Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I came to the floor last night to speak to a time extension for our colleagues on the farm bill.

I am speaking to the unanimous consent request and the extension, and I think it is appropriate at this time. It appears our colleagues have labored hard and long. We believe we have a compromise for the farm bill. This gives them adequate time to refine it and bring it to floor as a conference report for final consideration.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. President, over the last few weeks, I have taken note of the tributes that have been made about

a great American who passed away on April 5, 2008. That American is Charlton Heston. This Senate even joined in those tributes, and I was pleased to cosponsor a resolution offered by my colleague, Senator Jim DeMint, officially honoring Mr. Heston's life and extending the sympathies of the Senate to the Heston family.

Charlton Heston's significance was more than his distinguished career as an actor. In his lifetime, he became undeniably an American icon. But there is an aspect of his life that has not received the attention that I believe it deserves--his truly admirable record of public service. That is why I rise this afternoon to comment about his contributions to our Nation.

This was not a man who only recited patriotic speeches; he put his words into action and put his reputation and career on the line for the causes he supported. This was especially true in an area that people seem to have forgotten: his work on civil rights.

Charlton Heston freely allowed his fame to be used to draw attention and support to the cause of civil rights, and he did so at a time when it wasn't the popular thing for Hollywood stars to do. In fact, according to his autobiography, some of his associates warned him that his activism could harm his career and his financial success. But he pursued it anyway.

He told the story of demonstrating outside some Oklahoma City restaurants that refused to serve black Americans in 1961, and while he modestly acknowledged this was a small effort that ``made no more than a ripple in the wider world''--those are his words, not mine--the restaurants did change their practices, and the episode was a significant personal milestone for him.

His civil rights activism took him further. He was an admirer of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and wrote ``Many men who knew him better than I have written about Martin Luther King. I can't match their eloquence; I can confirm what they've written: He was a special man, put on Earth, I do believe, to be a twentieth-century Moses for his people. Dr. King sought him out to discuss how to integrate certain segments of the film industry. Mr. Heston was supportive but had doubts that it could be done; he was surprised and impressed when Dr. King accomplished that goal.

Later in 1963, when Martin Luther King famously marched on Washington Charlton Heston was not only part of the march but helped organize and lead a contingent from the American arts community in participating. Their job was to help draw press attention to the cause but Mr. Heston characterized the role he played as essentially an ``extra'' at the event. Even so, he said of the march on Washington: ``In a long life of activism in support of some good causes, I'm proudest of having stood in the sun behind that man, that morning.''

I think many people fail to appreciate the importance of Mr. Heston's involvement in supporting the cause of civil rights at that particular time. It was a turning point in our Nation's history. His position put him at odds with many in his industry, not to mention the mainstream America that existed in those days. It was no small thing for Charlton Heston to commit his energies and his name to advancing a cause that was deeply controversial.

Today, some have forgotten what those times were like and the risk he took. I would even argue that some prefer to overlook or rewrite the record of his civil rights activism because they disagree with other causes he took up later in his life.

Maybe it just doesn't sit right with the predominately liberal majority in the media and Hollywood that Mr. Heston could both march with Dr. King and later publicly denounce the violent, pornographic lyrics of rapper Ice-T. Maybe they don't understand how the same man who picketed against racism could criticize the Screen Actors Guild--an organization he presided over for six terms--for practicing reverse discrimination.

Or maybe they just don't understand the common denominator between his fight for civil rights and his fight for the Second Amendment. When he took the helm of the National Rifle Association for an unprecedented three terms Americans' firearms rights were under attack as never before. I met with him and encouraged his participation, as others did. Mr. Heston did participate and brought for formidable energy to the defense of this fundamental civil right of the law-abiding American citizen.

It was my great privilege to work with him in those days. I came to know him as an unabashed patriot and a friend. He was amazingly modest about his accomplishments when he told me about his past involvement in policy and political issues, but it was from him I learned about his early work on behalf of civil rights.

