Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute from the majority's time.

Thank you very much.

Madam President, certainly we come here today supportive of what has been done to this point, congratulating the House for beginning this process, on which we can build. But I think it is very important we make it clear what has happened.

We had the majority of the Senate that supported something that would have gone further, something that would have been better, in my judgment, and it was stopped by a filibuster and our inability to get one vote--one Republican vote--to join with us to stop the filibuster. So what does that mean? It means millions of unemployed middle-class Americans are left out. Unemployment benefits--one of the top two areas that economists have agreed upon to stimulate the economy--were left out because of one vote from our Republican colleagues. We just needed one more vote to include that.

Jobs from alternative energy production--we literally have businesses saying they will bring jobs back from overseas to this country--we lost that by one vote. Those jobs will stay away. Plants, we are told, will not improve and may, in fact, close certain projects because of the lack of one Republican vote. Help for homebuilders and homeowners--at the heart of this crisis--help for other employers struggling to invest and keep Americans employed, we lost this by one vote. That is what is so unfortunate here today.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I first lend my voice to that of the Senator from Washington and the Senator from North Dakota, our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. I, too, am a member of the Budget Committee and am extremely disappointed that the President's budget this year is simply more of the same, in some cases worse-- higher deficits, more cuts in a number of areas, and certainly the wrong priorities for families in America. It takes us in exactly the wrong direction from where we need to be going.

We are going to do what we have done in other years, which is put forward a very different vision for America, one that focuses on paying down the debt rather than increasing the debt, focuses on health care and education and investing in areas that will clean our water and our air and protect our lands and focus on the economy and good-paying jobs for middle-class families who are being hurt all across this country.

We heard today a larger number than I have even been using about what is being spent on this war. The number now is $16 billion a month, $4 billion a week on this war, and yet at the same time, the President believes we should eliminate funding for the COPS Program for local police officers and firefighters, makes dramatic cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, health care programs, cuts 48 different educational programs, and the list goes on and on.

I am looking forward, as a member of the Budget Committee, to put forward a very different vision. We intend to change the priorities of this country and put them back on those priorities that directly affect middle-class families and help them survive and thrive in an economy that is having a very tough time, where they are being hit on all sides with increased costs.

I wish to take a moment to speak about the stimulus package. As a member of the Finance Committee, I am very pleased with what we have been able to do working together on a bipartisan basis to come forward, again, with something that reflects a stimulus in the short run and focuses on critical areas, and we make sure a number of folks who were left out of the House package are not left out.

We start with 20 million seniors. I should also say we are going to have in this body two votes: a vote on whether to include 20 million seniors or a vote on whether to leave them out. That is the reality. Unfortunately, seniors on fixed incomes, whose only income is Social Security, have been left out of the House package. We, on a bipartisan basis, have put it into the Senate package.

So the question will be: Do my colleagues support and join with AARP and all the senior organizations that have been pushing and advocating and sending cards and letters and phone calls and urging us not to forget them, will you join with them, 20 million seniors, or will they be left out? We also want to make sure our disabled veterans are not left out.

I am proud of the fact that we, in this new majority, this Democratic majority, have put veterans health care at the top and last year included real improvements in health care funding for the first time since that war began--the largest funding increases to support our veterans since the war began. This is another step in supporting our veterans. Two hundred and fifty thousand disabled veterans will be left out if the House bill is passed.

So we have a choice when we vote. We vote yes on 250,000 veterans-- our disabled veterans, who have given more than I will give or most of us will give for our country--250,000 disabled veterans get the rebates and are part of the stimulus or they are not. The Senate package puts them in, the House package leaves them out.

There is another very important piece of this package, and that goes to the question of millions of middle-class Americans, who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves in a situation without a job. I have spoken many other times on the floor about the reasons for that--from not enforcing our trade policies and not investing in the technologies and the infrastructure and the things that we need to be doing to grow a 21st century manufacturing base and to be able to keep manufacturing jobs, middle-class jobs, all across this country.

There are many reasons for the fact that we have millions of people who are

currently unemployed, but the fact is we do. We have middle-class Americans who find themselves on unemployment insurance, which pays about 40 percent of the normal wage, while they are trying to keep the house, keep up the mortgage payment, put food on the table, keep the lights on, pay for the kids' clothes that they need, and to put gas in the car so they can survive until they can get that next job.

Now, some have said, well, it is not that bad. I come from a State with the highest unemployment in the country. We have about 7.6 percent unemployment, and we are seeing not only in Michigan and a few States around the country that have been hit first, that this unemployment situation is beginning to creep out into millions of people, millions of middle-class families all across the country. So we are now hearing from Goldman Sachs and from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that while, as of January of this year, the unemployment rate was 5 percent, by next year the prediction is 6.5 percent. That is not Michigan, that is nationally. That is national unemployment.

So one of the things that is important about the Senate package is that instead of being behind the curve--and economists talk about our being behind the curve on a stimulus--we actually are putting in place a way to respond quickly to be ahead of the curve; to be there to extend unemployment compensation for 13 weeks and an additional 13 weeks if you hit this 6.5-percent unemployment, which, unfortunately, too many are saying we will reach. I hope they are wrong. I hope it goes in this direction. I certainly hope it goes in this direction for the great men and women in Michigan who have been working so hard. But the reality is it is most likely to be going in the direction of the 6.5 percent.

So for millions of middle-class families that have done nothing but play by the rules, care about their families, working for the American dream, proud to be Americans, sending their children or husbands and wives off to war, this package in the Senate will give them the dignity of knowing they can keep the household together while they are looking for their next job.

Now, a lot of folks say, well, this is going to discourage--in fact, I heard this from the Secretary of the Treasury this morning in the Finance Committee--that this may discourage people from looking for a job. Well, let us look at the reality of this. Let us look at the reality of what is happening right now in an economy where we have not focused on making sure we have a strong middle class, where we have not focused on enforcing our trade laws, where we are exporting jobs, not just products. Let us look at what is happening right now.

We have 7.7 million Americans--7.7 million Americans--competing for 4 million jobs. That is the reality in America today. So when we talk about the need to support and to help those 7.7 million Americans, this becomes absolutely critical as we look at our economy. The good news is that every economist, from the most liberal to the most conservative, as well as the Congressional Budget Office and so many others, has said that one of the best ways to stimulate this economy, in the short run, is to extend unemployment benefits. For every $1 in benefits, you generate $1.64. For every $1 that you put into unemployment benefits. Why? Because if you are unemployed, you don't have the option of saving. You are going to spend every single nickel you get.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute to close.

So when we look at this package, we have a choice between including or excluding 20 million seniors, excluding or including 250,000 disabled veterans, including or excluding millions of middle-class Americans looking for a job and, in addition to that, create jobs through alternative energy production and efforts to help the home-building industry, which is at the heart of what has been happening in terms of our economy. I am very pleased we have addressed those businesses that have operating losses now, to help them through the tax system and be able to keep going and not find themselves in a vice this year in terms of having fire sales to eliminate their inventory. I am pleased we have been able to include a $10 million revolving loan fund for States and local governments to help with refinancing of subprime loans.

