Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, let me congratulate the Senator from Arkansas on her fine and important work on the Finance Committee. Let me also congratulate Majority Leader Reid for his leadership, and Senator Baucus, Senator Grassley, and the other members for taking the ball a significantly strong step forward as we deal with the economic problems facing our country.

I think it is clear to the vast majority of the American people, if not to the President of the United States, that our country has some very serious economic problems. The middle class is shrinking. Tens of millions of Americans are working longer hours for low wages. Poverty is increasing. And there is a level of economic desperation among the lowest income people in our country that many of us have not seen for a very long time.

As we speak, senior citizens in the State of Vermont are finding it extremely difficult to pay for their home heating fuel bills, which are soaring, as they are seeing record-breaking levels of the cost for home heating oil.

Emergency food banks in the State of Vermont and throughout this country are literally running out of food because many low-income working people are simply, today, not being able to earn enough money to purchase the food they need for their families.

Homeless shelters are running out of beds. We have some major economic problems, and the time is long overdue for this Congress to begin to address them.

As we discuss an economic stimulus package, there are Members of the Senate--and there are many Americans--who have appropriately raised questions about the amount of money we intend to spend in an economic stimulus package. There are people who point out, quite correctly, that in this country today we continue to have record-breaking deficits, and we have a huge national debt.

All of that is a very legitimate concern I share. That is why we should not heed the advice of the President who, in his State of the Union Address, urged us to extend hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 percent of our population. No, I do not think the wealthiest people in this country need more tax breaks. I think we have to start focusing our attention on the needs of the middle class, on working families, on those Americans most in need.

At this point, let me give thanks to our friends in the House who passed an economic stimulus package which has started the ball rolling. Now, with the legislation we are debating in the Senate, it is our job to improve upon what the House did, and I hope we will be doing exactly that.

While the House bill has a number of important attributes, the stimulus package passed yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee is, in fact, a much better and a far more significant piece of legislation. The Senate bill, among other things, understands low-income senior citizens across this country are facing very serious economic problems. Like low- and middle-income working people, they need help.

Senior citizens, every week I go back to Vermont, tell me they cannot survive on their Social Security checks, and that the cost-of-living COLAs are too small. They cannot find the money they need to heat their homes. They are having a hard time purchasing the food they need. That is why I very strongly support the provision in that legislation passed by the Senate Finance Committee which will enable over 20 million senior citizens to get a one-time $500 tax rebate. This is money that will be part of an economic stimulus because these are some of the people most in need who will certainly spend that money quite quickly, helping to create jobs in the process.

So I urge all of my colleagues, in a nonpartisan way, to stand with the hard-pressed, low-income senior citizens of our country and support the provision in the Senate Finance Committee bill which says we are going to provide a tax rebate to senior citizens. They cannot and must not be excluded from the economic stimulus package.

Further, the Senate bill does another very important thing in reaching out to our disabled American veterans, many of whom are also struggling economically. By definition, these are people who have been disabled defending the United States of America. They must not be forgotten as we discuss an economic stimulus package. At the very least, what the Senate Finance Committee did will provide a rebate for some 250,000 of those veterans, and perhaps even more. That is the right thing to do from a moral perspective. Those people deserve that help. In fact, helping them will also provide an economic stimulus.

The Senate Finance bill also extends unemployment benefits by 13 weeks in all States and 26 weeks in States experiencing high rates of unemployment. That is a good and proper thing to do as well. As unemployment rises--and especially in those areas where there are consistently high levels of unemployment--many people are going to run out of unemployment benefits. Their unemployment benefits will expire. Those benefits need to be extended, and that is what the Senate bill does, and the House bill does not.

So in my view, the legislation coming out of the Senate Finance Committee is a more significant piece of legislation than that passed in the House in helping those people who are most in need. It is also more important in terms of providing the economic stimulus our economy needs.

But to be very frank with you, what came out of the Senate Finance Committee is an important step forward, an important improvement over what existed in the House, but we need on the floor of the Senate to do much more than what was done in the Senate Finance Committee.

For example, the Senate Finance Committee bill does not provide any funding for food stamps. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, over 35 million Americans struggled to put food on the table last year, and the number of the hungriest Americans--those people who literally do not have enough food every day--that number goes up and up and up.

Economists from different political persuasions, both the left and the right, have told us food stamp benefits would be one of the best ways to stimulate the economy. So, once again, you are dealing with the moral issue: As the United States of America, in the year 2008, we should not tolerate a situation where any American goes hungry, where food banks are running out of food. That is not what America should be about.

Second of all, as we expand the Food Stamp Program, we create a very important economic stimulus by definition. If people do not have enough food to eat, they are going to spend that money. They are going to spend it on food, food which is, by and large, grown in the United States of America, and we are going to create jobs in that

process. So my hope is, again, in a bipartisan or tripartisan manner, the Senate will add food stamps to the economic stimulus package.

The Baucus substitute--the Senate Finance Committee bill--just like the House bill, does not provide any money for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, usually known as LIHEAP. This is a program which is extraordinarily important to cold-weather States such as Vermont, New England, all across the northern tier. But, in fact, it is important to every State in this country because in Arizona, in the summer, when it gets to 120 degrees, people there need help as well.

Right now, in the State of Vermont, and all over this country, we have senior citizens and low-income people struggling--tearing out their hair--trying to figure out how they are going to pay to heat their homes when the cost of home heating oil is now well over $3 a gallon. The reality is that because we have not increased funding for LIHEAP to the degree that we should, either the amount of money each individual person is getting is going down or States are making the decision to provide LIHEAP funding to fewer of our people. Neither alternative is acceptable.

This is a cold winter in various parts of this country. It has been below zero in the State of Vermont recently. No American should go cold. No American should be forced to make a choice between food and heating his or her home. We have to expand LIHEAP funding. People who receive that will be spending that money, and that is also an economic stimulus. So in my view, including food stamps, LIHEAP, and unemployment benefits in the economic stimulus package is not only the right thing to do in terms of stimulating the economy, it is the moral thing to do. It is what we as a nation should be doing.

For too long I think the White House and the Congress have been identified with programs that help the wealthiest people in this country--the people, in fact, who do not need any help at all. The richest 1 percent is doing fine without any tax breaks from Congress. Now is the time to start paying attention to the middle class, the working families, the vast majority of our people who are struggling economically. Now is their time, and we have to listen to their needs and respond to them.

