Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, each day that goes by, the depth and severity of our country's subprime mortgage foreclosure crisis emerges. It is very difficult. This week I spoke to former Secretary of the Treasury Rubin. I spoke also to the present Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paulson, and they both recognize we have some severe problems with our subprime mortgages. This is very deep. It is very hard.

Hundreds of thousands of mortgages are now delinquent nationwide-- hundreds of thousands. That is fully twice as many as last year, and last year was not a good year. The most alarming fact is this could be just the beginning. Experts agree as more mortgage rates continue to expire, not thousands, not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of American families could be at risk.

When these introductory ``teaser'' rates expire, these teaser rates where they tease people into taking these loans, sometimes that they couldn't afford--a lot of times that they couldn't afford--when these higher rates arrive, the mortgages that many families can afford today will become impossible to pay off tomorrow. This will leave many with just two options: lose their homes or try to work something out on refinancing.

That is what this is all about. Some say if a borrower gets into financial trouble, it is their obligation and it is their responsibility to find a way out. That is not true. If you have a piece of property, and it is a home and it is being foreclosed upon, you as the owner of that property are going to lose money. There is no question about it. You usually lose about 35 to 40 percent of the value of the home. So the borrower gets hurt. Also, the entity where the home is, a county or a city, if you have that property under foreclosure, the windows are boarded up, and it just loses value. So the tax base of that community suffers.

So we need to do something about that. We are talking about families losing the roof over their heads. Therefore, we need to do something about it.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Ben Bernanke, recognized that a sharp increase in foreclosed properties for sale could weaken the already struggling housing market and thus, potentially, the broader economy. He was being very deliberate. The word ``should'' should have been used, not ``could.'' But he was being, as he should be as chairman of the Federal Reserve, very cautious.

In Nevada, this crisis is hitting very hard. In 2006, in August, the number of foreclosure filings had gone up by more than 200 percent. We could see another 21,000 foreclosures, we are told, by the beginning of 2009 in Nevada. That is a lot of foreclosures.

One of the things we need to do is have more money for counseling, which the administration has cut back.

There are three items we need to work on in the near term: providing funding for foreclosure prevention counseling, modernizing the FHA administration, and providing temporary but necessary tools to the government-sponsored enterprises, Fanny and Freddie--that is Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--so they can keep funding available to make or refinance subprime mortgages. So we need to do this.

The Senate Banking Committee passed a bipartisan FHA Modernization Act of 2007 on September 9, 2007, by a vote of 20 to 1. This has broad support of consumers and the industry alike.

As the name of the bill indicates, this legislation is intended to bring needed changes to the Federal Housing Administration that will make the agency more capable of providing the services that homeowners need in today's all-too-perilous environment.

The FHA program encourages the private sector to make mortgages by offering government-backed insurance for the full balance of the loan.

Traditionally, since its inception in 1934, the FHA has played a major role in providing home purchase financing to minority, first- time, and lower income home buyers.

Beginning in the mid-1990s, and until now, however, as more exotic loans entered the marketplace, FHA saw its

overall market share drop dramatically.

In some cases borrowers considered the more exotic loans easier to get. In many other cases, borrowers were directed into those loans by brokers who often didn't have the borrower's best interests at heart.

Unfortunately, these exotic loans often lured borrowers with false or misleading information and contained ``teaser'' interest rates that, once expired, borrowers couldn't afford.

These were predatory loans--and the consequences of these shady practices are becoming more evident every day.

This crucial reform bill modernizes the FHA program by, among other things, lowering mortgage- down-payment requirements and raising the loan limits for FHA-backed loans.

The result will be a better loan option for families that are having trouble keeping up with their exploding mortgage payments. They will have the option of refinancing to an FHA-backed loan with the peace of mind that comes with it.

And for future homebuyers, a fully backed FHA loan with honest, up- front terms, will help prevent crises like we now face, and ensure that more American families will experience all the safety, comfort and stability that comes with homeownership.

Third, the PROMISE Act would temporarily lift the cap on the amount of loans Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can purchase as investments for a period of 6 months.

The bill could bring as much as $145 billion dollars into the subprime mortgage marketplace and prescribes that the vast majority--at least 85 percent of these resources--be used to refinance subprime loans.

The past decade has seen remarkable growth in American homeownership. What's more, these gains have been enjoyed from coast to coast and among groups that have traditionally been shut out.

We need to ensure that this progress continues.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request here that I have been told the Republicans will object to. I will make the request and then withdraw it. As I said, I have been told they will object.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2338

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 481, S. 2338, the FHA Modernization Act of 2007; that the Dodd-Shelby amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider laid upon the table; and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I now will withdraw that request.

What a shame that there is an objection to a bill that passed the House overwhelmingly, came out of committee over here on a vote of 20 to 1, and now there is an objection to it. That is really too bad. We will renew this request before we leave here for Thanksgiving. This will be much-needed relief. Even though the President hates the Government, this Government that was created many years ago has been a lifesaver for home building in our country, and we need to modernize it; it is long overdue. I hope the Republicans will withdraw their objection to this bipartisan, much-needed legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am wondering if my friend from Minnesota will be kind enough to allow the two leaders to engage in a little work here on the floor? As soon as we finish, he would retain the floor.

My friend is gracious in everything he does. I appreciate that so much.

Conditional Recess or Adjournment of the Two Houses of Congress

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to H. Con. Res. 259, the adjournment resolution.

Yes. We will do a unanimous consent request in a minute for your approval or disapproval. What we are going to do is come in in the morning. I want to come in early because of requests from both your side and my side that we vote first on an Iraq matter that the minority has brought to the floor; then we would vote on a motion to proceed to the bridge bill that the House voted on last night; and then we would vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the farm bill. At that time, hopefully, we would be ready to wind things down until after Thanksgiving.

I ask unanimous consent the current resolution be agreed to and the motion be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow on the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to S. 2340, the Senate Iraq Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill; if cloture is not invoked, the Senate then vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 4156, the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations bill; if that cloture is not invoked, the Senate then vote on cloture on the substitute amendment to the farm bill; I further ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on H.R. 2419, the underlying bill, be delayed to occur, if needed, upon the adoption of the substitute amendment; I further ask unanimous consent that the time for debate prior to the first vote be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that the last 10 minutes be reserved for the two leaders, with the majority controlling the last 5 minutes; and that there be 2 minutes for debate before the second and third votes.

I say to my friend, it is my intention to come in in the morning at 8:30. That would allow any Senators who wish to talk about the farm bill and Iraq to do that tonight and in the morning we have a few speakers and you would have some speakers, and that should conclude the events tomorrow. I think we need to come in early because we have had a number of requests, as you know.

I do say this, I appreciate the understanding of my friends on the other side. As they know, there is a debate tonight of all Democratic Presidential candidates, and they needed to be here in the morning. That is required. They probably needed the time anyway, but I couldn't push forward on that tonight, especially with the debate starting in 2 hours in Las Vegas.

Mr. President, let me say a couple of things before the distinguished Republican leader leaves. We had a brief conversation here in the well of the Senate a couple of minutes ago. I am disappointed we cannot proceed to the Transportation appropriations bill. The President tells us he wants bills. We do everything we can, and it is difficult to get them done, but we have now completed an extremely difficult conference. It has been open. Republicans have participated. I am not going to go into the details of the bill, but it is a transportation bill. It deals with such important parts of America's infrastructure which are so desperately needed.

I hope, I say to my friend, that maybe before we leave here tomorrow there will be another thought given to this. It would be nice if we could send this bill to the President and do it before we leave here for recess. Senator Bond and Senator Murray on our side, the managers of this bill, have worked very hard trying to get everything done. They worked today. We got a hold on it here taken off. Somebody objected here. We took that off. I am so grateful for their hard work, their bipartisan work on this legislation.

I do say this, Senator Bond, who has been one of the members of the Appropriations Committee for some time, has been pretty easy to work with over the years. He has been very reasonable. Senator Murray told me he has been extremely reasonable during this most difficult bill. I am not going to ask unanimous consent to go forward on it. I have been told by my friend, the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, there would be an objection. I do feel sorry we have not been able to do that.

Finally, I will say a few words on an important issue, breast cancer and environmental research. I indicated earlier this year I was going to move forward, if necessary, on cloture. There is one Republican Senator who has held up this extremely important bill. This legislation would authorize money for 5 years to study the possible links between the development of breast cancer and environment. One key provision in the legislation would create an advisory panel to make recommendations about these grants.

Over the past 6 years, this bill has enjoyed very broad, bipartisan support. During the 109th Congress, this bill was reported out of the HELP Committee, but one Senator on the other side, one Republican, objected to our request to pass it.

I am bound and determined to pass this legislation. Why I have not moved on it earlier is the following reason: We have gotten great work on a bipartisan basis out of the HELP Committee. Senators Kennedy and Enzi--one would not think they are political soulmates, but they are. They balance each other out. Senator Enzi confided in me--I don't necessarily mean confided in me, but he told me that he was going to have a hearing on this very soon, before the first of the year, to see if he could work out the problems the one Senator had. If that in fact is the case, this matter could be brought out of the committee to the floor and passed very quickly rather than my taking a week or so on the legislation. So I want all those who are so concerned about this legislation to know I have not forgotten about it, but based on Senator Enzi's representations, I am not going to try to invoke cloture on this bill at this time. If we do not get something done during the first few months of the next year, we will do that. Hopefully we can pass it in December.

I am happy to yield for a question.

I answer to my friend who has done such an outstanding job on this bill, as she does on everything, this bill did have in it $195 million to replace I-35 West, the bridge in Minneapolis. We all witnessed the tragedy of the collapse of that bridge. A picture is worth 1,000 words so I will not give 1,000 words, other than to say I ask everyone to call up in their mind's eye the devastation that took place when that bridge unexpectedly collapsed. The bill also, I say, includes an additional $1 billion for urgent bridge repairs in all States in the wake of that tragedy. That is only a small part of that legislation and it is unfortunate we couldn't send that to the President before the recess. We still could, maybe when we get back in the morning, and we could do it before we leave here. That is still possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, may turn to the consideration of H.R.