We have a number of very important provisions, and it is very exciting to see the broad coalition that has come together, from business to labor, to seniors, to the environmentalists, to those creating energy jobs, to those in the housing workplace; and from homebuilders to those who are involved with State and local governments, and millions and millions of middle-class families all across this country who are counting on us to do more than provide a check but to create the ability for investments and for jobs that will grow the economy.

So I am very hopeful we will come together with the necessary votes to stop the filibuster that is happening here. I wish we could simply have an up-or-down vote on this. We certainly have the votes. But because of the situation we are in, because of the Republican filibuster, it is necessary to get 60 votes to be able to stop the filibuster. So I am very hopeful we will have enough colleagues joining together on a bipartisan basis in order to be able to do that.

Madam President, I thank the Chair.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I rise today as a member of the Finance Committee, along with the distinguished Chair, to speak about what we did in terms of the Senate Finance stimulus package which I think is something that makes a tremendous amount of sense for people, for investment, for the economy.

Before speaking about unemployment compensation insurance, which is a critical part of the package, let me say that I commend most sincerely our chairman, Senator Baucus, our ranking member, Senator Grassley, for again not only working together but producing something that is a balanced approach, that addresses both stimulus from the standpoint of helping people, puts money directly back into people's pockets, but also helping to stimulate and support businesses, small businesses, large businesses, those not only earning a profit and make investments but those that are not earning a profit and making investments.

They had the vision to work with us in the area of alternative energy production, to extend production tax credits which directly relate to jobs. That is a part of this bill as well. I thank them for taking a look at the House package, and while we commend what was done--it was bipartisan, they did it quickly, it was a step in the right direction working with the White House--we found there were parts of what they did in structuring the rebate that needed to be fixed because we found that over 20 million seniors would be left out of getting a rebate because they do not have earned income; they are living on Social Security. They would have been left out, as well as about a quarter of a million disabled veterans, again, living on disability, not having earned income. Not only is it the right thing to do, the moral thing to do to make sure our seniors can get help, that we are helping disabled veterans, but economically it is the smart thing to do because we know those who are living on fixed incomes are spending the dollars because they have to be able to live, to pay the rent and the mortgage and the heating bill and the food and prescription drug costs, all of those. So immediately giving help to those who are struggling to make ends meet is not only right, it is smart in terms of the economy.

The Senate package expands on what the House did to make sure we don't leave out people, that we don't leave out senior citizens and disabled veterans. We also make sure we don't leave out millions of Americans who have worked all their lives, middle-income wage earners who have built the American dream for their family, have a home, have had in the past the ability to send the kids to college, maybe they had, in Michigan, a cottage up north or a snowmobile; they had the ability to live the good life that we have all wanted for ourselves and our children and have found themselves caught in an economic downturn and, in fact, a recession.

For the State of Michigan it looked like for too long a recession. A lot of middle-income families now find themselves in a situation where they are out of work. They want to work. Nobody wants to live on 40 percent of their income, which is what unemployment compensation provides, and try to make the mortgage payment, care for the kids, pay the heating bill and the food bill and do all those things that we need to do--pay the gas prices, and so on. Nobody wants to be unemployed, and nobody wants to find themselves in a situation where they have to live on unemployment benefits. But we have millions of people who find themselves in that situation.

Our Finance package makes sure we can extend benefits, 13 weeks for unemployed individuals in every State and then an additional 13 weeks for those who are in States of high unemployment. This is the right thing to do. It is not only the moral thing to do, it is the smart thing to do when it comes to the economy.

We had economists from President Reagan's time, economists from President Clinton's time. We had everything

in between. We had the Congressional Budget Office tell us that extending unemployment compensation is one of the top two ways, along with food stamps, to stimulate the economy quickly. We don't have to wait until the IRS gets done with tax season, doing all the rebates and getting around to doing the additional rebates in May, June, and July; this can happen immediately. We go directly to those who, unfortunately, are not in a position to save but need to spend every single dollar that comes into their household in order to try to hold things together and not lose the house and to keep their family going.

All the signs show this will be a terrible recession for American workers. We are moving in a direction that is extremely difficult. The national unemployment rate has shot up to 5 percent, and experts predict it is going to rise above 6 percent in 2009. We have never had such a dramatic jump in unemployment without having a recession.

In many States the jobs picture is far gloomier. As I mentioned, in Michigan, we have an unemployment rate of 7.6 percent. That is one area where we don't want to be first. In fact, we are working very hard to turn that around in a number of ways. Other parts of this bill deal with alternative energy, and that is great for us because we are making those wind turbines and solar panels and the alternative fuel vehicles. We are working very hard to move ourselves out of that situation. But we have a lot of people who are working very hard who, through no fault of their own, have lost their job and have not been able to find another one in this economy.

In addition to Michigan's 7.6 percent, Mississippi is at 6.8 percent unemployment. Ohio, Alaska, and South Carolina are all over 6 percent and expected within the month to meet the trigger that is in this bill of 6.5 percent. That is a possibility. The unemployment problem is, unfortunately, getting worse rapidly. We had more than half a million workers join the ranks of the unemployed in the last month; 500,000 people who have become unemployed in the last month alone. Workers who have lost their jobs are having more trouble finding work today than in past recessions. Today 17 percent of workers have been looking for a job for more than 26 weeks, compared to only 11 percent in 2001.

Let me also stress that in the last package we had, the last stimulus package, we were looking at long-term unemployment of 11.3 percent, back in January 2001 when we were first talking about a stimulus and decided to include unemployment insurance. Now, as of December, this last December, long-term unemployment is 17.5 percent. It is 55 percent higher than it was when we started first talking about the last stimulus package in which we included unemployment compensation extension. I am very grateful to the chairman, the leadership of the Finance Committee, and our leader, Senator Reid, for speaking out about this and supporting our efforts to make sure this is in the package.

This problem is affecting workers all across the economic spectrum, even those with a college education and years of experience. We have engineers in Michigan. We have talented, well-qualified, well-educated people who find themselves in this situation of losing their jobs. There are nearly two unemployed workers for every job opening across the country, which is also critical to talk about. We have right now 7.7 million Americans who are competing for 4 million jobs.

Some people say: Well, if somebody is on unemployment compensation, they just don't want to work. If we extend that compensation for another 13 weeks or 26 weeks, people just don't work. That will be an incentive not to work.

