Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.

Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if I might inquire of the Senator from New Mexico, I had indicated to him I have an amendment that I wanted to lay down. If he would not mind, I would be happy to offer it and ask unanimous consent we set it aside. And then he could proceed. I was hoping perhaps after the three votes we might debate this amendment.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

Mr. DORGAN. Let me respond to a couple points. First, let's talk about national missile defense. He makes an interesting argument, but the Senator misunderstood what I said. I talked about the $1 billion last fall that was stuck into the omnibus appropriations bill. No one asked for it and the Defense Department said they couldn't use it. Go track the money and find out what happened to it. They didn't want it, but Congress said, ``We demand you take it.'' My point is, if it is a priority, then the sky is the limit. It doesn't matter that it is not needed. That is the point I was making. The tax-and-spend cliche is such an old argument it is calcified. I thought I heard the last of that some years ago. This debate is about what is important and what are our priorities. I want to talk about the big print and the little print which got us to this mess. Some years ago, we had people in Congress who said we should change the farm program. In the big print in the 1996 farm law it says that we will provide a marketing loan and it will be at 85 percent of the Olympic average of the prices received by farmers in the previous five years. That was the big print. Then they put the little print in the bill. It said, by the way, although we promised you that marketing loan at 85 percent, we are going to cap it at $2.58 a bushel for wheat. What the big print giveth, the little print taketh away. Does it matter? Does it cost? Of course. It matters in terms of the failure of hopes and dreams for family farmers who are bankrupted by these little print policies. These little print policies really say that family farming doesn't matter too much to this country anymore. It says that we would rather have big corporate agrifactories. It says we like corporate agriculture. and corporate farming. It says that mom and pop don't have to live out there so the yardlights don't have to be on. It says we can mechanically milk all the cows and have 3,000-head dairy herds. That is a very different version of America than I have and a different sense of priorities than I think should exist for this country. That is what this debate is about. The Senator from New Mexico says this should go to the Agriculture Committee. This started in 1995 in the Budget Committee. That is where it started. The budget resolution prescribed the Freedom to Farm bill. If you can start the farm bill in 1995 in the Budget Committee, we can, it seems to me, debate it in 1999 as we debate the budget resolution. Today, we face depression-era prices on the farm. Family farmers are going belly up on a wholesale basis out there in the country and this Congress must do something about it. Did the President's budget address this? No. Does this budget resolution address it in an appropriate way? No. Do I appreciate that the Budget Committee put in $6 billion over 6 years or so for crop insurance? Of course I do. I appreciate that. But it is so far short of what is needed. We are about $5 billion a year short of what we used to do to provide to fund price protection for family farmers. Today we need to repair that by deciding our priority in this budget resolution is to stand up and help family farmers during this time of trouble.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I prefer to close for a minute, but if the Senator wishes to keep it open I assume he will want to move along here and be able to get as much done as is possible. Let me have the attention of the Senator from New Mexico. If I finish our time, would the Senator then yield back his time so we can proceed?