In addition to addressing issues such as LIHEAP, food stamps, and unemployment compensation, there are other areas we should be moving forward on: rebuilding and repairing our schools, bridges, roads, culverts, sewer systems, rail, ports, and airports. Not only would we be addressing the tremendous problems we have in our crumbling infrastructure, but that is also a quick route to put people in the construction industry back to work. In the State of Vermont, it is estimated that we have over $1 billion in work that has to be done in our infrastructure. The estimate, according to the engineers, is that we have over $1 trillion of unmet infrastructure needs in America. We should be rebuilding our schools, making them more energy efficient, and in the process we put our working people in the construction industry back to work. We should address that issue as well.

Coming from a cold weather State, I am very conscious of the issue of weatherization. It makes zero sense that in Vermont and all across this country we have millions of lower income people who are living in homes which are poorly insulated, which do not have storm windows, their roofs leak energy, so these people are spending money for heating fuel that is literally going out the window and through the roof. Weatherization projects are already in existence in all of the States. Putting money into weatherization puts people to work. It saves on the fuel costs for many seniors, lower income people, and it also, not unimportantly, helps us reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So funding weatherization is a win-win-win. We should do that as well.

I also believe we should be increasing renewable energy investments in wind and solar. That is, as I understand it, in the Finance Committee bill, which is very important. We are losing out to the rest of the world in creating the kinds of industries we need through solar, energy, and wind. In the process, we would create many good-paying jobs. The idea that we have not yet passed an extended tax credit for wind and solar makes zero sense. We have to move in that area as well.

I personally also wish to see included in a stimulus package increased funding for community health centers, because when people lose their jobs, they are losing their health care. Federally qualified health centers have been a wonderful tool to bring people into primary health care access, regardless of their incomes.

Back in 2001, I was an early backer of tax rebates--one of those who actually came up with that concept. I support tax rebates for the middle class, for low-income families with children, and for persons with disabilities. I also believe that senior citizens should be receiving help in this bill as well through a bonus in their Social Security checks.

So I think we are making some progress. I think the Senate bill is far better than the House bill. I think we have the responsibility on the floor of the Senate to improve upon what was done in the Finance Committee. I hope that in a nonpartisan way, this Senate will reach out to the American people and let them know we are aware of the pain they are experiencing; we know what is happening in the low-income community; we know what is happening to our veterans; we know what is happening to our senior citizens; and we finally are going to start focusing on their needs, rather than the needs of the wealthiest 1 percent who have occupied so much of the attention of the Senate for so many years.

We have an opportunity to do something very important for the American people. I hope we do it, and I hope we do it as quickly as we possibly can.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I think it is clear to the vast majority of the American people, if not to the President of the United States, that the middle class in our country is shrinking; tens of millions of people are working longer hours for low wages; workers today are getting into their cars and are paying outrageously high prices for a gallon of gas; that senior citizens in the State of Vermont can't afford the skyrocketing costs of home heating fuel; and that at this particular moment in our history, with poverty increasing and the middle class shrinking and our economy in serious trouble, it is absolutely imperative that we pass an economic stimulus package. The bottom line is not just passing a package but passing a good package.

I think there are some positive aspects of the bill that came from the House. I think from what we are hearing, the Senate Finance Committee is going to make that bill even stronger. But the main point I want to make this afternoon is that when we pass an economic stimulus bill, we have to get it right. It has to be fair. It has to have the impact of rejuvenating our economy and helping those people in need.

Later this afternoon, as the Presiding Officer knows, the Senate Finance Committee will be voting on what I believe is, for the most part, an improved version of the economic stimulus bill that came from the House. I think it is right that the Finance Committee bill includes an extension in unemployment insurance for 13 weeks in all States and an additional 26 weeks in States with high unemployment. That is obviously the right thing to do, because people who lose their jobs, people whose unemployment compensation expires, are people in desperate need. Those are the people we need to help. From an economic stimulus point of view, those people will take that money, spend it, and help stimulate our economy.

I am also pleased that the Finance Committee extended the rebates to 20 million senior citizens who don't earn income, and that was certainly a major lack in the bill that passed the House. There are millions and millions and millions of senior citizens in this country hanging on, on low fixed incomes, getting their Social Security check every month, but having a very difficult time making ends meet, especially with health care costs rising, heating fuel costs rising, prescription drug costs rising. Those people need help. It is absolutely imperative that if we pass an economic stimulus package, it must include our senior citizens as well. I applaud the chairman of the Finance Committee for including that provision in the bill.

Furthermore, I am strongly in agreement with the proposed package coming out of the Senate Finance Committee that low-income Americans who pay Social Security and Medicare taxes should also receive the same rebate as somebody who is earning $50,000, $60,000, or $80,000 a year. In point of fact, those people are most in need, and I disagree with the House provision that would provide them with a $300 rebate as opposed to middle-income or upper middle income people who get a $600 rebate. We should not provide a two-tier rebate approach. Everybody should get the same amount. Certainly lower income people have more need of the money than upper income people. So I think that provision in the Finance Committee proposal makes a lot of sense.

Having said those positive things about the Finance Committee package, there is one area where I strongly disagree. Under the House package, the rebates were capped at incomes of $75,000 per year for individuals and $150,000 a year for couples. As I understand it, the Finance Committee would eliminate those caps and they would say to the wealthiest people in our society, to the millionaires and to the billionaires, to Bill Gates, to Warren Buffett, that you will be eligible for a tax rebate. At a time when this country has a record- breaking national debt, at a time when the people on top have never done so well, and the richest 1 percent are doing very well based on anyone's analysis; at a time when the richest 1 percent have already received collectively hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks from President Bush, the idea that under a so-called economic stimulus package we would be providing $500 to Bill Gates is not only absurd, it is laughable. I hesitate to think what the American people will conclude if we go forward in that approach, and if we do away with the cap at $150,000, which the House appropriately placed in there.