I welcome anyone to talk to a family in Michigan and say that. The reality is, we have 7.7 million Americans competing for 4 million jobs. That raises a whole other host of issues I will not get into today about how we need to start exporting products and stop exporting jobs and all the other things we need to do to tackle this issue of a strong economy. The reality is for too many folks, that debate is not going to help. They are looking at, right now: Am I going to be able to keep the lights on? Am I going to be able to keep the phone on? Am I going to be able to make sure I can make a mortgage payment so my family is not out on the street? Those are the questions that are being asked. No one is finding themselves in unemployment insurance living it up. It is just about trying to help them keep the family together, keep things together until they can find that next job. This is what they are competing against.

Because it is becoming harder to find a job, more families are finding that our unemployment insurance system is not providing enough support because of the numbers. Mr. President, 37 percent of recipients, 37 percent of the people who are unemployed exhaust their benefits before finding a job, and more will follow as the recession deepens. And 2.6 million people ran out of benefits in 2007. Again, they were competing for jobs where there are not enough jobs.

These aren't just numbers. There is a lot of numbers that can make this case. But it is about millions of people, millions of Americans, millions of middle-class Americans, millions of people who are working hard to be in the middle class or fighting like crazy to stay in the middle class. That is what this is about. They are willing to work hard. They are looking for a job. They want a job. They are desperately concerned about losing their chance at the American dream for themselves and their families.

In good economic times, our current employment benefits are enough to tide families over for the few weeks that it takes to find another job. I remember those times. Somebody needs some temporary help, they lose a job, turn around, go out on a few interviews and, a few weeks later, they have another job. But these are not those times. These are not good times.

Yesterday's alarming GDP figures show that economic growth has trickled to a near halt. Savings have plummeted. Debt is rising. Mr. President, 200,000 families each month risk losing their home. It is staggering, in the greatest country in the world. The Fed has cut short-term interest rates more rapidly than at any other time in history. It is clear that we are facing an economic crisis that will make it even harder to find a job in the coming months. Faced with these clear warning signs, we must act quickly.

Anything that we pass--and I sure hope it is the Senate Finance proposal because I think it is balanced, it is effective, it is targeted, and it is the right thing to do--has to include extending unemployment compensation for these families who have found themselves in such a traumatic situation. It is wrong to abandon them when they need it the most. It is the smart thing to do according to all economists. If we want to say we have done something that is targeted, that is quick, extending unemployment is much quicker than a rebate check. I certainly support the rebate check, but it is going to take a while to get those to people. Unemployment extension is much quicker. It is one of the quickest things we can do.

So from every angle, this is the right thing to do. Most importantly, though, I look at the families who are looking to us to do the right thing.

In the past we have waited too long, and working families have suffered. In the wake of September 11, the unemployment rate rose to 5.3 percent in October of 2001. There was a bipartisan consensus we should do something, but political gridlock prevented us from enacting anything until the following March of 2002. By that time, unemployment was up to 5.7 percent and went to 5.9 percent in April. The 2001 recession proved devastating for our economy and, unfortunately, too many families have not recovered from that time. The bill passed by the Finance Committee yesterday is a crucial step forward for our economy and for our workers and their families.

By extending unemployment benefits for 13 weeks and providing an additional 13 weeks of benefits in high-unemployment States, as I said before, we provide an immediate boost to the economy and at the same time help hard-working middle-class families weather this storm.

All of the economists agree: Each $1 invested in benefits to out-of- work Americans leads to a $1.64 increase in growth--$1 equals $1.64 in growth. That is clearly one of the top two things we

can do to be able to stimulate the economy. This compares to only pennies of stimulus in other areas.

No stimulus package will be effective unless it provides real security for families struggling the most. We have to address this issue. We have to address this unemployment situation.

Let me say, in closing, when we look at the coming year--in January of last year, average unemployment was 4.6 percent. At this time, it is 5 percent, although many areas are much higher than that. But it is projected that by next year the unemployment rate will go up to 6.5 percent. Now, granted, Michigan right now is at 7.6 percent. There are other States that are above 6 percent, above or close to 6.5 percent. But this is the direction in which we are going.

One of the things about acting now with an unemployment compensation extension is we can help those families at this moment who need help now. We can actually be ahead of the curve rather than way behind in helping a family be able to keep their house or to be able to put their family at ease, knowing that at least there will be something available.

The Senate Finance package makes sense. It is the right thing to do. On the business side, we not only focus on investments for those that are making a profit but for those that are not but are still making investments in important areas of the economy, such as manufacturing in Michigan. We extend critical tax credits for alternative energy production, which is critical. We make sure over 20 million seniors are not left out, that over 250,000 disabled veterans are not left out. We add a piece for State and local bonding authority for housing, which will help and support what the House did.

Then we do what I have talked about today: We remember the faces of the people who have worked hard to make this country great, middle- class families across this country who through no fault of their own and, I would argue, too much of the time through action of the current administration or inaction on what we need to be doing on enforcing trade policy or changing the way we fund health care in this country or doing other aggressive actions in order to keep jobs and expand jobs, find themselves caught in this economic downturn.

They are looking to us. If there ever was a time that they would expect their Government to act on behalf of middle-class America, it would be now. It is critically important. I am very pleased the Senate Finance package includes extended unemployment compensation. I hope when it is time to vote, we will see a very strong bipartisan vote on this issue.

Mr. President, before stepping down, I see my good friend, the ranking member, the Republican ranking member of the Finance Committee, on the floor. I personally thank him for working with us on an approach that is good for people. It is good for families, individuals, for seniors, disabled veterans, good for business, looks to the future on energy. I appreciate his leadership, as always.

I am hopeful we will see a bipartisan vote that says we get it and we are committed and we are willing to move in a way that supports the economy and the families of America.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I, first, wish to thank our chairman, Senator Dorgan, for his passion and commitment. I have had the opportunity to listen to some of the floor debate and opening comments and very much appreciate the way you have laid out the incredible need for this legislation and the fact it is long overdue.

It is a promise that has not been kept, and hopefully today we are going to move forward in keeping that. Also, thank you to my friend and ranking member, Senator Murkowski, for her eloquence as well in laying out the legislation. It is wonderful to see the partnership that has happened on this legislation.

I also wish to remember our colleague, former Senator Craig Thomas, who I know was a wonderful friend to Indian Country and cared very deeply about these issues. We certainly take a moment again to remember him and send our best wishes to his family in remembrance of his leadership on this issue as well.

Just over 31 years ago, this bill, the original bill, was signed into law by the late President Gerald R. Ford, who I am proud to say resided and represented the great State of Michigan. It had the purpose of bringing the health status of Native Americans up to the level of other Americans.

This program, the Indian Health Services Program, funds health services to about 1.8 million Native Americans from our Nation's more than 500 federally recognized American Indian and Alaskan Native tribes. I am proud to have many of them in Michigan.

The Federal Government provides those health care services based on our trust responsibility to Indian tribes derived from Federal treaties, statutes, court rulings, Executive actions, and from our own Constitution, which assigns authority over Indian relations to the Congress.

