Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me inquire of the Senator from Kansas. I understand we are in morning business. I don't object and would not object to the Senator taking substantial time in morning business. As I understand it, we are allowed 10 minutes, but the Senator has, by unanimous consent, received permission to speak for as long as he chooses. Normally, in morning business when Senators want to speak, we can increase that time of 10 minutes. In this circumstance, we were about prepared to go to the legislative branch appropriations bill. Senator Bennett from Utah made an opening statement in morning business. I am the ranking member on that subcommittee and I was prepared to make an opening statement. I guess I would like to get some notion of how long the Senator from Kansas intends to retain the floor in morning business before I agree to other sets of circumstances, so I can try to gauge the time and understand what might transpire on the floor of the Senate. So reserving the right to object, I inquire of the Senator from Kansas as to what are his intentions.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Kansas certainly has that right. In fact, when the bill is brought to the floor--the bill is not yet technically on the floor, the legislative appropriations bill--when the bill is brought to the floor, the Senator certainly has a right to offer any amendments. Nothing will prevent the Senator from his right to offer an amendment. I guess the issue is whether the Senator can offer his amendment, but other people are prevented from offering theirs. Maybe it will be worked out, but my expectation is that it won't get worked out. You used the term ``tie up'' the floor. I would really prefer that you not do that in morning business. I prefer that you find a way to do that the minute the bill is on the floor, if you so choose. But tying up the floor in morning business simply inconveniences others who would like to do some work here. I am sympathetic to the notion that there is a marriage penalty. I guess I am standing here, however, with the Senate in morning business, hoping that perhaps the Senator might allow the Senator from New York to proceed, and then allow me to proceed, and others who might want to proceed, and then it doesn't matter whether somebody talks until Sunday noon. I would like, in the morning business segment, or perhaps the opening segment of the appropriations bill, to be able to dispatch that business and let whoever wants to talk, do it until they are exhausted. You are speaking of a subject of some importance, I admit that. I am sympathetic to the issue you are raising. I hope that you perhaps would allow us to do the things we would like to do in preparation to get the bill to the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Kansas yield for a brief question?

Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate his courtesy. I just observe, however, I don't want him to skip over this point. The point isn't that somebody on one side of the aisle in the Senate is objecting to what you are doing. If there is intended to be a debate about tax policy on this bill, I expect the Senator from Kansas would fully understand, in the name of fairness, that it wouldn't be just his amendment that would be in order to be offered, but that there would be others, probably on both sides of the aisle, who would want to weigh in with their particular amendments. The objection is to the unanimous consent request that would say you get to offer your amendment but no one else gets to offer their ideas on the subject of taxation. I hope that when you characterize this, it is not to characterize it as something that the Democrats are unfairly trying to do, because that is not the case. The objection is to allowing you to offer your amendment but preventing anyone else from offering their amendment on the tax issue. In conclusion, I expect we will have a very substantial and lengthy debate on the issue of tax reform and tax changes and tax cuts perhaps in the month of September. At least that is the way it is shaping up. I want to make sure this is characterized fairly. I don't believe the Senator was being fair to us when he was saying we object to your amendment. That is not what we object to. We object to a process that says you can offer yours but no one on this side can offer their amendments on the subject of taxation. I appreciate the courtesy.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield further.

Mr. DORGAN. No, no----

Mr. DORGAN. I did not intend to interrupt the Senator from Kansas, I think, three times. He doesn't understand why the Democrats object to a vote on this. Does the Senator understand, the Democrats, as he characterized it, are not objecting to a vote on this? The objection is to a unanimous consent request that says there would be a vote on what you are proposing, but no one on this side of the aisle would be allowed to present alternatives for a vote. We have a couple of people in the Cloakroom, I am told, who want to offer tax amendments as well, if you want to have a vote on tax amendments on the legislative branch bill. It is not a case of Democrats objecting to a vote on your bill. I want people who might be listening to the debate to understand that. The unanimous consent request would say, let us have a vote on yours, but prevent anybody else from offering anything. Obviously, we have some folks who object to that.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are at some time going to take up the legislative branch appropriations bill formally. I wanted to make a couple of comments in response to the comments made by the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative Branch. Senator Bennett spoke about this work of the subcommittee. I have said before and I will say again I think he is an awfully good legislator. I appreciate very much the opportunity to work with him. We have worked in a cooperative spirit, in a bipartisan way, and have brought to the floor of the Senate a bill that I think reflects the right priorities and the prudent expenditure of the taxpayers' money for the things that are important and necessary. I especially wish to commend Senator Bennett. For those who don't know about his work on what is called Y2K or the year 2000 problem, I must say, having sat through all of the hearings we held, in every instance with every agency and every department, Senator Bennett has been very determined to make certain that we are on the road to addressing the problems that confront us with the turn of the century and the programming and the computer software that exists around our country, and he has, of course, since been named chairman of a panel on this issue. A lot of people don't think too much about it because it is a year and a half away, but it is a very important issue. Senator Bennett has been a leader on that issue, and I think the Senate owes him a debt of gratitude. Let me just for a moment mention a couple of items in the appropriations bill itself. We have in this legislation provided for a Trade Deficit Review Commission. With the announcement once again today that the trade deficit hit another record high, and the trade deficit continues to swell and balloon on us, I think it is important for our country to do a comprehensive review of what is happening and what is causing it, and what are the range of things we might do to address it. On this issue, we have worked, in consultation with the Senate Finance Committee, to make some changes that would be satisfactory to them. These changes will be reflected in the managers' amendment, and I think this process of constructing this recommendation has been a very useful process. It has been a collaborative effort with the folks in Senate Finance and others. As to this Trade Deficit Review Commission, the chairman of the full committee, Senator Stevens, has been a very strong supporter and a cosponsor; the ranking member, Senator Byrd, from West Virginia, a cosponsor and a very strong supporter as well. I think, especially given the news once again today, it is timely and important, and I appreciate, again, the cooperation of the chairman of the subcommittee. I want to mention the General Accounting Office which is funded in this bill. The GAO, which most people know it by, normally shows up in stories around the country that are written about the investigations they do. The GAO does first-rate investigative work. It is the investigative arm of Congress. It is not partisan, has never been partisan. It is a group of dedicated professionals who, at the direction of