3996, the Tax Extender/AMT bill, and that it be considered under the following limitations: that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between Senators Baucus and Grassley or their designees prior to a cloture vote on the bill; if cloture is invoked, there be no amendments in order to the bill; if cloture is defeated, there then be 1 hour for debate on Senator Lott's amendment No. 3620, providing for AMT repeal and 1-year extension of expiring tax provisions; that following that vote there be 1 hour for debate on Senator Baucus's amendment providing for a 1-year AMT patch and a 2-year extension of expiring tax provisions with the cost of the expiring tax provisions offset; that each amendment vote would require 60 votes in the affirmative; that following those votes, if an amendment is agreed to, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote immediately, without any intervening action or debate, on final passage of the bill. If neither amendment achieves 60 votes and cloture is not invoked on the bill, then the bill be returned to the calendar; if cloture is invoked on the bill, then the Senate proceed to complete action on the bill under the provisions of rule XXII.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, during the past 7 years, we have had an interesting financial program in this country led by President Bush; that is, spend whatever you want, just use a credit card. That is, he wants new programs. He has had plenty. Just write out one of the IOUs that came from the credit card. Or if you want to reduce taxes, do not pay for it, just call for the credit card, which it seems the limit on that never runs out, just more and more.

When this man, this man, President Bush, took office, there was a $7 trillion surplus over 10 years. Now there is a deficit of $9 trillion. That is what the Bush fiscal policy has done to this country.

We in this Democratic-controlled Congress believe things should be paid for. We have done that working with the House on everything. We believe we are going to do our very best to do it on this legislation.

But I would suggest to my friend that one of the requests I had is that we vote on--have every opportunity to vote on--what the House sent us.

But without belaboring the point, I think we have two different ways of how this Government should run. One should be on a pay-go basis. If you want to increase spending, you pay for it. If you want to cut taxes, pay for that. For 7 years the Republicans have not agreed with that. As a result of that, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. So I respectfully object to my friend's request.

Mr. President, I appreciate my friend from Oklahoma yielding the floor. I appreciate it very much. He had the right to the floor and I hope he was able to complete his statement.

Golden Gavel

Mr. President, first, I want to recognize the Presiding Officer. One of the accolades that we are allowed, and certainly look forward to giving to the Members of the Senate, is for those people who preside over the Senate for 100 hours a year. My friend from Colorado has reached that pinnacle an hour or so ago. That is a tremendous accomplishment, 100 hours presiding over the

Senate. I congratulate my friend and look forward to the first time we get back after Thanksgiving recess on a caucus day where we make the presentation of the very fine golden gavel. As I have said before, it is a very nice presentation. You will be able, for many years to come, to talk to your children and grandchildren about presiding over the Senate for 100 hours in 1 year.

So thank you very much, I say to my friend from Colorado, who does an outstanding job not only presiding but being the Senator he is representing the people of Colorado.

Transportation Appropriations Conference Report

Mr. President, it is interesting; one Republican Senator said, when we were trying to clear something earlier, to one of my Democratic friends, the reason they couldn't clear our appropriations bill, the Transportation appropriations bill is that they were told the situation with the Republicans is they don't want us to do anything, so they object to everything they can, and that is pretty obvious. So we were prevented from going to the Transportation appropriations bill. It was quite unique that in the time we were doing this the Senator from Minnesota was on the floor. He, above all others, should be weighing in and trying to help us get the Transportation appropriations bill passed. There is money in it to rebuild the bridge in Minnesota.

But we have something else that is vitally important: terrorism insurance. We are arriving at a point where construction cannot go forward. Now construction is already taking place--certainly it can-- but construction projects that are on the drawing boards in a month or so will not be able to go forward because they can't get terrorism insurance because we have not provided it. We have been ready for some time to do that. There is a bill that has been cleared on our side that the Republicans are holding up--a bill dealing with the very foundation of this country--whether the business community in our country is going to have the benefit of terrorism insurance. Without that, it is a dramatic hit to what we need to do in this country for the business community.

I think it is unfortunate. We asked our staffs to check with the minority and they said no, they couldn't clear it; maybe tomorrow. Well, we have a lot of tomorrows around here that seem to never come. It would be a real shame if we could not clear tomorrow the terrorism insurance that is so extremely important to this country.

Iraq

It was interesting to hear my friend from Oklahoma speak about the war in Iraq. But I would ask everyone to look at--and I am sure it is not only in this newspaper--a daily newspaper that I had the opportunity to read today, the Washington Post, the front page headline:

Iraqis Wasting An Opportunity. Brigadier General John F.

Campbell, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry

Division, complained last week that Iraqi politicians appear

out of touch with everyday citizens. ``The ministers, they

don't get out. They don't know what the hell is going on on

the ground.''

If you turn over to page 22, which is carrying this forward--and there are also some interesting things said in this article.

So how to force political change in Iraq without

destabilizing the country further? ``I pity the guy who has

to reconcile that tension,'' said Lieutenant Colonel Douglas

Ollivant, the chief of planning for U.S. military operations

in Baghdad whose tour ends next month.

Mr. President, the situation in Iraq is very desperate. This newspaper article says, among other things:

The Army officer who requested anonymity said that if the

Iraqi government doesn't reach out, then for former Sunni

insurgents ``it's game on--they're back to attacking again.''

We have supported the troops for the entire duration of this war. We are the ones who recognized that there wasn't body armor for our troops, that mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and wives were writing personal checks to send armor to the valiant troops in Iraq. We are the ones who recognized that. We are the ones who did something about the situation we have at Walter Reed, which was a scandal, how our veterans were being taken care of, but the President wouldn't sign our bill: $4 billion more for these valiant men and women who are suffering from things that have never been suffered in any war ever before. It is a war that has never been fought before. It is a war where these men and women are subject to these phantom attacks, and when they go home after their tour or tours of duty end and they have all their limbs and they can see, they are not paralyzed, they haven't been shot, they still have to get over this post-traumatic stress syndrome, because they have seen their friends get killed or blown up and injured.

I think it is very important to talk about how good our soldiers are, and that is what my friend from Oklahoma is doing. We agree. We have to understand that Iraq is in a state of crisis. You can't have it both ways. The President said he needed these extra troops to get the political situation in tow in Iraq. He has gotten the troops and now he wants to keep them longer. The troops in Iraq now are--because there are some people who are coming home and some who have just gone over there--there are about 180,500 some troops are there now to be exact, right now in Iraq. We don't know how many contractors are there, but there are estimates of up to 150,000. How much longer, Mr. President? How much longer do the American taxpayers have to take care of a country that is the richest or the second richest oil country in the whole world? How much longer?

Yesterday we were told that Iraq has a balanced budget. Isn't that nice. I am glad they do. Why do we need to keep pouring money into them--$12 billion a month. Infrastructure. We have spent billions and billions of dollars on infrastructure in Iraq. How much are we spending here in America? Our President has to look beyond Iraq and look at America.

Earlier today my friend, the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, came and asked unanimous consent that we could move forward on the Feingold-Reid legislation, which, in effect, says we have to get our troops out of Iraq very quickly, except those who are there for counterterrorism, force stabilization, and limited training of Iraqis. We are a coequal branch of government. That is why we believe, Senator Feingold and I, that after June 30 of next year, funds would only be used for the programs I have mentioned: counterterrorism, protecting our assets, and limiting training of Iraqis.

But in our legislation it is not a suggestion, not a goal, but binding policy. That legislation recognizes our strong national interest in Iraq and the Middle East, but brings to an end the rubberstamp and unwavering loyalty in a never-ending war which is the hallmark of the Republican-controlled Congress. That legislation fundamentally changes course in Iraq and this almost unimaginably high price that grows every day. And there are 4,000 dead Americans.

(Mr. SANDERS assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, I was talking about how unusual this war is. Twelve and a half percent of the wounded have eye injuries. I don't know how many we have lost track of because we don't have recent reports, but more than 35,000 have been injured, and 12\1/2\ percent of them have eye injuries. That is how this war is different than other wars in one way.

Last week, a young marine came to my office, 21 years old. He entered the Marines when he was 17. He came to my office with his wife and baby daughter. He had been on his second tour in Iraq. His legs were blown off. I said, ``What happened?'' He said, ``We went to a house where we thought there were some people doing some things that we needed to take a look at. We walked out and somebody detonated a bomb and blew me up.'' He said it had been difficult to adjust. He was holding his baby in the wheelchair. His wife was over his shoulder. Senator Durbin was with me when we visited this young man. Senator Durbin told me today in the cloakroom that he has trouble getting this image out of his mind. We all do. A 21-year-old hero, who will live the rest of his life with these debilitating wounds of war.

He is not the only one, as we know. As if the toll of lives and limbs were not enough, this war also costs billions from our Treasury. We were told by the Joint Economic Committee earlier this week that the war--with the $200 billion he requested--all borrowed money, with a credit card that has no expiration date and certainly no limit. And

that is only the direct costs. We were told by the Joint Economic Committee what the cost of extra borrowed money is doing to our energy policy in this country, and the other things they list is double that.

To this point the war has cost America $1.6 trillion. That is a lot of money. We are not just spending our money; we are maxing out on our children and grandchildren's credit cards. But perhaps the most dangerous cost of this war will be measured in the damages done to our Armed Forces' ability to protect and defend our country. Military readiness is at a 30-year low. Our flexibility to respond to emerging threats beyond the borders of Iraq is greatly hampered. I am not saying this, and the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Vermont, is not saying this; this comes from General Casey, the head general of the Army. He said:

The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable

supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the

current fight, and are unable to provide ready forces as

rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies.

That is the lead general of the Army saying that. What is more, we have heard time and time again during the last few months what is happening with recruitment. I have to tell you, I am offended when I hear people from the Pentagon tell us ``we are meeting our recruiting goals.'' You can meet any goal if you keep lowering the standards. You don't need to be a high school graduate anymore. You can have a criminal record. Our military has been hit hard. Not only is recruitment not heading in the direction that I think is appropriate, but what is happening to our officers? These people who go to our military academies are the best and the brightest. I have the opportunity to select people--and I have for a long time--to go to these academies. The best and the brightest of Nevada go to these academies. They finish their mandatory term, and then they are quitting. We are 3,000 captains short right now, and it is going to get worse.

Mid-level officers are so hard to come by. We are doing everything we can to keep them. Huge amounts of money are being given to these people to have them stay in the military.

