manner. This weekend I was in North Dakota. I drove to Finely, ND, for an event in the American Legion hall in Finely that had to do with a rural empowerment zone. Once again, in Finely, ND, as I would have found in every part of North Dakota, family farmers told me that they are not going to be able to make it much longer unless something changes. You cannot plant seeds in our ground, then tend those seeds, fertilize, spray for pests, hope they grow, hope it doesn't hail, hope the plants develop, hope it doesn't rain too much but rains enough, hope against crop disease and then, at the end, finally harvest that grain and take it to the elevator, only to discover that the elevator or the grain trader is willing to pay you a $1, $1.50 or $2 a bushel less than what it cost to produce the grain. That is not a formula for success. That is a formula for failure. Most family farmers know they will not last long with that kind of a formula. Will Rogers once said: When there is no place left to spit, you either have to swallow your tobacco juice or change with the times. Well, there is no place left to spit. That is not a delicate way to say it, but there is no place left to spit on these issues. The current farm program is not providing price supports that are able to help family farmers continue in operation during a time of collapsed prices. It just isn't. We had to do an emergency piece last year, and we did that in the appropriations process. I commend all of those who were involved in it, including the Senator from Mississippi. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, myself and many others worked to make sure that we did an emergency piece that provided some income support for families during collapsed prices. But the prices are still collapsed. We will not have many family farmers left unless we provide some mechanism of supporting prices here in the Congress. Is it our job? No, it would be better if we could get the price in the marketplace. But that is not happening. The price in the marketplace is dismal. Farmers are told that their hogs aren't worth much and their cattle are not worth much. The grain isn't worth much too. There was a time when you could speak on the Senate floor when the farmer was hauling a hog to market and getting 10 cents a pound. In fact, that farmer could go to the grocery store in that small town and discover that it would cost him three times as much to buy a relatively small ham than he was able to get for the whole hog. Now, there is something wrong with that. When prices collapse, if we want family farmers left in our country's future, then we have to do something about it. My colleague from Minnesota talked about the need to reform the system. I was not able today to hear my colleague from Mississippi or my colleague from Wisconsin as they opened this discussion, but I know that they are well aware of the farm crisis. I will hold up a couple charts, if I might. This chart shows the number of farm youth, down 82 percent since 1970, fairly steadily. We are ending up without any young people left in rural America. This chart shows the last year for which we have net income data. It shows the change in net income, 1996 and 1997. We do not have the next 2 years. North Dakota lost 90 percent of its net income; Minnesota, 42 percent. These are net income losses. It would be interesting to know, I wonder how any wage earner would handle it if 90 percent of their income were gone. I wonder what Wall Street would do if they discovered that some industry of theirs had suffered a 90-percent loss. Think that would crash, that industry? You bet your life, in a moment. But on the family farm, in 1 year a change in net income, down 38 percent in Nebraska, 28 percent in South Dakota, 90 percent in North Dakota, these figures change from year to year and State to State. The fact is, we have seen a dramatic change in net income in a negative way in my State and others. It results from a collapse in prices. Now, there are people who say that is because EEP wasn't used. It is because of this or that other thing, 100 different reasons. The fact is, it is price. You can come up, I suppose, with your own notions of how to increase price in the marketplace, but I think we have a failure here. The failure is that we have a farm program that says: Let us not care about supporting prices. Whatever the price in the marketplace place is, if it is 10 cents for hogs or if it is $2.50 for wheat, that is just tough luck. That is the way the market is. So let's have farmers get whatever they get from the marketplace. The problem with that is, we won't have many family farmers left, if that is the attitude we take, because the marketplace doesn't work for agriculture. There is no free market for agriculture. Everybody knows it. Anybody that comes out here and preaches about a free market for agriculture is preaching a sermon that is not worth listening to. Now, my colleague from Minnesota talked about the issue of monopolies. I want to talk about that just for a moment. I want to show a cartoon that appeared in the newspaper in Lincoln, NE, the Lincoln Journal Star. The cartoon shows something that I have previously spoken about on the floor of the Senate. The cartoon says: If the grain to make this costs pennies--talking about grocery cereal--and I have to pay $3.95, who gets all the rest? And here is a picture of a farmer giving up. It is interesting that at a time when prices have collapsed for grain, cereal manufacturers have announced that they will increase the price of their cereal. I found it interesting that when grain prices increased a few years ago, wheat went to $5.50 a bushel, the cereal manufacturers were complaining that they had to increase cereal prices because grain prices were strengthening. So grain prices collapse, drop in half. What happens to cereal prices? They go up. What is wrong with that picture? It seems to me you would fail third grade math with that kind of calculation. The point that the Senator from Minnesota made is an accurate point. In every direction the farmer looks, the farmer faces either a monopoly or a near monopoly. Let's say the farmer raises grain and wants to have it transported. So the farmer takes it to the railroad and the railroad operator says: We will transport that grain for you. And they tell the farmer exactly what it will cost. If the farmer doesn't like it, it is tough luck. In our State, our State Public Service Commission says the railroads overcharge North Dakota, principally farmers but all businesses. They overcharge North Dakota farmers $100 million a year. How can they do that? No competition. We do not have