Congress, review and study, investigate, and evaluate a myriad of things we ask them to do about how the money that Congress appropriates is being spent. The GAO is a very, very important organization. We have cut the GAO substantially over a number of years and now we have tried to stabilize it with the right kind of investments. It is a smaller organization than it was, but it is a strong and assertive organization that does wonderful work for Congress. I am pleased that the recommendation we have in this particular appropriations bill reaches the level, albeit a much lower level of staffing at the GAO than had been there previously, a level which I think will give it the strength to do the job we expect them to do and the American people expect them to do. Anyone who has read their reports, read the news reports of the studies they have done, knows the value of the GAO. I do want to make a point that I have made repeatedly as well. I am profoundly disappointed, with respect to the GAO, that 21 months have passed since the departure of the Comptroller General, who is the person who heads the GAO. Comptroller General Bowsher headed the GAO for many, many years, a respected professional in every quarter in this community and around the country. Twenty-one months ago Mr. Bowsher left the GAO. That was not a surprise because he had reached the end of his rather lengthy term and had announced he was leaving. So we have had probably over 2 years' notice that position was going to be vacant. I am disappointed to tell my colleagues today that there is still not a permanent head of the GAO. We do not have a Comptroller General. We have someone who is acting. I have great respect for that person; he has done a very good job. But that is not the same as having a permanent head of an organization who is thinking in the intermediate and longer terms about what they hope to accomplish, how they want to run the organization. I say to my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, all friends of mine, I am sure, if you are one of those whose responsibility it is to help select from a list of premier candidates a new Comptroller General, and you have not yet done that in consultation, I might say, with the White House, please get about your business. Get it done. It is profoundly disappointing to me and many others, and I think the American people, to know that the Comptroller General's position has been unfilled for 21 months. That is not fair to the American people, in my judgment. Those responsible ought to get to work and get this done. One other item I might mention finally is the Congressional Budget Office. I was pleased that the committee report includes an exchange of letters that results from some items I have raised with the head of the Congressional Budget Office, Dr. June O'Neill. The Congressional Budget Office was putting out information on a monthly and quarterly basis that talked about the surplus in the Federal budget. The law requires them to put out all the information, not just some of the information. And all of the information by law requires them to tell us not just what the so-called unified budget portrays, but what the budget looks like if you do not include the Social Security trust funds, and that is a different number. There is no budget surplus unless you take the Social Security trust funds and bring them over into the operating budget, there is no surplus. It doesn't exist. And so all of these rosy surpluses put out by CBO and used by some of my friends here in Congress to whet their taste for more tax cuts, all these surpluses are just fiction. We finally have the CBO now putting out numbers that describe, all right, if you use the Social Security trust funds, here is the unified budget surplus. If you don't use the Social Security trust funds, here is the deficit. Every piece of information they put out, I might say, includes a notation that the Federal debt will continue to increase even as on the unified budget they claim there is a surplus. So that in itself will tell you that the American people need to have all of the information. I think we are making progress there. I know that those who take the unified budget portion of the CBO reports will hire a band that plays fast music and will dance so fast we can hardly see them in the next couple of months to try to satisfy this appetite to construct a $50-, $100-, $200 billion tax cut bill. First of all, there is no surplus with which to construct that tax cut. And second, my judgment is that one of the first acts with any bona fide and real surplus ought to be to make some payment on that debt, just begin to ratchet that debt down. I have no idea whether the Senator from Utah agrees with that, but I do recall his presentations on the floor of the Senate, with a very interesting chart in which he looked at this fiscal policy in a way that was different from the way anyone else had looked at it. I do think it would probably be a wonderful signal to the American people if we would take some part, of any future real surplus--not a fictional surplus but a real surplus--and say we intend, during good times, to try to reduce the actual indebtedness. I just mention that because a lot of what we do relates to what information we have, and when the Congressional Budget Office is putting out information only about the unified budget and ignoring the section of law that requires disclosure of what the budget situation is if you do not use the Social Security trust funds, it, in my judgment, is giving information to people that is making them far more excited than they should be about a surplus that honestly, at this point, does not exist. Let me mention, finally, we have some very dedicated people who serve this Congress--officers of the Senate and others who run the agencies and departments. I would like to say many of them have testified before our subcommittee. Many of them do outstanding work. They are not often heralded for that work. There is not a lot of information about the work they do. But I know, because we work late hours and spend a lot of time here, they put in a lot of hours. Their employees put in a lot of hours. We are well served by some people who are in public service here who provide staff assistance to the Congress. We should make mention of that. One of the other agencies I want to mention finally is the Library of Congress. I know Senator Bennett and I have had talks with Dr. Billington and others who run that wonderful institution. I think it is an institution that has somewhere around 14 million volumes of work. It is, I am told, the largest repository of human knowledge anywhere on Earth. Just as an aside, I read a speech by the president of IBM. He was talking about what they are doing on storage technology. He said they are, he thinks, on the edge of research breakthroughs sufficient so that, in the not too distant future, they would be able to put all of the works in the Library of Congress--in other words, all of the largest volume of work of recorded human knowledge anywhere on Earth, on a wafer the size of a penny. Pretty remarkable, isn't it? But the Library of Congress is a wonderful, important treasury of information for this country. We have had the pleasure of working with them on a wide range of issues. I want to especially compliment the work they are doing, digitizing a lot of their records, and the other things that are happening at the Library of Congress. So let me conclude where I began, to say it is truly a pleasure to work with Senator Bennett. He is, I think, an outstanding legislator. I hope at some point we can get the bill up. I hope when we get the bill up, we can get the bill passed and get on with this. But as I indicated in response to the Senator from Kansas, the issue he is talking about is not an insignificant issue, it is a real issue and an issue of some importance. As soon as we can find a way to resolve all these issues, perhaps we can get the legislative branch bill to the floor and get it resolved with some dispatch. Let me thank the Senator from Kansas for his cooperation.