It has been estimated that eliminating the income caps for the rebate checks, giving that money to Bill Gates and other billionaires would cost about $5 billion. Five billion dollars would, in fact, be enough money to significantly increase food stamps for tens of millions of the neediest Americans in our country. I don't think it is rocket science to suggest that it is more important to make sure that kids in this country get adequate nutrition, that older people be able to get some help in food stamps, than giving a $500 check to millionaires and billionaires, not to mention that all of the economists agree that if you are talking about an economic stimulus, the fastest way you get that money out into our society is by giving it to people who are most in need who will then spend it, not to the wealthiest people in this country. I hope very much that every Member of the Senate will conclude that giving a tax rebate of $500 a person in a so-called economic stimulus package to the wealthiest people in this society makes zero sense.

In my view, despite the improvements or most of the improvements we are seeing in the Senate Finance Committee, I think that, frankly, there is a lot more that must be done in the economic stimulus package, and it should be done for two reasons. No. 1, for 7 years, we have had a President who has turned a blind eye to the middle class and working families and lower income people in this country; at a time, in fact, when poverty is increasing, his contribution to the process was to propose major cutbacks in one program after another. I think it is time now that Congress pay attention to the needs of the middle class, lower income people, and start addressing their needs rather than just upper income people who have received so much over the last 7 years. Specifically, we must provide help to those most in need, particularly senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children, and persons with disabilities.

We must strengthen the middle class in this economic stimulus package, and we must put Americans back to work at good-paying jobs by paying attention to our infrastructure, which has so long been neglected with the results being that we have bridges and roads and culverts and school buildings that are in desperate need of repair.

If we fail to pass an economic stimulus package that does not accomplish all three of these goals, we will have missed out on an important opportunity to strengthen our economy and to help those people most in need.

Here are just a few steps that I believe we should be taking. First, I believe we should increase the stimulus package by at least $25 billion. I also believe we should reduce the business tax breaks by at least $25 billion. Mark Zandi from Moody's has estimated that the business tax breaks contemplated by Congress would yield very little stimulus to the economy, much less than increasing food stamps or unemployment benefits. In other words, if the goal is to stimulate the economy, the tax breaks being proposed for the business community in many ways would have much less of an impact than many other proposals, such as increasing food stamps or unemployment benefits.

If we did those two things--increase the stimulus package by $25 billion and reduce the business tax breaks by $25

billion--that would leave us with an additional $50 billion. What can we do, what should we do with this $50 billion? We could complete the picture. We can put Americans back to work at decent-paying jobs, we can help those who are most in need, and we could strengthen the middle class.

How do we do that? Specifically, I believe we should provide $5 billion for an expansion of the Food Stamp Program. In America today, poverty is increasing. We are seeing levels of desperation in the State of Vermont and all over this country that we have not seen in many years. Food shelves in the State of Vermont and throughout this country are running out of food. I understand that in the agriculture bill, there are proposals to increase food stamps, but we do not know when that farm bill is going to be passed. We have to act now. Let's support our neighbors who are having a hard time feeding their families. Let's substantially increase food stamps and do it in this economic stimulus package.

What else should we be doing? I can tell my colleagues, coming from one of the coldest States in America, at a time when home heating fuel prices are soaring, it is absolutely imperative that we significantly increase funding for the LIHEAP program. Many of the people on LIHEAP are senior citizens, and the rest are low-income people. With fuel prices soaring, with poverty increasing, more and more people are having a difficult time keeping their homes warm. We must significantly increase LIHEAP funding. The economists tell us that is also an important mechanism if we are going to stimulate the economy.

Including food stamps, LIHEAP, and unemployment benefits in the economic stimulus package is not only the right thing to do in terms of stimulating the economy, it is the moral thing to do. We cannot, we must not turn a blind eye to those people who are most in need. That is what has gone on year after year under Republican rule. It is time we turned that around and told those Americans most in need that we hear them, we know what is going on, and this Congress, this Government will respond to those needs, and now is the time to do that.

In my State and all over America, our infrastructure is crumbling. There are estimates that we need over $1 trillion to rebuild our bridges, our schools, our culverts, and in the process of doing that-- this is work which has to be done, and the longer we wait, the more it costs. I speak as a former mayor. When you delay your infrastructure repairs, all it means is it is going to cost you more next year. We can put many workers back to work doing this very important task of rebuilding our infrastructure, making sure the schools our kids are going to are updated, and making sure they are energy efficient. If we make our schools and public buildings energy efficient, in the long run we are going to save money. But as an immediate economic stimulus, putting money into the infrastructure can create many jobs, and these are good-paying jobs. I am talking about schools, bridges, roads, sewers, wastewater plants, rails, ports, airports, health delivery systems, and other infrastructural needs. Last year, about 200,000 construction workers lost their jobs, and this is a good way of bringing at least some of them back into the workforce.

I will also give two more examples of investments we should be making that can have a very significant impact upon the lives of the American people.

When a worker loses his or her job, in all likelihood that worker is also losing his or her health care. We have seen, since Bush has been President, over 7 million Americans lose their health insurance, and as unemployment goes up, surely that number will only increase.

If we just provided, for example, $148 million for the expansion of community health centers, that would be enough money to create 227 new CHCs all over this country. It would provide jobs for health care workers, but even more importantly, when somebody loses their health insurance, they would have the opportunity to access primary health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, and mental health counseling. This is a good investment at any time. It is an especially good investment now. It puts people to work and will provide health care access for millions of Americans.

For those who question the appropriateness of including community health centers in an economic stimulus package, I simply remind them that this is precisely what we did under President Ronald Reagan's stimulus package in the 1980s. It worked then, and I believe it will work now.

Another important investment we should be making is to provide at least $500 million for the low-income Weatherization Assistance Program. Weatherization is a program that is going on all over the country. We do not need a new bureaucracy to funnel that money into the projects; it is there already. In Vermont and in many other parts of America, the needs for weatherization far outstrip the funds that are available. Many of the community action agencies have long waiting lists.

Funding weatherization makes eminent sense for a number of reasons. No. 1, the programs are in place. We can put people to work right away. That is an economic stimulus. No. 2, it is absolutely absurd that millions of low-income people continue to live in homes which are very poorly weatherized, where insulation is lacking and they have inadequate roofs, windows, and doors. They are putting money into their heating system, and that money is simply leaking out of their homes, causing, by the way, an increased problem with greenhouse gas emissions. So weatherization makes sense in terms of creating jobs, it makes sense in saving people money on their fuel bills, and it makes a lot of sense for those of us who want to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

Back in 2001, when both you and I, Mr. President, were Members of the House, I was an early backer of tax rebates. I strongly support tax rebates for middle-class and for low-income families with children and for persons with disabilities. I also believe senior citizens who do not pay income taxes should be receiving this assistance as well through a bonus in their Social Security checks. But giving someone $500 or $1,000 alone will not fix the economic problems the middle- class and working families of our country are facing. Putting Americans to work at decent-paying jobs and helping those most in need is also extremely important.