Reauthorization of the various Indian health care programs has languished for 15 years in this body, so our work today is vital. It is a vital component, it is long overdue, as our chairman has reminded us over and over again in bringing this issue forward for years.

It is a vital component in improving and updating health care services in Indian Country. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act will modernize and improve Indian health care services and delivery. We know this is an incredibly important step. We know more

needs to be done, but we know this is an incredibly important step.

The bill will also allow for in-home care for Indian elders and will provide much-needed programs to address mental health and other issues related to the well-being of Indian communities.

More importantly, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act will address many health care disparities in Indian Country. For example, infant mortality rates are 150 percent greater for Indians than for Caucasian infants.

Those in the Indian communities are 2.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes. Tuberculosis rates for Native Americans are four times the national average. The life expectancy for Native Americans is nearly 6 years less than the rest of the U.S. population.

What this bill, unfortunately, cannot do is mandate the necessary funding from our budget every year to uphold our country's trust responsibility to provide adequate health care to our tribal members. But we intend to make sure that happens.

As it stands, the Indian Health Services annual funding does not allow it to provide all the needed care for eligible Native Americans. That is what we are speaking to today, that sense of urgency we have in making that happen.

As of today, funding levels are only at 60 percent of the demand for services each year, which requires IHS tribal health facilities, organizations, and urban clinics to ration care so the most critical care and the needs are funded first and foremost, which, in turn, results in the tragic denial of needed services for too many men, women, and children, old and young in Indian country.

As unbelievable as it may sound, health care expenditures to Native Americans are less than half of what America spends on Federal prisoners.

Preventative health care is so important for Indian Country due to the high incidence of chronic diseases such as diabetes and obesity within these communities. IHS funding shortfalls for medical personnel have only further contributed to the severe gaps in health care delivery in Indian Country. In 2005, there were job vacancy rates of 24 percent for dentists, 14 percent for nurses, 11 percent for physicians and pharmacists, according to IHS data.

I am very pleased and proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation, as it establishes objectives to address these health disparities between Native Americans and other members of the American community. It will enhance IHS ability to attract and retain qualified health care professionals for Indian Country.

As a government, I am also hopeful we will commit the additional resources to Indian health care for this year and every year in the future. The time has long passed for this reauthorization. I am very proud our leader, Senator Reid, has determined this to be a priority for the Senate. I am proud of the work that has been done. It is truly time to get this done now.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for his graciousness. It is my understanding that there will be an objection to this unanimous consent request. At this point there is not someone on the floor to object, so I will briefly talk about what I am asking that we do, and then, as a courtesy to our colleagues on the other side, if we do not have someone here I will postpone the actual motion. But let me just say, because I want to make sure I am only taking a moment--I know Senator Dorgan has some important words--let me just say I will be asking unanimous consent that S. 2347, the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act, be discharged and the Senate proceed to its consideration and pass it.

Due to an unfortunate drafting mistake in last year's Deficit Reduction Act, some safety net providers, such as family planning clinics and other health centers, cannot receive contraception from drugmakers at nominal drug prices without violating Medicaid's best price rule. These are drugs that in fact are donated. Since this law became effective in January, the provision has been a tremendous hardship for women across America and has driven up the cost of contraception, family planning, by some 400 percent in some cases.

Because of this, many women cannot afford their prescriptions, and clinics are being forced to close because they can no longer receive the donations they have traditionally received. This is sure to result in an unintended series of pregnancies among low-income women and students. This is very serious for women and families across America.

Hundreds of articles have been published documenting the impact of this mistake. We understand our Republican colleagues have indicated this was a mistake. This has affected low-income women and families on college campuses nationwide. Some clinics stocked up early, but their supplies are running out. For too many clinics, especially in rural areas and on college campuses, they simply do not have enough resources to overcome this provision which, it was indicated, in fact was a technical drafting error. According to one family planning organization, over 200 clinics across 34 States serving half a million patients are at imminent risk of closing, and therefore women and their families lose these important health care facilities.

In my own State, women in rural parts of Michigan will have limited or no access to contraception. I have already heard from rural health clinics, as well as universities, student clinics, how this provision, passed last year, is hurting women and potentially causing these centers to close. Again, this is essential health care for women that is at risk.

I rise today to express my strong support for the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act. This bipartisan bill, introduced by Senator Obama and myself and nearly 30 other Senators, is a commonsense solution to a major problem affecting our Nation's family planning providers. Historically, Congress has expanded access to affordable prescription drugs for vulnerable populations in America by permitting pharmaceutical companies to offer what is called nominally priced drugs, drugs that are either donated or provided at dramatically reduced prices, to certain health care providers.

What we are asking for today is merely a technical correction, to do the right thing. The Prevention Through Affordable Access Act will not cost the Government anything and merely will allow pharmaceutical companies that are willing to continue to donate drugs to safety net family planning clinics to do that.

This is invaluable in terms of women's health care. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing the responsible thing by passing S. 2347 now.

Congress must act responsibly now to ensure that family planning services and birth control pricing are restored this year. For too many families across America, this is an urgent situation. Women cannot wait until next session to have this mistake corrected and affordable birth control returned.

At this point we do not have someone, I understand, on the floor to address this from the other side, so I will delay actually asking for the unanimous consent until a later point. I do intend to do so. It would be my hope that, in fact, with such a large number of Senators supporting this effort we would be able to get this done today.

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

Mr. President, as we bring the session to a close, I want to spend a moment speaking about how far we have come this year. Our leader, who was speaking about accomplishments, is someone whom we should all be thanking for his leadership in bringing us to a point where we have been making changes that affect middle-class families all across America in a very positive way. There is a lot more to do. We are anxious, frustrated, pushing hard, because there is a lot more to do. But we have made a great start. We have made a downpayment on the change families are asking us to make. It has not been easy because we have seen an effort of continually trying to block change, of filibusters which are a way to drag things out, slow things down, stop things from happening. It is quite extraordinary.

In the past, the highest number of filibusters was 61 over a 2-year period. Our Republican colleagues actually beat that in 1 year, 62 different times running the clock out, slowing things down. It was extraordinary to me as a member of the Agriculture Committee--and the distinguished Senator in the chair is also a committee member as well-- to see almost 3 weeks of filibustering on the farm bill, an effort to address food security and energy security and move us forward on farm policy. Fortunately, we were able to get beyond that. But we have been able to get beyond this extraordinary wall of objections over and over again because of the amazing and consistent and dedicated leadership of our leader and all of those in leadership, our committee chairs and others who have been so dogged and diligent about wanting change to happen.

I did want to particularly recognize Senator Reid, who is more committed to our fight to maintain the American dream and quality of life for families and businesses and farmers and Americans all across the country than anybody I know. I thank him for that.

