Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, is the pending business S. 1200, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007?

Mr. President, I wish to speak to that legislation. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act is before the Senate today and tomorrow and hopefully will be completed, and we will be able to vote on some amendments and finally get this legislation reauthorized because it is very long overdue and the need for its completion cannot be underestimated.

I represent nine tribes in my State of South Dakota, and in any given year, depending on the year we are talking about, as many as five of those reservation counties in South Dakota will be in the top 10 poorest counties in America. These are areas in my State that are struggling in so many different ways where many of the basic services that those of us who live off the reservations expect on a daily basis are just not available.

One of the things that is desperately needed is access to health care, making sure there is quality health care available to people on the reservations.

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act reauthorization has really been in the works since 1999-2000. I think the 106th Congress was the last time this issue was debated. We have been trying since that time to get this bill on the floor and get it reauthorized. It is a critical piece of legislation that is so important to the people whom I represent and to tribes all across this country and to Native American people.

To give an example of what I am talking about, in South Dakota, between 2000 and 2005, Native American infants were more than twice as likely to die as White infants. Nationally, Native Americans are three times as likely to die from diabetes as compared to the rest of the population in the country.

In South Dakota, a recent survey found that 13 percent of Native Americans suffered from diabetes. This is twice the rate of the general population in which only 6 percent are suffering from diabetes.

An individual who is served by IHS is 6.5 times more likely to suffer an alcohol-related death than the general population. An individual served by an IHS facility is 50 percent more likely to commit suicide than the general population.

I appreciate the time the Senate is taking to debate this bill and the serious health issues this bill hopes to address and correct. I especially thank the Indian Affairs Committee for working with me to help the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota keep the Wagner emergency room open. Our delegation from South Dakota has been working for some time in making sure that members of the Yankton Sioux Tribe have access to emergency room service 24 hours a day, which is critically important.

The committee was very helpful in making sure that issue was addressed in this authorization. I thank them for that help and appreciate their work in working with us to that end.

I also thank them for the work they have done to ensure that the Urban Indian Health Program remains a viable and helpful program for Native Americans who live off the reservation.

I am also a cosponsor of an amendment that has been offered by Senator Vitter. I reiterate my support for extending the Hyde language of this bill in preventing Federal funds being spent on abortions, except in cases where the life of the mother is at stake or in case of incest or rape.

I also reiterate my support for Senator Bingaman's amendment. I am a cosponsor of that amendment which will extend Medicare payment rates to all Medicare providers who accept IHS contracting agreements.

This amendment hopefully will stretch IHS contracting dollars even further and help reduce, even if it is only in a small way, some of the shortfalls that currently exist.

This legislation goes a long way in attempting to improve health care throughout Indian country. However, we have to remember there is still more, lots more, that we need to do, especially in the area of tribal justice and law enforcement in order to help improve the lives of individuals who live on and near Indian reservations throughout the country.

Last year, I worked hard to improve tribal justice and law enforcement on Indian reservations, and I look forward to partnering with my colleagues in the Senate to continue that fight this year to make sure we have adequate law enforcement personnel, that we have an adequate number of prosecutors so that when crimes are committed, they can be prosecuted. But we have to address these very fundamental issues if we are going to improve the quality of life for people on the reservations.

As I travel the reservations in South Dakota--and I was at the Rosebud Indian Reservation just this last week--what strikes me is, people on the reservations, just as those I represent who live off the reservations, want the same thing: They want a better life for their children, for their grandchildren, for future generations. They want to make sure they have security and there is adequate law enforcement and they do not have to live in fear when it comes to the issues of crime. They want to make sure their children have access to quality education and a responsibility that many of us take very seriously, ensuring and seeing to it that young people, children on the reservation, have an opportunity to learn at the very fastest rate possible, to go through elementary and secondary school and then on to higher education if they choose to.

A number of the tribal colleges we support in many cases suffer, again, from a lack of funding. They also have to have basic health care services, which is what this bill attempts to address. Whether it is in the area of dental care, whether it is in the area of basic primary care, speciality care, the IHS facilities on the reservations suffer from being unable to recruit and retain health care providers. Whether it is physicians or dentists--and that is an issue we face as well--we need to make sure we have the right incentives in place to attract health care providers to serve in reservation areas.

This bill, as it is currently structured, I believe, will help to address that very basic expectation that all people who live on reservations have, and that is, when they have a need, they will have access to quality health care to address those needs.

This bill will be debated again tomorrow in the Senate, probably, I hope, voted on sometime tomorrow so that we can finally get this reauthorization bill through. It has been teed up for some time.

I appreciate the work the chairman, Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, and Senator Murkowski from Alaska, the ranking Republican, have done to bring this bill to the floor and, as I said before, to work with us on issues important to South Dakota.

I am also happy to cosponsor a couple of amendments that I hope can be adopted--the Vitter amendment and, as I said earlier, the Bingaman amendment, which will help make health care more available and take the dollars of the IHS and stretch them further when it comes to contracting services.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote for this bill. This should be a big bipartisan vote. If anybody cares seriously about improving the quality of life on reservations in this country and addressing what are deep economic needs, it starts with some of these very basic services. It starts with law enforcement security, it starts with education, and it starts with health care, and I think this bill takes us a long way in the direction of dealing with the health care issues that affect so many of our tribes in this country.

I hope my colleagues in a very big bipartisan way will vote for this legislation, support it, and hopefully get it signed into law before this year is out.

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

Mr. President, as a sort of starting point, I noticed that throughout today we have had a lot of legislative business, and I thought it was interesting this morning, when

many of my colleagues came down here to pay tribute to Senator Lott, that while that was going on, and I was coming down here as well to listen to some of those and to offer my remarks at that time, I was handed a whip card to go start to do some whip work, because that is the task that Senator Lott--and I have had the honor to serve on his whip team--is entrusted with here in the Senate.

So it was always focused on the task and always on the work at hand. Even as we were in his last day here in the Senate paying tribute to him, he continued to work hard at the responsibility that had been entrusted to him by his fellow Senators on this side of the aisle.

It was a great privilege, as I said, to be able to serve in that capacity and to learn from Senator Lott. I think he has the distinction as perhaps the only person who served as the whip in the House of Representatives and now in the Senate. As he leaves, he leaves a great legacy. Many of us who have had the opportunity to learn under his tutelage about the way this institution operates have been blessed to have someone like him to be a teacher.

Senator Lott always understood that although we deal with very serious, very weighty, sometimes complex and oftentimes consequential issues, it is also important that we not take ourselves too seriously. Trent never did. Even those of us sort of plain Midwesterners who resisted the seersucker suit day and its attendant fashion statement recognized the value of many of the trends that Senator Lott was responsible for instigating.