Let's not forget the cost of the war on the men and women in our National Guard and Reserve. These are men and women we need protecting us and responding to emergencies here at home. But we know, as was exemplified in the storm that hit Kansas, when the Governor said most of his National Guard is in Iraq and the equipment they have is ruined--that is the way it is all over the country. These citizen soldiers have already had 2 to 3 tours of duty of 12 to 18 months each.

Our men and women in uniform have performed more than admirably; they have performed heroically. But these troops--now more than 180,000-- awake each morning on that foreign sand to face another day of risk they cannot predict, and the appreciation they get from the Iraqis is that we do everything we can to protect the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds, and they all try to kill us.

It is no wonder GEN Colin Powell said that ``the Army is about broken.'' He was being generous.

If Senators cannot find the courage to stand against the President's failed war policy, I fear GEN Colin Powell might be right. The cost of the war extends beyond Iraq. The whole Middle East has been destabilized. There is a civil war going on in Israel with the Palestinians. Lebanon--could we call that a civil war? It is not much of a stretch. They cannot even hold a Presidential election. Iran is basically thumbing their nose at the world, and we are standing by saber rattling with almost no diplomacy for Iran.

What is going on in Iraq? An intractable civil war that has become even more pronounced in recent weeks, when the Turks gathered 100,000 troops on the northern border of Iraq. The crisis in Pakistan exemplifies what is going on. We not only have trouble in the Middle East, but we have lost our moral standing throughout the world as a result of this. The Bush administration focused on a person and a country, and now we have the situation we have in Pakistan.

The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan has become less stable. Musharraf now seems intent on derailing the path toward democracy. Billions of dollars of American taxpayer money is not fully audited or accounted for. And perhaps as bad as any of this, bin Laden is still wandering around and sending, when he feels like it, a tape to us so we can look at that. He continues to make these tapes taunting us, and his al-Qaida network, according to the President's own intelligence, is regrouping and is stronger than ever.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the border, conditions in Afghanistan--once hailed as a victory--continue to unravel. Ten American soldiers were killed this week.

Now Afghanistan supplies 93 percent of the world's opium. This year is going to be another all-time high production year. The people of Afghanistan suffered through the most violent year since the U.S. intervention. This year, 2007, is the bloodiest year in the history of the war for American troops in Iraq. In Afghanistan, violent incidents are up 30 percent. There is a rapidly rising influx of foreign fighters, and there was a report this morning that the Taliban has vastly stepped up the number of improvised and suicide attacks.

We cannot send more troops there. Listen to what General Casey and General Powell said:

Many costs of the war in Iraq have been quantified:

American deaths, Americans wounded, trillions of dollars in

taxpayers dollars.

The other costs are not easy to calculate. How long is it going to take to repair our military? The estimated dollar value is hundreds of billions of dollars. How many additional troops and dollars will it take to win in Afghanistan? How do you calculate that?

The risk is that the next national security threat becomes a national security disaster because we don't have the troops to take care of it. And all for a war that our troops are fighting harder to win than the Iraqi politicians, who, after months and months of our troop escalation, have failed to achieve any meaningful political benchmarks.

Now the Secretary of State is saying those benchmarks don't mean anything anymore. But they did at one time, and they do to the American people--$12 billion a month, and they have a balanced budget? Ours isn't balanced. They are doing infrastructure development there. We are not. They are building hospitals over there. We are not. So now in this war--soon to be in the sixth year--our troops are no safer, national security is no better protected, Iraq is no closer to reconciliation than in the fifth or the fourth or third years.

We must not forget that we sent our troops to Afghanistan following 9/11 to go after those who attacked us, break up terrorist cells, and stop future terror plans from becoming reality. Now, 6 years later, we have moved far away from that critical fight.

It is long past time to get our national security strategy back on track, and the only way to do that is to stand up to our President. It is our constitutional duty, and our moral responsibility, to do so.

I compliment my friend from Wisconsin for offering his effort today to move forward on the Feingold-Reid legislation. That is what we need to do--bring our troops home.

Mr. President, I am going to be here in the morning and I will talk about the bill we got from the House. I appreciate the work they did. It wasn't easy to get it over here. It is not nearly strong enough for me. I am going to support it. Earlier this week, we gave the President of the United States $470 billion for the troops. We were all happy to do that. He signed that bill and, on the same day, within minutes, he vetoed a bill for the American people--the Labor-HHS, a bill that takes care of some of the education needs of this country, a bill that allows medical research to go forward for dreaded diseases in this country. He said no. So many things for our communities were in that bill. He said no. But to Iraq, he says yes. Don't you think it is appropriate, I say to the American people and the Presiding Officer, that to this man, who wants an additional $470 billion, we say, OK, but we want some accountability? Don't the American people deserve accountability for a war that has already cost the taxpayers $800 billion directly, and twice that in indirect costs? I think so.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion to proceed be withdrawn.

Madam President, I understand the Senator from Idaho intends to speak. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak after he is concluded.

Madam President, I rise to address the issue which has been noted by the Senator from Idaho,

which is the process under which the farm bill is being considered in the Senate.

A number of the Members on the other side of the aisle, primarily the leadership, have spoken on this process and have made the representation that in some way we, on our side, are slowing down this bill. Nothing could be less accurate, in my opinion.

I know, although I do not happen to support the farm bill because I think it is bloated in many ways and essentially ignores the concept of a marketplace, the farm bill is going to pass. It always does pass. It always passes with a very large majority, which is assured by the fact that enough commodities are put into the subsidy system so that you can add up enough people to support it, so it will always pass with a large majority. And there will be 20 or 25 people who will vote against it.

So I have never held any belief or even thought for a second this farm bill was not going to pass the Senate. It is going to pass the Senate. It has not been my intention to either slow it down or try to defeat it because I know I cannot do either--or I did not think I could do either.

My intention was to improve it and to address issues which I think are relevant to it or which are appropriate to the issues which the Senate should be addressing today generally.

But, unfortunately, on the procedure that has been structured by the majority leader, all Members of the Senate, but especially members of the minority--the Republican Members of the Senate--have been shut out of the ability to amend this bill.

The majority leader has essentially created a system which you could call the ``permission slip'' approach to legislating. If he does not give you a blue permission slip, you cannot bring forward an amendment on this bill.

Obviously, that does not work for those of us who wish to amend the bill. But, more importantly, it does not work for the institution. The essence of the Senate is the ability to amend legislation when it is on the floor.

Washington described the Senate as the place where the hot coffee from the cup--referring to the House--it is the saucer into which that hot coffee is poured, so it can be looked at, thought about, and reviewed to make sure there is not hasty action, to make sure there is not precipitous action, to make sure there is not action which will come back to haunt us because we did not try our best to anticipate the consequences.

So the Senate was structured to be a deliberative institution. That was its purpose. Our Founding Fathers designed it with that intent in mind, as expressed by George Washington. It has always worked that way. We have always, when we have had major pieces of authorizing legislation on the floor, had the opportunity to amend that legislation. Even if they are not major pieces of legislation, in many instances we have had the ability to amend it in just about any way we wanted. There was a statement that you have to do relevant amendments. Well, under the rules of the Senate, there is no such thing as relevant amendments. Everything is relevant. Irrelevant amendments are relevant because that is the way the Senate is structured. That is the way we work. If there is an issue of the time which a Member wants to bring forward to discuss and have voted on, the idea is the Senate will do that. Now, there is a procedure to cut off and go to relevant or germane amendments, but that procedure is a very formal procedure known as cloture and it takes 60 votes. That should not be done on a bill of this size until there has been adequate debate and a reasonable number of amendments considered.

I noticed that the Senator from Michigan, whom I greatly admire and enjoy working with, had a large chart today which talked about the fact that there have been 55 filibusters by the Republican Party since the Senate has convened. That is sort of like, as I have said on occasion, the fellow who shoots his parents throwing himself on the mercy of the court because he is suddenly saying he is an orphan. The simple fact is the only reason there have been 55 cloture motions filed around here is because the majority party has decided to try to shorten debate and shorten the amendment process at a rate that has never occurred before. Bills are brought to the floor and cloture is filed instantaneously. That never used to happen around here. It is not our party which has been trying to extend these debates; it is the other party which has been trying to essentially foreshorten the debates in an extremely artificial and premature way and limit the capacity of the minority to make its points and to raise the issues it considers to be important.

On almost every one of these bills--the 55 that are noted--agreement could have been reached, timeframes could have been agreed to, an amendment list could have been set, and we could have proceeded under regular order. But regular order was not allowed because the other side of the aisle wants to manage the Senate the way the House is managed: Where the majority party essentially does not allow the minority to offer amendments to the bills unless the majority party agrees to the amendments. Well, I can understand that in the House. There are 435 people there and it would be pretty much chaotic. But in the Senate, we are not designed that way. The whole purpose of this institution is to allow extensive discussion of legislation and amendments on legislation, whether the amendments are relevant or irrelevant.

So the process that is being put in place is harmful, in my opinion, to the fundamental institution of the Senate, when you have a majority leader who comes forward, immediately fills the tree, and then says the majority leader is not going to allow any amendments to the bill unless the amendments are accepted by the majority leader which, of course, on its face is a little absurd. Obviously, if we were all going to offer amendments that agreed with the majority leader, we would all be in the majority leader's party. That is why we have a two-party system. The idea is a two-party system. The one party sometimes disagrees with the other party and tries to make the points we feel are important to govern us. But the majority leader closes the floor down, says we have a permission slip process where you have to get his blue slip of approval before we can move forward, and then he files cloture on the bill after having not allowed any amendments to move forward. I think that does fundamental harm to the institution. It creates a precedent around here that may well be a slippery slope for us as an institution. I remember a couple of years ago there was a big debate about whether we should do cloture, or needed cloture, on the issue of Supreme Court judges. On our side of the aisle, because there was a lot of foot dragging about some of the Supreme Court judges who were being nominated, there were many who felt we should go forward and have a ruling of the Chair which says it only takes 51 votes; the Constitution does not allow filibusters against Supreme Court judges. Well, some on our side of the aisle felt that was a slippery slope, that that type of a procedural heavy-handedness by the majority would harm the institution and would lead to serious ramifications down the road when the parties changed governance.

This institution will not always have a Democratic majority. The facts are pretty obvious. We change around here. The American people like to have Government change. They like change. They get frustrated with the way things are going, so they make a change. There will be a Republican majority; I absolutely guarantee that. But the Democratic leadership, the majority leader, is in the process of setting a precedent, if he is successful, which will be extraordinarily harmful should a Republican majority take control and use that same precedent. So I think it is a huge mistake that this process has proceeded in this way and it is inconsistent with the facts on the ground.