three railroads vying for that business. When you have near monopoly or a monopoly, they charge what they want. So when the farmer goes to the grain trade and decides to sell their grain, what do they find? Only a few companies control most of the grain trade. Two of those companies now want to get married. Continental and Carghill decided they like each other so much they don't want to compete anymore. They want to get together. So now they have this merger proposal, meaning more concentration. Does that make sense for farmers? To me, it doesn't. I do not think they ought to be allowed to merge. Then when the farmers decide that they want to sell their fat steers--they had some calves and they raised some fat steers and heifers--they take them to market. Eighty-seven percent of the fat steer market slaughter in this country is controlled by three companies, three. So they tell the farmers and ranchers: Here is what we are going to pay you. They say it is a free market. Of course, it is not free. So let's assume that the grain trade wasn't throttled at the neck of the bottle by a concentration of large corporations, and instead you had a free market. Is it a free market for our producers, who raise a steer or heifer or cow and want to sell the beef to Japan, are faced with a 50-percent tariff because of a beef agreement with Japan, which does come down a little year by year, but snaps back up if you get more beef in? Currently, as I understand it, the tariff on beef going into Japan is 45 percent. Is that fair? I don't think so. Or China sends us all their shoes and trousers and shirts and trinkets, and they have a $50 billion to $60 billion trade surplus with us, or we a deficit with them, and they say: When we want wheat, we want to buy it elsewhere; plus we want to keep part of your wheat out, and we don't want your hogs at all. Is that fair trade? Does a farmer have a right to complain about that? I think so. In every single direction, farmers have a right to say it is not a free market. Let me mention trade. Our family farmers--despite having mentioned some trade with Japan and China, our family farmers are furious about our trade situation with Canada. We passed this NAFTA bill here in the Congress. I didn't vote for it, but everybody who voted for it, I guess, felt that the people who sold it said we were going to get some 300,000 new jobs in America with this NAFTA. NAFTA turned a trade surplus with Mexico into a trade deficit very quickly and doubled the trade deficit we have with Canada. Now the fancy economists who decided they wanted to make money putting out studies telling us how wonderful NAFTA was going to be are saying: Maybe we were wrong. When you pass an agreement that creates huge deficits, lose jobs instead of gaining jobs, you are wrong. But take a look at the trade back and forth across the border. What you will find with Canada is, we have massive quantities of Canadian grain coming in and undercutting our American farmers, and you can't get much American grain into Canada. I have been to the border there. I was riding in an orange truck trying to get durum wheat into Canada. I could not do it. But I saw Canadian trucks hauling Canadian wheat south. Is that fair trade? I don't think so. That is what farmers face, unequal treatment. If you wipe all that away and just have farmers trade in the open market, free trade or fair trade, then when the farmer competes against the European grain or livestock producer in an international marketplace, how do you get around the fact that the Europeans subsidize their grain sales 10 times our subsidy--10 times? We say to our farmers, well, that is fair; it would be like a competition, let's give the other team a huge head start and then say it is a fair competition. I don't know what people are thinking about. It is not fair. It doesn't make any sense. Our farmers in this country have a right to be very upset, because I don't think they have been supported very well by our range of policies, our agricultural and trade policies. They have not been fair and consistent. On the United States-Canada free trade agreement, I was in Montreal when Clayton Yeutter was negotiating with Canada. I will tell you what happened with Canada. The U.S. agricultural interests got traded away-- flat out traded away. This country got something for it. I wasn't in the room, but I guess we got access to 20-some million people for the financial services industry, and so this country got something for it. But farmers got traded way. So at the end of the time, we got an agreement that weakened section 22, all of our trade remedies, and then we got a piece of paper from Clayton Yeutter, the Trade Ambassador. I could read it, but generally the paper said we have essentially a spirit between us that, following the agreement, there will not be a substantial increase in grain flowing across the border one way or the other. That wasn't worth the paper it was written on. It was a guarantee. I was on the Ways and Means Committee; that is where this had to originate--the passing of the language on the agreement--and we got from the Trade Ambassador a guarantee that was worthless. We immediately began to see a massive quantity of grain coming into our country in a manner, in my judgment, that clearly violates our trade laws--dumping below the cost of acquisition. Now, I know some of this is probably confusing and difficult. But I want to illustrate this point. The U.S. farmers said: Wait a second, this is not fair; we were told by our Trade Ambassador's office this wasn't going to happen. We have it in writing, we have a guarantee; this isn't fair. So action was taken against the Canadians to try to stop it. Do you know what we discovered in that action? A side deal had been made between the Trade Ambassador's office and the Canadians that was never disclosed to Congress, never a part of debate. It gave to the Canadians, in selling into the American marketplace the ability to go below acquisition cost, the Canadians will not have to include their final grip payment--it is called a grip payment--to their farmers. So what they did was set aside part of the cost of the acquisition of that grain and said that will not be considered. By definition, the formula says they can sell at below cost in this marketplace and they will not be in violation, because there was a separate side deal between our Trade Ambassador and the Canadians, in effect, selling out the interests of our farmers. Do farmers have a right to be upset about that? Do they have a right to be concerned about policymakers who don't support our farmers' interests? You bet your life they do. Now, we have