Trent never lost sight of the fact that in the end--while we are elected officials, we are Senators, we have responsibilities to our constituencies, responsibilities under the Constitution, responsibilities to our country--that we are all human beings. In the end, despite our differences, the relationships are what will endure. He worked actively at building those types of relationships.

I first had the opportunity to meet Trent when I was a Member of the House of Representatives. Like many of my colleagues who at the time served in the House, he was the leader in the Senate. But we had some opportunities to interact, and we always respected the work he did and the way he understood the Senate and its rules and its procedures and was able to effectively make it work to produce results. Ultimately, that was always his objective. He knew we were going to disagree, he knew there would be differences, but in the end his objective was always to get us across the finish line so the Senate could complete its work, and the work of the American people could be done.

I will certainly miss, as will many Senators, that personal touch, that sense of humor, that warmth, that smile--all those things that are part of his character and his personality that are so closely associated with the Senate.

My office is next to his on the fourth floor of the Russell Building. It was not uncommon for Senator Lott to do the pop-in visit. He would pop into my office, always to have a discussion about perhaps what the issue of the day was. But there was not one of those pop-in visits where I didn't learn something, where just, again, having been exposed to him presented the opportunity to learn from someone who had mastered this institution after serving here for those many years; someone who also understood the House very well, 34 or 35 years, I think, in total in the House and Senate, as well as having served here as a staffer prior to that.

When Senator Lott came to the Senate the very first time as a staffer--I don't know exactly the date, but I know it was sometime in the late 1960s--I was probably in first or second grade, somewhere in that vicinity.

Over the years, his service has helped accomplish a great many things for the American people. He has been a great leader for the Republican Party. As majority leader, as minority leader, as minority whip, majority whip--in all those positions he has held he has had one goal and objective in mind, and that is to help his team help this great country continue to prosper, continue to be safe and secure for future generations.

If I think there are any lessons that can be learned, things that I, perhaps, learned from Trent during his service in the short time I have had the opportunity to serve with him, one would be to serve causes that are greater than yourself. I think he had a great sense of purpose about what was important in life. Clearly, that was the case or he would have gone off and done other things a long time ago.

Second, to be serious about your work. He was very much, as I said, a task master. I know from experience, serving on his whip team, that when there was a task at hand he was very focused and intently conscious of the importance of getting the job done and getting it done in a timely way. He was serious about his work. But the other thing he understood was he never took himself too seriously. He, as I said, invested in relationships in this body, knowing full well it is those relationships that will have the enduring value.

The final lesson that I got from Trent is never forget where you came from. That was one thing he also modeled. He was a Mississippi original through and through. That was something you always sensed. His priority, his heart, was always with his home State. What came through loud and clear to all of us when his State was struck with the adversity that came from Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath of that was the enormous work he did to help his State to recover. He always had a sense of where he was from. He never lost sight of that, and who he represented.

There is a verse in the Bible that says:

Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

I think you could always tell what things Trent treasured. You could always tell where his heart was because of the things that he treasured. His faith was very important to him in a personal way. His family, his beloved wife Tricia, and his children, were always a top, first priority for him. Finally, his friends. That was something I think you heard abundantly today as people from both sides of the aisle got up and talked about their experiences and the relationships that he had built with them over the years. If you can judge someone, where their heart is, by where their treasure is, you always knew where Trent Lott's heart was. It was with his faith, it was with his family, and it was with his friends.

I am very proud and privileged to count myself among those friends.

Mr. President, today I recognize Floyd Red Crow Westerman. Mr. Westerman passed away early in the morning on Thursday, December 13, 2007, at the age of 71.

Floyd was born on the Lake Traverse Reservation in Northeast South Dakota on August 17, 1936. When he was just 5 years old, he was removed from his family to attend Wahpeton Indian School. He later transferred to Flandreau Indian School where he finished out his high school education. After high school, Floyd went on to graduate from Northern State University majoring in art, speech, and theatre.

Mr. Westerman was a very intelligent and talented individual. He was a man of many trades including acting, singing, and songwriting. His acting career was especially extensive. He performed in more than 50 movies and television shows. Some of his more popular acting works included, ``Dances with Wolves,'' ``Hidalgo,'' ``The X-Files,'' and ``Walker, Texas Ranger.''

His music career was also a successful one. Mr. Westerman performed with many talented musicians including Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Bonnie Raitt, Harry Belafonte, Jackson Browne, Kris Kristofferson, and Don Henley.

Floyd Red Crow Westerman was a thoughtful, kind, and inspiring man. Although many will miss him, I know his spirit will never be forgotten.

Mr. President, I, too, wish to urge my colleagues to vote for cloture this evening on the farm bill. This is bringing a long debate to its finality and to a close that is good for American agriculture.

Actually, the American people today are going to get an energy bill to promote renewable energy, and they are going to get a farm bill that strengthens the safety net and makes a strong commitment to conservation. Many of the programs funded in this bill do an awful lot to support conservation across this country. In many respects, the conservation title of the farm bill, I would argue, is probably one of the best environmental stewardship policies we have put in place in the Congress.

It also adds an energy policy that will complement what was done today in the Energy bill--the renewable fuels standard--which will increase the amount of renewable energy that will be used in this country. In order to reach that standard, we are going to have to use more and more cellulosic ethanol, which is the next generation of biofuels in this country, and the farm bill has in its energy title some incentives for energy-dedicated crops that can be used in the production of cellulosic ethanol.

I think this energy policy and the energy title, the conservation title, the commodity title of this bill, and many of the other provisions are good for American agriculture. It has been a long battle, and we still have a long ways ahead of us. We have to go to conference with the House and get a bill the President will sign, but this will help move this process forward, and it is high time we got an opportunity to push to a final vote and final passage.

So I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture this evening.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, today I recognize Jim Sheehan, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

Jim is a graduate of Stanley County High School in Fort Pierre, SD. Currently he is attending Lake Forest College, where he is majoring in history and political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jim for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Tyler Custis, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

Tyler is a graduate of Custer High School in Custer, SD. He is a recent graduate of Texas A&M University where he majored in economics. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Tyler for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Luke Loving, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

Luke is a graduate of O'Gorman High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently he is attending the University of South Dakota, where he is majoring in psychology. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Luke for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Christy Van Beek, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

Christy is a graduate of Netherlands Reformed Christian School in Rock Valley, IA. Currently she is attending the University of Sioux Falls, where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Christy for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator McConnell and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, today we begin in earnest to debate the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007, commonly referred to as the 2007 farm bill. The naming of this bill is not without meaning. It is abundantly clear that agriculture and energy production are now inherently related and together will move our Nation toward greater food and energy security. Nearly all the controversy surrounding this farm bill is focused on whether farmers and ranchers should be receiving the assistance this bill would provide, with very little discussion of the potential this bill carries to propel American agriculture into producing alternative fuels to lessen our Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources. The 2002 farm bill was the first farm bill to include an energy title. As a member of the House Agriculture Committee during the 2002 farm bill debate, I can attest that including an energy title in the farm bill was not easy, nor was it without controversy. However, Congress had the foresight to realize that renewable energy was an integral part of our agricultural economy and a comprehensive farm bill would be incomplete without including renewable energy incentives.