Mr. DORGAN. Would the Presiding Officer notify me when I have 1 minute remaining? Mr. President, this is about priorities. We just heard my colleague say: ``Well, this isn't a priority. We don't have resources for this.'' Gosh, we have resources for some very large tax cuts. If that is their priority, then there is money for that. Or, what about the $1 billion for national missile defense which the Department of Defense says it does not want, does not need, and cannot spend. They have money for that. And, then there is $110 billion or so for readiness in defense. They have money for that. The question is, What is a priority? We do have a surplus of empathy and sympathy. I do not disagree with that. Everybody empathizes and sympathizes. The fact is, we have farmers going broke in record numbers. How would you feel I would ask if any of you listening or watching or participating had your income cut by 98 percent? All of a sudden you have 98 percent less income. Would that be a catastrophe? I think it would. That is what happened to our farmers. I had a fellow at a forum, a big, husky guy with a beard. He said, ``My dad farmed, my granddad farmed on the same place. I farmed for 23 years.'' Then he got tears in his eyes and his chin began to quiver. He said, ``I am quitting, I can't continue. I am being forced off the farm.'' That is what this amendment is about. We need to consider the human toll of farm failures all across this country. What will be left when only the corporate agrifactories are producing America's food. Some people think that would be great because they love big corporations-- the bigger the better. Of course, there will be no yardlights lighting farmsteads. There will be nobody living in the country, because all the farmers who risked their money will have found that the auction block served as the final resting place for their dreams and their hopes. We can do something about that if we decide it is a priority. I say to my colleague from New Mexico, this is where the current farm bill started in 1995. It started right here in the budget. It is where it ought to stop. It is where we ought to make the modifications and changes. It is where we, as a Congress, ought to say this is a priority, and that family farmers are a priority. But, it is not just about farm families. It is also about Main Streets and small towns. It is about the economic and social fabric in a part of our country that is now being depopulated. Let me again refer to this chart. The red on the chart shows the middle part of the country, which is full of rural counties that are losing population. This little place right here is where I grew up in Hettinger County, North Dakota. When I left, there were 5,000 people in that county. Today, there are 3,000 people. That county is symbolic of so much of the farm belt that is now being depopulated because we have a farm program that doesn't work. There is a whole range of other programs that we must address. It is not enough to say that things will work out, or that this doesn't matter. This matters very much to a significant part of America. We have a right to be standing here on the floor of the Senate saying, this too is a priority. This is a priority for us, for our part of the country, and for family farmers. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Johnson.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to my amendment to the desk.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas,

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I found the presentation interesting. I ask the Senator from New Jersey, is it not the case that both of the proposals, the one from the majority side and the one from the minority side, coming from the Budget Committee, save all of the Social Security surplus, but the major difference is that the proposal offered by the Senator from New Jersey also proposes to move some resources to help deal with the Medicare issue?

Mr. DORGAN. As I ask that question, I intend to come to the floor following the Senator from Illinois and make a presentation on this issue of saving Social Security. I can recall a few years ago when dozens of people on the floor stood up and said that proposition is nothing but a gimmick. In fact, the proposal was to put in the Constitution a requirement that the Social Security revenues be considered part of ordinary revenues for the purpose of determining whether or not you have a budget surplus. I will come to the floor to talk about that. I just say I am delighted that everybody apparently has now come to the same position on this question of whether we ought to save the Social Security surpluses for the purpose which they were intended in the first instance. But those of us who insisted that be done, against the wishes of those who wanted to put that practice in the Constitution about 3 or 4 years ago, were told our position was gimmickry. It not only was not gimmickry, it was transcendental truth about what we ought to do with these resources. The Senator has it right, as does now the Senator from New Mexico: Let us save the Social Security surplus, but let us at the same time allow room, as the Senator from New Jersey does, to invest and strengthen Medicare at the same time. That is, I think, the purpose of the alternative offered by the Senator from New Jersey, which I think should commend it here to the Senate.

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from Texas and, I must say, there are many Members of the Senate who have concerns about a range of these issues. But I will also say that one of my concerns is that as sensitive negotiations occur in Belgrade today with Mr. Holbrooke and others, a resolution that says ``The United States national security interests in Kosovo do not rise to a level that warrants military operations'' seems not to be the best of timing. I understand all the points the Senator made. As she knows, we have had some discussions about NATO in the past. I am someone who voted against expanding NATO for a number of reasons. But NATO does exist. This country is a part of NATO, and NATO has indicated to Mr. Milosevic that there are consequences to his actions. The actions he has taken obviously include the slaughter of innocent civilians. I am troubled, I guess, by having a resolution on the floor of the Senate at this moment. There will be a time and should be a time for a robust and aggressive discussion about what exactly is in our national security interest. I was someone who was nervous about Bosnia. I would characterize the circumstances in Bosnia differently than the Senator from Texas did. There is not just a cease-fire there, there is a peace agreement in Bosnia, and this country went to Bosnia as a peacekeeper, not a peacemaker. We did not send American troops into Bosnia to create a peace that did not exist. We sent American troops in as part of a NATO contingent in Bosnia to keep a peace that already existed. Those of us who were watching what happened in Bosnia understood genocide was occurring in that area. We got involved through NATO. Frankly, it has worked to this point in a manner that has undoubtedly saved the lives of many in that region. The Kosovo issue is, in many ways, as difficult and perhaps more difficult, and I do not know that airstrikes will have any impact at all. I honestly do not know. The Senator from Texas indicates that the President should consult with Congress, and she is absolutely correct about that. I know that there was a meeting on Friday. I was invited to a meeting at the White House on Friday, as were a number of my colleagues. I believe a bipartisan group of Members of Congress were at the White House on Friday when the President discussed the circumstances in Kosovo. I, too, think consultation on these matters is required. Also required is a significant and robust debate about exactly what is in this country's national interest. The Senator from Texas has been very consistent on raising these questions over a long period of time. However, it bothers me some that the timing of this particular amendment comes at exactly the moment that there are these discussions today in Belgrade with President Milosevic about the consequences of continuing to do what he is doing. Obviously, anybody has a right to offer any amendment. But I was, frankly, surprised to see the amendment that has been offered as a second-degree amendment. I understand that there will be a vote on a cloture motion tomorrow at 2:15 on this second-degree amendment. And this is a very difficult time for us to be essentially sending this message to Mr. Milosevic.