We must pass an economic stimulus package. We must do it as quickly as we can. But we must do it in a way that really has an impact on our economy and an impact on the lives of those people who are most in need. In the coming hours and days, I intend to be actively involved in that process.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, last night I listened intently to President Bush's State of the Union speech, and, frankly, I had a hard time understanding what country the President was talking about and what reality he was talking about. Certainly, if the State of the Union refers to what is happening to the shrinking middle class of this country and how we as a people are doing, the President had almost nothing to say that rang true. In fact, last night's speech just reminds many of us how far removed from the reality of ordinary life this President is and how little he and his administration know about what is going on in the lives of millions and millions of people in cities and towns across this country.

In my view, the President's speech was lacking not just for what he said but, perhaps more importantly, for what he didn't say. Somehow, President Bush forgot to mention some of the results of his failed economic policies and how they have impacted the lives of ordinary people. So let me take

a moment, therefore, to review the record the President refused to talk about last night.

Since George W. Bush took office in 2001, nearly 5 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. These are mostly low-income working people whose wages have not kept up with inflation. These are people all across the country who are trying to make it on $6 or $7 an hour without any health insurance, desperately trying to keep their families above water. These are, by the way, parents and kids in Pennsylvania and in Vermont who are now flocking to emergency food banks because they simply don't have the income to buy the food they need in the United States of America in 2008. It might have been a sign of decency on the part of the President to at least recognize that reality which is impacting so many of our people, and the reality that hunger in America is actually going up.

Since George W. Bush has been in office, median household income for working-age Americans has declined by almost $2,500. That is a lot of money. Also, overall median household income has gone down by nearly $1,000. This is the shrinking middle class, and maybe as people are working longer hours for lower wages, maybe as people are working 50 or 60 hours a week trying to bring in enough money for their families to pay the bills, maybe the President might have said a few words to them that he understands the reality they are experiencing. Maybe he might have said to the young people of our country that he is concerned if we don't turn around our economy, for the first time in the modern history of this country their generation will have a lower standard of living than their parents; maybe just a few words to those young people so they know he knows what is going on in their lives.

But I didn't hear that. I didn't hear that at all.

Mr. President, since George W. Bush has been in office, 8.6 million Americans have lost their health insurance, and we are now up to 47 million Americans without any health insurance whatsoever. Meanwhile, health insurance premiums have increased during Bush's tenure by 78 percent--a huge increase in the cost of health care.

Last night, while the President gave us his usual rhetoric about all of the virtues of free market health care, he somehow forgot to tell us why we spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation, and why we are the only major country on Earth without a national health care program guaranteeing health care to all people. The President didn't even tell us why he vetoed legislation that would expand health insurance to millions more children; just the usual rhetoric about free market health care, which is failing us every single day.

During his remarks last night, somehow President Bush neglected to mention that 3 million workers, since he has been in office, have lost their pensions--the promises that were made to them for their retirement years--and about half of American workers in the private sector have no pension coverage whatsoever. I didn't hear much from the President about that.

What I did hear is the President's rhetoric about ``Social Security reform,'' which are code words for the privatization of Social Security. At a time when seniors are facing more and more insecurity than they have seen for a very long time, privatizing Social Security is the last thing this country needs.

Last night, President Bush once again pushed for more unfettered free trade agreements, despite the fact that since he has been in office the annual trade deficit has more than doubled, and over 3 million manufacturing jobs--good-paying jobs--in this country have been lost. It astounds me that, despite the horrendous record of these unfettered trade agreements--NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations-- we have a President who says: Look, we have failed year after year, we have lost millions of good-paying jobs, our trade deficit is soaring, and do you know what the answer is? We need more of this failed trade policy. In my own small State of Vermont, never one of the great manufacturing States in this country, we have lost, since the President has been President, 10,000 manufacturing jobs--25 percent of the total or one out of four manufacturing jobs. And President Bush says we need more outsourcing; we need corporations to throw more American workers out on the street so they can run to China and pay people 50 cents an hour there, and then bring the products back into this country.

Last night, President Bush did say a word about gas prices going up. But he did forget to tell us that since he has been President the price of gas at the pump, and home heating oil, has more than doubled. For whatever reason, he also forgot to tell us that, year after year, while Americans are paying outrageous prices for oil and gas, the oil companies are enjoying record-breaking profits. I didn't hear him mention anything about that, not one word.

A couple of years ago, for example, ExxonMobil--which has enjoyed huge profits while Americans are paying $3.15 for a gallon of gas at the pump--gave a $398 million retirement package for its former CEO, Mr. Lee Raymond. And our people are paying $3.15 for a gallon of gas. The President forgot to talk about that.

Also, I found it interesting that President Bush neglected to discuss that for the first time since the Great Depression the personal savings rate in this country is below zero. This means that because of the dire economic conditions facing so many of our people, we as a people are actually spending more money than we are earning. In fact, today, millions of Americans are buying their groceries with credit cards. They don't have the cash to buy the food they need. They are going into debt to buy groceries. And our friends in the credit card industry are then charging them 25 or 30 percent interest rates for the groceries they are buying on credit.

For some reason, last night in his State of the Union Address, the President also neglected to mention that home foreclosures are the highest on record, turning the American dream of homeownership into an American nightmare for millions of our fellow citizens.

The reason I am raising these issues is because if we as a Senate, as a government, do not talk about and discuss the reality of life in this country for the vast majority of the people, if we do not understand what is going on in the cities and towns across our Nation, then it will be virtually impossible for us to formulate the public policies we need to transform our economy so that it begins to work well for all of the people and not just the wealthiest people on top.

Also, we do not do this enough. It is important to take a look at what is going on in our country compared to what is going on in many other industrialized nations. Very often, I hear people on the Senate floor say we are the wealthiest and the greatest Nation in the world. We are all of these things.