The energy title included in the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 also includes an energy title that builds on the success of the 2002 farm bill. The incentives in this energy title will greatly benefit American consumers, our agricultural producers, and our Nation's energy independence. The farm bill before us was crafted in the spirit of bipartisanship in the Senate Agriculture Committee and was passed out of committee by unanimous consent. We all know the 2002 farm bill expired earlier this year on September 30. I am pleased to report that after the agreement that was reached last week, both Republicans and Democrats will be able to offer amendments to this bill. More than 120 Republican amendments have been filed on this farm bill. More than 140 Democratic amendments have been filed on this farm bill. Although not all of these amendments will receive a vote on the Senate floor, I am pleased the leadership made an agreement to allow consideration of 40 amendments so we can move a farm bill forward.

After a several-week delay, we are now on track to debating this farm bill in an open and fair manner on the floor of the Senate. America's farmers are making planning decisions for next year without knowing what type of farm programs will be available to them. Time is of the essence. We must move quickly and with purpose to finish this farm bill for not only American agriculture but also for the millions of people who receive benefits under the nutrition and other titles of this bill. This bill will give our agricultural producers the additional security they need to move forward with production decisions and will help meet our food and energy needs for the next 5 years and beyond.

I wish to share a couple of facts about the 2007 farm bill. The 2007 farm bill is 1,600 pages long, and it will cost more than $286 billion over 5 years. The very first farm bill passed 70 years ago was 24 pages long. The 2007 farm bill also includes the first farm bill tax title since 1933, adding an extra degree of difficulty and further reason for open debate. During the past 30 years, the farm bill has averaged about 2 weeks of floor time and required as many as 30 recorded votes. It is not just America's farmers and ranchers who are waiting for the 2007 farm bill. Food banks, Food Stamp, and other emergency food program recipients are all anxiously awaiting this farm bill to pass. Their share of the farm bill stake accounts for more than 66 percent of total farm bill spending, and they are pushing hard to get this farm bill passed. Rural development incentives are also on hold until we pass the 2007 farm bill.

For example, a powerplant in rural America is delayed because funding for USDA's rural utility service is tied up in this farm bill. Our farmers and ranchers and millions of other Americans are watching and waiting anxiously for the Senate to debate this farm bill and move it on to a conference committee with the House of Representatives. I look forward to engaging my colleagues this week in a fair and open debate on this monumental legislation which will govern programs affecting rural America for the next 5 years.

I appreciate my colleague from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, being here and managing this legislation on the behalf of the Democrats today, because farm bills are not political in their orientation, at least they have not been in the past. Farm bill debates don't end up being normally partisan debate. There are regional differences, differences between different commodity organizations. Everybody comes to a farm bill debate with different priorities, depending on what part of the country they represent. But farm bills have never been partisan or resulted in the kind of partisan gridlock and fights that typically accompany other legislation in the Senate.

The Senator from Colorado and I have worked closely on a number of provisions in this farm bill, particularly the energy title. Energy production has become an integral part of the success and prosperity of rural America. In fact, this farm bill starts moving us into the next generation of energy policy and renewable energy production. We have had great success with corn-based ethanol. We will have seen by the end of this year 7.5 billion gallons of production of corn-based ethanol literally, growing in the last 10 years from ground zero to where we are today, a remarkable tribute to the good work, the initiative, and creativity of our farmers and those who are involved in ethanol production. I give them credit for where we are today. But we also have great potential as we move into the future. We have to put in place policies that will provide the necessary financial and economic incentives for those who want to invest in this next generation of ethanol production, cellulosic ethanol production made from other forms of biomass. We have to have the right kind of incentives in place in order for that to move forward and to continue the momentum that has been so good for many communities across rural America.

With regard to the issue of energy production, a lot of people look at a farm bill and look at the amount of money spent on production agriculture and say: Isn't that terrible that we are spending all this money on food and fiber. We do have in front of us a food, fiber, and energy security bill. I would argue with anyone, based on the statistics the Senator from Colorado put up earlier about the cost of food in the United States and what that means to our economy and the safety and quality of the food we have in this country, that support for production agriculture makes so much sense. If you look at this bill in its totality, the overall funding and how much is spent on production agriculture, it is only about 14 percent of total funding in the underlying bill. If you look at where the funding in this bill goes, about 9 percent of it goes into conservation programs. Those are programs that are important to America. Probably the most important conservation policy that we will put in place in terms of the environmental stewardship we have a responsibility for will be found in the conservation title of this farm bill. There is a conservation reserve program, a wetlands reserve program, a grassland reserves program, an EQIP program, all programs utilized extensively by farmers and ranchers to help address the issues of soil erosion, water quality, wind erosion--all those things that are so important not only in terms of being good stewards of the land but also in many States such as mine, where wildlife production has become an important part of our economy. This year in South Dakota we have 10,000 pheasants. That is a record going back to 1962. We have not seen that many pheasants in South Dakota, largely a result of the good practices put in place through incentives included in farm bill policies in past farm bills.

The conservation title is 9 percent of the money, and 14 percent of the

money goes into production agriculture. That leaves about 67 percent or about two-thirds of the funding in this bill going toward food assistance programs, Food Stamps, WIC Programs, those types of programs that support people who don't have access to good quality food and need that form of assistance.

So food pantries, food banks, and all of those other organizations across this country that meet those types of needs are awaiting action by the Congress to address those needs and get them a bill that will enable them to move forward with the programs that help address the very important concerns and needs that people providing food assistance have in this country.

This is a bill that is comprehensive. It is a bill that struck a balance as it came out of the Agriculture Committee. It was a bipartisan bill when it left the Ag Committee. I hope it can continue to be bipartisan as we debate it on the floor.

A lot of people have different ideas about how to address farm policy in this country. A lot of people have very different notions of what ought to be in a farm bill from those the Senator from Colorado or I might have. But that is why we have the opportunity for a fair and open debate.

A lot of the amendments that are going to be debated I will probably support, and there are many I will probably oppose depending upon how I view those amendments affecting the balance that has been struck in the bill and the way it would impact my particular State of South Dakota. But I think it is fair to say it is high time this debate got underway.