The majority leader has said we can only have relevant amendments-- relevant, ironically, as defined by the majority side. Well, history has shown us that is not the case. Even on farm bills--even on farm bills--especially on farm bills, amendments are brought forward which are irrelevant to the farm bill all the time. In fact, ironically, the majority leader has brought forward a number of those amendments. In 1996, for example, he offered an amendment to the farm bill regarding the importation of tea and the Board of Tea experts. In 1990, he offered an amendment to the bill regarding

testing consumer products containing hazardous and toxic substances. In the year 2000, he offered an amendment to the farm bill regarding the Social Security trust fund and tax policy. In the year 2000, the majority leader offered an amendment to the farm bill regarding pest management in schools. The manager of the bill, Senator Harkin, in the year 2000, offered an amendment regarding fees on pesticide manufacturing. In the year 1985, he offered an amendment regarding the creation of additional bankruptcy judges in the State of Iowa.

I would argue that none of those amendments, under the most liberal interpretation of what is relevant, would be defined as relevant in a postcloture exercise and, therefore, by the actions of the majority, and specifically the majority leader and the chairman of the committee; they have set a precedent that even if it weren't the right of the membership of the Senate, they have set a precedent that amendments which are not--which are irrelevant to the underlying bill can be brought forward, and they should be brought forward.

For example, today the majority leader came down and made a very compelling statement relative to the dire straits that people are in who are having their mortgages foreclosed on because of this subprime meltdown we are having. It is serious. It is very serious. It is serious to those people especially, but it is also serious to the Nation as a whole because it is affecting the credit markets and it may be contracting the economy. I filed an amendment which would address that issue. Some farmers I suspect are caught up in this subprime foreclosure exercise, unfortunately. I bet there are some farm families who have been hit by this. I know there have been. So I think it is probably pretty relevant to these people who are farmers and, therefore, an argument could be made it is relevant to the bill. But I am not making that argument. I am saying that issue should be raised right now--we shouldn't wait--that the amendment I have offered which would essentially say that if your home is foreclosed on, you don't get hit with a tax bill for phantom income, which is what happens today. If you happen to be unfortunate enough to have your home foreclosed on, you get a tax bill from the IRS, even though you lost your home and even though you didn't get any income out of the foreclosure sale. That puts a little more pressure on the person who has had their home foreclosed on. That is a traumatic enough event, but to then have the IRS come after you, that is horrible. So this amendment would basically stop that practice. It would say to the IRS: No. You can't deem that as income.

There are going to be some farmers who are going to need that protection, and there are going to be a lot of Americans who are going to need that protection, unfortunately. So we should take that amendment up. I would be happy to offer that amendment right now, but if I offered it right now, it would be objected to under the proposal because the majority leader has deemed it is not relevant to the farm bill and, therefore, he is not going to allow it to be debated. I happen to think it is a pretty darned important amendment.

There are a couple of other amendments I have suggested. I have suggested 11 amendments to the bill. That is not outrageous. Some of them I think could probably be negotiated. I even suggested I would take 15 minutes of debate on them, 7\1/2\ minutes divided equally on each one of them. Unfortunately, the other side of the aisle rejected that idea--or they didn't formally object to it, but they told us we would want to talk a little bit more about some of these amendments. But the assistant majority leader on the Democratic side of the aisle came down to the floor and specifically called out a few of my amendments and said that they were the problem. They were the problem because they shouldn't be heard on this farm bill. He mentioned the mortgage amendment which we discussed.

He also mentioned an amendment which I happen to think is pretty darn relevant to this bill, especially to rural America and farm communities, which is that in most of rural America today, there is a crisis relative to the ability of baby doctors to practice their profession. It is virtually impossible, for example, in northern New Hampshire to see an OB/GYN unless you drive through the mountains and down to the southern or mid part of the State. That is true across this country, because OB/GYN doctors--baby doctors--people who deliver babies in rural communities can't generate enough income because the populations aren't large enough to pay the cost of their insurance against frivolous lawsuits or lawsuits generally. So I have suggested that for those doctors specifically, so we can get more of them into the rural communities delivering babies for all the people who live in the rural communities but obviously for farm families, that we give protection to them--protection which tracks--it is not outrageous protection--the California protection for doctors which occurs generally under California law so the cost of their premium for malpractice insurance will not drive them out of practicing and delivering babies in rural America and especially to farm families.

The Senator from Illinois said that was a frivolous--he didn't use the term ``frivolous''--he implied the amendment wasn't a good amendment; we shouldn't have to debate that amendment on this bill. Why not? Why not take up that amendment? Fifteen minutes I am willing to debate that amendment, 7\1/2\ minutes on both sides, and vote on it.

Well, it is not because it is not relevant and it is not because it shouldn't be taken up; it is because there are a number of Members on their side of the aisle who said we don't want to vote that issue. It is a hard vote. Why? Because it makes sense. That is why I think it is a hard vote. But there are other people on the other side of the aisle who simply don't want to have to cast that vote. It is not about the relevance of that amendment; it is about the desire to avoid casting a difficult vote. Well, you were sent here; you should make difficult votes on public policy that is important, and that happens to be a fairly significant point of public policy that is important, whether women in rural America can have adequate and prompt access to an OB/ GYN. I think that is pretty darn important.

Then the assistant leader said an amendment I had on the list, my 11 amendments--a small number of amendments--was not appropriate because it dealt with the Gulf of Mexico. Well, this amendment says, as a follow-on to the Oceans Commission, which did a very large, extensive study of the status of the ocean and America's involvement and what we should be doing relative to the ocean, which was completed about 2 years ago and which was created, authorized, and funded as a result of an initiative by Senator Hollings from South Carolina, with my support as a member of the appropriations subcommittee that had jurisdiction over NOAA, and the conclusion of this Commission, which was filled with the best and most talented scientists and leaders we have on the issue of how the ocean was being impacted, was that the Gulf of Mexico is being uniquely impacted by fertilizer runoff from the Midwest coming down the Missouri, the Mississippi, and the other tributaries of the Mississippi and going into the Gulf of Mexico, and we are getting a dead zone there, a very significant dead zone because of the phosphates and I think the nitrates. The Commission called for action. It said: We have to do something as a country about this.

But what does this farm bill do? It expands dramatically the incentive to put more acreage into production, and I say: Fine. That is great. But it doesn't address the runoff issue, which is that additional production is going to occur, or the runoff issue that is occurring as a result of already existing production. So all this amendment does is say let's give NOAA the ability to go out and study this problem and see if they can come up--working with the Department of Agriculture--with some ideas on how we might be able to abate the harm we are doing as an unintended consequence of expanding our agricultural community, the harm we are doing to the Gulf of Mexico. But no, no, we can't take up that amendment. No, no. It doesn't get a blue slip, permission slip from the majority leader.

Then the fourth amendment which was mentioned or cited by the assistant leader as being something that was

problematic--and that is sort of a conservative description of the way he addressed the issues--was an amendment I have that says the firefighters should have the ability to pursue collective bargaining.

Now, maybe farms don't have fires. Maybe barns don't burn down and silos don't blow up. Maybe there weren't any wildfires in San Diego. Maybe I missed all that. But it seems to me that fire protection is a pretty big part of everybody's lifestyle in this country, and having fire departments that know what they are doing and are properly paid, have proper equipment and training is really important whether you happen to be in New York City or on a farm somewhere in the Midwest or the West. So I cannot imagine under what scenario it is deemed that this amendment should not be discussed and voted on.

Again, I am willing to do this for a briefer period of time. I am not trying to slow the bill down. I want to get a few issues up that I think are important to the definition of the problem as I see it in the farm region.

Then I had a series of amendments--well, I only had 11, but 5 of the amendments I had dealt with the budget process.

This farm bill does fundamental harm to the concept of responsible budgeting. It plays games with our budget process. We hear so much from the other side of the aisle about how they use pay-go to discipline spending around here. That is the term, the motherhood term we hear, ``pay-go.'' It turns out that it is ``Swiss cheese go'' as far as the other side of the aisle is concerned regarding spending restraint. On 15 different occasions, they have gimmicked pay-go, played games with it to the point where they have spent almost $143 billion in this Congress which should have been subject to pay-go but was not subject to a pay-go vote because they managed to gimmick their way around it.

This farm bill is a classic example of that procedure occurring again. By changing dates--1 day--so that they shift years and take items out of the pay-go--what is called the pay-go scorecard--they are able to avoid pay-go charges in this bill to the tune of $10 billion. That is not small change, by the way. We should have a pay-go vote on that $10 billion if we are going to maintain the integrity of the budget process. That is reasonable. I have asked for that vote.

In addition, they have created a new emergency fund--a $5 billion emergency fund. The way we have handled emergencies--and there are, I admit, many emergencies in farm country--is that we have always paid for those emergency costs through an emergency supplemental, whether it is because of a flood or if there is a drought or if there is a hurricane. We fund the costs after they have occurred, and we pay the costs of the emergency. What this would do is set up what amounts to a slush fund--what I am afraid will become basically walking-around money--of $5 billion and a floor so that we are going to be guaranteed that every year for the next 5 years at least a billion dollars will be spent on emergencies, whether there is an emergency or not. You know, if a large wind blows a mailbox over in North Dakota, it is going to be declared an emergency because somebody is going to want to get their hands on that billion dollars. That makes no sense from a budget standpoint. We know that human nature--especially legislative nature-- will spend that money once it is allocated, and we should not do it up front, create a floor; we should do it the traditional way, which is to pay for emergencies when they occur. Now, some people here obviously disagree with me. I suspect I will not win that vote. But it doesn't mean we should not have a vote on that point of budget discipline and the importance of budget discipline.

In addition, on the budget issue, there is a $3 billion gimmick in here that is so creative it sets a new standard for creativity. There always has been movement of money from the discretionary side of the account to the mandatory side, and vice versa, to free up more spending. That is a game that has been played a long time, where an expenditure that is discretionary will suddenly find out it is being put under a mandatory account, so the money being spent in the discretionary account can be freed up to spend it on something else. If you get it into the mandatory accounts here, you basically put it on autopilot and don't have to worry about it ever again.