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be submitting today a Senate Concurrent Resolution recognizing and honoring the 50th anniversary of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. I am joined in this effort by our esteemed colleague from Tennessee, Dr. Frist, who by profession is a heart and lung transplant surgeon and medical researcher. An identical resolution has already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Bill Young. Heart disease is our country's No. 1 killer and a leading cause of disability. Chronic lung disease is the fourth leading cause of death. Virtually all of us have a friend or a loved one who has been affected by heart attack, stroke, high blood pressure, other cardiovascular diseases, asthma, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, or hemophilia. The NHLBI is the Federal Government's leading supporter of heart research, as well as research into diseases of the blood vessels, lungs, and blood. There have been wonderful discoveries made through research and wonderful treatments that are provided in our hospitals in these areas. For instance, the first open heart surgery did not occur until 1954. Today, surgeons routinely perform double, triple, and even quadruple heart bypass procedures. Yet there is so much we still do not know. It seems to me more and more research can unlock these mysteries and give us the opportunity to save more and more lives in this country. I might also add that there is another organization devoted to the reduction of death and disability from heart attack, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases that is also celebrating its 50th birthday--the American Heart Association. The American Heart Association has worked closely over the years with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in the fight against cardiovascular diseases. As many of my colleagues know, I have become increasingly concerned about what has been happening to the amount of money spent on heart and stroke research by the federal government. Even with the significant increases that Congress has been giving to the National Institutes of Health over the past decade, funding for heart research has simply not kept pace even though it kills more Americans than any other disease. In fact, funding for heart research at the NHLBI appears to be losing more and more ground. It constant dollars from FY 1987 to FY 1997, funding for the NHLBI heart program has decreased by 7.6 percent in constant dollars, while funding for the Heart Program has increased by 27.5 percent. We can do better, and we must do better. Our Nation must do a better job than this in the battle against America's No. 1 killer. During the commemoration of this 50th anniversary of the 1948 Heart Act, which created the National Heart Institute, I hope we can make more progress against cardiovascular and other insidious diseases by providing a significant increase in funding for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and particularly for research against heart disease and stroke.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Let me make two points that I think Senator Conrad and I and others would want to make. One responds a bit to some comments made earlier. The potential benefits of this amendment would be available to people in a range of areas of the country who have suffered, in one form or another, substantial income loss and are going through an agricultural crisis. That includes Texas, South Carolina--a whole range of areas of the country. But I want to make it clear, this is not simply an amendment that would target one or two or three States. Farmers in many other parts of the country who face similar circumstances and a similar crisis would be eligible. Second, and I think most important, while there has been a lot of discussion on the floor of the Senate about agricultural policy, I think it is important to make clear, this amendment is not a substitute for or a denial of the interest many of us have in some of the arguments that have been offered and proposed in recent days by others on the floor about the increased need for additional effort in trade. Some of our colleagues have stood on the floor and talked about the need for moving American grain overseas, for additional efforts in trade, additional use of the Export Enhancement Program, and other things. I support all of that. I think we ought to be more aggressive with respect to Food for Peace. I have mentioned that there are people starving around the world: A million people to a million and a quarter people face starvation in Sudan today. We can and should, in my judgment, with the quantity of grain we have, substantially increase shipments under title II and title III of Food for Peace. We can and should be more aggressive with the use of the Export Enhancement Program. We can and should be more aggressive with a range of other programs. The Secretary of Agriculture, I would say, has been very aggressive with the GSM program and others. But I would like our country to meet competition anywhere around the Earth. If the European Union wishes to deeply subsidize its grain and attempt to take markets away from this country, we ought to go to those markets and meet them and compete and win that competition. If that requires export subsidies to meet what the Europeans are doing, then so be it; that is precisely what we should do. So, those who insist on a much more aggressive approach in international trade will find no quarrel with me. I believe we should have a more aggressive posture with respect to trade issues. That is one, but only one, of the issues we need to address. Another of the issues we need to address is the issue of emergency response in times of crisis to farmers, particularly in some areas of the country that have seen almost a total collapse of their income. That is the purpose of the amendment we have sent to the desk. I, too, listened carefully to the Senator from Mississippi. I think he is an awfully good legislator. He is certainly fair. I hope we can achieve some bipartisan support here in this Chamber on this kind of legislation. I don't think there is any pride of authorship here either. My expectation is that in the coming period we will be able to discuss some of the specifics of this legislation and perhaps reach a conclusion on it. With that, I know my colleague from Montana is here, although he apparently is not going to speak at this point. Let me yield the floor to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in a few minutes Senator Conrad from North Dakota will send an amendment to the desk on behalf of himself and myself and some others that will deal with an indemnity program, an amendment that I think he has already described to Members of the Senate. I think this is one of the most important amendments we will vote on on this bill while it is on the Senate floor. I want to just describe again, as I think my colleague has and I have on other occasions, what causes us to feel the need and the urgency to respond to an agricultural crisis. The agricultural crisis is occurring in a number of States in our country in a way that is causing family farmers to lose their farms, to have the auction sales, to sell out and lose their hopes and dreams. We feel that because of collapsed prices and rampant crop disease, and other things which are not the farmers' fault, that we ought to do something to extend a helping hand and say to them that we want to help them over this tough period. I would like to show my colleagues a map that describes the problems we have had in North Dakota for family farmers. The red represents counties that have been declared disaster areas every year for 5 straight years. All of these counties have been declared disasters every year for 5 years in a row. That means if you are farming here, or here, any one of these areas, you have been out there farming in an environment and in a climate in which there is, in most cases, a devastating wet cycle with you being prevented from planting because the fields are full of standing water that has not left and has not absorbed, and if you did get a crop in, you have had it devastated by the worst crop disease in this century in North Dakota. The orange have been declared disaster areas for 4 years out of 5 years, and the yellow, 3 years out of 5 years,. The farmers in these areas have confronted a disease called scab. This picture doesn't mean much to a lot of folks. But it is the picture of a field of hard red spring wheat infested with scab disease. It is called fusarium head blight. But it is a devastating disease that decimates the quality of this crop, so that when and if the farmer gets a crop and hauls it to market, the farmer discovers it is worth very, very little. The cereal scientist, Bryan Steffeson, said, ``I have never faced anything as tough as fusarium head blight. Make no mistake about it. This is the worst plant disease epidemic that the United States has faced with any major crop during this century.'' This is very unusual and devastating to the pocketbooks of family farmers. With respect to wheat, I just described the