I also have to say when you look at the cost of farm bills, it is important to keep in mind, as we debate this one, that much of the cost that has been associated with the 2002 farm bill in the form of the safety net--and by that I mean your loan deficiency payments, your countercyclical payments, your direct payments--if you look at the totality of the bill and the cost over time, in the last 5 years, $22 billion in tax dollars has been saved because of higher prices, which was the way that program was designed to work. When farm prices went higher, the assistance kicked out. When prices dropped, the assistance kicked back in.

But what we have had now is a fairly substantial period of good prices for our producers in this country. That has led to savings for the taxpayers--$22 billion in savings over the past 5 years, over the period of the last farm bill. In many respects, I attribute that to the success of the ethanol industry because the demand for corn has raised the price of corn in this country. As the price of corn has gone up in this country, as is typically the case, the rising tide lifts all boats.

We have seen wheat prices go up, we have seen soybean prices go up largely because there is only so much acreage out there that can be put in production. So we have seen sustained prices that have enabled us to save, under the 2002 farm bill, payments that otherwise would have been going out to the farmers of this country, to the tune of $22 billion.

So when people criticize the effect that the renewable fuel programs have on farm programs, and the costs, I think it is important to keep that statistic in mind. In fact, in a January 2007 statement, the USDA chief economist stated that farm program payments were expected to be reduced by some $6 billion due to the higher value of a bushel of corn.

As I said, when you multiply that across other commodities--whether it is wheat, soybeans--overall savings in the last farm bill was $22 billion, attributable in my mind, in many respects at least, to the energy policies that were put in place in the 2002 farm bill, the investment that has been made by those across this country in this growing industry that has enabled us to save money in the form of farm program payments. But just as importantly, it has enabled us to lessen our dependence upon foreign sources of energy--7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by the end of this year.

What does that mean in terms of our dependence upon foreign oil? In 2006, the production and use of ethanol in the United States reduced oil imports by 170 million barrels, saving $11 billion from being sent to foreign and often hostile countries. By the end of 2009, ethanol production is expected to increase to 12.5 billion gallons, displacing even more of our Nation's petroleum use.

Promoting clean, homegrown fuels and reducing our dependence on oil imports from dangerous parts of the world is more than just good policy, it is a matter of national security. So this farm bill, with its strong energy policy, moves us in a direction that not only builds upon the gains and the success we have seen in the form of corn-based ethanol, and the 7.5 billion gallons that have already been produced in the form of corn-based ethanol, but it opens the door to a whole new generation of ethanol production in this country that is based upon other forms of biomass, whether that is corn stover or corncobs or switchgrass or wood chips or other types of biomass that we have an abundance of across this country.

It is just flat necessary and important and imperative for us to continue to diversify our energy in this country away from our dependence upon foreign petroleum so the American consumer can access the energy, the fuel they need to get to their jobs, to work, to recreate--to do all those things--in a less expensive way but, more importantly, so we are not dependent on countries around the world whose intentions toward the United States can be described as nothing less than hostile.

With that, we kick off this debate. There are amendments I think that will be offered by some of our colleagues, some of which are already pending at the desk, others of which will be offered throughout the course of the day.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. The Senator from Colorado, I think, perhaps, has someone to recognize for an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3549 on behalf of Senator Roberts and ask that it be set aside.

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

Mr. President, I believe the Senator from New Mexico has an amendment that he wants to speak to that both Senator Salazar and I are cosponsors of.

Mr. President, I, too, acknowledge the good work of our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, on this issue. It largely is a result of his good work in 2005. Senator Salazar is on the Energy Committee. I was, at the time, on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which worked to get the first ever renewable fuels standard put into law. That was a monumental breakthrough in terms of renewable energy production in this country.

If you look at the way the market has responded to that, the story has been nothing less than remarkable. In 2005, we set a goal of reaching 7\1/2\ billion gallons of renewal fuel production by 2012. We will achieve that by the end of this calendar year, 2007. South Dakota will have, on its own, a billion gallons of ethanol production reached by the end of 2008.

This is a great success story not only for agriculture and for the farmers and the rural economies that benefit but for our environment because it reduces greenhouse gases. It is a great success story also in terms of lessening our reliance upon foreign sources of energy. I mentioned the statistic earlier: 170 million barrels of oil were displaced by the amount of ethanol production in this country. That saved $11 billion that we would have shipped to one of those petro economies elsewhere around the world that Senator Domenici referenced in his remarks.

So the renewable fuels standard that passed in 2005 was a breakthrough; it was a milestone piece of legislation in terms of launching this industry. But what is remarkable about that is we are up against the lid that was set in that 2005 bill of 7.5 billion gallons.

What is happening now is you have a lot of those who would invest in ethanol production in this country pulling back, not knowing what the future of the industry is. The amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, of which Senator Salazar and I are cosponsors, would increase the renewable fuels standard in 2008 to 8.5 billion gallons, which ramps it up in 2022 to 36 billion gallons. It is an amendment I believe is desperately needed. We hoped it would be included in the Energy bill. There is a version of it in the Energy bill. It would be better than what we have today.

We believe the amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico is a far better solution, superior to what is proposed now in the Energy bill. I hope we could at least get the language the Senator from New Mexico has put forward included in the Energy bill, or adopted to the farm bill that is under consideration right now. It is that important to the rural economy, to agriculture, and, frankly, there isn't anything we do, next to the production title of the farm bill, that impacts agriculture more than does the renewable fuels standard, to increase it to 36 billion gallons by 2022, relying largely on advanced biofuels, cellulosic ethanol. To help us get there, those are all important things to have.

One comment regarding the Energy bill. There is a renewable fuels standard included in that. There are a couple of troublesome provisions to many who support the industry. One allows the EPA Administrator to essentially modify and grant waivers to the renewable fuels standard, dependent upon ``significant renewable feedstock disruption or other market circumstances.'' In other words, the EPA Administrator has total discretion when it comes to a waiver of this renewable fuels standard in the Energy bill that is currently pending. So the language, as proposed by the Senator from New Mexico, would be far superior in terms of what this industry needs in terms of market signals and certainty going forward. So whether that is included in the Energy bill or in this farm bill, it seems that ought to be the direction in which we move in this industry.

The other thing I will mention by way of importance, in terms of renewable energy, is not only the renewable fuels standard, which is critical to those who invest in this industry, but that Congress is going to send a message that the policy incentives put into place in 2005 are going to be extended and, in fact, expanded; second, that we begin to look at increasing the blends. Right now, about 50 percent of the gasoline in this country is 10 percent ethanol. Because of infrastructure constraints, it is difficult to see us getting further than 11 to 12 billion gallons of ethanol produced and marketed in this country at the 10-percent level.