Mr. DORGAN. If I might reclaim my time, the timing here is more than ``less than perfect,'' as the Senator suggested. If I were involved in negotiations this afternoon in Belgrade with Mr. Milosevic, the Lott amendment would be of great concern to me, because I would expect that someone sitting across the table from me would say, ``Well, you are offering threats of airstrikes, but I can tell you that at this moment there is legislation pending in the U.S. Senate to prohibit those very strikes you're suggesting represent the threat to me.'' I only say that I wish at this point we could have found a way--or could still find a way--to have the kind of debate about what is in the national security interest, what is the role of NATO, all of the kinds of discussions that the Senator suggests. Clearly, those are discussions we should and will have. But I rose simply to say I think the timing of this amendment detracts from the ability of our negotiators to express the threat of NATO action. If I were negotiating for our side, debating this amendment is probably the last sort of thing I would want to see happen, because I don't think it serves our negotiating interests. I do not say that personally in terms of anybody who offered this. The Senator from Texas indicated that she introduced this discussion in the Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member. She is correct about that. But this most recent amendment was laid down, I believe, Friday, and a cloture motion filed on Friday; and that is what I am concerned about.

Mr. DORGAN. I would just point out, sending American men and women into harm's way is something I think no President wants to do. We've had ill-fated incursions and actions taken by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents alike. The perfection of foreign policy is not the province of any one party. I was sitting here--the Senator from Texas was talking about President Reagan--and I was recalling that I was in Congress when Americans in Beirut were killed by a truck bomb. There have been a lot of circumstances where we had to learn exactly how and when we involve ourselves. It is a lesson that is very hard to learn. The folks who feel very strongly about American and NATO involvement in Kosovo will make the case that if the situation is not contained there, it will spread very quickly and we will have a very substantial, broader problem on our hands in Europe. My colleague from Delaware is waiting to speak. He knows a lot more about these issues and has been involved with them much longer than the combined service of myself and the Senator from Texas. But I think all of us are probably nervous about these issues. We do not know exactly what the right approach might be. I only rose today to say that I am concerned about the timing of this debate. Just this afternoon sensitive negotiations are occurring in Belgrade with Mr. Milosevic. I hope Mr. Milosevic will hear at least one voice coming from this Congress, perhaps many voices, saying that the slaughter in that region of the world must stop--one way or the other. With that point, let me yield the floor. I know my colleague, Senator Biden, is waiting to speak. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the agenda for the Senate this week is to continue on the supplemental appropriations bill. Then at some point this week we will go to the budget bill. My hope is that we will finish work on the supplemental appropriations bill. I understand that we are heading towards a vote tomorrow on cloture on a Kosovo amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. So we are off on a range of other issues, that being a foreign policy issue. We already had votes on tobacco and tobacco proceeds from the settlement, and so on. But my hope is that one way or another we will get through the supplemental appropriations bill in order to provide the resources in that legislation for spring planting loans for family farmers. There are not very many weeks until our family farmers will be in the fields, and they need some operating loans to buy the seed and the fuel and to pay the expenses to do spring planting. And we have many farmers in North Dakota who are not, under current circumstances, going to be able to get loans from the Farm Service Agency unless we pass this supplemental bill. So if we do not pass the supplemental appropriations bill this week, and we go home, then we are not in session the next 2 weeks, we are going to be leaving these farmers in pretty tough circumstances. Then this supplemental has to go through the House, the Senate, and go to the President for his signature. Frankly, the fate of a lot of family farmers rests on our ability to get this done. Last week, a friend of mine announced that he was quitting farming, which I suppose is not such unusual news these days. A lot of farmers are quitting farming. This friend happens to be Elroy Lindaas, who is a State senator. Elroy is a wonderful fellow. He farms near Mayville, ND. I have been to the barn dance on his farm a good many times. I guess the last time was about 5 months ago. The barn dances that Elroy has are held up in the hayloft of a very large white