to decide in this Congress whether we are going to be willing to rebuild and invest and strengthen family farms. Let me make this point. I am not at all bashful about coming to the floor and saying we need this help. We were just in a conference committee--I was part of it--in which the President said: We need some additional money for Kosovo. We need money for Kosovo. So Congress said: Well, how much do you need? The President said: Well, we need $16 billion. Congress said: No, you don't need that, you need more than that. So Congress added $6 billion to the President's request, saying: We don't think you have asked for enough money. If it is for defense, we don't think you have asked for enough money. There are those who said that the sky is the limit for defense. They said: The President didn't ask for enough, and we want to add $6 billion more. I say to them, what about the issue of family farming in this country? What about the issue of agriculture? That is here at home. Those are our interests. That is not Kosovo. That is not bridges. That is not investment in weapons. That is here in this country. What about that? Is that not a priority? Are we not willing to decide that we will provide that resource? Some say, well, the President should ask for it. Yes, he should, but the President didn't ask for the extra $6 billion Congress put in the emergency bill for defense. So apparently you have two standards. The President doesn't have to ask for the extra $6 billion for defense, but he must for agriculture. Well, those who say the President needs to be involved and ask for it, they are right. Let's have him do that. I want him to be engaged here with a request, and I think he will be.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am introducing today a piece of legislation called the Standardized School Report Card Act, along with my colleagues, Senator Bingaman and Senator Byrd. Every 6 to 9 weeks every parent in this country who has children in our public schools gets a report card to tell him or her how that student is doing in school. Rarely, however, do parents get a report card telling them how the school is doing for the students. A number of States already do have school report cards--about 36, actually--but they vary around the country. Some have almost no information. Others are hundreds of pages long and very difficult to understand. Regardless, however, most parents never see a report card for their child's school. I think it would be useful, and my colleagues do as well, to ask that there be a uniform or standardized school report card that will allow parents to understand what they are getting for the dollars they are investing in that school. What is their school doing versus the neighboring town's school? How are the schools in one State doing versus schools in another State? How can you compare what the parents and taxpayers are getting with respect to the dollars invested in education? The Standardized School Report Card Act will require schools to report on eight key, basic areas in their report card and do so in an easily understandable manner. The eight areas graded in the report cards would be: students' performance, attendance and graduation rates, professional qualifications of teachers, average class size, school safety, parental involvement, student drop-out rates, and access to technology. Some might say this legislation is unnecessary because there are already some States that do have school report cards. As I have already indicated, that is true. However, the content varies widely, so they are not good tools for comparison. In my home State of North Dakota, the State Department of Public Instruction has designed a school district profile that is published for each school district. It does include a lot of interesting information, but a numbers of areas that are required under this legislation are not covered at all. My point is that we have a public education system in this country on which we spend a great deal of money. We send our young boys and girls to the classroom door, and we invest money, we build the schools, pay teachers, and buy the books. The question is, What do we get for all of that? Most of the classrooms I have visited are led and taught by wonderful teachers. I am very impressed by many of the schools I have had an opportunity to visit across the country and especially in North Dakota. As a nation, when we spend $350 billion a year to provide an education to elementary and secondary students, parents and taxpayers need some uniform way to understand how there school is doing versus other schools. How is our State doing versus other States relative to the investments we are making in education? That is the basis for the school report card legislation which I am introducing today. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Bingaman and Byrd in introducing this bill, and I hope others of our colleagues will join us in cosponsoring it.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will then, at the end of morning business, ask that morning business be extended if necessary. I have waited to listen to my friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin, and to add my voice to this call for a debate on the Patients' Bill of Rights. What is the Patients' Bill of Rights? And why is it necessary? The Senator from Illinois just described the invisible partner in the doctor's examining room or the hospital room. I want to read about this invisible partner because I think it is quite interesting. A couple of years ago, we had a hearing here in the Congress on the House side. Late in the day, long after the television cameras had been packed up and the lights had been turned off and the crowd had left, a woman came to testify. I want to read part of her testimony. She was a doctor. She said: My name is Linda Peeno. I am a former medical reviewer and medical director for three managed care organizations. I wish to begin by making a public confession: In the spring of 1987, as a physician, I caused the death of a man. * * * * * Although this was known to many people, I have not been taken before any court of law or called to account for this in any professional or public forum. In fact, just the opposite occurred: I was ``rewarded'' for this. It brought me an improved reputation in my job, and contributed to my advancement afterwards. Not only did I demonstrate I could indeed do what was expected of me, I exemplified the ``good'' company doctor: I saved a half million dollars! Since that day I have lived with this act, and many others, eating into my heart and soul. For me, a physician is a professional charged with care, or