If we were to increase the blends to 20 or 30 percent, it would dramatically increase the market for ethanol in this country. Studies are currently underway by the EPA and the Department of Energy that I believe will in time demonstrate that not only does ethanol not impact materials compatibility, drivability, and not only does it not affect in any way or disadvantage emissions, relative to 10 percent ethanol, I think a lot of studies are actually finding that, ironically, the mileage is better at E20 than even traditional gasoline. So those studies are in the works. When they are complete, I hope we can move quickly to implement higher blends. That is a critical component in the solution to the renewable fuels industry in this country and to lessening our dependence upon foreign sources of energy.

Every gallon of ethanol, every bushel of corn we are buying from an American farmer means that many fewer dollars we are sending to some petronationalistic economy somewhere else in the world whose intentions to

the United States, as I said, very well could be hostile.

This is an important amendment. I hope as the farm bill debate continues this week and these amendments that are currently pending are disposed of in one form or another, if we do not get a vote on this amendment that we can get the amendment accepted so that we have this marker in the farm bill in the event something should happen that would not permit the Energy bill to pass and, just as important, getting language in the renewable fuel standard that is better than what we see currently in the Energy bill with regard to the waiver authorities that exist for EPA in the current Energy bill and the RFS is included in that.

I do not see any other speakers at this moment, Mr. President, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of Senator Gregg to call up amendments Nos. 3674, 3673, 3671, 3672, and 3822.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be set aside.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Grassley, I ask unanimous consent to send to the desk an amendment and that it be immediately considered.

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

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Sessions, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3596 and ask that it be reported and temporarily set aside.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3569 and that it be reported and temporarily set aside.

Mr. President, I think we are almost up to our 20 amendments. I don't know of anybody else coming down on our side, although I know of a couple of amendments out there that may get offered. But we are very close to meeting the allocation we have under the agreement, and so I suspect if there are others who want to have their amendments called up, if they can get them down here, we will get them put in the queue and made pending so that when everyone is back tomorrow we can, hopefully, move to consideration based on those amendments, start getting them voted on, disposed of, and, hopefully, get to a final vote on the bill by the end of the week. That is my hope and certainly the hope of the Senator from Colorado, and I hope that is the view that is shared by our respective leaders as well.

I would say, too, again, by way of general observation on the bill, as my colleague from Colorado has talked about, many of the different titles in the bill--and we have both covered a lot of the energy provisions which he has spoken at some length about--the conservation title, the commodity title, and as we were discussing earlier today, 67 percent of the funding of the bill is in nutrition programs, food assistance, and other types of programs; about 9-plus percent in conservation, about 14 percent, actually, in the commodity title, which supports production of agriculture, and then there is a rural development title. But in any event, it is a fairly balanced bill.

I think much of the emphasis on this bill, a new emphasis at least, has to do with what the Senator from Colorado had talked about earlier, and that is the renewable energy industry. I don't know that there are a lot of differences between this bill, if we can get it through the Senate, and what has already passed the House.

There are some things that are different in the two bills, but I think these are very reconcilable bills. And I guess my hope has been all along that we would be able to get a bill to conference and on the President's desk before the end of the year. That may be a little optimistic, but I think it is important we, at least in the Senate, act on our version of the bill, get it passed, clear that hurdle, and hopefully put us on a glidepath to getting a bill signed into law if not by the end of the year, then sometime early next year so that producers can begin to make decisions about next year; that we don't have to go through the exercise of passing an extension of the 2002 bill.

I think we have a good bill before us. And now that we finally have an agreement to move forward with amendments, I hope we can get this bill through the process and perhaps passed by the Senate if not this week certainly early next week, and that will put us on a pathway to getting a bill signed into law by early next year.

As I said before, in addition to the farmers who are looking and anticipating the passage of this bill, and those who depend upon other titles in the bill, the renewable energy industry does need some action on some of the provisions not only in this bill but that are pending in the Energy bill. A renewable fuels standard needs to be enacted either as a part of the Energy bill or the farm bill.

The Senate passed earlier this year as part of its Energy bill a 36- billion-gallon renewable fuels standard by the year 2022. The House did not have a provision on a renewable fuels standard under its version of their bill. After the two sides got together, the Energy bill now contains a renewable fuels standard; although, as I mentioned earlier, one with some provisions and some conditions imposed on it that I think make it less preferable to many of us than the renewable fuels standard amendment that has been offered to the farm bill.

But to the point my colleague from Colorado made about other forms of energy, we, too, in South Dakota have enormous potential to benefit from wind energy. We have wind energy. And I have seen studies--in fact, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado suggests that South Dakota is the windiest State in the Nation. We have the best wind for wind energy development, exceeding all other States in the country. Many of our constituents would probably argue that it exceeds the amount of wind and hot air that comes out of Washington, DC, but if you look at where the end wind in this country is generated, it is in that middle section of the United States, and that, too, holds enormous potential for us to get away from depending upon foreign sources of energy.

Many of our constituents in the Midwest rely on fuel oil for their winter heating. You have, of course, a lot of energy that is generated from sources that are less environmentally friendly than wind energy. And so I would hope the provisions in this farm bill that provide incentives for small wind, and then some provisions in the Energy bill that include incentives for larger wind farms and types of projects-- production tax credits, the clean renewable energy bond program--that those, too, could get enacted and we could continue to move forward toward the development of more renewable energy in this country and less dependence upon foreign sources of energy from countries that would do us harm.

I again commend to my colleagues, when we get to a final vote, that the energy title of this farm bill is critically important--not to just those who are investors in ethanol plants but, I would argue, to our energy security and to our national security as well.

I don't see anybody else here to offer amendments. If the Senator from Colorado would like to make some comments?

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

On behalf of Senator Alexander, I ask unanimous consent to call up two amendments--the first amendment is No. 3551 and the second amendment is No. 3553--and that those amendment also be reported and temporarily set aside.

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

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

Mr. President, I hold in my hand the last unanimous consent request. This is the twentieth of the 20 amendments on the Republican side.

On behalf of Senator Bond I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 3771, and ask that it be reported and temporarily set aside.

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

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

Madam President, we have had a number of folks here today who have spoken to different aspects of the farm bill. All are relevant, and everybody has a unique interest in this legislation. Many people come to a farm bill representing agriculture States and, therefore, have a keen interest in the commodity title of the bill, that part of the bill that directly affects production agriculture. Many are involved in food assistance programs and, therefore, interested in that aspect.

I have spoken at some length today, as has my colleague from Colorado, about the energy title of the bill which we also believe to be critically important to the future of agriculture and rural economies. I do want to speak to one other aspect of the bill that Senator Salazar also spoke to earlier today. That is the conservation title.