We have achieved tremendous gains. We have seen change happen. We have raised the minimum wage this year. We have created open doors in a real way for people to go to college--for low-income families, we raised the Pell grant twice this year--but also to make sure that middle-income students can afford to borrow at lower interest rates, cutting interest rates in half in order make it possible to go to college and have the American dream. We have passed so many different bills that address our safety and security and opportunity for families. There is so much more to do. But we are focused. As we come to the end of this year and we think about all of what is affecting families today, all the pressures that families feel, it is important to say one more time that we understand, we get it. We are working very hard because time is of the essence.

Frankly, there are things that should have been done that haven't been done. We are going to be right back at it in January.

I am proud of the fact that we have addressed one of the major concerns for families in Michigan and all across the country who face the loss of a home because of the mortgage crisis, because of predatory lending practices or other circumstances in which they find themselves in a situation of losing their home.

Last week on Friday we were able to pass FHA reform that will allow more people to get refinancing for their homes. This is an important step. I am pleased to have led the effort to make sure the law was changed so that if somebody loses their home or refinances below their mortgage value, they don't end up getting hit with another tax bill on top of losing their home. We have a lot of families right now who are coming up to Christmas. They don't have a place to put the Christmas tree. They don't have a home now, or they are worried about whether they will be able to have their home next Christmas. There are tremendous pressures that families are experiencing on all sides.

We have been able to take two steps to address that: one, to make sure that if a family finds themselves in that situation, they don't also have the insult of adding a tax bill to their economic crisis. That is great. I am very proud of that. I am proud we were able to work together with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the House and in the Senate and the President. I commend the President for working with us on that issue. I am hopeful he will do more of that. We need him working with us on hundreds of things that will make a difference in people's lives. But I am pleased in this one area where we were able to do that.

People are feeling squeezed. As the distinguished Presiding Officer knows, people are feeling squeezed on all sides in their lives. Too many people are seeing their wages go down, if they have a job. They see their health care costs go up, their gas prices go up, their health care costs go up--all the costs--the costs of college going up.

One by one, we are addressing those issues. We are focused on making change happen, to help families working hard every day who want to make sure the American dream is there for their kids and for their grandkids, who love this country. They are people who love this country and say: Hey, what about us? Is anybody paying attention to us? The majority of Americans who are working hard every single day, following the rules, who love their family, love their faith, and want to know somebody is paying attention to their needs and their lives and their desire to have that American dream and to have the American way of life. So we understand that.

I am proud to be part of the majority that has made a commitment to address those things--whether it is bringing down the cost of college, raising wages, being able to address the costs of gas and energy; whether it is addressing food and nutrition and conservation and alternative fuels or the mortgage crisis.

The common theme for us is: Making change happen for middle-class Americans and those who love our country and want us to help them be able to keep that American dream, by having the rules be fair and having it make sense for them in this country.

Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to offer a unanimous consent request to pass H.R. 4341, which is a 3-month extension of something called the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. We call it TAA.

But first I wish to speak for a moment about this program, because when we talk about families, when we talk about middle-class families-- people who love this country, who play by the rules every day, and want to know that they can take care of their kids and have a job and a home and all those things we want for our children--we have a group of people in this country who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves losing their job because of this global economy we have-- something called trade, jobs being shipped offshore.

Certainly, I support trade. We all support trade. But I want to export our products, not our jobs. Back when the free trade laws were passed, NAFTA and others, there was a commitment made by the Federal Government to help those who are caught in the middle, who lost their job because of trade policy.

Their job goes away, and the Federal Government is the one passing these trade laws. So the Federal Government said: OK, we are going to help people transition to new jobs, to be able to get the help, the support they need--some help for health care in the short run and be able to go back to college, go to community college, go to trade school, whatever they want to do to be able to transition, to be able to keep their standard of living, and, again, to keep their way of life.

We are in a situation right now where the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program will expire at the end of this year, and we have been pushing very hard for a simple 3-month extension. The House sent to us a simple 3-month extension of the current law until we can revise and update the law.

Now, I have to also say, I am very pleased, as a member of the Finance Committee, to be working with our chairman, to have joined him in introducing a very important bill to improve trade adjustment assistance, to be able to expand what we can do to more adequately meet the needs of workers and families and communities and small businesses that are impacted by unfair trade situations or the loss of jobs through trade.

But, right now, we have an immediate situation, an immediate situation going on that will affect thousands--tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands--of Americans across the country if this law expires. We have been doing everything possible to be able to simply get a 3-month extension. We did that once back in September--a 3-month extension. We are asking for another 3-month extension so we can pass this broader, more up-to-date law that will help more people.

When I think about this issue, it is something that is shocking to me, to think we would even have to be struggling with our Republican colleagues about a 3-month extension. I think about Greenville, MI, on the west side of Michigan, a town of about 8,000 people, who saw their Electrolux plant--they made refrigerators--that employed 2,700 people-- they did a great job; they worked in three shifts; they were making a profit--but the company decided they could make a bigger profit if they moved to Mexico.

After a lot of discussion with the State, myself, and others in the Federal Government--how could we help them be able to stay--they said: Do you know what. You can't compete with $1.57 an hour and no health benefits, no pension benefits in Mexico. So they left.

The people in Greenville, MI, have been counting on the Federal Government to keep its promise through trade adjustment assistance, to be able to help them pick themselves up and continue their lives.

This is not some theoretical debate. I know these people. I know people in communities all across Michigan who have been told: Gee, we are sorry this current race to the bottom in trade, where you go to the lowest wage around the world, is affecting you. We are sorry about this, but at least there is the thing called TAA, trade adjustment assistance, that can help you.

Well, right now this is running out. It may not be there for new people who find themselves in a situation similar to the folks in Greenville. That is outrageous. When we think about the obstruction that has gone on, on this floor over and over and over again, the 62 different filibusters, the obstructions, the objections that have gone on, you would think, a few days before Christmas, the holidays--a time of charity and good will--we could come together, that our colleagues would join with us and simply allow a current law to continue for 3 months--just 3 months. That is it; just 3 months.

Unfortunately, our Republican colleagues have held this issue hostage over a totally unrelated issue. They have wanted to tie this to a dispute regarding the FAA. Certainly, the FAA is important, but they want to tie it to a dispute there and are blocking our efforts to simply move forward on a 3-month extension of something that directly helps working people in this country--families, communities. It helps families be able to stay intact, be able to move into this new economy, new world that everybody is talking about that involves a different kind of trade policy.

Our leader has offered that we will deal with trade adjustment assistance, a 3-month extension, but also address the unrelated Republican FAA proposal on its own, that both would be dealt with but dealt with separately. For some unknown reason, that was not acceptable. There has been a desire to tie them together and to object to proceeding on this very important effort to support families and to make sure nobody falls through the cracks come January 1.