This bill takes this concept to a new dimension. It takes a mandatory spending responsibility and moves it over to a tax credit, so that we now have a $3 billion tax credit where we used to have a $3 billion mandatory expenditure, and then it takes the $3 billion that was being spent on the mandatory side of the account and spends it on a new program. So, essentially, by using the tax law in a very creative way, you have generated new spending of $3 billion. I think that is terrible budget policy. I think we should address it, debate it, talk about it on the floor, and definitely vote on it before we allow this bill to go to cloture.

Obviously, there are a lot of issues raised by this bill; otherwise, there would not be 240 amendments filed. The majority of them have been filed by the other side of the aisle. But the fact that the procedure has been structured in a way that these amendments, which are totally reasonable, which are parts of significant issues of public policy, such as whether women in rural America will be able to see an OB/GYN or whether farmers get the equipment they need or whether a person whose home is foreclosed on will get hit with an IRS tax penalty or whether the Gulf of Mexico should be looked at relative to maintaining its vitality as a environmentally sensitive area--we are not going to be allowed to look at all of these issues because the majority leader set up a blue-slip permission process, which is totally antithetical to the system the Senate historically works under and undermines the capacity of issues to be debated and voted on. I just think, as I said, it is doing fundamental harm to our institution. Even if I didn't want to bring these amendments forward, I would not want to have a process that denied the right of other people to bring amendments like them forward.

The fact that the leadership on the other side of the aisle wants to insulate its membership from making tough votes on things like baby doctors being available to farmers and farms getting the equipment they need and people whose homes are foreclosed on not being subject to IRS penalties--the fact that they want to protect their membership, that is understandable. That is their leadership. Their leadership is clearly trying to protect them in their jobs. To abuse the process of the Senate to accomplish that, to create a procedure where you basically foreclose amendments in a manner that actually is even more strict and more contracted than what the House does, does more harm than good to the institution. As I said earlier, it puts us on an unnecessary and inappropriate slippery slope, and it is a fundamental change in the way the Senate works.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss one of the issues we have been talking about an awful lot recently, and that is the farm bill; more specifically, the unique nature of agricultural production in the United States.

We are all going to leave next week and go home, hopefully, to celebrate Thanksgiving with our families, to talk about this wonderful blessing we have in this great country of ours--the enormous bounty that exists, the blessings of living in a free country, living in a place where we do not have to worry about going to the grocery store and finding the shelves empty or we do not have to worry about those things that are produced here not being safe or acceptable. That is because we have not only very conscientious producers and farmers, but we have a system and respect in our Government that recognizes how important it is to the American people to maintain that bounty.

As we all go home to celebrate Thanksgiving and give thanks for this wonderful country in which we live and the bounty that it provides us, I think it is so important to talk about the big tent that exists in this country, the big tent that encompasses all of the diversity of agricultural production in different regions across our Nation. It is an important aspect that we should embrace, and I hope my colleagues will think about that as well.

As we discuss the farm bill and agricultural production, my colleague, the Presiding Officer, is representing a wonderful agricultural State, beautiful and vast, and it is very different from mine in terms of its assets and what it contributes to this great land. My State is different than Colorado. It is vast and different, just within the boundaries of my State, but certainly in terms of what it brings to the table in our Nation in terms of the bounty that it provides.

Perhaps one of the most frequent questions from so many, particularly of my urban colleagues--because I do share a seat with so many other farm Senators on the Agriculture Committee, but a lot of times the question from my urban colleagues is, why are farms in Arkansas different from, say, farms in North Dakota or Michigan or Indiana or Colorado or other regions of our Nation?

Although the answer is pretty simple, it does require quite a lot of time to talk about. It looks as if we have a good bit of time today, so I thought I would seek this opportunity and, for the benefit of those inquisitive Senators who sometimes ask why are things different in different parts of our country and in all of our different States, offer an explanation that I give, certainly, to my colleagues and to others who are interested and concerned about us as a nation maintaining the safe and abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber that exists in this country for which we are all so thankful.

First, and this should come as no surprise, each of our States produces the agricultural products for which its climate and its soil are best suited. That is one of the things we do in Arkansas. It, obviously, has been that way for years. Farms in Arkansas might be older than those in some of the States that exist to our west. As our country was explored and discovered, many of those lands in the West were discovered, and their climates and their soil types were different. As we have grown as a nation, they have adapted themselves to the crops for which they are best suited. For the colder climates of the Midwest, it makes sense to produce corn and wheat and sugar beets. For us in the South, with our more humid climates, and given, certainly, our soil types--we have a large clay content and often sandy soil along our river bottom--we are suited for cotton and rice production. So that is the first explanation I try to give people, to talk about those differences so we better understand what the differences are.

Second, you have to take into consideration what the markets are for our commodities. Again, we are a vast country, full of so many blessings and diversity. As we have grown, international markets have grown and changed as well.

Let's start with corn. By now I think everyone in this body is familiar with the fact that we mandate a corn ethanol market through the renewable fuels standard. It is important that we move toward a renewable fuel. It has multiple purposes. Renewable fuels will help us clean up the environment and will certainly lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It also gives secondary markets for our growers. But so far we have only gotten pretty far on corn-based ethanol.

We have mandated this market for corn, and it has done quite well. We make sure those corn growers' prices stay up because there is a market. There are tax incentives that are built in to ensure those markets are going to be there for corn.

In addition to the creation of the market, we place a prohibitive tariff at the borders of our country to ensure that only American farmers have access to that corn market. That is for good reason. That marketplace has really matured in terms of ethanol production and the direction we are going to the point we are now realizing that renewable fuels are going to need to come from other sources as well; that we cannot just depend on that corn-based ethanol program but that we have to start looking toward cellulosic and biodiesel and biomass and a whole host of other renewable energy sources. But the fact is, we still protect that corn market to a tremendous degree.

For sugar, we have a unique program that doesn't make payments to farmers, but, like ethanol, it limits the international competition, and it supports the processing of these commodities.

Sometimes sugar is supported in the processing facilities, and therefore those protected markets and that payment coming down to those farmers is a little bit trickier to understand than the regular commodity program.

Rather than offering a whole lot of detail on a program that does not directly impact my State, I would rather direct folks to the individuals who represent the States here that are affected by those crops. I think it is most important to let those who understand crops in their States give their descriptions because they have a better intuitive idea of how those programs work and how their growers benefit and how the economy benefits from it and certainly how the American people benefit. There are a lot of Members who can tell you about that.

As the President knows, we on the Ag Committee--everyone has their specialty and certainly their best understanding when it comes to corn and sugar. I kind of focus on the folks who know those the best to be able to provide you the details. But, in short, sugar has an entirely separate program

subject to different disciplines but with a market that is very domestic and exclusively limited to American sugar farmers. So you have two of these products now, or commodities, that have very different disciplines in terms of what protects them or what provides them that very defined as well as insured marketplace through both the constricting of the marketplace without allowing imports to come in and also the incentives they have in the way those safety nets are provided to them through their processing.

Now, here is a market that I do know about and that I can talk about, and that is what comes from my region of the Nation, which is cotton and rice.

First and most importantly, I need to point out that these two commodities are subject to very intense global competition. Rather than simply state that as a fact, I will offer a couple of explanations.

Rice is a stable commodity globally, all over the world. As such, it is produced in many regions, including the developing world, those nations which are not as developed as we are or as old and efficient as we are. The same is true for cotton.

What is also true is that our market is open to direct competition from international producers while our access into their foreign marketplace is extremely limited. Now, that means our border is open to their rice and cotton being shipped into our country. So our growers not only have to compete to get into our marketplaces, but they have to compete here with products that are allowed to come in from other countries--the rice and cotton, specifically.

I think the best example or one of the best examples is Japan. Japan's rice tariff comes in at over 400 percent. That is more than enough to keep American rice out of their marketplace, I have to tell you, a 400-percent tariff on rice going into Japan. Yet our markets are open. Our markets are open to commodities coming into this country.

Another good example that can be used is the treatment of rice in the recently negotiated Korean Free Trade Agreement. For every product produced in the United States of America, we reduce the Korean tariff, limiting our access into theirs immediately or phased in over 20 years, every one with the exception of one commodity--it is rice, one commodity that is not allowed to be exported into the Korean marketplace.

So it just goes to show you the fact that our commodities, although they are different and grown differently and a whole host of different things, also are treated differently in the global community and in the global economic venue. At this point, you should start to be seeing a pattern here in terms of the differences not only in how we grow our commodities but also how our commodities are dealt with in the marketplace. Our market is open to competition, while our export markets remain closed to our growers of our commodities.

Now, do not get me wrong, I am not here advocating that we need unabashed free trade for agriculture because I know that to expose the Third World to our productivity would decimate vulnerable parts of their economies that support the poorest of the world's poor. So that is not what we are talking about. This dynamic is more than a reality for U.S. farmers; it is a part of America's obligation within the World Trade Organization.

Now, I will summarize that point just briefly. In the WTO, the United States and other developed nations must report their subsidy level, and they must restrict their tariff level. The conversion is true for the developing nations that are members of the WTO. They are not subject to even reporting their subsidy, and they have little to no obligation with respect to opening their markets.

Now, again, I am not saying this is a total and complete outrage; I am merely trying to paint a more comprehensive picture of what American agriculture is up against in the global economy. Without a doubt, as we have heard in multiple different meetings across the Hill that many of us go to, whether it is our lunch groups or our hearings in committee and others, we hear all of the talk about global trade and about the global economy and developing countries and where they are going, placing priorities in education and infrastructure investment and a host of other things, and we see our trade deficit growing. Yet agriculture has always been one of those areas where not only we as Americans feel it is important to maintain that domestic production of a safe and affordable and available food supply, but we also know it is a big issue to other countries that they can maintain some domestic production and hopefully as much as they possibly can grab hold of in terms of that domestic production.

With that said, it simply cannot be ignored that these disparities in international competition contribute to the world in which the U.S. cotton and rice producers must compete and therefore influence how they must structure their operations. So, again, for us, in meeting different demands, in looking at the global marketplace and trying to figure out how we structure ourselves as growers, it is not just about the soil type or the weather and the climate; it is also about the international marketplace, which leads me to the explanation of the last question which is posed to me; that is, Why are Arkansas farms so big?

It should not be difficult for Members of this Chamber to understand that when you face intense competition and your foreign markets are closed, you have to create efficiencies. You have to create efficiencies elsewhere in your business operation in order to be able to compete because you do not set the world market price. You have to be able to compete on that international global stage by your own efficiencies.