One of the aspects of this bill that is as critical to production agriculture as the commodity title is the conservation title. The conservation title of the farm bill comprises only about 9 percent of its total cost, yet it potentially affects more than 350 million acres of land. This is a photo of a piece of ground in South Dakota. This picture was taken in 2007. It is a great example of the role played by the farm bill's conservation title. The best land in this photo is planted with corn, the low-lying wetland area being enrolled in a Conservation Reserve Program. We have an example of crop production and conservation working hand in hand. You have CRP in the foreground, wetland and corn ground in the background. The CRP on this farm and the million-and-a-half acres that are enrolled in CRP in South Dakota add 10 million pheasants and $153 million to South Dakota's economy every single year. This year's record corn crop in South Dakota at 556 million bushels is worth an additional $1.8 billion to South Dakota's farmers.

I wanted to contrast that and focus on another picture taken in South Dakota in 2007. This one actually, believe it or not, was taken in March of this year. If you look at this, at first glance you would believe that was a picture that was taken during the ``dirty thirties,'' the time of the Great Depression. Actually it is the result of native sod in South Dakota that was cropped because crop insurance provided an unintended incentive to convert marginal pastureland or native sod to cropland. This picture sends a stronger message than any words could about the inherent need to take care of our land. The topsoil and the fence line and ditch along this South Dakota field took literally millions of years to create and one dust storm to remove. The damage you see here simply cannot be undone.

A sod-saver provision in the farm bill we are considering will prohibit anyone from converting native sod to cropland. What this sod- saver provision will do is eliminate the incentives found in current Federal farm policy that encourage unwise farming practices which result in the consequences that are shown in this photo.

The next photo is a picture that is an example of some of the native sod that is being converted to cropland in South Dakota. For the past 100 years, millions of acres of prairie have been converted to productive farmland. Most native sod that can be productively farmed in South Dakota and other prairie States has already been converted to cropland. We faced a shortage of money to write this farm bill. I don't believe it is wise to use Federal funds to pay for crop insurance and disaster programs on this type of land. If the farmer who owns this land wants to crop it, wants to farm it, he or she is free to do so. But let's not subsidize it.

The next picture comes from South Dakota as well. This was a couple years ago in 2005. Dust storms, obviously, were not limited to the 1930s. This picture was taken in South Dakota in 2005. Once again, the consequences of unwise land stewardship practices are disturbingly evident. During the 1930s, South Dakota received billions of tons of Kansas and Oklahoma topsoil, much of it still in place in fence lines and fields. The programs we have drafted in the conservation title of this farm bill, if funded adequately, will ensure that Kansas and

Oklahoma farmers no longer see their topsoil blow to South Dakota, and South Dakota farmers will keep their topsoil in their fields and not in the ditches and fence lines, as we see in this picture.

I want to emphasize this one more time: Production agriculture and conservation should not compete. Rather, they should complement each other. Every agricultural area in this country is blessed with productive land and land that needs help to keep from polluting the water we drink and the air we breathe. I ask those who are so critical of this farm bill to take a close look at the conservation title and what it does for all Americans. In spite of the budget cuts that made drafting this farm bill more difficult than writing any other farm bill has been, I am pleased that my colleagues and I have been able to come up with a farm bill with a sound conservation title.

I want to point out once more the benefits of the conservation title of the farm bill. First, it protects and enhances our soil and land. Secondly, it helps provide an economic alternative to placing costly fertilizer, seed, and chemicals on unproductive cropland. It also enhances recreation and boosts local economies, as is true in South Dakota, with a very robust recreation industry that is created by the abundance of pheasants we have had in the past few years and the $153 million that it contributes to South Dakota's economy. I believe it is important that we take a breather from some of the controversy that surrounds farm bill debates and focus on the farm bill's proven capabilities to enhance rural America and to improve our Nation's water and soil. The conservation title of this farm bill will do that. This is one of many reasons that this farm bill deserves the support of our colleagues.

I don't think there is much we do around here in terms of public policy that has as much impact as what we do in this farm bill in the conservation title when it comes to environmental stewardship. The conservation title is so important. The programs that have been enumerated, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the Environmental Quality Improvement Program, or EQIP, which is used by livestock producers, all these programs are designed to lessen the impact of soil erosion, wind erosion, and improve the quality of our water. The sod-buster provision in this farm bill also moves us toward a policy that discourages those from cropping areas that should not be cropped simply to take advantage of programs such as crop insurance.

So the conservation title in this farm bill is a critically important component of the overall farm bill and one that I hope people, as they look at the farm bill in its totality, will take a very good, hard look at.

Nationwide, without a conservation title, we would have 13.5 million fewer pheasants, 450 million tons of topsoil disappearing every single year, 2.2 million fewer ducks, an additional 170,000 miles of unprotected streams, and 40 million fewer acres of wildlife habitat.

Again, if you look at what can happen when conservation programs and production are used to complement each other--and here, as shown in this picture, is another example of a field in the background and a CRP--or grasslands--in the foreground. But that is the kind of balance we try to achieve in this farm bill.

The conservation title in this farm bill is important. It is only 9 percent of the money, but it impacts 350 million acres of land in this country and adds so much to our economy and to the concerns we have about protecting and preserving our environment.

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

Madam President, for the past 5 weeks now, my colleagues and I have spent literally hours on the Senate floor talking about the 2007 farm bill. Unfortunately, talking about the farm bill for over 5 weeks is all we have done. We could have spent all the days and hours since November 5 productively debating this farm bill. Instead, the distinguished leader on the other side of the aisle made a decision the very first day of the farm bill debate when the farm bill was brought to the floor and the debate ensued to not allow any amendments to reach the floor. Not one single farm bill amendment has been discussed.

Farm bill authority spans 5 years. This legislation impacts every man, woman, and child in America. My colleagues in the minority, who are not members of the Agriculture Committee and who have not had an opportunity to help craft this legislation, deserve a chance to offer their suggested changes.

The farm bill before us totals 1,600 pages. It reauthorizes over $280 billion in spending on commodity, conservation, nutrition, trade, energy, and rural development programs. This bill is far too important to be held hostage by partisan tactics. However, the majority leader made a decision, as I said, nearly 2 weeks ago, to prohibit amendments from being offered to this landmark legislation.

I am a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and I am proud of the farm bill we passed out of the committee. I give Chairman Harkin and the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, great credit. I believe they deserve to be given great credit for the efforts they made in committee deliberation. The members of the committee held an open and productive debate. Several amendments were offered, debated, and voted on. At the end of the day, Senate Democrats and Republicans set aside their differences and reported out a bill to meet America's food and energy needs over the next 5 years.