That is the least we can do in the Senate. If this program expires, unemployed men and women all around America are going to be in a position to be denied the help they need to be able to continue on with their lives. Those who are currently involved in the program will be able to continue to receive help, but I can assure you, coming from a State in great transition right now, with thousands of people falling into that situation, where they need trade adjustment help, we have people who have been waiting and waiting and waiting and will find themselves in a situation on January 1 with no help.

This is not acceptable. This is absolutely not acceptable. It does not have to happen. There is absolutely no reason for this. We have a simple House bill in front of us--no secrets; very simple. Very simple: extend this critical program through Christmas, through New Year's. Get us into the new year so we can work out any other differences and let families be able to know we understand and we are not going to use unemployed men and

women, who are unemployed through no fault of their own--the plant picks up and goes to Mexico, goes to China, goes someplace else. This is not their fault. They want to work. They are great workers. They are going to continue to find a way to work. But to hold them as pawns at this time is shameful.

So, Mr. President, I am being told there is going to be a Republican objection. I received a note to that effect. I am told there is no one here who is able to object at this time. But due to the courtesies of the Senate, I will not ask, although I am very tempted, I have to tell you--but due to the courtesies involved in the Senate, and the rules of the Senate, I will not proceed to ask for unanimous consent because, in fact, I have received a notice that the Republicans will, in fact, be objecting one more time, one more time, one more time to our ability to support and help working men and women and their families for the next 3 months.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise today also to express my friendship and gratitude to the great Senator from the State of Mississippi. When I think about comments that have been said about his effectiveness, I have to say from this side of the aisle, we have lamented his effectiveness from time to time--and appreciated, as well, the desire and the practical side of the Senator from Mississippi, to want to get things done, to be able to make things work. I, for one, am very grateful for that.

I am assuming some of that comes from having been on the staff side as well as having been in the House and the Senate and learning how things work and valuing governing, valuing relationships, and wanting to get things done.

Back in my home State of Michigan, when I talk about the legislation Senator Lott and I have championed, folks raise their eyebrows. What are you two doing working together on something? I talk to them about the fact that if it weren't for Senator Lott and his leadership, joining with me, we would not have achieved something important earlier this year based on legislation we introduced to provide more competition in the area of prescription drugs, and to lower the price of prescription drugs through the ability of generic drugs to come into the marketplace. We were successful in amending the FDA bill. It got tough in conference. A lot of folks didn't want to see those loopholes closed. I thank Trent for hanging in there or we would not have achieved that. Businesses around the country will benefit from lower prices on prescription drugs for their employees as a result of your leadership. Seniors will benefit as a result. I thank you for stepping up at the time when it was not easy to do.

It has been a great pleasure to work with you in many different ways. I have to say also, always to me you have been a southern gentleman. I, too, never thought in my wildest dreams I would wear a seersucker suit. Along with Senator Snowe, and with the help of Senator Feinstein--who chided and pushed and persuaded all of us, and helped all of us be able to find seersucker suits--we have all joined and had a great time every year being able to come together for that great picture I have in my office.

I know you will be missed on both sides of the aisle. We understand that you understand the process. I know your book ``Herding Cats'' reflects what in fact it is oftentimes in the legislative process. But you have been able to do the herding and been able to get people to come together, and you will be known for being an extraordinary leader in the Senate.

I rise today to congratulate you, to thank you, to wish you and Tricia and your children and grandchildren nothing but happiness as you move to the

next chapter of what I am sure will continue to be a very meaningful and exciting life.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate go to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3648, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this is a very important measure we have adopted in the Senate. In fact, today is a very important day for families all across the United States who find themselves in this mortgage crisis that we have been hearing about, that we have been talking about, that we have been meeting about. Two important actions have taken place that will make a real difference in people's lives today. The first was, earlier today, modernization of the Federal Housing Authority, the FHA.

This had not been updated since the 1930s when people were in another time of tremendous crisis, losing their homes.

We have come together today and put forward modernization that will allow more people to be able to get refinancing, to be able to get help and support from the FHA, to be able to keep their homes. That is what we all want, the American dream of keeping our homes, of making sure our families have a roof over their head, that we can invest in equity in a home as part of creating that middle-class dream for ourselves, for our families, and it is how we strengthen the community when we have home ownership.

That is an important piece, and we just adopted the other piece that is very significant, particularly time-sensitive, and that is to make sure that no one who finds themselves in a mortgage foreclosure this year, in 2007, or finds themselves having to refinance their home below the value of their mortgage or through a short sale find themselves in a situation where, on top of losing their home or losing money, they have another tax bill.

Right now, up until the action we took a few moments ago, taxpayers, families across America, would find themselves, for example, in a situation of, if they had a $100,000 mortgage and they refinanced at $80,000 or the bank sold their home on a foreclosure at $80,000, they would find themselves paying taxes on that difference between $100,000 and $80,000, that $20,000 difference. If it was forgiven by the lender, they would pay taxes on that as if it were income. That makes no sense when families are challenged, facing the loss of their homes, struggling to make ends meet--we are coming up to Christmas now--when families are struggling to make sure they have what we all want, to be able to give our children a wonderful Christmas, to be able to have a home for them, a place for the Christmas tree.

There are too many families who now find themselves in a real crisis. I am very grateful to everyone who has been involved in getting us to this point. We have now said loudly and clearly that we understand and we are not going to allow families to have an additional

tax burden as a result of being in a foreclosure or in the middle of the mortgage crisis. And the FHA reform that we passed earlier today says: We want to make it better by providing you alternatives and help to be able to keep your home.

I particularly want to thank, first, my cosponsors of the legislation that is the underlying legislation that has resulted in this action today--my Republican cosponsor, Senator Voinovich, who has been just terrific. Both of us come from the Midwest, Michigan and Ohio. We both find ourselves in many similar situations economically, with families who have been faced with the issues of mortgage foreclosure and challenging refinancing situations. I want to thank Senator Voinovich, who is key to the place we are today, in getting to this point. He has played an incredibly important role, and I am grateful to him for that. Senator John Kerry has also been very helpful, and his staff; Senator Levin, my partner, who is always there, both of us working on behalf of Michigan; and Senators Snowe, Brown, Hatch, Coleman, Schumer, Harry Reid, Nelson, Klobuchar, Lieberman, Harkin, and Salazar.

Of course, we would not be here without our leader, Senator Harry Reid. I know this is a personal concern to him in Nevada. I know that in his State there is a real challenge, as in mine, as it relates to the mortgage crisis, and he has made this a personal priority, and I am very grateful for his support.

Of course, Senator Baucus, our chairman of the Finance Committee, without whom, also, we would not be here, if it was not for his leadership, and his partner, Senator Grassley, without their bipartisan working relationship--they are so extraordinary--we would not have an opportunity to address this issue and pass this legislation.

We held a hearing earlier this week, and I want to thank again our Finance Committee chairman for focusing a bright light on this mortgage crisis, what is happening not only in the subprime lending market but in the general economy as it relates to the ripple effect in the housing crisis, and his commitment has brought us to this point. I want to thank him.