barn. Elroy and his wife have gone to various garage sales in and around Mayville over the years, and they would pick up a davenport here or a couch or a chair. So up in the hayloft of his barn he has this large expanse lined with very comfortable old chairs. He has built himself a little stage. He plays guitar and he has neighbors that play musical instruments, as well. At this barn dance that he holds every year, they get a little band together. They hang some crepe paper. They get a couple hundred people who come up and fill the hayloft at the Lindaas barn. On this farmstead, they have planted 120 consecutive crops. For 120 years they have planted crops on the Lindaas farm. But this year, the 121st year they won't be planting a crop because he is selling his farm this June. Here is a farm that has been in that family for 120 years, passed from granddad to dad and son. Why does that farm at this point cease operation? Why does the family decide it cannot make it any longer? Here is a family farmer trying to do business, with prices for wheat and other grains at Depression-era prices. In constant dollars, the price they get for a bushel of wheat today is no different than it was during the Great Depression. What does all this mean and what do we do about it all? The chart with this map shows what is happening in our country as we talk about the choices and priorities we will make in the supplemental appropriations bill and then the budget bill. This map shows those counties, which are marked in red, where we have had an outmigration of people. You will see the outmigration from the middle part of America, up and down the farm belt and especially in North Dakota. Up and down the entire farm belt in the Great Plains, we have an entire region of America that is being depopulated. People are leaving, not coming. Look at all of these counties, each of these in red are rural counties in which the population is leaving. These are the counties that have lost fifteen percent or more of their population in a fifteen-year period. My home county, Hettinger County, ND, is probably a good example. Hettinger County, ND, is right here in Southwestern North Dakota. It, too, is marked in red. When I left Hettinger County there were 5,000 citizens living there. Now there are 3,000 citizens. The next county is Slope County. Both my home county and the next county are the size of Rhode Island, individually. Slope County has 900 people. A year ago or so they had seven babies born in the entire county. What is happening with the depopulation of rural areas, with people moving out, not moving in? Elroy Lindaas, after 120 years of planting crops and making a family farm work, is saying, ``I can't do it anymore.'' What is happening? A lot of things. The Presiding Officer will not be surprised when I mention the current farm bill, which in my judgment, is a disaster. In fact, it is interesting that in 1995 when we discussed the Budget Act on the floor of the Senate, that budget bill provided the framework for changing the farm bill. The budget that year framed the requirements under which a new farm bill had to be developed. It was developed into what was called the Freedom to Farm bill. Freedom to Farm had two parts to it. One part made a lot of sense. It gave farmers the freedom to plant what they chose to plant, not what the Federal Government allowed them to plant. Second, it cut the tie between farm prices and government payments. The bill's sponsors said because farm prices were so good and so robust and healthy at that time, we would give a transition payment on top of the current strong market prices, and then farmers would be on their own. That payment would decrease over a number of years after which farmers would be on their own. That was essentially the theory of the program. It was called transitioning-the-farmers-out-of-a-farm program. The problem is, farm prices didn't stay healthy and family farmers discovered very quickly that as commodity prices for wheat, feed grains and others began to collapse, there wasn't much of a price support for them. There wasn't a government program that said, ``You are important. So, when commodity prices collapse, somehow we will build a bridge over that pricing valley to see if we can help you get across.'' We have our farm people looking 2 years, 5 years, 7 years ahead. They hear the economists say prices aren't going to improve much. They say if that is the case and if the Federal Government is not going to help and doesn't care whether there are family farmers left, they will leave. That is what is creating the depopulation of a rural area. It is also true that the ability to raise grain here and ship it to Asia has diminished, as the Asian financial crisis took away our export markets. It is true that this administration has not been nearly as aggressive as it should have been on the Export Enhancement Program. It is also true that, frankly, the Congress did not provide what the administration asked for on EEP. The administration, Congress, and the markets shaped the circumstances that now conspire in ways that say to farmers there is not much hope for you out here. As we watch the depopulation of a major part of our country, let me make another observation. Those farmers that stay in business will harvest a crop this fall and receive a price that is pretty anemic. When the farmers get in the truck and haul the grain to the elevator, they will be told the food they produce doesn't really have much value. The farmers will scratch their heads and say, ``I don't understand that.'' This world adds a New York City in population every single month. Every single month another New York City in population appears on the face of this globe. At least a half billion people and probably far more than that go to bed every single night with an ache in their belly because they don't have anything to eat. Yet, we are telling our farmers that what they produce has no value. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. Working on a bipartisan basis as a Congress, we have to find a way in this budget mechanism to say to family farmers that their presence in this country matters to America. It strengthens our country to have our food production produced by a network of broad-based economic owners, by our family farmers. It strengthens our country to have the family farm system existing in America. We must decide and decide quickly that the current farm bill doesn't work. It must be changed. People say, ``Do you want to go back to the old support prices?'' I don't know. I am willing to discuss that. If you have a better idea, let me know. But, do you really want to go to any community in this area and say our nation's policy is more of the same? Do we want to keep seeing outmigration, and collapsed farm prices? Do we want to keep transitioning farmers out of farming? Whatever ideas exist in this Chamber, I am willing to discuss. I have an idea for the first step. Let's take the caps off the price support loan rates and at least give farmers what the big print said it was going to give them in the farm bill, and what the fine print took away. Let's take the caps off the loan rates, and get the loan rates up to where they ought to be. That is the first step. We have all the farm organizations around town who purport to support family farmers. I assume that is who is financing them. Yet, every single one has a different message about what ought to be done. Some do not support taking the cap off the loan rates. They don't have ideas, but they oppose those who do have ideas. At some point, if we are going to save family farming for this country, we have to get together and find some kind of approach that will reconnect a decent income to those who produce. This isn't the fault of family farmers. This is not their doing. They didn't cause the markets to collapse. They didn't cause the financial crisis in Asia. They didn't cause the unfair trade from Canada that allows a massive quantity of spring wheat and durum wheat to flood into our marketplace. They didn't cause that, and they ought not be victims. They didn't cause the foreign policy problems that require us to have sanctions against other countries, or the foolish notion that we ought to have any sanctions at all on food and medicine. Farmers didn't cause that. That is another step we ought to take. I don't say this suggesting that it will solve the farm problem, because it won't. We ought to decide all sanctions on food and medicine anywhere in the world ought to be ended. I may offer that to the budget resolution this week. Does anyone think Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro missed a meal because we can't ship food to Cuba or Iraq? Not hardly. All that sanctions hurt are our farmers here in this country and poor people and hungry people abroad. My point is we must pass this supplemental bill in order to allow some of these family farmers to get into the field this spring. Without it, many of them won't get into the field. Then we must fix this farm program because this farm program doesn't work. We must work on a range of other issues, including trade to deal with the unfair trade problems our farmers face. There are a whole series of other steps that we can and should take. I want to mention this issue of priorities. I come from one of the most rural States in America, and our family farmers are in desperate trouble. Even as we debate these issues, we are told there is limited money available and we just can't do all of these things. If that is your priority, then farmers don't matter much. I mentioned that in 1995 the genesis of the current farm bill originated here on the Senate floor in the Budget Act that was brought for a vote to the Senate. And so better farm policy could start this week here in the budget resolution that is brought to the Senate later this week. Let's talk about what the priorities are. The majority party will bring a domestic budget mark to the floor this week that decreases domestic spending by slightly over $20 billion. The proposed mark of the Budget Committee will have a $9.1 billion increase for defense over that which was assumed in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. So, in defense, their budget will provide $290 billion, a $9 billion increase. But, in other domestic discretionary spending, their