It is the good fortune of everyone in America that our farmers are the most efficient farmers in the world. Certainly, we are the beneficiary of that in this great country, but people all across the globe understand that, that not only are we the most efficient and can do it the most affordably, but we produce the safest and set a standard in many instances across the globe of what is going to be produced in future generations in terms of sustenance of life. We have improved our efficiencies in ways that cannot be described here in a short period of time, but suffice it to say that the American farmer is the most efficient on Earth, and are we not all glad? That is something for us to be proud of in this body and across this land. If you are not or if you take our bounty for granted in this great Nation, you should be ashamed of yourself. That is the reason this bill is so important, is that we have been handed this blessing. We have worked hard on this Earth in this great land of ours. But we certainly have reason to be proud.

Despite our efficiency in cotton and rice country, we are still operating on very thin margins of profit. In some years, we merely hope for profit that really never comes.

What we have done to help level that playing field is to expand our operation to further reduce our per-unit cost and, in turn, create a competitive economy of scale. Now, that means we have to spread our risk out over a greater abundance of production because that is one of the only ways we have to get the efficiency to be able to be competitive in a very restrictive market, and that is to have a large economy of scale and mitigate our risk over a greater area.

Now, unfortunately, many newspapers and some of my colleagues attribute USDA statistics for commercial-size operations to many of our Arkansas and southern farms and assume we are no longer family farms simply because of our size. What a terrible misrepresentation. I think it really diminishes what we are about in this body, which is to embrace our diversity and embrace the good work all of these hard- working farm families do across this Nation. And without a doubt, it is simply untrue. I do not know of too many nonfamily farms in my State. There are a lot of people who are going to tell you that because they belong to a cooperative or because they maybe farm more acreage, they are not a family farm. In fact, I do not even know of one.

What I do know a lot about is fathers and sons, wives, daughters, brothers and sisters who work the land with one another. They have to come together. They have to build their operation, come together, and stay together if they are going to survive. Even when that generation upon generation finds

that one of those brothers or sisters happens to move to the city to become a doctor or maybe an electrician or maybe a fireman or maybe a lawyer, they still help share the risk of what that farm has to do, which is to create that economy of scale in order to be competitive.

So hopefully we can still consider those people a family farm, because, guess what, they are still a family, and they are still farming and they are all carrying the risk of what it takes to be competitive in that global marketplace. Now, their operations may exceed several thousand acres, and they most certainly are still family farms.

In fact, I cannot imagine a definition of a family farm that does not include the overwhelming majority of Arkansas farmers, but apparently such a definition exists. USDA seems to come up with these definitions, and they print them out up here in Washington, inside this bubble, and they fail to realize that there is a lot of diversity in this great country. There are a lot of family farms that exist. It is not just family farms in the Midwest, it is not just family farms on the east coast, but it is family farms in other regions of the country too--yes, in our region of the country too.

Now, I will go ahead and put my colleagues on notice that until those misrepresentations cease--and I have to tell you, they have been long and hard for many years in terms of the misrepresentations of what a farm is and who constitutes that farm. You know, I am a daughter of a farmer, but I cannot imagine the way I get labeled as having been this huge farmer when I am not even farming. Yet that misrepresentation continues to come out there just because it is convenient and it is sensational and people can use it.

Well, I have to say that it does not matter to me what happens to me, but it does matter what happens to those hard-working farm families who are working so hard to make sure we enjoy that safe and abundant and affordable food supply regardless of what happens in the international community. My colleagues know they are going to hear a lot more from me on farm policy that supports farmers throughout this great country as the debate goes on.

It is my opportunity to describe and talk about the individuality of each of these areas. I will hone in on my part of the country because I leave how other commodities are farmed up to those who farm them. But I can definitely tell you, having walked rice levees and scouted cotton and chopped down coffee bean plants in a soybean field, how our farms run and why they run that way, I understand the markets. I understand the global trade implications that exist. I understand that all of the programs we design oftentimes in the farm bill don't fit us.

For example, take disaster assistance. I was glad to work with my colleagues in the Midwest who wanted to see a disaster assistance program, even though it doesn't benefit my farmers that much. When you have a farm in the South and you are farming rice, you have to control your environment. Have you ever seen a rice field that has no water on it? Unless it is being harvested, you haven't. The reason is, you have to control that environment. When it comes to disaster assistance, those counties get the same national disaster declaration on a drought. But guess what. They are never going to get that disaster assistance because they hardly ever hit the 35-percent yield loss that comes with another stipulation in disaster assistance, because they have controlled their environment.

I will tell you what: They have spent twice the effort and resources and money in plowing into that crop what they needed to combat that drought and that disaster that was occurring. So they need another tool. They need another tool within the confines of our farm legislation that allows them to market their crop, to market their crop in this competitive global marketplace so the Government doesn't have to do it for them.

As I plow through this--and I know I will have many other opportunities to do so--I hope I have answered some questions or at least demonstrated some of the differences in our ag land down in the southern half of the Nation. We are all a little different. I have to tell you, for that we should be extremely grateful and proud, and we should embrace that diversity. As a nation, that is what makes us strong, our diversity and our willingness to embrace it and our willingness to respect it. That is what makes us Americans. Despite these differences, it has always been my view that regardless of the type of crop or the region of the country you live, if you contribute to the production of safe agricultural commodities, I consider you a farmer. I consider you an American farmer. I don't judge that and I don't judge you as an American farmer based on whether you are in one region or another or how big your family is or how big your farming operation is. I judge you by the fact that you are willing to go to work and work hard every day to do the best you can, to be as efficient as you possibly can, not only in this country but in the global marketplace, with tremendous respect to the environment, the conservation of land, and the ability to produce a safe and productive food supply. That is who farmers are.

If we let other people define who a farmer is and a farm family is, then we will be sorely disappointed when we start to outsource our food to other countries. I think we have become sorely disappointed to find ourselves dependent on foreign oil, to have outsourced our need for energy in the oil arena to other parts of the world. We will find ourselves once again in the next several years with a trade deficit in agriculture, outsourcing our food supply. I don't think Americans want to go there; I really don't. I think they are willing to listen for the diversity and expertise and the hard work that goes on by America's farmers to continue to produce that safe and abundant, affordable food supply. As a farmer, regardless of the region of the country, we have to help our farmers keep meeting that competition.

I have the reputation of being that kind of person, of reaching out and working with people, understanding differences, accepting differences and accepting other people's ideas. I hope we all have that attitude. But mostly, I try to be respectful of people. Unfortunately, my farmers and I have not been given that same respect by everybody. I am going to continue to work hard to prove my point because I am going to earn that respect. I am going to earn that respect not only in what we have done in this underlying bill, in creating the greatest, most substantial reform in decades. We started over here in current law and most of the extremes that people want are way over here. Guess where we have moved. In terms of providing the reforms that the media and others all clamor about, we have come from here all the way over here. That last little bit people want to ask of us will outsource the food supply that southern growers have so proudly provided this country for many years.

I am proud to be here to defend and support and be proud of Arkansas farm families. They have worked hard. They will continue to work hard. I have fought this fight for several years, and I will continue to defend the programs and my farmers who use them within the limits of the law. Creating greater reform is important. Our farmers want to make sure they are in compliance with the law and that they are working hard within the parameters to do their very best. But they also want to be able to be competitive, because they want to continue to provide that safe and abundant supply of food and fiber. And they can--most efficiently, most effectively, most safely, as well as with the greatest respect to the environment. I hope people will not continue the sensationalized stories and misrepresented facts in order to get something done that does nothing but move forward in outsourcing our food and fiber supply.

I hope I have brought some clarity here today. I will continue to try to do that. I look forward to working with my colleagues. We have a long road ahead of us to get something done. But I think everybody will agree it is worth it. It is well worth it, as we return home to be with our families, to give thanks for this wonderful Nation we live in and the bounty it provides. I hope we will come back and sit down and get to work supporting America's farm families and the hard work they do, recognizing all of the tremendous challenges they face, mostly challenges they have no control over. Whether it is the trade agreements they operate

under, whether it is the environment and the weather they deal with that they have no control over, it is certainly within the confines of the requirements and the regulations we present them to empower them to do a better job or certainly the best possible job in taking good care of the land and being good stewards of this great land we have.

I thank the Chair. I look forward to working with my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, on tomorrow, we will be voting on several items. Two are going to be related to our policy on Iraq. Tonight, I wish to express my views on the choices that are before the Senate and the American people. I know later in the evening a number of colleagues will speak to this issue. I welcome the chance to now express my view.

Madam President, I oppose the minority leader's effort to provide a $70 billion blank check to President Bush for his failed Iraq policy. I will support legislation approved yesterday in the House of Representatives requiring the President to begin to bring our combat troops out of Iraq in 1 month and complete the withdrawal by December of next year. I hope the Senate will support it, and I hope President Bush will sign it into law.

Earlier this month, we reached another tragic milestone in Iraq. We have lost more Americans in Iraq this year than in any other year. It is another painful and somber reminder of the enormous price in precious lives the Iraq war continues to impose. It is long past time for the administration to change course and end the national nightmare the Iraq war has become. Our military has served nobly in Iraq and done everything we have asked them to do. But they are caught in a

continuing quagmire. They are policing a civil war and implementing a policy that is not worthy of their enormous sacrifice.

The best way to protect our troops and our national security is to put the Iraqis on notice that they need to take responsibility for their future so that we can bring our troops back home to America safely. As long as our military presence in Iraq is open-ended, Iraq's leaders are unlikely to make the essential compromises for a political solution.

The administration's misguided policy has put our troops in an untenable and unwinnable situation. They are being held hostage to Iraqi politics, in which sectarian leaders are unable or unwilling to make the difficult judgments needed to lift Iraq out of its downward spiral.

BG John F. Campbell, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division in Iraq, spoke with clarity about the shortcomings of Iraq's political leaders. He said:

The ministers, they don't get out. . . . They don't know

what the hell is going on on the ground.

Army LTG Mark Fetter said that ``it is painful, very painful'' dealing with the obstructionism of Iraqi officials.

About conditions on the ground, Army MG Michael Barbero said:

. . . it's not as good as it's being reported now.

All of these military deserve credit for their courage in speaking the truth. We should commend them for it. These are courageous, brave military speaking the truth.