Charlton Heston is remembered by countless Americans around the world for the great roles he played and the characters he created, as only he could do. That legacy will live forever. As his movies are discovered by new audiences in the future, a new life for that memory will emerge.

But Americans should also be aware and celebrate and treasure another legacy he left behind--his simple and quiet service to our Nation. Let the record show Charlton Heston did not sit safely on the sidelines. He strode boldly into the arena of public affairs and took on all the risks of fighting in that arena. He worked to make this Nation a better place through his activism in promoting civil rights and individual liberties, a legacy that will have an even more lasting impact on our lives and the lives of our fellow citizens.

Goodbye, Charlton Heston. America misses you.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I am going to address, very briefly, an action that will come before us this evening in a 2-week extension of current farm policy that will be sought by Chairman Harkin, as they work out, I understand, the final details of a new farm policy for our country.

As my colleagues know, over the last several weeks, I have come to the floor to speak out about the urgency at hand of getting a new farm policy before American agriculture as we move into the spring season and before the early harvest in the grain belt of our country, which starts very soon in Oklahoma and northern Texas.

As most of my colleagues know, both the House and Senate passed new farm policy last year, but because of their differences, we were simply not able to work out a compromise in conference. In fact, the House waited months to appoint conferees. Then the Speaker openly spoke out about being unwilling to provide the tax package to finance the necessary new policy.

I began to object. After 6 months and 4 extensions, finally, last week on the floor I did object. But out of that we began to work together and worked out a compromise, and I must say to all the conferees on the House and the Senate side that their diligence appears to have paid off. In talking with my colleague and the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Saxby Chambliss, today, their work in large part is done. It is a matter of simply putting it in final form, bringing it to print and, of course, then bringing the conference report to the floor of the House and the Senate. Apparently, the White House has also signed off on that and their work is largely complete.

It is with that understanding that I will not object this evening to a unanimous consent request to extend the current farm policy for another 2 weeks while they work out and put to print their final effort.

Let me thank them all for the sense of urgency that has developed over the last 2 weeks and the work in completing it. Obviously, the finance committee in the House, the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee had to bring about the necessary package. Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Rangel, apparently working with the Republican side, have solved those problems and put the appropriate finance package together.

There are very important policies, new policies inside this farm bill. We are hearing for the first time, at least in my memory, a question about food shortages or at least some commodity shortages because of new demands we put on the production of American agriculture as it relates to the production of energy. There is no other time more important in our country to have farm policy in place and operative than right now, to say to the American people we can get our work done in a timely fashion--and that work is now complete; to say to American agriculture: Here is your policy for the next 5 years, whether it is nutritional policy for America's poor, whether it is production policy for America's farmland, whether it is conservation policy or energy policy; in large part all that is embodied.

I thank my colleagues for the work they have done. I hope their sense of reality and their finishing the product and getting it before us meets that timing. With that in mind, I will not object tonight to an extension. But I am on the floor to personally thank them for the work they have accomplished in getting it completed in the next 2 weeks and getting it before us as soon as possible so we can say to American agriculture: The work is done. Here is agricultural policy for the next 5 years.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Schumer from New York be allowed to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, before us is H.R. 2081, which is the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration and, of course, that is the authority tied directly to America's airlines and the body of public policy under which they operate. It comes at a time when all of us are frustrated by what was once a great American industry, and that, of course, is the airline industry. We set the records, we established the world standards in all respects to aviation, and now our industry is in great trouble. It is in great trouble for a lot of reasons, but one of the underlying reasons today is the substantial cost in aviation fuel that all of these large carriers must acquire on a daily basis and the inability to simply pass it through to the consumer.

Of course, that is exactly what is going on in nearly every industry in America today. We are experiencing an energy shock to our pocketbook--whether it be my private pocketbook or an Idahoan's private pocketbook or a corporate private pocketbook--in a way that leaves us with no ability to assume it, to consume it in a way that does not damage our choices on staying alive as a major air carrier or our choice as a consumer where we put our money--with what few discretionary dollars we have left.