Let's look at some of the facts as they apply to the lives of ordinary people. What country in the industrialized world has, by far, the highest rate of childhood poverty, where one out of five children are living in poverty? Is it France, Germany, or the U.K.? No. It is the United States of America. One out of five children in this country live in poverty. And shock of all shocks, we end up having the highest rate of incarceration--putting people behind bars--of any other country on Earth. If you think there is not a correlation between those two factors, I would strongly disagree with you.

Unfortunately, the U.S. today has the highest infant mortality rate of any major country on Earth, the highest overall poverty rate, the largest gap between the rich and the poor, and we are the only major country in the world not to provide health care to all of their its people as a right of citizenship.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 12:30 p.m., with the time equally divided.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I can send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Mr. President, let me begin by saying this amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Collins, Obama, Cantwell, Sununu, Menendez, Stabenow, Clinton, Leahy, and Kerry. This amendment, which would increase LIHEAP funding by $800 million, also has the support of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, the National Fuel Funds Network, the American Gas Association, the National Association of State Energy Officials, and many other groups.

This amendment is as simple and straightforward as it can be, and what it is about is that at a time when, as everybody knows, home heating prices are going through the roof, it is getting colder every day--it will be below zero in Vermont this week--this amendment would provide real relief to millions of senior citizens on fixed incomes, low-income families with children, and persons with disabilities.

Specifically, this amendment would provide $800 million emergency funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, otherwise known as LIHEAP. Four hundred million dollars of this funding would be distributed under the regular LIHEAP formula and the other $400 million would be used under the contingency LIHEAP program.

Last month, I introduced the Keeping Americans Warm Act to provide $1 billion in emergency LIHEAP funding. I am pleased that this bill has garnered 26 cosponsors--19 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent.

In addition, as you know, on December 3, 38 Senators cosigned a letter spearheaded by Senator Jack Reed and Susan Collins to the Labor- HHS-Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Specter urging the appropriations committee to provide a total of $3.4 billion in LIHEAP funding.

As you know, there is a lot of discussion right now in seeing that there be a substantial increase in LIHEAP funding in the economic stimulus bill that is being talked about, which I certainly support.

I would also like to take this opportunity to commend Subcommittee Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Specter, Appropriations Chairman Byrd, and Ranking Member Cochran for providing a total of $2.6 billion in funding for LIHEAP in the Omnibus appropriations bill. I understand how difficult it was to reach a deal on this bill. I appreciate everything Senator Byrd and others have done for LIHEAP to make sure people in our country do not go cold.

Unfortunately, this $2.6 billion in funding for LIHEAP, while an 18- percent increase from last year, is still 23 percent below what was provided for LIHEAP just 2 years ago. And that 23-percent reduction is not even adjusted for inflation. I am talking about nominal dollars.

Two years ago, as I think every American fully understands, the price of heating oil was less than $2.50 a gallon. Today, it is over $3.36 a gallon. In central Vermont, we have seen prices as high as $3.73 a gallon for heating oil. This winter, consumers are projected to pay over $1,800 to heat their homes with heating oil--$1,800 just to stay warm this winter. This winter, it is projected that consumers will be paying over $1,600 to heat their homes with propane. Two years ago, they only paid $1,281.

The skyrocketing prices are already stretching the household budgets of millions of families with children, senior citizens on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities beyond the breaking point. I cannot tell you--I am sure the situation is not radically different in Pennsylvania--how many people are telling me that when they see these heating bills, they cannot believe it. They just do not know how they are going to stay warm this winter.

Unfortunately, the spike in energy costs is completely eviscerating the purchasing power of this extremely important program in State after State. If Congress does not act soon to confront this problem head-on-- and this is a problem which is existing now and will get worse in late January and in February--I fear for the public health and safety of many of our most vulnerable citizens.

The point is, we have to act. We have to act. I support any and all efforts to

expand LIHEAP but, frankly, it will do less good if it is passed in March or in April than it will if it is passed in January and February. We need to get the money out to people now so they do not go cold.

According to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, due to insufficient funding, the average LIHEAP grant only pays for 18 percent of the total cost of heating a home with heating oil this winter, 21 percent of residential propane costs, 41 percent of natural gas costs, and 43 percent of electricity costs this winter. What this means is that low-income families with kids, senior citizens on fixed incomes, and others will have to make up the remaining cost out of their own pockets. As you know, in this country we are looking at some very rocky economic times. More and more people are unemployed. Poverty is going up. Where are those people going to get these large sums of money to stay warm this winter?

In addition, only 15 percent of eligible LIHEAP recipients currently receive assistance with home heating bills. Eighty-five percent of eligible low-income families with children, senior citizens on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities do not receive any LIHEAP assistance whatsoever due to a lack of funding. There are many people all over this country who are eligible for this program who are unable to get the help they need. In my own State of Vermont, it has been reported that outrageously high home heating costs, oil costs, are pushing families into homelessness. In fact, it is not uncommon for families with two working parents to receive help from homeless shelters in the State of Vermont because they cannot afford anyplace else to live during the winter.

This is a national energy emergency which is affecting States all over the country, certainly not just Vermont. On January 17, 1 day after the President released $450 million in emergency LIHEAP funding, the National Energy Assistance Directors Association testified in front of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chaired by Senator Kennedy. I very much appreciate his holding that hearing in Boston focusing national attention on this crisis. Here is what the national energy directors reported. This is what they say:

In Arkansas, the number of families receiving LIHEAP assistance is expected to be reduced by up to 20 percent from last year if they are not able to get more funding. Arkansas, 20 percent reduction.

In Arizona, estimates are that they will have to cut the number of families receiving LIHEAP assistance by 10,000 families as compared to last year.

In Delaware, the number of families receiving LIHEAP assistance will be reduced by up to 20 percent. In most instances, your average LIHEAP grant only pays for about 20 percent of the total cost of heating a home in Delaware.

During the winter in Iowa, the regular LIHEAP grant has been cut by 7 percent from last year. The average LIHEAP grant in Iowa is $300. Two years ago, the average grant was $450.

The State of Kentucky can run out of LIHEAP funding as early as next February.

In Maine, the average LIHEAP grant will only pay for about 2 to 3 weeks of home heating costs in most homes in that State, and I can tell you that it stays cold for a lot longer than 2 or 3 weeks in Maine, in New England.