Is the committee-reported bill perfect? No, of course not. But that being said, my colleagues all deserve an opportunity to offer their amendments to the farm bill. There are only 21 of us who serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee, 11 Democrats, 10 Republicans. Senator Domenici, Senator Nelson, and I authored an amendment that would add an increased renewable fuels standard to the 2007 farm bill on the floor because it didn't get added in the committee and because there were questions about whether an energy bill was ultimately going to pass the Senate. Therefore, we thought it would be good to improve and strengthen the energy title of the farm bill by adding the RFS to the farm bill. That is one of the amendments that, of course, could be debated if, in fact, there were an open debate process.

As I travel across my State and met with farmers and agricultural leaders, the message to me is very clear. No single policy is more important to our agricultural community than this farm bill and the accompanying Energy bill. If we can get a farm bill passed with a renewable fuel standard, I think our farmers would be very pleased with the work Congress has done to promote American agriculture and move the renewable fuels industry forward.

This renewable fuels standard will create jobs in rural America, give our producers an alternative market for our crops, spur billions of dollars in renewable fuels investment, and save over $600 million in taxpayer dollars in the underlying bill.

However, we have not had an opportunity to debate any of these amendments, including a renewable fuels standard amendment. I listened all day while accusations have flown back and forth. There has been all this hand wringing going on finger pointing, and the blame game being played. I have to say, as someone who voted for cloture the first time we had a cloture vote on the farm bill, I voted for cloture because I need this bill to move forward--my farmers and my ranchers want a new farm bill--but not because the process has been fair to Members on my side of the aisle.

Senators on the minority side, on the Republican side of the aisle-- as I said, there are only 21 of us who serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee. That means there are 79 other Senators who would like to weigh in on this important legislation. We have had the bill on the floor literally for a 2-week period and we didn't debate or vote upon one single amendment.

As I said before, you are talking about a 1,600-page bill that authorizes $280 billion in spending over the next 5 years, and there has not been one single amendment voted on. The majority leader decided when the bill came to the floor he was going to fill the amendment tree, which in effect said no amendment can be offered unless it is approved by the majority leader.

I don't happen to disagree with the notion that amendments that are brought to the floor of the Senate ought to be somewhat germane to the underlying legislation. But it is a reality, a practical reality every single day in this institution, in the Senate, that amendments are brought to the floor that are not germane to the underlying bill. I will hold up a case in point because I have heard my colleagues on the other side get up and say: The Republicans want to offer all these nongermane amendments and what are we supposed to do about that, these need to be germane to the underlying farm bill? I would like to see amendments that are germane to the underlying farm bill, but it is a reality in the Senate that on many occasions--in fact it is often the case--amendments are offered to all kinds of legislation that are not germane to that underlying legislation.

A case in point: We are now stalled on the Defense authorization bill, a bill that was debated and voted upon a long time ago. The House passed it, the Senate passed it, we went to conference, we resolved all the differences. I serve as a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I know some of the issues that were being debated in the conference were somewhat contentious, but they all got resolved. Most of them were related to the underlying bill. Most of them were related to our national security programs, our readiness and that sort of thing. What is holding up the conference on the Defense authorization bill is hate crimes legislation because hate crimes was put on the bill in the Senate before it left, over the objections of many of us who didn't feel it was relevant or germane to the underlying Defense authorization bill. But nevertheless we didn't have the votes. It went to conference.

Now the debate over whether we are going to have a Defense authorization bill doesn't hinge on anything having to do with national security. It hinges on hate crimes legislation. How is that germane to the Defense authorization bill? Yet my colleagues on the other side have continually gotten up today and railed on the Republicans because Republicans, of all things, want a vote on a death tax amendment to the farm bill.

In my State, most farmers and ranchers think the death tax is relevant to their everyday lives because it is probably the single biggest barrier to multigenerational transfers of cattle operations. There is not anything that is a bigger barrier, a larger impediment to those types of transfers in passing farm operations and ranching operations down to the next generation than is the death tax. In most cases, these are people who are asset rich but cash poor. Oftentimes, when someone dies and they wanted to pass it on, they have to liquidate all their assets in order to pay the death tax.

My point simply is this. I would like to see us move forward. We need a farm bill. We need an energy bill. As I said before, I voted for cloture on the farm bill, but I have to say this process has been very tilted in favor of a procedure that the majority leader adopted on the first day that is very much without precedent--in terms of what happens on the Senate floor, I am sure it has been done. I am sure it has been done under Republican majorities. But the fact is, filling the amendment tree and prohibiting amendments from being offered, in a place such as the Senate which thrives on an open amendment process, I think is undermining the very foundation, the rules and procedures on which the Senate is based.

I would like to see us be able to get to a vote on the farm bill, but we can't do that until we have some agreement on amendments, and we can't get to the amendments on the floor until such time as the majority leader agrees we will be able to offer amendments. Until that happens, our side is going to continue to object to proceeding to the farm bill because, in fairness to them, as I said, this is a 1,600-page bill that spends $280 billion over 5 years and was debated by 21 of the 100 Senators. In the Agriculture Committee, I think we produced a very good bill. I would like to see it--as I said, if it went through unamended, that would be fine by me because I think we got as good a consensus in the farm committee as we could. But there are 79 other Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle who want to strengthen and make this bill better, and right now the process has precluded that opportunity to a point where we are at a standstill on legislation that is of great importance to the farmers I represent and, I would argue, to all Americans.

The farm bill not only funds production agriculture--and frankly less and less of the overall funding in the farm bill is going to production agriculture. More of it now, 68 percent of it, is going to nutrition and food stamps and other aspects of the farm bill; 9 percent toward conservation. All of those are important. But my point simply is this is a bill important to all Americans, not just to those farmers and ranchers.

During debate on the 2002 farm bill, there were 246 amendments filed. Democrats and Republicans came together and voted on 49 amendments, including 29 rollcall votes. Before that, in the 1996 farm bill, there were 339 amendments offered, which were debated. Republicans controlled the Congress at that time. Republican leadership allowed 26 amendment votes, including 11 rollcall votes.

During consideration of the 1990 farm bill, there were 113 votes on the farm bill, 22 of which were rollcall votes. Finally, in 1985, there were 88 votes on that farm bill, 33 of which were rollcall votes.

My point is, writing a farm bill is not an easy task. A lot goes into this. It is a lengthy process, involving compromise between stakeholder groups, national priorities, regional interests, and compromise is simply unachievable under the political maneuvers that have been employed by the Democratic leader on this farm bill.

As I said before, it has been 5 weeks since it was called up on the floor. We had it on the floor for 2 weeks at one stretch before we went out for the Thanksgiving break, and let me emphasize we did not vote on one single amendment to this legislation.