healing, of his or her fellow human beings. The primary ethical norm is: do no harm. I did worse: I caused a death. Instead of using a clumsy, bloody weapon, I used the simplest, cleanest of tools: my words. The man died because I denied him a necessary operation to save his heart. I felt little pain or remorse at the time. This man's faceless distance soothed my conscience. Like a skilled soldier, I was trained for this moment. When any moral qualms arose, I was to remember: I am not denying care; I am only denying payment. This from a doctor who served in a managed care organization, making the decisions about whether a patient and a doctor can continue to receive and provide care. That is the invisible presence in that hospital room--someone 1,000 miles away making a decision about profits and losses. This woman says: As a doctor, I caused a man's death and was rewarded for it. Is this the way medicine should work? The Patients' Bill of Rights says no. Our bill says that every patient in our country, has the right to know all of their medical options, not just the cheapest treatment options. Today many doctors are gagged, told by the managed care organization, you dare not tell that patient what their range of medical options are, because we will not provide coverage for some of the more expensive ones, even though they might be the option that saves that patient's life. Our Patients' Bill of Rights says let's correct that. Our Patients' Bill of Rights says, when someone is in need of an emergency room and needs medical treatment on an emergency basis, they have a right to get that care. Not all managed care organizations say that is the case. Jacqueline Lee was hiking in the Shenandoah mountains. She tripped and fell off a 40-foot cliff. She had serious injuries from that fall--fractures in her arms, pelvis, her skull. She was unconscious. She was airlifted by helicopter to an emergency room, unconscious, with fractures in many bones in her body. The HMO said it would not pay the more than $10,000 in hospital bills for Jacqueline Lee because she hadn't gotten prior approval for her emergency room treatment. Think of that. Here is a woman hauled in on a gurney unconscious to an emergency room. The HMO says: Well, we won't pay that bill because you didn't get prior approval for emergency room treatment. Is there a need for a Patients' Bill of Rights? Is there a need to correct this kind of thing? Of course there is. Now, the Republicans say: We have a Patients' Bill of Rights. Yes, they do; they sure do. Their Patients' Bill of Rights covers some Americans, covers about 48 million Americans. But there are 113 million Americans who are not covered by their Patients' Bill of Rights. The Senator from Illinois asked the question: Why can't we bring the bills to the floor and have a debate? The answer is, because some want to control every nuance on the floor of the Senate. They want to control who speaks, when they speak, whether you can offer an amendment, what your amendment says. We have put up with that for far too long. Speaking only for myself, we are done putting up with it. This is not the way the Senate works. The Senate doesn't have, as the House does, a Rules Committee that becomes the prison for all the amendments and then the warden decides which amendments get let out the door. That is not the way the Senate works. I have just prepared an analysis of how the Senate has been handling these issues in recent years, compared with the history of the Senate. It is very interesting. Lately, the strategy is to bring a bill to the floor and do what they call ``fill the tree,'' so Senators can't offer any amendments. The only way you can offer an amendment is if the majority leader says: Let me see your amendment. If I like it, you get to offer it; if I don't, you can't offer it. That didn't happen in the past in this Senate. That is not the way the Senate works. Somebody needs to tell the folks who run this place that we are not going to let them continue to run the Senate that way. We demand that the Patients' Bill of Rights be brought to the floor of the Senate, and we demand the right to offer our amendments. We demand the right to debate them. We say to those who seem to want to keep the doors locked on good public policy issues like this: If you intend to keep doing that, then you are not going to do much business around here. While folks are brought into emergency rooms unconscious and told by HMOs: We won't pay because you didn't get prior approval, we are told we can't correct it with a Patients' Bill of Rights. While we have doctors who come to testify before the Congress and say: I am responsible for the death of a person because I withheld treatment and I was rewarded for it under the current system, we are told we don't have the time on the floor of the Senate to bring up a Patients' Bill of Rights, or, if we do have the time, we are going to demand that you get preapproval for your amendments by someone on the other side of the aisle who puts forward a bill that is just a shell. This Senate is sleepwalking on important issues. We ought to do much better for the American people than to sleepwalk on issues dealing with health care and the Patients' Bill of Rights and education and so many other important issues. I will come tomorrow to the floor to talk about the farm crisis. This Congress is sleepwalking on the farm crisis as well. I would like to say to my friend from Illinois, the Patients' Bill of Rights should have been passed by the last Congress. We have been more than patient on this issue. I ask the Senator from Illinois--I would be happy to entertain a question about the delay here--it seems to me there has been plenty of time to do this. There is just not the will by some to want this to come to the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to extend my time by 5 minutes. I see no one else on the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. If I might also make the point, the Congress has already said Medicare and Medicaid patients will get basic protections. Members of Congress get this protection in their own health care program. If it is good enough for all of those interests--and it is, and necessary-- why is it not good enough for the 113 million Americans whom the Republicans say ought not get this help with their Patients' Bill of Rights?