previous chart; with respect to barley, the same plant scientist says, ``North Dakota's barley industry is hanging by a thread, even though it is typically the leader in feed malting barley products.'' As a result of crop disease and collapsed market prices, our farmers' incomes in North Dakota dropped 98 percent in 1 year--a devastating drop in income. And I think almost anyone can imagine if, in their neighborhood, or on their block, or among their friends, they had a 98- percent drop in income, they would understand this is very, very difficult to live through. A lot of family farmers aren't able to survive it. The result is they are forced off the farm and forced to sell out. This was in the New York Times accompanying a story on July 12. ``Across the northern tier, farmers' income drops.'' And it says we have a problem with farm income dropping in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. The point of that is that this is a pervasive, difficult problem that requires an urgent response. The Fargo Forum in an editorial yesterday indicates that, ``The crisis in farming is for real. The social and economic damage piling up in farm country cannot be minimized. Politicians who believe the revolutionary Freedom to Farm law is working should spend some time in rural America, especially in the upper Midwest.'' This is a paper, incidentally, that has editorialized in favor of the Freedom to Farm bill. They say that it needs some adjustments and changes. You can't ignore that. They say at the end of this editorial, ``The least Congress can do now, while in the longer term enlighten lawmakers to revisit and revise the Freedom to Farm, is to try to pass some type of supplemental legislation that would respond to urgent needs for some payments in farm country.'' A number of us, led by Senator Conrad, and joined by myself and others, have worked on a program that would provide the opportunity for some indemnity payments, which is just another way of saying those farmers who have had their income washed away would be given some short-term interim help with the passage of this amendment. The amendment would provide up to $500 million for the Indemnity Payment Program. It is supported by President Clinton. We were meeting at the White House yesterday with President Clinton. My colleague, Senator Conrad, myself, and a number of others from farm country, received a letter from President Clinton that describes in writing what he told us personally yesterday during the meeting--that he supports the amendment we are offering now, and it is part of a three-pronged approach that he himself espouses: No. 1, a supplemental benefit program of the type we have described, an indemnification program; No. 2, compensation for farmers who have flooded lands; and, No. 3, extended authority for emergency livestock needs. Mr. President, I mentioned earlier--I want to say again--that this is not a political or a partisan issue. Out in the country they don't drive Democratic or Republican trucks. They don't pull Democratic or Republican plows. They are only family farmers trying to make a living in a very difficult set of circumstances. They are some of the hardest working Americans. They get up early, work hard all day, and go to bed late. They risk everything they have. Everything they have is on the line--all of their hopes, all of their dreams--and all of their savings are invested in a crop that might or might not grow. If it is grows, it might or might not yield them an income that allows them to repay the expenses they incurred to put in the crop. That is the nature of family farming. I think family farmers have always understood that risk and always accepted that risk. But they have always hoped. And they have sometimes been the recipients as a result of that hope that when times are tough, when the bottom falls out, when prices collapse, when they are hit with devastating crop disease, that somehow there would be a basic safety net to try to be helpful to them to allow them to get over those price valleys; some kind of a bridge to allow them to cross that difficult period. If you are a very, very large corporation, you can cross that price valley. Things get tough, you can tighten your belt, and you can survive. But the thin financial nature of a family farm often cannot cross that price valley. When prices collapse, or disease conspires, then there must be some kind of a bridge, some kind of mechanism of support that says, ``Let us step in and help.'' That is what the amendment offered by Senator Conrad, myself, and others will do. It simply says, ``Let us step in and provide some help to respond to a growing and urgent farm crisis.'' Mr. President, with this, I would yield the floor. I believe we are close to having the amendment in order to send to the desk. When we do, I believe that Senator Conrad, a couple of others, and I will make brief additional comments. We would hope very much that our colleagues will respond favorably to this. We think it is thoughtful. It is supported by the President and it is supported by the Secretary of Agriculture. Editorially it is supported by newspapers that support the Freedom to Farm bill, because the editorials, others, and family farmers recognize this need is urgent and the response to it cannot be delayed. Let me commend my colleague, Senator Conrad, with whom I am privileged to work. We work on a lot of issues together but none more important than the issue of trying to respond to and to help family farmers survive during times of crisis and times of urgent need. His leadership and efforts on this legislation are significant. I am pleased to be a part of the effort today to offer this amendment, and I hope for the favorable consideration of our colleagues. I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are a number of issues we find strong agreement on today on the agricultural matters. And the matter that was just spoken about by the Senator from Idaho regarding sanctions is one in which I have very strong agreement with him, and also with the Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts of Kansas. All of us agree that it doesn't make any sense at all to use food as a tool of foreign policy and to tell farmers to pay the costs of sanctions, and so on. So I am very pleased that we were able, on a bipartisan basis, to work together to resolve that issue. I think we have done that in an effective way. I am also pleased that the amendment which we have just offered and was accepted and cosponsored by the Senator from Idaho. We have worked with the Senator from Idaho and others, including the Senator from Kansas, Senator Roberts, in discussions on a wide range of income issues dealing with family farmers. The reason I sought recognition is just to make one final point; that is, this amendment now becomes part of the agricultural appropriations bill. It then goes from the Senate to a conference with House of Representatives. That is likely, between now and sometime in September, as this agricultural crisis continues to emerge, to occur in a way that may require some changes and some adjustments. We all understand that. But I think this is an enormously important and a helpful first step to say to family farmers who are struggling that we recognize that this is, indeed, a crisis and we want to respond to that crisis. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his leadership, and the Senator from Arkansas for his leadership as well, and I thank my colleague, Senator Conrad, who is as determined and effective and tough a legislator as there is to work with. I am pleased to have joined him in working on this amendment as well. I think this is an important step, and it will be viewed as good news--not necessarily the final answer, but good news by family farmers, that on a bipartisan basis the Congress recognizes a crisis and is prepared to respond effectively to it. I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from Mississippi. I understand he wants to hear from other Senators. It seems to me that one of the suggestions he made makes a lot of sense. Having the opportunity to go to conference with a provision similar to this in the piece of legislation that comes from the Senate will put us in the position of sending a message to those areas that have been hardest hit, a number of areas of the country ranging from the Southeast, to the South, to the North, that we understand this is, in fact, a crisis; that we are responding as we did in the sense-of-the- Senate resolution passed earlier this week without a dissenting vote, that the ag crisis is something that we are willing to address. I accept the point made by Senator Cochran that there may well, in the coming days or weeks, be a need to change the response. Perhaps the response will need to be more aggressive. Perhaps the response may need to be characterized differently. But it seems to me appropriate to go to conference with a provision of this type in the legislation, because it is, I think, telling the family farmers in this land that this Senate does care, does want to respond, and understands that there is a crisis in certain parts of the country. Again, I certainly respect the interest of the Senator from Mississippi wanting to gauge the reaction of a number of Senators on this subject, but I hope when the day is out and this amendment is disposed of that it will be disposed of in a way--I guess ``disposed'' of is the wrong word--I hope that it is resolved in a way that reaches one of the suggestions perhaps offered by the Senator from Mississippi that we can include it in this legislation. I must say that I have watched the Senator from Mississippi for some days on the floor. I have always felt he has the patience of Job. He is one of the most gracious and considerate Members of the Senate. I know this is a trying time. I am on the Appropriations Committee with Senator Cochran, and I am also someone who will sit here as a ranking member on one of the subcommittees. I know it is a trying time to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate and discover that a lot of folks want to address this bill with peculiar amendments on a range of issues. I know he understands, because of the vote earlier in the week, that we face very unusual and, in fact, very difficult times in some parts of the country. The crisis we have in our State is unparalleled. I can't think of a time when we have suffered a 98-percent loss in net farm income. It has been devastating. The Senator from Mississippi understands that is what has occasioned amendments to be offered to this bill. I must say, again, he has enormous patience. Even in exhibiting that patience, he has a graciousness and dignity that all of us appreciate. I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

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

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me briefly rise in opposition to the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that has been offered. While I think there is much in that amendment to commend--and I support some parts of it--the first provision in that amendment is to suggest that Congress should bring up and pass fast-track trade authority. I could not disagree more with that recommendation. I cannot support a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that includes it. I want to just demonstrate for my colleagues with some numbers where we have been with fast-track trade authority. I know some people don't want to talk about the details; they want to talk about the theory. The theory is that if you have expanded trade around the world, that is good for everybody. I am all for expanded trade. Put me down as a ``yes'' checkmark on the line for expanded trade. Yes, this country ought to be a leader in expanding trade. But this country also ought to be a leader in saying that we demand and insist on fair trade agreements with our trading partners. And when we have trading partners that don't treat us fairly, this country ought to say, stop, wait, we won't allow that to continue to happen. We ought to say to the Chinese, Japanese, Canadians, Europeans and, yes, others that I could mention but have not, when we have a relationship with you, it must be different than the relationship we used to have just after the Second World War. Just after the Second World War, almost all of our trade relationships were foreign policy issues. How do you treat this country? Well, this country is weak and rebuilding, so let's give them concessions here and concessions there, and we will open our market up to their products, and they can close their market to ours, because we are bigger and better and stronger and tougher and we can beat anybody with one hand tied behind our back, and that is fine. For a quarter of a century after World War II, that is the way we thought and behaved, and it didn't matter because we succeeded anyway. Income in this country had increased, economic growth was substantial, and we were just fine. The second 25 years, post-Second World War, have been different. Our trading partners are now stronger, better, shrewder. We still have the softheaded notion that our trade policy ought to be foreign policy. We say to the Chinese, you can ratchet up in one decade a $50 billion or $60 billion trade surplus with the United States, or put the United States in a trade deficit position with China, and it is OK. Let the United States be your cash cow for your hard currency needs. That is OK. We are willing to do that. With Japanese trade, as far as the eye can see, there are $40 billion, $50 billion and $60 billion deficits every single year that we experience. We are urged to pass fast track authority. Now, fast track--which is the reason I am objecting to this amendment--is a specific, unusual procedure that says, let's have the American trade negotiators go somewhere and negotiate a trade agreement. Almost always, it will be in a closed room, and almost always, behind a closed door. They negotiate the agreement and then bring it back. Here is the catch: Fast track means that when it is brought back to the floor of the House and the Senate, there are no amendments--no democracy here--just up or down. There are no suggestions for improvement, no objections, no amendments. You must vote up or down, yes or no, and that is fast-track authority. Mr. President, let me just review a couple of the fast-track agreements we have had. Well, our folks went off and negotiated with Canada a fast-track trade agreement. At the time, we had about an $11 billion trade deficit with Canada. So our negotiators got involved and got behind those doors. I don't know whose ``jerseys'' they were wearing. I kind of wish we could buy them jerseys and they would say ``U.S.A.,'' indicating that they represent the good old U.S.A., that they are on our team, that they are negotiating for us. I kind of wish we could put jerseys on them and send them into the room. I expect that the people wear white shirts, and they have all the theories in mind, and they talk back and forth about trade theory. In any event, when they did it with Canada, here is what happened. We had an $11 billion trade deficit with Canada. They went in and talked about their theories and did their little deal behind closed doors, and they brought it back to the Congress and said, OK, there's no chance for amendments. So the Congress passed it--not with my vote; I voted against it--Congress passed it, and guess what? The trade deficit with Canada doubles. It doubles. And the people that negotiated the agreement say, gee, didn't we do a good job? This is really working well. Well, what school did they go to? They do a trade agreement and our deficit doubles, and they think we are making progress? I don't know of any schools that teach that. So they say, well, that is not enough. Now let's do a deal that includes Canada and Mexico and call it NAFTA, and we will do it under fast track. So we get them all at the table, close the room, bring more chairs to the table and negotiate some more. Still no jerseys, I expect. But they negotiate and negotiate, and they come back. Now, we had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico as we started negotiating. They come back with a trade agreement, and they say to Congress, ``Gee, you've really done a good job this time.'' And Congress votes on no amendments with no opportunity to change it. I didn't vote for it. But Congress supports it, because fast-track trade authority prevents anybody from making any adjustments or changes. And the Congress then passes NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. At the time, we had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico. Guess what happened. The $2 billion trade surplus evaporates, and the $2 billion trade surplus we had with Mexico now becomes a $14 billion to $15 billion trade deficit--$14 billion to $15 billion deficit--and the same people who told us we ought to do it say, ``Gee, this is working really well.'' Apparently they went to the same school and took the same classes. Let me give you some numbers with respect to Mexico, just as an example. This is how they describe these trade agreements. They say, ``From 1993 to 1996, do you know that we