In that context, it is so easy to blame somebody else for a problem that largely this Congress has observed, talked about, and denied action on for nearly 20 years. Those of us on energy committees in the Congress who said the answer to a looming problem was going to be conservation, new technology, increased development, and production of existing energy sources over the last two decades--and we have largely denied ourselves those options--are now today wringing our hands in frustration about the phenomenal cost of energy to the American consumer.

So what do we do? We reach out to blame someone when we cannot find it easy to blame ourselves. So to whom do we turn? We say it has to be ExxonMobile's fault; look at all of their profits. Or it has to be Chevron's fault or it has to be Marathon's fault or, if you read in the paper today, British Petroleum has record profits, a 12-percent increase in return on investment. Gosh, we have to blame those big oil companies because surely they are in control of the market, surely they demand the price, and it seems it has to be their fault.

I have brought before us today a chart that might change our minds just a little bit. When we talk about ExxonMobile as it relates to their position in the world, well, my goodness, they don't control the oil supply of the world. They have a very small piece of it. Chevron, oh, my goodness, they don't control the oil supply of the world. They have a very small piece of it.

Who owns the oil of the world today from which we buy? Not U.S. companies but world countries--Saudi Arabia, Saudi Armco, the largest producer by a magnitude of three or four times. Then walk right on down to 11, 12 of the leading major producers are not companies, they are countries, and it does not happen to be the United States of America that is in that top 12 group. We should be, but we are not because we have denied ourselves the ability to develop our oil reserves in Alaska, offshore United States, offshore west coast, offshore east coast, oh, all in the name of the environment even though it is our technology today that is the world-class, environmentally proven and sound technology for deep sea oil development. So then we blame corporate America for our own fault. Now our consumers are angry. And listen to the speeches given

on the floor of this body accusing or blaming someone else for the problem we, in large part, created.

What are we experiencing today? I believe we are experiencing something that is simply called petronationalism. The Saudis have it figured out. They got the oil, we got the bucks; they sell us their oil, they get our bucks. That is pretty simple, isn't it? Sixty-four percent of the energy consumed out of the pump at the local gas stations on the corners of America today comes from somewhere else in the world, not the United States. We are spending over $1 billion a day somewhere else in the world to buy their oil. And if Americans want to be mad, they ought to be mad at their politician or politicians who, for the last 20 years, have denied the reality of the marketplace, all in the name of being supergreen or all in the name of just not liking big corporations, and so we couldn't let the Exxons, the Chevrons, or the Marathons do something about it.

Several years ago, I met with the president of American Oil before it merged. He was opining that they were never going to develop in the United States anymore because they could not afford to because of the regulations and the cost to produce a barrel of oil in the United States when they could go to the Caspian area of Central Europe or when they could go to Saudi Arabia or anywhere else in the Middle East. So today we suffer the reality of our own politics, and we ought to be able to do something about it.

Some of you who might have been listening a few moments ago heard the Senator from Wyoming making good common sense that we ought to quit buying oil out of this current market and putting it in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We have enough there for the time being in case something happened in the Middle East that created a crisis. It would not last very long because we would suck it out of the ground and put it in our pumps to avoid an oil shock. But the reality is quite simple. When you have a world with a growing demand for the consumption of oil and its products and you are not producing more, the price is going to go up.

Ten years ago the Chinese were not in the market. Ten years ago the Indians were not in the market. They are in the market today and they are increasing their demand out of the world's supply at a rate of 8 or 9 percent per year.

Is the world's supply increasing? No, it is not. Is the world's refining capacity increasing? Very little. So Americans are competing against the Chinese and the Indians and everybody else for their gallon of gas. That is the reality of the market today.