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, Senators Domenici and Reid, for the extraordinary work they have accomplished in bringing the FY2000 energy and water appropriations bill to the floor. While this bill funds a number of vastly important national security and economic development programs and initiatives, until this year it has been relatively non-controversial, in part because of the hard work of my colleagues, Senators Domenici and Reid. This year, however, they have had to operate under more difficult circumstances. They have had to fashion a bill from extremely limited resources. As reported by the Appropriations Committee, the bill provides $21.2 billion in new budget authority--$12.6 billion within defense activities and $8.6 billion within nondefense. In the defense accounts, that represents a $220 million increase over the President's budget request. In the nondefense accounts, however, it represents a reduction of $608 million from the request. This includes decreases in funding for critical water projects. As the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee noted in his opening remarks on Monday, this is the first time in his memory--and he has been here many years longer than this Senator from North Dakota-- that less funding for water projects is provided than requested in the budget. This is a worrisome situation for many important and worthwhile flood control and other projects in the coming year, but that is also a situation forced upon this subcommittee, indeed on most subcommittees, by the allocations received as a result of staying within the budget caps. He also noted that he was unable to accommodate all of the funding requests of the members of this body. That was the case with this Senator, but I do want to note that he and his distinguished ranking member were able to fund a number of important flood control and water development projects in my home state of North Dakota. For instance, as the city of Grand Forks continues its recovery from the devastating 1997 floods of the Red River, the city and State have developed a plan to reconstruct flood control dikes to protect the cities of Grand Forks, ND, and East Grand Forks, MN, from future floods. The city and State are matching Federal funds for this project, but this bill provides $9 million in federal funds for initial construction. It also funds the President's request of $27 million for the Garrison Diversion project as well as over $2 million in additional funds requested by me and Senator Conrad for unmet water supply needs on our Indian reservations. The tribes have already reached their funding ceiling under existing authority for these needs and the Bureau of Reclamation has documented over $200 million in critical unmet water development needs on three reservations. These funds will begin to make a dent in these needs. I am also pleased that the bill recommends $1 million for the Energy and Environmental Research Center, EERC, to conduct research relating to the integration of biomass with fossil fuels in conventional power systems to increase busload renewable electricity generation; development of practical methods for using biomass in advanced power systems; and improvement of efficiency and environmental performance in agricultural processing and forest-based product industries producing food, fiber, and chemicals. These funds will build upon the exciting research already being conducted at the nationally recognized EERC in Grand Forks. The bill funds the President's request of $5 million to purchase of easements and compensate landowners who in the Buford-Trenton area are unable to farm as a result of flooding and high water tables caused by siltation upriver from the Garrison Dam. In 1998, more than 1000 acres remained under water and represented an economic loss to the farmers and others in this area of hundreds of thousands of dollars. This year, the water level is higher and only continues to grow. This is a Federal responsibility and one which is only beginning to be met. The project was authorized in the 1996 Water Development Act at $34 million and this represents continued progress for buying easements from willing sellers. Finally, I appreciate the subcommittee's support for an amendment offered by me and Senator Conrad to add $50,000 for a reevaluation study of the Grafton dikes project by the Army Corps of Engineers. Because the project was de-authorized, this report is needed. While not reauthorizing the project, these funds will help us jump start the process once the project is reauthorized. Our water supply and flood control needs in North Dakota are many and growing. Not all of our requested needs are met by this bill, but this is a good bill and one I can support. I thank Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Reid for their support and look forward to working with them in conference. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer support for the legislation that is brought to the floor this afternoon and to make a few comments about the legislation itself. Let me especially comment on the subject of steel. I come from a State that doesn't produce any steel. North Dakota is predominantly an agriculture State. But the roots of the problems that confront our steel industry, in many ways, are common to the roots of the problems that confront a number of industries in our country today, especially and including family farmers. I haven't heard the news this afternoon, but I understand that the monthly trade deficit results are to be announced today. My expectation is that the announcement today will conclude that we have another record monthly trade deficit, probably the fourth in a row, probably $20 billion that we have gone in the hole in this country in our trade relations. This probably amounts to somewhere between $250- to $300 billion a year just in trade in goods and services. The deficit in trade in goods will be much higher than that, perhaps over $300 billion. What does that mean? It means that this country has to borrow in order to finance its trade deficit. It means, at least in the field of economics, to the extent there are any certainties, that this country will have to repay this trade deficit at some point in the future through a lower standard of living. Is it a problem? Is it of concern? Apparently not to many people, because there is not much discussion about it. I think it is a very serious concern to this country. People make the point that we have a good economy and we have prospered. That certainly is the case. Unemployment is very low. Inflation is almost nonexistent. Believe me, the Federal Reserve Board is on its hands and knees with magnifying glasses searching for signs of inflation. If they don't exist, the Board will try to find them. They are so concerned about it. But homeownership is nearly at a record high; new housing starts are nearly at a record high. There is a lot of good news in this