increased our exports from the United States to Mexico by $14 billion?'' Why, give them a blue ribbon at the county fair--$14 billion increase in exports from the United States to Mexico. They don't read what is on the other page, do they? The other page says, ``Oh, yes, we did increase our exports to Mexico some''--$14 billion. But imports from Mexico into the United States increased nearly double, from $39 billion to $73 billion--$34 billion increase in imports from Mexico. In fact, we now import more automobiles from Mexico into the United States than the United States exports to all the rest of the world. We were told with NAFTA, by the way, ``If you pass NAFTA, guess what will happen. The products of low-skilled labor will come into the United States. That is what will happen with Mexico.'' What are the three largest imports from Mexico? The products of high- skill labor: Automobiles, automobile parts, and electronics. But my point is simple. With Canada, with Mexico, the two most recent examples, they are saying: Take fast track, let us negotiate it, and we will essentially shove it down your throat with no opportunity for amendment, and things will work out just fine. If history is any guide, we ought to understand things don't work out fine. The NAFTA agreement was not a good agreement for this country. It is not working. It has increased this country's trade deficit. The agreement with Canada has not worked. My colleague from Minnesota and I know other people get tired of me saying this and referencing the Canada agreement. And I am going to say it again. The Senator from Iowa acknowledges that he either heard it before or is tired of perhaps hearing it. But there is virtually a flood of grain coming into this country from Canada. Mr. Clayton Yeutter, good enough fellow, was trade ambassador at the time. He went up to negotiate this. I was on the Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. House at the time. I have in writing from the trade ambassador a representation that the trade agreement between the United States and Canada would not result in the increase in quantity of grain being shipped across the border either way--in writing, a guarantee from the trade ambassador. That is what the two sides agreed to. It wasn't worth the paper it was written on. The agreement was passed. The fact is, we had this flood of unfairly subsidized grain coming in. We tried to enforce our laws and get the information that we ought to get from the Canadian Wheat Board. By the way, in the negotiations with Canada, we said, ``We will allow your state monopoly trading enterprise to ship into this country.'' It would be illegal in this country, by the way, to have a state monopoly trading enterprise like the Wheat Board. But we will allow that Canadian Wheat Board to ship into our country and unfairly compete with United States farmers and refuse to disclose information about the shipping costs and the cost of acquisition. So we finally decided to push really hard on this, and file complaints, and so on. Then we discovered a secret deal had been made with the Canadians by the trade ambassadors, and which had not been disclosed to any of us, which said in terms of antidumping, and so on, in the United States that we agree that certain payments under the GRIP payment system by the Canadian Wheat Board to Canadian farmers will not be included as acquisition costs for their grain, which means you would never be able to prove antidumping because, by definition, they excluded part of the cost of acquisition of the grain. It just essentially sold out American farmers. I will never go for fast track--never--under these circumstances. It is not in this country's interests. Is it in this country's interest to increase the Federal trade deficit? If so, how? Someone explain that to me. Is it in this country's interest to do another trade agreement that increases the deficit? I don't think so. Yet, what trade agreement have we in recent years negotiated that has not resulted in a substantial increase in this country's trade debt or trade deficit? Name one. No one in this Chamber can name one trade agreement that has turned out in recent years. That is because, as I have said before, our trade policies in this country are soft-headed and weak-kneed. And, yes, that is strong language, but it describes exactly what is happening to trade. We have negotiators that negotiate fundamentally incompetent agreements because they don't have the nerve and will, it seems to me, to stand up for this country's interests. I have even thought that maybe on an appropriations bill I would offer an amendment that says let's add at least four or five employees down at USTR, and we will name them ``Backbone,'' ``Nerve,'' and will add a couple other names, and see if we can't inject some kind of passion to stand up for this country's interests and to say that we care about America's farmers, that we care about America's jobs, and we are willing to compete with anybody in the world--anybody. But the competition must be fair with respect to farmers. It is not fair. If a state monopoly pushes the flood of unfairly subsidized grain across our border, it drops the prices for American farmers. It is not fair. It is not fair that factory workers in this country are told: ``You compete against 14-year-olds that work 14 hours a day for 14 cents an hour somewhere on the other side of the globe.'' That is not fair competition. Yet, that is precisely what is negotiated in these trade agreements. My only point is--I will simplify it because others want to speak. I was going to offer a second-degree amendment to strip out the first provision which would push for fast-track trade authority. But in deference to time--Senator Cochran and Senator Bumpers are gallantly trying to run this bill through the Senate in a way that is thoughtful and favorable to everybody--in deference to that, I will not offer a second-degree amendment. I will just oppose the amendment that has been offered. I want to cooperate. I think other Members do as well. I do just want to say that while there is some in this amendment to commend it--some provisions to commend it, the first provision that says let's start doing again that which has failed us so badly, let's begin anew to stimulate trade policy that has resulted in such substantial increases in our Federal trade deficits, let's try once again and see if we can't do more trade agreements that have resulted in such unfairness to American farmers, I say there is no sense in that at all. Let me complete my statement by just showing a couple of charts. This is the trade deficit. If this isn't an avalanche of red ink, I don't know what is. Those who say this is a successful strategy, I say get me the names of the people who negotiated these trade agreements and let's make sure they do not negotiate again for this country. Let me just provide the one that shows what is happening with China. Our trade deficit with China is $50 billion and getting worse yearly. We don't get enough wheat into China. They displaced us as a major wheat supplier to China, as you know. We don't get enough pork into China. They consume half the world's pork. Our trade agreement with China, or the agreement by which we trade with China, is fundamentally unfair with us. If we take your trousers, shoes, shorts, and shirts, you take our beef and wheat, and don't tell us when you need to buy our airplanes from us, that you will only buy our airplanes from the United States if they come and manufacture them in China. That is not fair trade. Let's stand up for this country's interest. There are some who say, ``Well, when you talk like that, you are a protectionist.'' I am not a protectionist. I am for expanded trade. But I am darned sure for insisting that this country demand fair trade. Let me just, with one final chart, describe graphically what I have talked about now for a few minutes. In 1993, when we negotiated the trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, we had a $2 billion trade surplus with Mexico and an $11 billion trade deficit with Canada. Two years later, three years later, that trade deficit went from $11 billion to $23 billion with Canada, and it went from a surplus of $2 billion with Mexico to a nearly $16 billion deficit with Mexico. If that is progress, you give them the names of people who call it progress, and I think they ought to be banned from further trade negotiations. So I cannot support the amendment that is offered because it calls for fast-track trade authority and the renewal of that authority. And while I will not offer a second-degree amendment to strip that, I will simply vote against the amendment for the reasons I have stated. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN. I would like us to have a debate. In fact, the Senator from Idaho was winning a debate we weren't having a few minutes ago. So that is the easiest debate to win. We weren't having a debate a couple minutes ago about price supports. We were having a debate about this amendment. But we did have a discussion yesterday about price supports, and the Senator from Idaho described the Democratic Congress previously that did so and so, and the President, and USDA. This is not about which party has forsaken farmers. This is about, after all, what can be done to help farmers survive in the future. I am all for this nation to say to farmers, ``Get your money from the marketplace.'' I would love for a farmer to load up a truck and drive that truck to the country elevator and raise that hoist and drop that grain and sell it and get a decent price for it. But I will you this: that farmer loses money on every load of grain and loses big money, not because of something they have done but because of a whole range of other reasons--because, first of all, we have bad trade agreements, we have unfair grain coming in undercutting their markets, we have trade sanctions that mean 10 percent of the international wheat market is outside of their ability to sell, when they market up into the neck of a bottle against grain trade firms that hold an iron fist around the neck of that bottle when they buy farm machinery and equipment--guess what. They pay for it. They pay through the nose because those prices are going up. When they try to get their grain to a flour miller, four milling firms own over 60 percent of the milling capacity in this country. The same thing with wet corn milling. The same thing with meatpackers. If the Senator from Idaho can tell me that a family farmer driving on that lonely road in an old truck, in most cases a 10- or 12- or 15- year-old truck, trying to get those few bushels of grain to market, hoping above hope that they will be able to get something for that grain that meets their cost of living and meets their cost of production--if the Senator from Idaho can tell me that the deck isn't stacked against those farmers, that we don't have virtual monopolies in every area they turn around, that they don't show up at a railroad track and find that there are not two or three railroads ready to serve them, there is one (and in my State they will double-charge because there is no competition)--if the Senator from Idaho can tell me that that farmer driving that truck is driving down the road towards free and open and fair competition, then I say that is just fine, then we ought to butt out. But if the Senator can't say that--and I do not think he can say that in a million years--then somebody, somebody, had better say that family farmers matter and the future of this country will be benefited and enhanced if we decide that family farming has value and merit. I said it yesterday, and I am going to say it again. There is something so fundamentally wrong with what is happening in this country with respect to agriculture. We have people starving on the other side of the world, people trying to eat leaves on trees because they don't have food, and we have people driving their trucks to the elevator, sweating all year and risking everything they have in life to plant a crop and harvest it, and they are told when they get to the elevator that their grain doesn't have value, their crop doesn't have value. That is a situation we must find a way to correct and change. So, while we agree on some things, the Senator from Idaho and I, one thing we don't agree on is suggesting, as he has suggested, that, ``Gee, it is the Democrats here, Democrats there.'' All of us, Republicans and Democrats, have a stake in whether there are family farmers in the future. I wish very much that we never again have to have a farm program that provides support prices. But I will say this, when grain prices collapse and crops are ravaged by disease, if someone is not available to step in to say to family farmers, ``We are here to help; you matter,'' if someone isn't around to say, ``We are not going to pull the safety net out from under you because we want you in our future,'' then they are not going to survive and we will have corporate agrifactories farming America from the west coast to the east coast. And some might be fat and happy about that, thinking it is good for the country, but it won't be me, because we will have lost something very important in rural areas of our country. I know the majority leader wishes to be recognized. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I will take just a couple minutes, but I must respond to the Senator from Idaho. There is no time agreement here. I wish the Senator would have allowed me to ask a question and he had responded to it.

Mr. DORGAN

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

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me applaud the Senator from Nebraska for a statement that I think was eloquent and filled with good sense. And I certainly want to associate myself with the remarks he has just made. And even though we were on different sides of the previous amendment, let me say, as I did previously, the Senator from Indiana is a very respected Senator, someone for whom I have great respect on foreign policy issues. I am pleased to be here to speak as a cosponsor of the amendment that he has offered. It makes good sense to me. And I say, I think, as the Senator from Nebraska said, I would only go further than this. I certainly support this. I think it is a step in the right direction, but there is even more that we can do. The question that is required to be asked now is, When we impose sanctions around the world, for various purposes, many of them important purposes that deal with national security and other issues, should those sanctions include the shipment of food and the shipment of medicine? Frankly, I wonder if anyone believes that Saddam Hussein has ever missed a meal because of sanctions imposed by this country. Does anybody believe that Saddam Hussein has missed a meal? I do not think so. We cut off food shipments to Iraq. And if Saddam Hussein is making all of his meals, guess who misses their meals? It is almost always the poor and the hungry who are injured when you cut off shipments of food. Does anybody believe that Fidel Castro does not eat well nearly every meal when he chooses to have what he wants to eat? But when we cut off food shipments to Cuba, we know that it will be the poor and the hungry who will be injured by that. Our country, for very legitimate reasons, says we are very concerned about what is happening in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Cuba, and more. For legitimate reasons we say that. I am sure the Senator from Indiana, at greater length than any others of us, could recite the foreign policy issues and the national security issues that attend to those countries and their relationship with us and others in the world. But the question before us is not, Should we be concerned about those countries? Of course we should. The question is, When we impose sanctions, what should those sanctions contain? Is it in our interest and in the interest of the hungry and the poor around the world to include in those sanctions the withdrawal of shipments of grain and the withdrawal of shipments of medicine? I have clearly an interest here on behalf of family farmers. I represent one of the most agricultural States in the Nation. And nearly 10 percent of the market for wheat is out of limits or off limits to our family farmers because we have decided to impose sanctions and therefore take those markets off limits to our farmers. Does that cost farmers money? You bet. It takes money right out of their pockets. They are, in effect, told by these sanctions, ``You, Mr. And Mrs. Farmer, you pay the cost of these sanctions. You pay the cost as a result of lost income.'' Where I would go further is, I would support and am a cosponsor of an amendment that will be offered by Senator Dodd, and I think cosponsored by Senator Hagel, saying, let us not include food and medicine in future sanctions. That is not appropriate as part of sanctions. I am a cosponsor of that amendment to be offered. I would go further to say, this country ought to decide, if it is to impose sanctions in the future, or for sanctions that now exist, it ought to reimburse farmers for the cost of those sanctions. Why should this country simply say, ``Here is our