Oil is not a national commodity. It is a world commodity. As the dependency went up 60 percent over the last three decades, the overall consumer demand went up. Do ExxonMobil and Chevron and every other American company control it? No, they do not. Foreign nations control it and they are getting wealthy off of American's great ability to create wealth. If we do not get this under control as quickly as possible, we will simply spend ourselves broke and the rest of the world will have all of our money and then--guess what. They are now coming to the great banks of our country and saying: We see you have a financial problem. We would like to buy an interest in your bank and give you a big chunk of cash that we got by selling you oil.

They no longer own their oil because they sold it to us and we burned it. But they have our money and they are now coming back and buying our financial institutions. Isn't that an interesting cycle? The wealth we once sent overseas to Saudi Aramco and to all of these other national companies is now coming back to the United States in the form of them owning our financial institutions. Does that make good sense?

Right now we are going to look for any amount of cash we can get to bolster our financial institutions that are in trouble--possibly because of the housing industry or some other kind of large investment. So you might say that is a pretty good deal. I suggest the bad deal started 20 years ago when we began to progressively deny our country and its companies the right to produce and supply the marketplace. That is what we have done. Today we are paying the price.

I am going to be spending a good deal of time over the next several months talking about every segment of the energy portfolio of our country, not only gas and oil but electricity in all other forms and conservations and photovoltaics, wind, and cellulosic. All of that is going to be terribly important for the American consumer in the years ahead.

The bad news is what we have to say to the American consumer today is none of it is going to be ready for 4 or 5 or 6 or 8 or 10 years. In the meantime, your energy bill is going to become an ever larger part of your overall cost of living and your family budget. There is not much a politician can do about it because they have already damaged the marketplace in which you have to live.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I am inclined to object. This is no reflection at all on the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the ranking member. We are now 6 months into working on a new farm bill. In 2 weeks, we will probably start grain harvest in the panhandle of Texas. Last week, I came to the floor in a sense of frustration and urgency for American agriculture, for the Congress to complete its work. I am told by the chairman and the ranking member that a great deal has been accomplished this week and a sense of urgency is beginning to build. I would be willing to extend current farm policy for another week while the principals work on the finalization of a new farm bill because their work product is a good one. I am not here to destroy it. I am here to say, on behalf of American agriculture, they are sensing urgency--it is time Congress senses urgency. Six months negotiating a bill in most people's minds is about long enough.

So for a full 2-week extension, I will object. I object.

Will the Chairman yield?

In everything I say, it is not a reflection on the work of the Senate, it is a reflection of reality, and 1996 doesn't have anything to do with it. This is 2008, and agriculture today is considerably different than it was in 1996.

Today on the news you are actually hearing some supermarkets talk about the shortage of a food supply. I don't know if we have ever talked food supply shortages--ever in my lifetime--for American consumers.

If what the Chairman tells me is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt him--and Senator Chambliss has done a wonderful job of keeping me and our colleagues informed--but collectively you have told this Senate more in the last 10 minutes than we have heard in a month from the collective principals on where we are with the progress. If by next week you have completed your work and we are simply ready to ink it and get it into a final package--I told Senator Chambliss I wouldn't be on the floor today if that had happened this week. But it has not happened.

You have made progress. What is wrong, Mr. Chairman, with coming back here at the end of next week, reporting your work product and saying: Give us another extension and we will put it in final. That is a report to American agriculture, the kind they now deserve, more than they did 6 months ago. This is the fourth extension you have asked for, and I am simply saying I will give you one more,

but you said it--the House is going out tomorrow. Is that a sense of urgency, that they are not staying here and working and completing the work? Give them 2 weeks and they will go out another 3 days.

America's farming community senses urgency at this moment. I hope we do. I know you do, and I know the ranking member did. In no way is this a criticism of your work product and your work effort. You have done a marvelous job. But I think it is time collectively Congress get their work finished.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, no objection, but this was the original at the desk, not the one amended by the Chair?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for that report. I do not know if there is anyone here in ag country who does not want your work product to become policy as soon as possible.

I think the colloquy this morning has been extremely valuable. Please go back to work.

Mr. President, I understand we are under a unanimous consent agreement for a vote at 12 o'clock?