country's economy. But there are clouds on the horizon because of this trade deficit, a record high trade deficit. And it is rising rapidly. We have a trade deficit with China that is very substantial; an annual trade deficit with Japan somewhere in the neighborhood of $50- to $60 billion--in fact, about the same level with China. We have a trade deficit with Canada, a trade deficit with Mexico, and the list goes on. Some come to the floor and say, well, we must be required to compete. I say, absolutely. If the family farmers I represent can't compete with others in the world, then we are not going to make it. But the question is not, will we or shall we compete; the question is, what are the rules of competition? How do we compete? Are we to say, let's tie our hands behind our backs? Then we will see how well we do. Is that competition? For example, you run a manufacturing plant in this country, and you produce widgets. We say: You must compete with all other widget makers in the world. By the way, you have to pay a living wage, a minimum wage. By the way, you cannot dump your chemicals into the rivers and into the air. By the way, you cannot hire 10-year old kids. By the way, you can't pay them 14 cents an hour. And, by the way, your factory must be safe. Well, the widget maker says: Well, we know that we fought about that for 75 years and lost all those fights. We have to pay a minimum wage. We have to have safe workplaces. We have to abide by child labor laws. We have to abide by antipollution laws, and we don't like it. So what we are going to do is pole vault right over this geographical barrier and go to another country somewhere else in the world. We are going to hire kids. We are going to pay them peanuts and put them in unsafe plants. We intend to dump our chemicals in the air, and we intend to pollute the streams. We are going to produce the same widgets, and we are going to send them back to Pittsburgh, Fargo, Los Angeles and Kansas City and sell them there. I ask the question: Is that fair competition? Is that what people mean by competition? You must be able to compete, and if you can't compete, quit? You must be able to compete, and if you cannot compete, go broke? Is that fair competition? The answer is, of course, it is not fair competition. We have fought for three quarters of a century in this country over these issues. People died on the streets from gunfire, marching for their rights as workers to organize for better wages, for safer working conditions, for all of these issues. Now, some say: But it is a global economy; you just don't understand. Competition now is not with the rules that we would describe as reasonable. The rules are whatever you can find anywhere in the world if you are a producer. That represents fair competition? Where I come from, that is not fair competition. I frankly admitted, when I started, I do not know much about the steel industry. We do not produce steel in my State. I do not expect we will in the future ever see a strong economy that does not have manufacturing activities in automobiles and steel and other things that represent the central tenets of a strong economy. I don't think you can decide that you will have a strong economy if your manufacturing base is gone. I get in the car and turn on the radio and drive to work. The news report on the radio tells about America's economic health. It is always about what we consume, not what we produce. It is always about the economic health as measured by what we consumed last month. Consumer spending is up. Spending is this; spending is that. That is not a sign of economic health. What you produce is a sign of economic health. What you produce determines who you are and how you are doing. I find it interesting--I know Mr. Greenspan is on the Hill today testifying, and I know Wall Street will weigh every word he says for some nuance about what the Fed might do with interest rates. The stock market will rise or fall like a bobber in the ocean, based on what Mr. Greenspan says. You ask Mr. Greenspan, and he will have to admit it--so will the governors of the Federal Reserve Board--does a heart attack or a car accident represent economic growth to an economist? The answer is, of course. Heart attacks and car accidents represent economic growth in the data that economists use to determine how well our country is doing. Because a car accident means someone must fix a fender; a heart attack means someone is employed in emergency rooms. So you ask yourself: What do these economists tell us? What do they mean? What does it say about our country? What do they measure? Family farming is why I came to the floor today. Family farming suffers, too. We have steel manufacturers in trouble and going out of business. We have people being laid off. So the Senator from West Virginia says we ought to be concerned about that. We should. Is a steel plant like a harness for a two-hitch team, destined to be gone forever from the landscape of this country because it can be done elsewhere much less expensively? I don't think so. I don't think anyone in this country would suggest that our country--with the kind of economic power and might that we have--is a country that ought to do without a strong manufacturing sector or a country that ought to do without a strong steel manufacturing capability. Then what about farming? When we talk about farming, people say: Well, the farmer must compete. It is agriculture, some monolith called agriculture. It is not that in my State. It is families. It is not just families planting some wheat that they hope to harvest in the fall. It is families that live out on the land, that help create a small town, that help provide economic sustenance on that main street, that organize the church, that support the school, that support the charities. That is what family farms are all about. Some people may say that you can get rid of all of those families. America will be farmed. Corporate farms can farm America from California to Maine, hardly stopping to put some gas in the large tractors they would use to pull those plows. But it would not be the same because corporate farming isn't going to stop at a small town in Hettinger County to say: Let me help form that church, or that school, or help nurture Main Street, or help with a lifestyle that really breeds family values. I hear people stand and talk about family values all the time on the floor of the Senate. There is nowhere in this country that nurtures family values any better than on the family farm. I am not saying they are better than anybody else, but I am saying that families living in the rural reaches of our country, with a yard light