desired effect, Mr. and Mrs. Farmer. You pay the cost of it''? If it is for national security, let it come out, then, of the national security accounts from which we pay for many other matters, and say to family farmers, ``We'll reimburse you for those lost markets.'' That is an amendment I am thinking of offering to this as well. We will see what results from that. But it is required, I think, to say, as we discuss this issue, as I said earlier today, there is some horrible disconnection in this world. Halfway around the world there are people in Sudan, we are told, old women, climbing trees to forage for leaves to eat, leaves because they are on the abyss of starvation; a million to a million and a quarter of them are on the edge of starvation because they don't have enough to eat. Turn the globe another halfway around and you will find America's farmers, who are the economic all-stars, produce food in abundant quantity, and they are told in our system that when they take that grain which represents that food to market, that their product doesn't have value, doesn't have worth. There is something that is terribly disconnected about that. I have been in many parts of the world. What I remember most about the desperate poverty and hunger that exists, for example, is in the desperate slum called Cite Soleil, on the outskirts of Port-au-Prince, Haiti. You see poverty as bad and conditions as desperate as anywhere else in the world. I leaned over a crib where a young child was dying of starvation in one of the worst slums you can imagine. This child had no one. The child had lost most of its hair; what hair was left was turning red as a result of severe malnutrition and starvation. This child, the doctor told me, was dying. I thought to myself, there is such a terrible, terrible, disconnection here because we produce food in abundant quantity. How on Earth can moving food around the world to all parts of the world that need our food in a way that connects our interests to the interests of those who need it, how on Earth could that ever threaten our national security? It does not and it could not. The Senator from Indiana offers an amendment on the issue of sanctions. It is very simple. It describes sanctions in the future. We ought to deal with sanctions that now exist, as well. It describes conditions for the imposition of those sanctions that deal with unilateral sanctions. It says the Secretary of Agriculture should use export assistance under various programs to offset any damage or likely damage to producers and so on. I fully support that and I am pleased to be a cosponsor, but I say again we have much, much more to do. Hubert Humphrey, many years ago, used to say, ``Send them anything they can't shoot back.'' What he meant by that is it will never injure our national security interests to send American food around the world, to sell it in markets where we can sell it, and to move it to other markets under title II and III under Food for Peace, and in some cases, title I, in other markets where they cannot afford to purchase it. It is always in our best interest. Is it in the best interest of farmers? Of course, but it also happens to run parallel to the national interests of our country. Let me finish where I began and say I am pleased to vote for this amendment, pleased to be a cosponsor, and will cosponsor an amendment that will go further, that Senator Dodd will offer, and may offer one myself, that deals with present sanctions and reimbursement to farmers for those sanctions, saying that the Government ought to not force them to bear the full burden of the cost of sanctions. But I thank the Senator from Indiana for offering this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN. I have nearly completed my statement. I respect the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Mississippi. They both are wonderful legislators. We might disagree from time to time on some of these issues, but I know he has been here for some while. This is, as you might imagine, enormously important. Agriculture drives our State's economy. I feel very strongly about a number of these issues. But I certainly want the Senator from Indiana to be able to make his statement. Let me finish by saying, I do not come here trying to figure out who is at fault. While I have strong feelings about farm policy, when I think this current policy is not good farm policy, and I have opposed it in the past, I think everyone comes at this with good will and with their own strong feelings about what ought to be done. But I do think that family farmers out there, are struggling these days against the odds and circumstances where they cannot control their own destinies at all. It is not their fault they have been devastated by crop disease. That is not their fault. It is not their fault that grain prices have collapsed. They did not have anything to do with that. And it is not their fault that the Crop Insurance Program, that we advertised as replacing a disaster program, does not work at all for somebody who suffers five straight disasters. One-third of our counties in North Dakota have had a disaster every year for 5 straight years--every year for 5 straight years. It is not their fault that crop insurance does not work for them. Each succeeding year means you get less of a base because you did not get a crop the previous year, so you still pay those premiums and get less from the Crop Insurance Program. Again, farmers ought not to be faulted for these circumstances. We ought to find a way to create a connection here to something that does work, to say to them, ``You matter. And we want to do something that makes a difference for you. We want to do something that gives you the opportunity to continue to farm.'' If you are a good manager and if you are willing to take some risks, we're willing to stand for you and with you to say, `Yes, here's a disaster program. Here's an indemnification program. Here's a little better opportunity on a loan rate. Here's the ability to hold that grain a little longer. Here are a number of things we want to do to try to make your life a little easier.' '' If we do that together--and I hope we will--and if we work with President Clinton who some of us plan to meet with this afternoon--I hope that perhaps at the end of the day we will all have decided that we have made a difference for family farmers. And, more importantly, I hope that family farmers will decide that we have made a difference in their lives as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DORGAN. Of course.

Mr. DORGAN. The answer to that is clear. The bigger interests win, the littler interests lose. That is why it seems to me that if you follow the philosophy of the current farm policy, you have to give them the flexibility of going to the marketplace when it is in their interest. And they do not have that capability now because most of them are forced to haul that to the market and sell it as soon as they get it off the ground because they have to pay back the operating loans. Anybody who says this isn't about big versus little is just flat wrong. Look, if somebody wants to farm an entire county, they have every right to do that. They can farm the entire county. They can buy 50,000 acres of land. They can plow as far as they can plow in 24 hours, camp overnight, and plow back as far as they can. They have a right to do that in this country. But they ought to join with the good Lord and their banker and figure out how they make ends meet. I am not terribly interested if they want to try to farm the whole county, how we offer price supports for them. But the family out there farming a family-size operation, they are turning on the yardlight, they are doing chores, they are taking enormous risks--do I want to provide some type of continuity and help for them? Of course I do. It seems to me, we ought to construct an approach that says to those folks, ``You really do matter.'' We have in North Dakota--you probably have the same in South Dakota, and I assume other States--we have 53 counties. Ten of them are growing and 43 of them are shrinking. My home county was 5,000 people; it is now 3,000 people. All that has to do with family farmers leaving the farm. And they are now leaving at an accelerated pace. I do not know that there is a magic answer to all of this. It is just that this particular amendment is an amendment that says, let us try to find a way to give farmers some flexibility to access the marketplace when it is more in their interest to do so rather than be forced to haul their grain to market and sell it when perhaps the prices are at bottom levels.