In Massachusetts, the spike in energy costs means that the purchasing costs for LIHEAP has declined by 39 percent since 2006.

The State of Minnesota can run out of LIHEAP funding as early as February.

In New York, many households have already exhausted their entire LIHEAP funding.

While Ohio has seen a 10-percent increase in the number of people applying for LIHEAP assistance, that State will have to cut back its regular LIHEAP grant by between 15 to 20 percent.

Rhode Island, Texas, the State of Washington--on and on it goes. The bottom line is, home heating fuel costs are soaring, and LIHEAP does not have enough money to take care of the needs of people in State after State after State.

In the richest country on the face of the Earth, no family, no child, no senior citizen should be forced to go cold this winter. I am afraid that unless we act, and act very quickly, that is exactly what will be happening.

We hear a lot of talking about energy funding around here. Not every piece of legislation, in fact, is an emergency. This is an emergency. As we speak tonight, people all over this country do not have enough money to stay warm. That situation will only get worse. We have to act, and we have to act now.

Let me again thank the many cosponsors of this legislation. It is certainly bipartisan. There are cold people in Republican States, Democratic States, Independent States. We have to act together, and we have to move as rapidly as we can.

I am offering this amendment now on the Indian health bill. I will offer it at every opportunity I can. I look forward to working with the Members of the Senate to see that we do the right thing so that no American goes cold this winter.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last night I indicated my strong concerns about the omnibus appropriations bill, a bill that I expected to include all domestic spending as well as funding for the war in Iraq. Notably, I discussed my grave misgivings about funding for the President's disastrous, ongoing and ill-conceived war. I also raised my unease with last-minute additions of loan guarantees for questionable energy sources, such as the building of new nuclear power and for coal- related energy, especially coal to liquids.

Last night, I voted against an amendment to provide the President with a blank check for his war. Until even later in the evening, I thought that the war funding would be attached to the domestic spending legislation set for vote that evening. However, it was clear by the time of the domestic spending vote that the Iraq war funds were kept separate. I remain very concerned with the nuclear and coal loan guarantees that were inserted, I decided that, on balance, the domestic spending bill that would fund, among other important priorities, community health centers and health care for many Americans in need, deserved my support. I regret the insertion of the ill-conceived loan guarantees and will work with my colleagues to address them.

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding.

The reason I rise is to deal with a very important issue that impacts millions of our fellow Americans, and that is all over this country, with the price of home heating oil soaring, people are wondering about how they are going to stay warm this winter. My very fervent hope is that the Congress, both the Senate and the House, will address this issue before we adjourn for the Christmas holidays.

I commend Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, Chairman Harkin, and others for, in fact, adding a significant sum of money-- over $400

million--to the Omnibus appropriations bill. This is important, and I appreciate that. I think people all over this country appreciate that.

Unfortunately, however, this total of $2.6 billion in funding for LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, that so many people, so many elderly people depend upon in order to stay warm in the wintertime, while it is an 18-percent increase from last year, it is still 23 percent below what was provided for LIHEAP just 2 years ago in nominal dollars. Meanwhile, as everybody knows, the cost of home heating fuels has soared. Compared to 2 years ago, heating oil prices are projected to be 50 percent higher this winter. The price of propane will be 38 percent higher, and electricity prices will be 14 percent higher. These high prices, coupled with the reduction in LIHEAP assistance compared to 2 years ago, mean States will be forced to either reduce the number of people who will be receiving LIHEAP or else to significantly cut back on the amount of money that people will be receiving. There is no question about what will happen if that occurs: People in the United States of America will be cold. It is possible that some may actually be freezing.

Two years ago, thanks to the leadership of Senator Snowe and many other Senators, LIHEAP funding was increased by $1 billion above the appropriated level because it was then the belief that we faced a home heating emergency. Well, if we faced a home heating emergency at that point, let me tell my colleagues we face one today that is even more severe. In the State of Vermont and all over this country, we are having elderly people living on fixed incomes who are looking at the soaring prices of home heating fuels. They are scared to death. It seems to me that we have the moral responsibility as the Senate of the United States of America to do something for those people before we adjourn.

I thank my colleague, Senator Leahy from Vermont, as well as Senators Coleman, Klobuchar, Snowe, Obama, Dole, Baucus, Sununu, Cantwell, Collins, Casey, Lieberman, Landrieu, Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton for supporting an amendment that will essentially increase LIHEAP funding by $800 million, half of which will go into the normal LIHEAP formula, half will go into emergency funding to be used at the discretion of the President.

While those Senators are already onboard, I know there are many other Senators--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--who are also wanting a vote to show the people back home that we have not forgotten them and that we do not want any Americans to go cold this winter.

Let me simply conclude by suggesting to you that the people of our country all over America are losing faith in the U.S. Government. That is no secret. Polling for the President, polling for Congress is at an almost all-time low. They think we are concerned about a whole lot of issues, but we are not concerned about them. It seems to me that before we go home to our well-heated homes, before we go home to our vacation time, that we not turn our backs on some of those who are most in need. I think we have to act boldly to restore faith in the U.S. Government, and I hope that before we leave, we can get a vote on this floor with bipartisan support, and that we can move this process forward.

Mr. President, with that, I thank my good friend, Senator Byrd, the outstanding leader of our Appropriations Committee, for yielding, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2771, the legislative branch appropriations bill; that the only amendment in order be a substitute amendment at the desk which is cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Coleman, Klobuchar, Snowe, Obama, Dole, Baucus, Sununu, Cantwell, Collins, Casey, Lieberman, Landrieu, Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton--this amendment provides for $800 million in additional LIHEAP funding--that there be a time limitation of 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form on the amendment; that upon the use of that time, the amendment be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate, without any intervening action or debate, vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I worked very hard to assure that, given the veto threats of President Bush, the Omnibus appropriations bill was as strong as it could be. In that regard, we have made some real progress. Unfortunately,

however, this bill contains $40 billion for Iraq operations, with no strings attached the money to be used as the President wishes, with no accountability for when our involvement in Iraq will end. With expenditures of $12 billion a month, it is now estimated that the total cost of our Iraq involvement will end up being more than $1 trillion.