illuminating that life, they are the ones who really do it alone--except when there is trouble, all of their neighbors are there to help. That is the way farmers in a rural neighborhood are. We will lose something very important in this country if we decide that family farmers don't matter. A North Dakota author named Critchfield wrote a good number of books. He was a world-renowned author who came from Hunter, North Dakota, a tiny town near Fargo. He wrote a book called ``In Those Days.'' It is the finest book I have ever read about small-town life and the rural lifestyle--a wonderful book. He wrote his next book about the rural lifestyle in a different way, and he said something I never really thought much about before. He talked about the nurturing of values, family values, the nurturing of shared responsibility, and caring. This country really always had its roots in rural America; it would roll from the farm to the small town to the big city as America grew. We have lost farmers who have moved to small towns and who have moved to big cities. We have had a refurbishment of the value system of our country coming from its seedbed in rural America. I wonder what would happen at some point if we decide that that seedbed of family values in rural America really doesn't matter, that America can as easily be farmed by large corporate enterprises with no lights and no homes and no stopping in small towns. Well, this discussion today is about steel and oil, but especially about steel. I am talking about agriculture because I want to talk about the common thread that exists on these issues. I just heard my colleague from Arizona speak, and he is a close friend and someone whose views I admire. We have disagreed from time to time. On this issue of trade, we find ourselves in somewhat different camps, I think, because we probably see it a bit differently. I don't, for a moment, dispute that it is a global economy. The times are changed. But I also believe that this country has every right, on behalf of its producers, to decide it will fight for values such as fair wages and safe workplaces and a good environment--to fight for those things that we have fought for in this country for over 75 years. We have a right also to fight for that in our international trade agreements. We regrettably do not do that. Our country, interestingly enough, has a leadership position on trade matters. We go out and negotiate a lot of trade agreements. Did you know that we almost never enforce an agreement? My biggest complaint with our trade officials is that they negotiate bad agreements. If that weren't bad enough, they fail to enforce even the bad agreements. Go down to the Department of commerce, where they are required to enforce trade agreements, and ask yourself how many people in this Government, in the Department of Commerce, are around with the responsibility of enforcing our trade agreements with China. Does anybody know? Or Japan? Anybody know? I will tell you the answer. Six or seven people are tasked at the China desk with enforcing our trade agreements with China. It is the same with Japan. We have a nearly $60 billion trade deficit with China, and about the same with Japan, but slightly less. We have a handful of people whose job it is to enforce our trade agreements. Why? Because our mindset has always been to go negotiate new agreements because we want to trumpet the success in negotiating a new agreement, but we don't want to mess around with enforcing the old ones. That results is a lot of folks who are angry, because the last trade agreement that was negotiated was not a very good one and, in any event, it wasn't enforced. So we ended up with a trade agreement called NAFTA, the North American Fair Trade Agreement, with Canada. A miserable agreement. It turned a trade surplus that we had with Mexico into a big trade deficit. It doubled the trade deficit we had with Canada. I know it will tire anybody who has heard me say it, but not long after the trade agreement with Canada, we had a flood of Canadian grain coming across our border and undermining the market for our family farmers. Our State university said it cost our farmers in North Dakota over $200 million in lost income. I drove up to the border with a fellow named Earl in an orange truck that was about 10 years old. In this 10-year-old orange two-ton truck we took a couple hundred bushels of durum wheat. We saw 18-wheel trucks coming in our direction that were full of Canadian grain coming south. On a windy day, the grain trucks drop a lot of grain on the road. Our windows were getting hit all along the way by Canadian grain dropping off the huge semi trucks coming south. After seeing dozens of them, we pulled up to the Canadian border with Earl and his orange truck and a couple hundred bushels of durum wheat, saying we want to take this North Dakota durum into Canada, knowing that millions of Canadian bushels are flooding into our country. Earl Jensen and I didn't get across the border with that durum wheat because you could not get it into Canada. Our border was open to the Canadian grain producers, flooding our country and undercutting our markets, but their border wasn't open to us. Another fellow who was with us brought along some beer. That is, after all, liquid barley. Beer comes from, in most cases, barley, and you liquefy barley. He was going to take barley, in liquid form, into Canada. No, you can't do that. How about a used clothes washer? Can't do that. The list goes on. I sat up at that border understanding firsthand why our farmers have a right to be so angry. Who on earth would negotiate a trade agreement with Canada that says let's have a one-way circumstance across the board? You can bring all your products south and flood us with your grain, but, by the way, when your little orange truck comes north with Earl and Byron, we are not going to let you through. That is not fair competition. That is not the trade relationship we expect that would result in fair competition. So my experience is that we have a right, it seems to me, in our country, to be mighty upset about the current circumstances that exist for family farmers and unfair trade agreements or in trade agreements that even if they were fair are not enforced. We have a right to be upset with respect to the circumstances with steel. My colleague who spoke previously said undoubtedly there may be dumping of steel. I will bet there is. I guarantee you there is dumping of grain in this country. I asked the GAO to get the data from Winnipeg and Montreal. Those folks thumbed their nose and said: Do you think you are going to get that out of us? Not in a million years. We