Yet the President continues to promise that success is just around the corner. He continues to hold out hope that Iraq's leaders are willing and capable of making essential political compromises necessary for reconciliation.

The American people know we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a failed policy that is making America more vulnerable and putting our troops at greater risk. The toll is devastating. Nearly 4,000 American troops have died, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured, and over 4 million more have been forced to flee their homes. Nearly a half trillion dollars has been spent fighting this war.

It is wrong for Congress to write a blank check to the President for this war. It is obvious that President Bush wants to drag this process out month after month so he can hand off his policy to the next President. It is time to put the brakes on this madness. It is up to us to halt the open-ended commitment of our troops that President Bush has been making year after year. We need to tell the Iraqis now that we intend to leave and leave soon. Only by doing so can we create the urgency that is so clearly necessary for them to end their differences.

We cannot allow the President to drag this process out any longer. This war is his responsibility, and it is his responsibility to do all he can to end it. It is wrong for him to pass the buck to his successor when he knows thousands more of the courageous members of the Armed Forces will be wounded or die because of it. Every day this misguided war goes on, our service men and women and their families continue to shoulder the burden and pay the price.

If this issue were only about the tragedies of the war, there would be reason enough to end it. But it has become about so much more. Now we are also starting to see the fallout at home as the President refuses to deliver the relief our families need.

Earlier this week, the President signed a Defense appropriations bill that includes a 10-percent increase in funding compared to last year, but he vetoed a bill that includes an increase half that big that would fund cancer research, investments in our schools, job training, and protection for our workers. That bill included $4.5 billion more than the President proposed for education. He said that $4.5 billion more for students is too much. Yet he has asked for 35 times that much more for the war in Iraq. He wants us to say yes to $158 billion for Iraq when he says no to $4.5 billion for American children.

In Iraq, anything goes. The sky is the limit. Billions and billions of dollars for Iraq. But here in America, right here at home, a modest investment in our school children gets a veto.

The bill included $3 billion to improve the quality of our teachers. Those funds would have been used to hire 30,000 more teachers, provide high-quality induction and mentoring for 100,000 beginning teachers, and provide high-quality professional development for an additional 200,000 teachers. One week of the failed policy in Iraq is the cost. We could do all of this for our teachers for the cost of a single week in Iraq, but the President says no.

The bill that he vetoed included $7 billion to provide high-quality early education through Head Start. Yesterday, the Senate approved a Head Start bill to strengthen the program and make Head Start even better. The bill goes a long way in strengthening the quality of the personnel, tying Head Start to kindergarten and other education programs in the States and consolidating all the various programs in the States that are available to children to make them more effective. Each of these improvements make an enormous difference in the lives of Head Start children. Funds the President vetoed would be used to build a basic foundation for learning that will help low-income and minority children for the rest of their lives. We can improve this foundation for the cost of a little more than 2 weeks in Iraq.

But even as we work in Congress to improve this vital program, the President says no. No, no, no to this program, no to the Head Start children. We are only reaching half of those who are eligible for the program at this time. We have over 4 million poor children under the age of 5 in the United States of America; we only reach 1 million of them. We all know what a difference early intervention makes for children in education. It is critically important for us to continue strengthening the academic programs, socio-emotional support, and health services delivered through Head Start and yet the President continues to say no.

The same misguided rationale applies to other investments in this bill. The President's choices cast aside urgently needed research on heart disease, diabetes, asthma, infectious disease, and mental health, and many other areas that could find cures and bring relief to millions of our fellow citizens.

This chart shows $4.9 billion in cancer research which would fund over 6,800 grants; diabetes research, pandemic flu, with all the dangers we are facing with the potential for a pandemic flu--that is necessary--support for the CDC, one of the prime health agencies to help protect Americans. It does such a good job in terms of immunizations and community health centers, which is a lifeline for 15 million of our fellow citizens, so many of whom have lost their health insurance. And the answer is no to those individuals.

It is true, in terms of American workers, the President rejects funding to enforce the labor laws that keep workers safe and to give them a level playing field. Instead, the President's veto takes bad employers off the hook and puts the safety and lives of American workers at risk. The President's choices are devastating to veterans as well. Listen to this, Mr. President. Each year nearly 320,000 brave servicemen return to civilian life, many coming from Iraq and Afghanistan. Tens of thousands--here is the chart. These are the returning veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq. Tens of thousands of reservists and National Guard have lost their benefits and even their jobs because they served their country. That is why the appropriations bill provided $228 million to help veterans find jobs, obtain training, and protect their right to return to former jobs. They are guaranteed now under existing law, but what is happening is that law is not being implemented. We found that three-quarters of returning veterans do not even know about their rights and, in many instances, they are losing their jobs, they are losing their overtime pay, and they are losing their pensions. That is why today one out of four homeless people in the United States is a former veteran. The bill we approved would help address this issue, but that was also vetoed.

The bill we will have a chance to vote on tomorrow in the Senate, which was approved by the House of Representatives yesterday, also takes an important step in reining in the Bush administration's use of torture. It is difficult to believe that in this day and age, Congress needs to legislate against the use of torture to prevent the President of the United States from abusing prisoners. Torture and cruel, inhuman, and

degrading treatment are already prohibited by law. Yet, once again, we must legislate, not because the conduct we would prohibit is somehow unlawful, but because the Bush administration continues to twist and distort existing law in its misguided, immoral interrogation practices.

The Nation was shocked by the horrible images from Abu Ghraib prison, and America was shamed in the eyes of the world. The administration tried to whitewash the episode by blaming it on low-level soldiers, but the truth about our use of torture couldn't be concealed. Led by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Gonzales, the administration had set a course that undermined fundamental American values in the craven belief that torture could somehow make us more secure.

Our interrogators were authorized to shackle prisoners in stress positions, induce hypothermia, and use sleep deprivation, extend isolation, bombardment with lights and loud music, and even now the infamous practice of waterboarding. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel--listen to this, Mr. President--the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel gave its approval to the legality of these practices in the morally outrageous Bybee torture memorandum. The Bybee torture memorandum was in place for more than 2\1/2\ years until Mr. Gonzales appeared before the Judiciary Committee when he wanted to be the Attorney General of the United States. He could look over that committee and tell that if he had to defend that memorandum, he would never make it, and he was right.

What happened? The administration repealed the Bybee torture memorandum, and Mr. Gonzales got through the Judiciary Committee, although there were more than 40 votes in the Senate against his confirmation.

Under the Bybee memorandum, if the President approved the use of torture, no one could be prosecuted for breaking our Nation's laws or international obligations.

Do my colleagues understand? Under the Bybee memorandum, if you were going to prosecute an individual for using torture, you had to demonstrate a specific intent that the purpose of the torture in which you were involved was not to gain information but just to harm the individual. Unless a prosecutor would be able to demonstrate that the purpose of torturing an individual was not to gain information, you were effectively let off, free.

As the distinguished Dean of Yale Law School, Dr. Koh, said, it was the worst piece of legal reasoning he had seen in the history of studying laws in the United States and legal opinions.

The administration withdrew the Bybee memo in embarrassment when it became public. Indeed, the now-Attorney General Mukasey refused to denounce waterboarding as torture.

Only leaders who fail to understand the founding principles of America could approve such behavior. Our country needs to stand beyond reproach for the sanctity of each individual, for freedom, for justice, for the rule of law. But the administration turned its back on all these traditions and on the ideals of America itself.

In 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act to ensure that all interrogations conducted by the Department of Defense would comply with the Army Field Manual, a comprehensive and effective approach to interrogation that prohibits the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading techniques in favor of techniques that are most likely to be effective in gaining necessary information.

LTG John Kimmons said, when releasing the manual:

No good intelligence is going to come from abusive

practices. I think history tells us that. I think the

empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells

us that. The Manual itself tells us that the use of torture

is not only illegal, but also it is a poor technique that

yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection

efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks

the [interrogator] wants to hear.

Last May, General Petraeus echoed these statements in a letter to all our servicemembers in Iraq saying that ``torture and other expedient methods to obtain information'' are not only illegal and immoral, but also generally ``neither useful nor necessary.''

We now know, however, that the 2005 act left open a loophole that undermines the basic safeguards against torture and cruel and degrading treatment. We applied the field manual to the Department of Defense, but not to the CIA.

Last year in the Military Commissions Act, Congress left it to the President to define by Executive order the interrogation practices that would bind all Government interrogators, including the CIA. The President's Executive order drove a Mack truck through this small loophole. The vague terms of the order permit many of the most heinous interrogation practices.

The provisions of the bill we will have an opportunity of voting on tomorrow closed that loophole. They require that all U.S. interrogations, including those conducted by the CIA, conform to the Army Field Manual. This very simple and easily implemented reform means no more waterboarding, no more use of dogs or other extreme practices prohibited by the Manual. There will still be great flexibility in use of interrogation methods and our interrogators will be able to effectively get the required information, but torture will be off the table.

This bill is an opportunity to restate our commitment to the ideals and security of our Nation. It is an opportunity to repair the damage done to our reputation by the scandal of Abu Ghraib and the abuses of Guantanamo. It is an opportunity to restore our Nation as the beacon for human rights, fair treatment, and the rule of law. It is an opportunity to protect our brave service men and women, both in and out of uniform, from similar tactics. It is a simple but vital step in returning our Nation to the rule of law and the ideals on which America was founded, and it deserves to be enacted into law as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Before she leaves the floor, I commend my colleague Senator Lincoln. I agree with her strong defense and support of America's farmers, particularly our family farms and the need for a farm bill. She and I may come from different parties, but we have shown that you can work together. I consider her to be one of my very good friends and allies as we work toward good policy. I appreciate the opportunity to sit here and hear her remarks. It is great to see someone stand up and respond to the attacks we see coming against American agriculture. It seems every time we have a farm bill, the attacks begin again. Yet it is in America where the American consumers spend the lowest percentage of their disposable income on food and fiber because we have such strong farm policies.

I also agree with her comments about the need for us to remember we are in global markets. Those who produce food and fiber in other nations have tremendous subsidies from their governments where their governments enable them to compete unfairly against our producers. In fact, not only do their governments provide unfair, extensive subsidies to their producers, they also erect significant anticompetitive trade barriers, both tariff and nontariff trade barriers, so that the products they send to us are subsidized and the products we try to send to them are stopped at the border because of these barriers. It is because of these kinds of international market circumstances and the global competition we face these days that it is important for us to recognize the role of the farm bill in helping American producers level that playing field.