I cannot support providing more money for continuing our ill- conceived and tragic presence in Iraq, money provided with no requirement for plans as to when the redeployment will begin, when it will be concluded, and what our future course in Iraq will be. Consequently, I will vote against the Omnibus appropriations bill.

My vote against this bill also reflects genuine concern regarding last-minute additions of loan guarantees for questionable energy sources, which move us in exactly the wrong direction. More specifically, the report language accompanying the Omnibus appropriations bill provides $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear powerplants, $2.0 billion in loan guarantees for uranium enrichment, $6.0 billion in loan guarantees for coal, which I have reason to believe includes coal to liquids, and $2.0 billion in loan guarantees for coal gasification, which I also fear could be used for coal to liquids. It is, quite frankly, beyond belief that we would be passing legislation to support these questionable energy sources. In my view, we should be doing everything we can to transform our energy system so as to move away from unsafe and polluting sources to energy efficiency and sustainable and renewable technologies. Congress can, and must, do better.

I object.

Mr. President, today I would like to make you aware of five individuals who were recently recognized at the Central Vermont Community Action Council's annual meeting.

Sergio Colon moved to White River Junction with his two adopted sons after his community in Port Charlotte, FL, was devastated by Hurricane Charlie in 2004. A single father working hard to make ends meet, Sergio at one

point was forced to move his family to a homeless shelter in Vermont. Yet, even while his family relied on social services to get by, he volunteered for multiple organizations just as he had always done in Florida. Sergio has since returned to college to work on his psychology degree and is currently looking for a job in human services so he can continue to help people who are struggling.

Borgi von Trapp has been a leader in her community for many years. In 1993, Borgi, a mother of six children, founded Children First, an organization devoted to designing and implementing creative educational environments for children. A year later, she helped develop the Mad River Green Farmers' Market, a successful incubator for locally owned, innovative, healthy, and creative businesses. Since then it has grown to include more than 50 full time vendors and over 12,000 customers per season. Borgi is a model of community leadership and creative learning.

Sherrie Pomainville was a single mother for 22 years, raising four children on a minimum-wage salary. She knew the value of education and worked to obtain it. With the help of the Reach Up Program, she was one of the first clients to successfully complete the postsecondary Education program and earn a bachelor's degree in social work. In 2002, Sherrie graduated cum laude and was on the National Association for Social Workers Board for 3 years. This has allowed her to make a better life for herself and her children, while at the same time giving back to the community that helped her. She currently works for various community organizations in southwestern Vermont.

Jessica Kelley has been actively involved as a parent volunteer in Head Start and an important advocate for children and families in her community. She has served on the Head Start Policy Council for the past 2 years and last year was elected the parent representative of the Vermont Head Start Association. In this role, Jessica attends statewide meetings and participates in policy discussions and initiatives, such as parent leadership, Head Start reauthorization, and No Child Left Behind legislation.

Lydia Chartier is a tireless community leader in the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. Presently, she donates most of her time to Lincoln Center Child Care, where she uses her own vast experience to assist support staff and other volunteers. She also serves as an invaluable resource to the Lincoln Center's staff. In addition, Lydia volunteers at her church, her son's school, and on many other community projects. If there is a good community event happening, there can be little doubt that Lydia is aware of it and promoting it. But most of all, Lydia is dedicated to ending poverty and doing whatever it takes to help those in need.

The quality of life in Vermont, and in our Nation, is strengthened by individuals like these five community leaders, men and women who work to improve our communities and who strive to give back to the places in which they live. I commend their great contributions and the contributions of many like them across the nation to our American society.

Mr. President, let me begin by concurring with much of what Senator Salazar has said. I have a lot of respect for Senator Alexander. I have worked with him on some issues, and I look forward to working with him on other issues. But, unfortunately, on this one he is dead wrong, and the amendments on wind energy he has brought forth should be soundly defeated in a tripartisan vote.

Let me begin by quoting from an AP article that appeared on the front page of Vermont's largest newspaper, the Burlington Free Press, this morning and in papers throughout the country. Here is what the article says: ``Ominous Arctic melt worries experts.''

An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly

accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists

worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping

point. One even speculated that summer sea ice would be gone

in five years.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

In other words, what the scientists are telling us is the problem of global warming may be even more severe than they had previously told us. It seems to me what we should be doing in the Senate is become more aggressive, more bold in combating greenhouse gas emissions and not support amendments that slow down the growth of such sustainable energies as wind. That is what, unfortunately, the Alexander amendment would do.

In contrast to the direction Senator Alexander wants us to go, let me quote from a BBC article that appeared the other day. This is what that article says:

Wind ``could power all UK homes.'' All UK homes could be powered by offshore wind farms by 2020 as part of the fight against climate change, under plans unveiled.''

What they are doing in the UK, at the highest levels of Government, with support of the Tory Party--the conservative party--in the UK, is they are developing plans that would significantly increase the number of wind turbines. Some 7,000 wind turbines could be installed by the year 2020 to provide all the homes in the UK with electricity. They are going forward rapidly, boldly with wind, and we are talking about how we can cut back efforts toward sustainable energy.

I fully appreciate that my good friend from Tennessee has concerns about wind energy. He may not want a wind turbine at his home or on his property, and that is his right. We support that right. But I would respectfully request he not make that decision for the rest of America.

Wind energy is one of the fastest growing renewable technologies today and benefits families in my own State of Vermont and all across our country. I believe rural America and individual communities across this country deserve the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to pursue wind energy. Some may like it; some may not. That is a decision for them and not the Federal Government. I would hope some of our conservative friends who talk about all of the vices of a big Federal Government might want to heed that thought.

The truth is, today millions of rural Americans, in fact, want to pursue sustainable energy. They should be allowed to do so, and they should be able to utilize the support provisions in this farm bill that provide incentives for them to produce electricity that is renewable, that is cost effective, and does not emit carbon. That is what they want to do. That is what we need. We should support that effort.

Apparently, one of those people--and I applaud him for this--is the former Republican President of the United States of America, George H.W. Bush, who, in his summer home at Kennebunkport, ME, has recently installed a 33-foot tall windmill that can produce 400 kilowatts a month. I applaud former President Bush for pointing out to the country the importance of small wind turbines in providing electricity for homes. I hope all over this country people emulate what the former Republican President has done.