budget would take $20 billion in cuts. Now, last year in the fall, we passed some emergency aid for farmers. In that omnibus appropriations bill Congress provided aid for a range of things, including agriculture. $1 billion was added for the national missile defense program. $1 billion. It was money that wasn't asked for by the Defense Department. This money wasn't needed by the Defense Department. The Defense Department said it was spending money as rapidly as it could to find the technology and the solutions to hitting a bullet with a bullet, which is what the national missile defense program is. The Defense Department said it really didn t have the capability of using any more money. The Congress said it didn't matter to them and demanded that they have $1 billion more. So $1 billion more emerged. I tried to get a few thousand dollars, a few hundred-thousand-dollars, or a few million dollars to deal with the emergencies in Indian housing and Indian health care. I couldn't do it. But $1 billion, which the Department of Defense didn't want, didn't ask for, and didn't need emerged mysteriously. In fact, it turns out that they could not even spend it. Of the $1 billion, the Department of Defense could only find $150 million in uses in fiscal year 1999. Do you know what that was for? A third of it, amounting to $56 million was used for contract transition and rebaselining. Does anybody know what that is? Does that sound as if you are building a weapon? Contract transition and rebaselining. They are going to allocate another $50 million in the next fiscal year because they could not use it in the last fiscal year. They want to use $400 million on things other than national missile defense because they could not find a use for it in national missile defense. This priority comes from a Congress that says that we don't have enough money and we can't help these farm folks. It doesn't matter that these farmers aren't doing very well. They say we can't help them much because we don't have the money. My point is that this is about making choices. We have a responsibility to make thoughtful choices, good choices, choices that will strengthen our country. I find it more than a bit disappointing to discover that there is plenty of money for someone else's priorities, but not enough money to deal with what I think is a priority for this country such as the long-term economic health of family farming. I want to also mention one contributing factor to the farm troubles in this country of ours. I mentioned trade just a moment ago. I want to go back to it because our prices have collapsed for a range of reasons. These are the prices that our farmers receive for grain when they haul it to the elevator. One of the reasons is that we have a trade policy in this country that is a terrible trade policy. We say to the rest of the world that we are for free trade, open trade, come and trade with us. Yet, we refuse to stand up and have any backbone at all to stand for our producers when we are the victims of unfair trade. Let me give you an example. The Canadians continue to flood our country with their durum wheat and their spring wheat, undercutting our farmers' prices. Our nation can't seem to do a thing about it. For years now, it has gone on. I acknowledge that our Trade Ambassador and this President have taken some action, which is more than previous Presidents have done. Previous Presidents would not give the time of day to this issue. But this President's action and the action of the Trade Ambassador is far short of what it should be, and they know it. I found it interesting when I was in Europe a few months ago and I picked up the paper. I read that we are going into a trade war with Europe over bananas. I am sitting there in Europe thinking, gee, that is strange. Let's see, where do we produce bananas in the United States? I guess maybe we produce a few bananas in Hawaii. But by and large, we don't produce bananas in the United States. So why do we have a Trade Ambassador prepared to go into a trade war over bananas, something we don't produce? I guess it is because U.S. corporations produce bananas in Latin America and they are trying to sell them to Europe. Europe won't let the bananas in, so we get all exercised and we are going to have a trade war over bananas. I want to ask the Trade Ambassador this: If you are willing to go into a trade war over bananas, which we don't produce, would you be willing to take some reasonable action against countries that inundate our markets and cut our prices on something we do produce, such as spring wheat, durum, and barley? Why is it that we are willing to go to bat here and ratchet up a big trade dispute with Europe over bananas when we don't produce any real bananas. Yet, we seem unable, or unwilling, to take action against the Canadians, who clearly are violating our trade laws and who are causing massive dislocation in the center part of our country by undercutting our grain markets and hurting our family farmers.? Oh, I have thought from time to time about getting a truckload of bananas and dumping it on the front steps of the USTR s office to say at least here you can see some bananas