don't intend to give you one figure with respect to the sales we are doing secretly in this country. That's the Canadian Wheat Board. That would be illegal in this country, selling at secret prices in this country. They said to GAO that there is not a chance, you are not going to get numbers out of us. Is there a reason for people to be angry and sore about this? Of course. Do American producers have a right to ask the question of whether this country will stand up for fair trade? I am absolutely full up to my neck with folks who say that anybody who speaks the way I just spoke is a protectionist. I want to plead guilty to saying that I want to protect our economic interests and demand fair competition. If that is what being a protectionist means, I will plead guilty. In fact, I demand credit. I want to protect this country's economic interests. I also believe in expanded trade and trade relationships that are growing and are healthy. I believe in and demand and expect fair trade relationships. I expect our trade negotiators not to go out and lose in the first 24 hours of every single negotiation. The Senator from Texas is on the floor. There is a lot of beef in Texas. We had a big beef agreement with Japan 20 years ago. You would have thought we had won the Olympics when we announced we had this beef agreement with Japan. Everybody celebrated. Guess what? We are getting more beef into Japan. More American beef is going into Japan. But there is now a 50-percent tariff on American beef going to Japan. They negotiated a 50-percent tariff. That will be ratcheted down over time, but it snaps back with increased quantity. Would anyone here ever expect we would have a 45-percent tariff on a product and not be ridiculed in the world community by it? That is exactly what we negotiated with Japan. It was declared a success. Our trade negotiators thought it was just great. We have such lowered, dimmed expectations of our trading partners that we don't even try. Part of that is because for the first 25 years after the Second World War almost all of our trade relationships were about foreign policy. We could beat anybody with one hand tied behind our back. It was easy. We negotiated trade relationships that were almost exclusively foreign policy initiatives. But in the second 25 years, it was different. For that reason, as better competitors developed--Japan, Europe, China, and others--our trade negotiators didn't change much. Most of our trade negotiating is still disguised as foreign policy, regrettably. It is not fair to our producers. That is why the initiative was brought to the floor today with respect to steel. We don't produce steel in North Dakota, but I am well aware of unfair trade. I am well aware of the inability to provide remedies and to seek remedies for unfair trade. Certainly our producers understand that every day in every way they have to face unfair competition, and no one seems willing or able to do anything about it. That is the frustration. It is a frustration, in my judgment, that produces the kind of proposition that is brought here to the floor of the Senate today. Is it a reasonable, modest proposition? Yes. Is it a proposition that jumps over the ditch here on this? No. Of course, it is not. It is not that at all. It is modest, in my judgment, reasonably thoughtful, and is something Congress should pass. The reason I took the time to come to the floor is to say this: Following this legislation, we will come in next week to the floor of the Senate once again on the subject of family farmers. Family farmers are now in a circumstance where they are facing Depression-era prices and are going out of business in record numbers. It is almost impossible to go to a meeting in farm country and listen to those farmers, who have invested their lives and their dreams and their hearts in that land, who stand up and pour out their souls and then begin to get tears in their eyes when they talk about being forced off the land they love. I told my colleagues recently of the woman who called me and said her auction to sell her family farm produced on that day a circumstance where her 17-year-old refused to get out of bed--refused to come down and help her with the auction sale. She said it wasn't because he is a bad kid, or it wasn't because he was lazy; it was because he was so heartbroken that he wasn't going to be able to farm that he just could not bear to be present at the auction sale of their farm. His dad had recently died. They were forced to sell, and he simply couldn't bear to watch the sale of that family farm. A 6-foot-4-inch fellow stood up at a meeting. He had a beard. He was a big, burly guy. He said his granddad farmed. He farmed. He said his dad farmed. It was in their blood. Then his chin began to quiver, and his eyes began to water. But he said: I am going to have to sell out. He would like to continue, and he couldn't. And he couldn't continue to speak, because this is more than just a job. It is a lot more than just the term ``agriculture.'' Again, I come to the floor to talk about family farming, because this question today relates to what we are going to talk about--agriculture, and fundamentally unfair trade policies that undermine our family farmers for which there is no remedy. You go to the trade ambassador's office to seek a remedy. You go to the Commerce Department to seek a remedy. I guarantee you, industry after industry, you can prove the dumping, and you will not get relief. You will not get a remedy. That is, in my judgment, the weakness and the shortcoming of our trade laws. Let me end by saying again that we must find a foreign home for almost half of what we produce in a State like North Dakota. I am not someone who wants to shut borders or restrict trade, but I darned well insist on behalf of the producers that I represent, just as the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from New Mexico insisted today, I insist that this country stand up for the economic interests of its producers, at least demanding fairness and competition in international affairs. As we deal with a global economy, we ought to be able to provide that kind of fairness for American producers. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized.

Mr. DORGAN. I asked consent to be recognized. My understanding is we were in a quorum call. I asked consent to be recognized for the purpose of discussing a press conference we just held on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Because we were in a quorum call and not conducting other Senate business, I wanted to have a few minutes to discuss that subject. So I ask unanimous consent to be able to do so.