There is enormous potential for wind technology in the United States. We have a huge renewable resource base in our country, and yet only about 3 percent of the Nation's electricity supply came from nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources in the year 2006.

Other countries have already made significant strides toward using renewable energy. I point out that Denmark meets roughly 20 percent of its electricity needs with wind alone, while Spain is at 9 percent, and Germany and Portugal are at 7 percent. Despite having a much more robust wind resource than any of these countries, the United States meets less than 1 percent of its electrical needs with wind power today.

We can do better. We must do better. The Federal Government, through tax credits and other incentives, including small wind turbines, must help move our country in that direction.

Today, most wind turbines are currently located on mountain tops, mountain passes, and the Great Plains from North Dakota to Texas. That is not nearly good enough. Wind is the cheapest renewable energy, and it should be growing by leaps and bounds. We have to move forward in making that happen.

As a nation, we can--in fact, we must--do a better job of exploiting the freely available renewable resources that exist across our country. Small-scale rural wind turbines should be aggressively promoted as one of the solutions. We can no longer afford to ignore the rapidly maturing renewable technologies that can help address the critical challenges of energy independence, global warming, and high energy prices.

It should be heartening to know that new investments in renewable generating capacity in the United States has been accelerating in recent years. This is largely due to tax credits from States and the Federal Government. Wind power has been at the forefront of that growth. The year 2006 was the largest on record in the U.S. for wind power capacity additions, with over 2,400 megawatts of wind added to the grid. That is a good start, but we need to go a lot further than that.

I recently talked with a manufacturer of small residential-scale wind turbines to find out about the potential of this technology. What he told me was that with support from the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory we are developing wind turbines all over this country where there is a reasonable amount of wind. Clearly, wind is not available all over the country. But everybody who is serious about this issue understands that the solution to global warming and the solution to sustainable energy, electricity generation, is going to require a mix of technologies. In some areas wind is strong, in some areas the Sun is strong, and so forth.

But in areas such as the State of Vermont, I am told that an average home can produce 40, 50, 60 percent of its electricity from a small wind turbine, which is becoming less and less expensive. They are now on the market for some $12,000--$12,000--including installation. If we can provide the type of tax credits and other incentives for these wind turbines, we can have a payback period in a reasonable period of time which will lower the cost of electricity for millions of Americans, break our dependency on Middle East oil, and stop the emissions of carbon

into the atmosphere, which is causing global warming.

I have a lot of respect for my friend from Tennessee, and I know his concern is aesthetics, how these things look--that is one of his concerns--but let me say a word about aesthetics. I also am concerned about how things look. I am concerned when extreme weather disturbances such as Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and caused massive damage. That is an aesthetic concern I have. If we do not get a handle on global warming, we are going to see more and more extreme weather disturbances which can impact hundreds of millions if not billions of people.

Drought is an aesthetic issue. Seeing lakes dry up, and the repercussions of that, of flooding, and the impact that global warming will have on the loss of clean drinking water, and the desperation people will experience as a result of that, is also an aesthetic issue.

So I can understand that people have differences of opinion about how things look. I do not like the look of global warming, and I think we should reject soundly Senator Alexander's amendment.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and that the Gregg amendment No. 3822 be the pending amendment.

What the Gregg amendment does is take $5.1 billion from agricultural disaster assistance for farmers, and it puts $924 million into LIHEAP. What my amendment does is put $924 million into LIHEAP but does not affect agriculture disaster assistance.

It is a second-degree, yes.

Mr. President, I come from a State where the weather gets 20, 30 below zero.

I send to the desk a second-degree amendment to the Gregg amendment No. 3822 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

As I mentioned a moment ago, I come from a State, as do many others in the Senate, where the weather gets cold--sometimes 20 or 30 degrees below zero. I come from a State, as do many other Members, where many folks are finding it extremely difficult this year to pay for their home heating fuel costs because, as we all know, costs are soaring. It is not unusual when I walk the streets of Burlington, VT, or other towns in the State of Vermont, that people are appalled and frightened about the rapidly escalating costs of home heating oil, and they are in need of help.

As you know, Mr. President, the LIHEAP program has been an enormously successful program in providing help to many Americans in paying their heating bills, especially the senior citizens.

So what this amendment would do--and I will talk at greater length about it tomorrow--is provide $924 million in increased LIHEAP funding because we need that funding now.

We need to see LIHEAP significantly increased beyond where it is right now if for no other reason than to simply keep pace with the outrageous increase in costs for home heating.

Further, it is my view, and why I am offering this amendment, that it is wrong to be cutting into agriculture disaster assistance for farmers. There are disasters and there will be disasters. If we are serious about maintaining family-based agriculture in America, it is important those provisions be maintained. That is essentially what that amendment is about.

I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and call up an amendment that I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I believe that is the case.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the lifetime work of the artist George Tooker. Earlier this month, President Bush presented him with the National Medal of Arts, our Nation's highest and most prestigious award for artistic excellence.

George Tooker, born in New York City, is a resident of Hartland, VT. After studying English literature at Harvard and then studying painting at the Art Students League of New York, he found a world of modern possibilities in the medieval and Renaissance medium of egg tempera, helping to begin a revitalization of that technique. The choice of egg tempera gave his paintings an archaic and otherworldly feel, creating wonderfully rich juxtapositions as Tooker often used contemporary subjects and circumstances as the theme of his work. For instance, many of his paintings convey images of modernity and alienation while using colors, surface finishes, and techniques that hearken back to the long tradition of art history. But they do more, of course; the reference to that long tradition of culture foregrounds the current manifestations of that culture, which George Tooker addresses as his subject.

Although some have seen elements of fantasy in his paintings, George Tooker has been explicit; he seeks not an escape into a dream world but, rather, the creation of a new approach to realism. ``I am after painting reality impressed on the mind so hard that it returns as a dream, but I am not after painting dreams as such, or fantasy,'' he once said.

His haunting works often highlight the increased social isolation that has accompanied the pressures of modernization on everyday life. He deals with society and its very real consequences; although many of his paintings retain a magical and stylized feel, at their heart are images that have the capacity to reveal and reflect many of the deepest feelings each viewer of Tooker's work encounters in his or her own life in the contemporary world.

I commend Mr. George Tooker for his important contributions to American art and congratulate him on receiving the National Medal of Arts. We in Vermont are proud of his accomplishment.

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