when you walk out. You won't see any in the fields and you won't see any banana trees anywhere you look in the continental United States. You have this big trade dispute going on over bananas, which you won't be able to find in most corners of this country. That would at least give our trade office a chance to see bananas. But I decided I could not afford to do that, and it would probably be a stupid stunt anyway. Somebody needs to say: You are not thinking straight. If you want to stand up for the economic interests of this country, then stand up for things we produce. Then someone will say to me: Mr. Senator, you know there are some agricultural groups that support action against Europe on the banana issue? Yes, I am sure there are. We have dozens of farm organizations in this country who say they speak for farmers, and they wouldn't know a pair of coveralls from an oil rag. I mean, they wouldn't know a pickup truck from a razorback hog. In fact, they don't know much about farming. They are about agribusiness. They lobby under the name of farmers, but they really represent the agrifactories of this country. I say to them: You are off supporting this dispute about bananas, and you are probably all upset that I am undercutting you. No, all I am interested in doing is getting the limited resources of the U.S. Trade Ambassador's office to start fighting for the economic interests of what we produce in this country. Things like wheat and steel? Sure, we have people concerned about steel. I will join them. How about focusing on wheat coming in from Canada at secret prices, sent to us by a state trading enterprise that would be illegal in this country? We send auditors up to Canada and they say, ``We want information about what price you are selling for.'' They say, ``We are sorry, we don't intend to give you any information at all.'' That is violative of our trade laws, and we ought to have a Trade Ambassador who will do something about that and a President who will join her to say it is time to stop that kind of unfair trade. Well, Mr. President, my time is about over. I know that, as we begin the budget process this week and as we complete, hopefully, action on the supplemental this week, we will have a discussion about choices. I have talked a great deal about agriculture and the farm program. Let me conclude by saying that one of the most significant choices we will make, in addition to those I have described, will be the issue of the broad choices of what we are able to do with the future surplus. One of the major choices will be to determine whether there will be reserves left from that surplus to invest in Social Security and to protect Medicare. I am especially concerned with the issue of Medicare, which is the major issue that represents the difference between the two budget resolutions that will be brought to the floor of the Senate. That, I think, will be an aggressive and healthy debate and an appropriate one. There are those who stood on this floor some 35 or so years ago and said that the Medicare Program would make sense for this country for senior citizens who had no health care. They found that insurance companies were not lining up to ask if they can insure older folks. They didn't run around looking for older folks to insure, because old folks aren't the kind of people you make money from. You insure young, healthy people, and make money from those folks. Sixty percent of the senior citizens of this country had no health insurance, and we passed Medicare over the objections of many. Now, 99 percent of the senior citizens in this country have health care. They don't go to bed at night worried about whether their health circumstance will change in a way that will cause them very substantial trouble because they won't have the money to deal with their health care needs. Medicare relieves them of that kind of anxiety. We must, it seems to me, commit ourselves, in the context of choices that we make in the budget this year and in future years, to the long- term financial future and solvency of both Social Security and Medicare. I think in the next 2 or 3 days we will have a robust, healthy, and aggressive debate on this. Perhaps the debate will include some who never liked Medicare in the first place, and who wouldn't vote for it now, if they had a chance. I have heard a couple of people suggest as much in recent years. But, there are those on that side and perhaps many of us on the other who believe very strongly that this is a program that has been very, very healthy for tens of millions of American people and who believe that we ought to continue to provide solvency for it in the long term. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 20 minutes following the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of a colleague, that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of Senator Biden's staff: Ms. Joan Wadelton, during the pendency of the National Missile Defense Act, S. 257. And the request is for each day the measure is pending and for rollcall votes thereon.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, thank you very much for your generous description. Privilege of the Floor