I also want to thank Senator Judd Gregg, who brought this issue to the debate on the farm bill and, frankly, was very instrumental in bringing this focus to the Senate floor, very articulate in explaining what the problems are that families are facing, and he, too, deserves a lot of credit for being a part of the effort to get us to this point and getting the actual bill passed this year.

Finally, I want to thank the White House. I think it is fair to say that there are not a lot of issues in which I find myself on the same side as our President, but this is one of those on which we have worked very well together. I appreciate his staff's good will in working with us to be able to get this done.

This was an important bipartisan effort from top to bottom, and I think we can all be pleased and grateful that we have the opportunity to work together to really get something done. That is what people want us to do. I know our Presiding Officer understands that, that people want us to work together, they want us to understand what is going on in their lives and that it is not just a game, that there are real things that need to be fixed, that we need to solve problems. I know that is why we have come here. The examples today, working together on the Mortgage Debt Forgiveness Act and FHA, are two examples of what happens when we work together.

I am a member of the Agriculture Committee and proudly have worked with our chairman and ranking member and all of the members of the committee to get a farm bill passed, a Food and Energy Security Act that is good for the country, not just for rural America but for all Americans and for our economy.

So this is a day--we have the Department of Defense authorization that was passed--this is a day of good cheer, a day of showing what we can do with the right kind of leadership, and I again thank Senator Reid for providing that leadership. He and Senator McConnell, working together on the efforts that we were able to pass today, have made a real difference.

We have, in fact, as it relates to families who find themselves in a very difficult crisis or on the verge of a crisis related to losing their homes, said to them: We not only hear you, but we are going to step up and we are going to help. That is what this bill does. That takes away the tax liability for families. That is what we did earlier today with FHA modernization, and it is a good way to end a very hard- fought week, a very difficult, challenging week, to come together on this Friday to be able to get work done for the American people, and I am very proud we have been able to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would simply indicate that the wounded warriors legislation has already passed the Senate once. I am wondering, since it is included in the Department of Defense reauthorization legislation that will be coming to us--the conference report will be coming to us shortly--I am wondering if my friend will amend his unanimous consent request to indicate that when we receive the conference report on the Department of Defense reauthorization, that it will be agreed to by unanimous consent.

Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, I would indicate we certainly will work together with the Senator from Alabama. We have placed our troops and veterans as our highest priority. But given the time at the moment, I would, on behalf of the majority leader, object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this is a very important issue we need to have a thorough debate on. At this moment, on behalf of the majority leader, I object.

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as my friend indicated, this has been included in the Department of Defense reauthorization and Homeland Security budget. I wonder if my friend would be willing to amend his unanimous consent request to indicate that--because it is included in the conference report we will be receiving shortly--we have unanimous consent to pass the conference report for the Department of Defense authorization when the Senate receives it.

Reserving the right to object, because we will shortly be passing this legislation, at this time, I will object to this request.

Reserving the right to object, as our friend indicated, we are working together on that issue in a bipartisan way. It will be resolved before February. At this time, on behalf of the majority leader, I object.

Reserving the right to object, as my colleague knows, we all agree we need to stop the tax increases on middle America. We are committed to that. At this time, on behalf of the majority leader, I object.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss and all those involved in putting together the bipartisan farm bill. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the Gregg amendment. This would eliminate $15 million, a small amount in the farm bill but incredibly important to asparagus growers across the country. This would eliminate the Asparagus Market Loss Program that would compensate American asparagus growers across the country for losses to their industry as a result of the Andean Trade Preferences Act that was passed back in 1990. Since that time, we have seen no transition period and imports of tariff-free processed asparagus have surged 2,400 percent. We have seen major losses for asparagus growers, and I add this was based on a program passed in the last farm bill for apples and onions, where cheap Chinese imports were harming domestic growers and, in fact, the State of the author of the amendment received over $1 million in that program for apples. We are simply asking that asparagus growers receive the same kind of assistance.

Mr. President, I wish to enter into a unanimous consent agreement in terms of the order of speakers. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Barrasso speaks for 7 minutes, that I be recognized for 10 minutes, Senator Klobuchar for 10 minutes, Senator Sanders for 10 minutes, and Senator Crapo for 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise, first of all, to indicate again my strong support for the bill that is in front of us, the Food and Energy Security Act, and to thank one more time our leader, Senator Harkin, and his partner in this, Senator Chambliss, for their leadership and great work, and for all the support of the committee in bringing forward a unanimous bill, bipartisan bill.

Amendment No. 3672

I specifically today, though, want to touch briefly on two amendments that have been proposed by my good friend from New Hampshire. I really do mean that. He is somebody whom I enjoy working with very much, although I must rise to oppose him on an amendment dealing with the asparagus growers of this country.

As a background to this, the U.S. asparagus industry was and continues to be economically injured, unfortunately, by an agreement back in 1990, the Andean Trade Preferences Act, which extended duty- free status to imports of fresh Peruvian asparagus. This particular agreement eliminated the tariffs on a wide variety of products, including asparagus, coming into this country.

Unlike most trade agreements, ATPA provided no transition period for American growers to allow our producers to prepare or adapt to an unlimited quantity of Peruvian asparagus coming in with a zero tariff. The recently approved Peruvian Trade Promotion Agreement actually codifies that particular situation for American asparagus growers.

Following the enactment of this original agreement in 1990, imports of processed asparagus products surged 2,400 percent into the United States, from 500,000 pounds of asparagus in 1990 to over 12 million pounds in 2006--with a zero tariff--coming into the United States to compete with American asparagus.

Our domestic asparagus acreage dropped 54 percent from 90,000 acres in 1991 to under 49,000 acres in 2006. That is American farmers losing acreage, losing their farms, being placed in a very difficult situation, a very difficult situation economically.

Michigan asparagus acreage has dropped from 15,500 acres in 1991 to 12,500 acres in 2006.

In Washington State, asparagus decreased from 31,000 acres in 1991 to 9,300 acres in 2006. The value of Washington

asparagus in 1990 was approximately $200 million. The present value is $75 million.

This is a huge drop for any area of American agriculture. This is a huge drop and has created great hardship for our asparagus growers.

Asparagus acreage in California decreased from 36,000 acres in 1990 to 22,500 acres in 2006.

What we have in this bill is some small effort to help those growers who have found themselves--because of our policy, our trade policy--in an immediate situation of facing an unlimited supply of asparagus coming in with no tariff and with no ability to have any kind of a transition.

Unlike other areas that have been hit by trade, they did not qualify for trade adjustment assistance. So the Asparagus Market Loss Program is a relatively small program compared to other parts of this farm bill. It is a $15 million effort that is critically important to compensate American asparagus growers across the country for the loss to this industry that resulted from the ATPA.