I hope that will change because I think there is precious little time left in this session of the Congress and there are a lot of priorities. There is not much, frankly, that has been done. The Defense authorization bill, as I said, is being held up over an unrelated, nongermane amendment dealing with hate crimes. We don't have funding going out to the troops. We have only gotten one appropriations bill signed into law. The VA-Military Construction appropriations bill is cued up, ready to go. The President said he would sign it. We have not moved that through here. The list goes on and on.

I think it is regrettable because, as most Americans observe this process, they become increasingly cynical. The reason I think these public opinion polls that are published and surveys that are done indicate that Congress has terribly low approval ratings is for this reason: They see the partisan bickering, gridlock, finger pointing and all they want is for Congress to work together to get things done. One recent public opinion survey had the approval rating of the Congress at 11 percent which, as our friend John McCain always says: When you get down to 11 percent, you are pretty much talking about paid staff and blood relatives; and if you factor in the margin of error, you might even run a negative on that.

That is because the American public perceives what is happening and is incredibly frustrated by that. They want to see us work together toward solutions. We cannot do that absent a process and procedure that allows amendments to be offered when bills come to the floor. Legislation put on the floor that is as comprehensive as this farm bill is which, as I said, is 1,600 pages, $280 billion in spending over a 5- year period, to date not one single amendment has been voted on.

That is regrettable. It is a disservice to the farmers and ranchers of this country who are waiting for this farm bill but, as important, I think it is a disservice to the American public, all of whom benefit from the farm bill and all of whom want to see the Senate work and function effectively to address the challenges and the problems we face as a country.

The process employed by the majority leader on the farm bill completely precludes us from having anything that resembles an open debate. As I pointed out earlier, if you go back to the 1985, 1990, 1996 or 2002 farm bills, there were ample opportunities for amendments. There was vigorous and spirited debate and lots of rollcall votes. This is really historic in terms of the precedent it sets and the message it sends to American agriculture, which desperately needs a farm bill.

I hope in the next day or two, and next week--which in my view is about what we have left to work with. I am frankly happy to stay here this weekend. I would stay here Saturday, Sunday, and beyond if we could get a farm bill on the floor, actually debate it, actually have amendments offered and voted on. I am happy to stay. I would be willing to bet that many of my colleagues would be happy to stay.

But the clock is a-running, time is a-wasting. All the American people see is finger pointing and hand wringing and bickering and gridlock. That is not in their best interests. Certainly, it is not fair to them, the people by whom we were elected. They sent us to do a job. We need to get about that job. That means allowing the Senate to function, to work, to allow Senators to offer amendments to these bills and to get to final action and completion and to get some legislation passed that will hopefully improve the lives of many Americans.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I also want to urge my colleagues to pass the $70 billion supplemental for the Department of Defense. The McConnell alternative is a funding bill that is free of

political posturing, not influenced by armchair generals. The Department of Defense needs this money, and they need it now. Yesterday, Secretary Geren and General Casey testified before the Armed Services Committee on the state of the Army. When I asked Secretary Geren about what effect the lack of funding was having on the Army, he was frank and clear. The Army will run out of money by February and, what is worse, they will have to start scaling back services and canceling important civilian contracts. Moreover, when the President signed the Defense appropriations bill, it stopped the department's funding under the current continuing resolution. Now the Army is being forced to borrow from its operations and maintenance accounts in its base budget. The Army O&M budget is about $27 billion. Since the Army spends about $6.5 billion a month, that money will be gone by February. We are forcing our Army to borrow against itself.

General Casey testified that in the December timeframe nine brigades are coming back from Iraq, and they may return to find services that supported them have been cancelled. Last, when we passed a timely supplemental bill, the Army depots were able to reset 27 brigades, process 123,000 large vehicles, and 10,000 humvees.

Democrats are always going to paint Iraq as a failure, no matter what gains have been made. We need to support our troops and make sure they have the funding to do their job.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Don Amert for receiving the Supporter of the Year Award from the South Dakota Habitat for Humanity. This is a prestigious award that reflects his hard work and dedication to

eliminating poverty around the world. It is also a reflection of the valuable role he has played in giving back to his local community.

Don Amert with East Central South Dakota Habitat for Humanity is a partner in Amert Construction of Madison, SD. He has provided leadership as the East Central South Dakota Habitat for Humanity's construction chairman. Along with help from volunteers, Don completed the first 2 houses for East Central South Dakota Habitat for Humanity. Not only did Don provide affordable housing, but he also taught his volunteers proper building techniques.

It gives me great pleasure to recognize Don Amert and to congratulate him on receiving this well-earned award and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Owen Bain for receiving the Supporter of the Year Award from the South Dakota Habitat for Humanity. This is a prestigious award that reflects his hard work and dedication to eliminating poverty around the world. It is also a reflection of the valuable role he has played in giving back to his local community.

Owen Bain works with the Habitat for Humanity of Beadle County. He is a hobby carpenter and has volunteered more than 180 hours of labor in Habitat's recent projects. Owen played an integral role in the building process, all the while maintaining his humble disposition. Owen is a model volunteer who has contributed greatly to the success of Habitat for Humanity.

It gives me great pleasure to recognize Owen Bain and to congratulate him on receiving this well-earned award and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Benchmark Foam Inc. for receiving the Supporter of the Year Award from the South Dakota Habitat for Humanity. This is a prestigious award that reflects their hard work and dedication to eliminating poverty around the world. It is also a reflection of the valuable role they have played in giving back to their local community.

Benchmark Foam Inc. is partnered with Watertown Region Habitat for Humanity and is based in Watertown, South Dakota. The Benchmark team has produced and provided expanded polystyrene and other specialty plastics for the construction of Habitat homes. Benchmark has developed a longstanding relationship with the Watertown Region affiliate. Benchmark and its employees have made their mark on the Habitat for Humanity progress in the area.

It gives me great pleasure to recognize Benchmark Foam Inc. and to congratulate them on receiving this well-earned award and wish them continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Clark's Rentals for receiving the Supporter of the Year Award from the South Dakota Habitat for Humanity. This is a prestigious award that reflects their hard work and dedication to eliminating poverty around the world. It is also a reflection of the valuable role they have played in giving back to their local community.

Clark's Rentals is partnered with Habitat for Humanity of Yankton County. Clark's Rentals began operating in 1991, and after only 5 years they supported the new Yankton affiliate of Habitat for Humanity by providing equipment without cost. Through their support of Habitat's mission, Clark's Rentals has enabled the Yankton affiliate to expand their goal of providing affordable housing. Special recognition is due to Larry and Joan Clark of Clark's Rentals as well as their supportive staff members, Carl Clark, Ray Dorat, and Jimmy Olson.

It gives me great pleasure to recognize Clark's Rentals and to congratulate them on receiving this well-earned award and wish them continued success in the years to come.