Again, I appreciate so much the opportunities I have had to work with Senator Lincoln on this and many other issues. We have worked together to strengthen and improve American policy.

I came to talk about the farm bill, and I will do that. But before doing so, I want to talk a little bit about the process, because I am very disturbed by the position the Senate is in right now. We could have been debating amendments to the farm bill for a week or two now. Instead we have been stalled by a procedure that has filled the amendment tree, for those who don't follow the rules of the Senate. The amendment tree has been filled up so no one can file amendments to the farm bill. Yet I understand there are over 260 amendments that have been prepared and which are out there waiting in the wings from different Members of the Senate. We are not going to see all 260 of those amendments debated and voted on. That never happens. But we should see a significant number of them debated and voted on.

Those of us who serve on the Agriculture Committee or the Finance Committee have seen both pieces of this farm bill be very vigorously debated at the committee level with all sorts of amendments and work developing the right kinds of process. Now it is time for that same process to occur here on the floor. Yet we have not seen one amendment allowed to be brought forward. The farm bill affects so many people's lives through providing food and fiber and security and enabling global competitiveness and ensuring a better environment. I could go on. But we must allow all Senators the opportunity to bring forth amendments they believe need to be debated before we have the final vote on the farm bill.

We have all heard by now the debate here in the Chamber and in other places about numbers, highlighting the multiple rollcall votes we have had on previous farm bill debates. Let me review a few of those. According to the information I have, during the 2002 farm bill debate, which is the most recent farm bill we have had, there were 49 amendment votes, including 25 rollcall votes. In 1996, on the farm bill preceding the current one, there were 26 amendment votes, including 11 rollcall votes. And during the farm bill debate previous to that in 1990, there were 113 votes, including 22 rollcalls. In 1985, there were 88 votes, 33 of which were rollcalls. Yet now during this debate or nondebate, we have had zero votes on any amendments because the amendment tree has been blocked.

I am discouraged by that because we could have made significant progress on this farm bill. Now what we see is a maneuver which is proposing that cloture be entered which would cut off debate on the farm bill and push it forward without giving us the opportunity for a full and robust debate on amendments.

I encourage our leadership on both sides to get past this impasse. I know there has been a lot of progress made in terms of an effort to limit the number of amendments and try to get a determination of how many amendments will be allocated to each side and allow us to move forward. But for whatever reason, we haven't been able to get that agreement resolved. The farm bill is too important for these kinds of partisan politics and maneuvers. I know there are concerns about certain amendments that may be brought. There are some on either side, depending on the amendment, who would prefer not to see the amendment brought because it could cause an embarrassing vote on behalf of some Members. I will face that same dynamic as amendments are brought forward. There will be amendments that will be difficult to face. But it is something we must do. It is the tradition of the Senate that we fully deliberate on matters such as this and that debate is not closed down.

I say again to our majority leader and our minority leader, we need to work together, avoid cloture votes, and avoid restrictions that prohibit Members from bringing their debate forward in this Chamber and allow us to have a full and robust debate so we can move the farm bill forward.

I remain committed to working together to move this farm bill forward in the Senate through a full, fair, and open process, and I hope we can get to one soon.

Now, let me turn to my comments on the farm bill itself. Many people say we should not call it the farm bill--in fact, I think it actually does have a different title now--because the farm bill is much more than just a bill that deals with commodities programs.

In fact, the farm bill, with the new addition of the Finance Committee title, will have 11 titles in it, only one of which is the commodities title. There are other titles dealing with rural development, with energy policy, and, as most people are not aware, with the food programs of our Nation.

In fact, if you look at the allocation of resources in the farm bill, only about 14 percent of the cost of the farm bill is truly allocated to the agricultural commodity programs. Over 60 percent--I think around 66 percent--of the cost of the bill goes to our Nation's food programs, such as our Food Stamp Program and the other programs that we have in international aid.

Then there are the programs dealing with conservation, which I am going to talk about in a minute, which is probably the most significant conservation effort in which this Congress gets engaged in any kind of an ongoing basis. Yet far too few Americans realize the commitment to the preservation and conservation and improvement of our environment that is contained in the farm bill.

There are more than 25,000 farms and ranches in Idaho producing more than 140 commodities statewide. Idaho leads or is ranked among the top States in the production of potatoes, peas, lentils, mint, sugar beets, onions, hops, dairy products, wheat, wool, cherries, and other commodities. Therefore, the farm bill is of vital importance to a more than $4 billion Idaho agricultural industry, which is an essential part of Idaho's economy.

In preparation for this farm bill authorization, like Chairman Harkin and

Ranking Member Chambliss, the House Agriculture Committee and former Agriculture Secretary Johanns, and others, I sought input from producers and those interested in the farm bill throughout the townhall meetings and hearings I had in Idaho, and I listened to many of my constituents voice their criticisms, bring forward their suggestions, and bring forward their praise of the last farm bill--the current farm bill under which we are operating.

What I heard loudly and clearly was that the basic structure of the 2002 farm bill is solid, and rather than starting from scratch, we should make changes to it and improvements to that basic structure as needed but not lose that structure that has been so helpful to our farmers and to our rural communities in particular throughout America. I have been pleased to work with my colleagues on the Senate Ag Committee and in the Congress in general to craft a bill that I believe sticks with that principle.

The bill before us today does not wipe away existing farm policy but builds on it for a stronger Federal farm policy. As Senator Lincoln indicated, it makes some very significant and needed reforms to move in the direction of addressing the concerns that many have raised about some inequities in the farm bill processes.

The legislation includes essential provisions, such as the new specialty crops subtitle that strengthens specialty crop block grants and other important programs. I have appreciated working with Senator Stabenow, Senator Craig, and others on this effort, and I thank Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss and Senator Conrad and others who have worked with us in shaping Federal farm policy that bolsters U.S. agriculture through provisions such as these specialty crop programs.

Additionally, I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley on the Finance Committee for the time they spent in crafting a tax title for the farm bill that enables us to make some additions and tweaks that were needed. It has been an honor to be one of the Senators who serves on both the Finance and Agriculture Committees, the two committees with products that will be merged together on the floor of the Senate to make up this year's farm bill.

There are a number of highlights in the tax title of the farm bill I want to mention. In the tax title of the farm bill, I worked with several Senators to include improvements to the Endangered Species Act through incentives for landowners to assist with species recovery. For years we have struggled with the burden that the Endangered Species Act puts on private property owners. Notably, about 80 percent of the endangered or threatened species in America are found on private property. Yet we have put the burden of protecting and preserving and recovering those species unduly on our private property owners.

This bill I have introduced and worked on with many others in the Senate will provide participants with the option of a tax credit instead of the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Grasslands Reserve Program.

This farm bill also provides support for wheat, barley, sugar, wool, and pulse crop producers. Pulse crops would become eligible for Counter-Cyclical Program assistance.

The Noninsured Assistance Program would provide coverage for aquacultural producers who are impacted by drought.

There are significant investments in energy programs that would assist producers with efforts that support energy independence.

Changes to Project SEARCH would allow financially distressed rural communities in Idaho and nationwide to access increased Federal assistance for their water infrastructure needs.

The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program would be significantly expanded to enable all States to participate. Expanding this program nationwide will further the effort to provide healthy food choices for our children. This program is a win-win for children, students, and producers.

I have visited Idaho schools and have seen firsthand how the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program has been a big support to our students, and I look forward to seeing the additional benefits brought through this program by making it available to more students.

There are many other provisions of importance in this extensive legislation that I could bring up and review, but instead I want to just focus on one vital area of the bill--the conservation title-- before concluding my remarks.

I have appreciated having the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the conservation title, which provides landowners with both the financial and technical assistance necessary to achieve real environmental results.

As I said earlier, no Federal policy contributes more to the improvement and protection of our environment than the farm bill, through the incentive-driven conservation programs. The conservation title provides $4.4 billion in new spending for conservation programs. The title continues with the current combination of conservation programs with improvements to make them work.

For example, the Senate farm bill makes changes to the EQIP, or Environmental Quality Incentives Program, to ensure that private forest land owners receive the help they need to better manage their land.

Chairman Harkin made numerous changes to the Conservation Security Program, which has been renamed the Conservation Stewardship Program. The Senate farm bill provides $1.28 billion in new spending for that program.

There are also adjustments made to increase participation of specialty crop producers in the Conservation Stewardship Program, dedicated conservation program resources and higher technical assistance levels to increase participation of beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The title also provides added emphasis to encourage pollinator habitat improvements on agricultural and forest land.

Funding is provided for the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Grasslands Reserve Program, which did not have baseline funding starting in 2008. The Wetlands Reserve Program would be provided with funds to enroll 250,000 acres per year through 2012. The Grasslands Reserve Program would be provided with $240 million for fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

The Conservation Reserve Program would be maintained at 39.2 million acres. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program would be continued with $85 million per year for fiscal years 2008 through 2012. The Farmland Protection Program would be reauthorized at $97 million per year through the duration of the farm bill. The conservation title provides for the creation of a framework to facilitate the participation of farmers in greenhouse gas reduction and other environmental services markets.

Now, I understand the challenges faced in writing this farm bill and the significant investment that has been made in conservation programs, especially having to cover baseline shortfalls for the Wetlands Reserve Program and the Grasslands Reserve Program. However, a broader investment is needed in our conservation programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Grasslands Reserve Program, so we can better capitalize on the conservation interest and needs across this Nation.

I will continue to work for investments in working lands conservation, such as the EQIP program and GRP, or Grasslands Reserve Program.

With any legislation that is as comprehensive as this, there are always provisions that each of us would like to see come out differently. However, on a whole, this bill before us builds upon past farm bills and sets U.S. agriculture on the right course. Throughout the crafting of this bill, it has been refreshing to see that more people are starting to understand each aspect of this important legislation. Truly, there are few pieces of legislation that have the ability to impact so many lives. This bill affects our Nation's food security, our global competitiveness, the condition of our air, water, and land, as well as many other aspects of our lives.

I look forward to getting past the impasse we face on the Senate floor and moving forward to a timely debate and the enactment of a farm bill that enables sound Federal farm policy.

Madam President, I yield the floor.