This program is based on a similar market loss program for apples and onions back in 2002, where cheap Chinese imports harmed those American growers, and that program provided $94 million for apple and onion growers. I might add, I say to my friend, the author of this amendment, the State of New Hampshire received over $1 million from this particular market loss program for apples. That was done in 2002. So what we are doing is patterning this program after the very same marketing loss program that helped our apple growers.

Market loss funds will be used to offset costs for American asparagus producers to plant new acreage and invest in more efficient planting and harvesting equipment. It is a very small fraction of, in fact, what they have incurred, as well as a result of the policy that was enacted back in 1990.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Gregg amendment and to support the effort of the Agriculture Committee to help alleviate an industry that has received dramatic losses as a result of our Federal trade policy.

Amendment No. 3674

On a different note, Senator Gregg has offered an amendment that, in fact, is a reflection of a bill I have introduced regarding the mortgage industry. Senator George Voinovich is my Republican cosponsor. We have a number of colleagues who have joined us in this effort. I certainly support the intent of that amendment. I know there is a strong understanding of support coming from the chairman of the Finance Committee about the need to make sure people who find themselves losing their home because of a foreclosure situation or a short sale or some other situation regarding the housing crisis--that they do not also end up with a big tax bill after possibly losing their home. I know there is a commitment from the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, to address this issue and, in fact, to make sure people do not end up with this tax liability.

The real question is how we do this in terms of this particular amendment. Certainly, substantively I support it, but the farm bill will not be done before the end of this year, and if we don't have something in place by the end of this year, people who have found themselves in the middle of a mortgage crisis with this kind of an unforeseen tax liability will have an additional tax bill. I know it is our desire not to have that happen. It would be a real tragedy, in fact, if that did happen.

So I know we have to work out what will happen on that amendment, but certainly I think there is very broad support for the substance of it. It is a question of whether we are able to get relief to people quickly enough. The farm bill will not be done and passed into law by the end of the year, and we need to have that provision done by the end of the year. So I know the Finance Committee leadership is making determinations about the best way to approach this, but certainly I appreciate the issue being raised because no one wants to see people who have found themselves in a potential situation of losing their home or their home going into foreclosure or some kind of a refinancing for less than the mortgage price, to find themselves also in a situation where they have a new tax bill. That certainly is no one's intent.

I am pleased the White House is supporting our legislation to fix this. The House has, in fact, acted as well and has sent a bill to us to address this issue. It is my hope--my sincere hope and urgent hope-- that we will have this done by the end of this year rather than placing this policy into the farm bill because there is a sense of urgency about getting this done right now. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator temporarily taking the chair for me at this time so I can make a few brief comments on the farm bill. I thank everyone who has been involved in getting us to this point. It has been challenging, but we have a product, as you know, that came out of committee unanimously.

I thank Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss for their leadership in bringing us to this point. I also thank Senator Conrad for his budget expertise that helped get us to this point, and so many other people who have worked very hard to create a product that we all can be very proud of.

We do not only support traditional agriculture, which is very important--people in my State think of automobiles, particularly as we are talking about the energy debate now--but our second largest industry is agriculture. So this is a very important bill from the standpoint of the economy of Michigan.

We have traditional agricultural programs that are supported in this legislation which I am very pleased about. But we also do something very important. We take a step toward the future in this bill in a number of ways.

Also very important to me and Michigan, and I appreciate my colleagues supporting the effort, is to have half of the crops grown by farmers in the United States, fruit and vegetable growers, called specialty crops, included in a very real way for the first time in this farm bill. That is historic. We are talking about many family farmers, folks who are growing the apples and asparagus and the cherries and the blueberries and the oranges and all of the foods we want our children to eat.

We tell our children: Eat your fruits and vegetables. Well, this farm bill for the first time makes a permanent place, a permanent home for those growers. I appreciate my colleagues who have worked with me in order to be able to make that happen.

We also take a turn to the future with alternative energy. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer from Colorado for his passion around the issue of alternative energy as well as my distinguished colleague from South Dakota for his interest and leadership around these issues as well. We all join together in understanding that we want to be able to say: Buy your fuel from middle America instead of the Middle East. That would create energy independence. It would be great for our

farmers. It is great for new technologies.

We also are very proud to be making the automobiles that will use that new fuel. So this farm bill is an energy and security bill, an effort in a very major way to turn us to that future through various kinds of incentives and supports and research and cellulosic ethanol that we know is the future.

We not only want to make ethanol from corn--and we grow a lot of corn in Michigan, but we also grow a lot of sugar beets, we have a lot of wood byproducts, we have a lot of switchgrass available and other things that we can use for the technology to be developed and supported through this farm bill to be able to create energy.

That is important. This is about the future. I believe part of reform, when we talk about reforming the farm bill, we talk about more focus on our fruit and vegetable growers, more focus on energy crops, more focus on nutrition, and the importance of being able to support our farmers markets and community gardens, the ability for people to have access to nutritious food in the United States.

This is also an important bill for conservation. Again, I know our Presiding Officer cares very much about this issue. Our chairman has been a passionate leader, focusing on conservation. This bill does it in a very real way. I thank the chairman as well for including language that addresses Great Lakes water erosion, soil runoff into the Great Lakes, into our water systems, a very critical issue. I appreciate him including language from a broad strategic effort that was put together with all eight States and our friends in Canada and the administration and others to put together a strategy to protect our Great Lakes waters. Part of that is reflected as it relates to our conservation portion of the farm bill. So there are numerous ways in which this particular legislation, as comprehensive as it is, makes sense.

I would also be remiss if I did not mention rural development. I do not think there is a town in northern Michigan, southern Michigan, in the Upper Peninsula, that has not benefitted by some help with water and sewer or housing development or small business loans or the ability to buy a needed fire truck, to be able to meet rural needs.

I am very proud of the fact that we have expanded and included the broadband access. We know, just as the telephone system was made more valuable by making sure the farmer at the end of the road was able to be connected by telephone, we need to be sure that every person in every corner of the country is connected and has access to broadband. This legislation does that as well.

There are numerous provisions in this legislation that relate to supporting and developing rural America, supporting new technologies, supporting the communities, protecting our natural resources and conservation, focusing on alternative fuels and energy independence at a time when we have never needed it more; also the wonderful partnership that we have established between our nutrition programs, schools, seniors, community programs, and our fruit and vegetable growers who are growing that nutritious food that we want to make sure gets to our families.

I hope we will come together. It is very positive that we finally broke through the logjam, and we are together here on the floor moving forward this bipartisan bill. It is my hope we will be able to move through these amendments and do it in a way that allows us to complete this bill this week and have the Senate's vision for the future of rural America and energy and nutrition, conservation, our support for traditional agriculture, have all of those visions out there together before we leave for the end of the year. This is important what we have done together. It is an important piece of work. I am pleased that we are now moving to that next step. I am hopeful that working together, we will be able to get that done this week.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.