Mr. President, I will be brief, only to amplify what Senator

Burr spoke to clearly and, I hope, understandably. First and foremost, understand that my relationship with the chairman of Veterans' Affairs Committee, Danny Akaka, is a personal one and one of great affection. Here is a man today attempting to do the right thing and probably, in all fairness, is leading with his heart, and that I respect greatly.

There is no question, there remain in the Philippines 13,000 veterans who fought gallantly to save their island from Japanese domination and fought with us and under our flag to do just that. They deserve to be compensated, and they have been compensated.

Immediately following the war, the United States Government put $620 million into the repairs of the Philippines. In today's dollars, that is $6.7 billion.

Then we left a VA hospital in place so that these veterans could receive first-class health care. And we did and they do and it is still there and it is still operating.

Then we added $22 million--and that is worth $196 million in today's dollars--for equipment and construction. America did its part then, and it does its part today. The question is what is reasonable and right compensation.

I stepped down as ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee last September. In doing so, I was well aware of this bill, and the chairman knew at that time that I agreed with 99.9 percent of it. It is a good bill. It is an important bill for America's veterans, and it ought to be passed.

At that time, I thought I offered what was a reasonable compromise; that we would reduce the level of the proposed increase in compensation to nonservice-connected Filipino veterans living in the Philippines; that we would not lift them to the standard to which Senator Burr has just spoken; that they would deserve some help. The chairman had found an offset in a court ruling that took money away from our veterans, and it was sitting there.

I would have much preferred rewriting the law and reinstating that money to our veterans to abrogate the court decision, but we did not do that. So I offered a compromise at that time. It was roundly rejected by the committee. It simply did not fit where the chairman wanted to go. Therefore, from that point forward, I opposed the bill. It is a matter of fiscal responsibility. It is a near quarter of a billion dollars over the next 10 years, and it does exactly what the ranking member, Senator Burr, spoke to. It lifts these Filipino veterans above their poverty line into a middle-class status in Filipino society. Well, that is OK; none of us should deny that. But we don't do that for our veterans who live here. If you are a Filipino veteran living here legally, you get full compensation as a veteran living in this country.

We do tie a benefit to a poverty level and a cost-of-living standard, and we always have. I certainly wish we could do more, but this budget is nearing $100 billion. The overall VA budget is nearing $100 billion. Four years ago, 11 percent; 3 years ago, 12 percent; 2 years ago, 13 percent; last year, an 18-percent increase. No budget in America, other than defense, has increased that much. And why are we doing it? Because collectively this Senate and this Congress have always believed in fair and responsible compensation to America's veterans--America's veterans.

We also try to compensate those who support us and work in our behalf as the veterans of the Filipino society did what is right and what is reasonable.

Mr. President, I believe what the Senator has offered in this Senate bill that is on the floor, S. 1315, is too much. There is a middle ground. I offered it once, and it was rejected. I hope we can revisit that as a reasonable amendment when we get to the amendment process.

I thank my colleagues, Senator Akaka and Senator Burr, for their work on this legislation. It is good legislation. With a little fine-tuning, then it will be fair, and we ought to support it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

I yield to the chairman and leader of the bill.

Madam President, I am on the floor to speak about something the majority leader proposed and that we have accepted by unanimous consent; that is, a 1-week extension of existing farm policy, the existing farm bill.

I come to the floor to speak because last night I put a hold on that UC request. I, similar to many Senators--and especially American agriculture--am growing very frustrated and restless about the reality that we don't have a farm bill. As we know, across America and in central parts of our country--certainly in the South--spring is here and it is planting season. The farm bill that is current law, which we extended a few moments ago, actually expired on September 30 of 2007.

It was in July 2007 that the House passed their version, and on December 14 we passed ours. Now, we have offered several extensions so the principals--the House and Senate Ag committees--could work on their differences with the administration and solve these problems. Yet they have not been able to do it.

Is this symbolic of a dysfunctional Congress that we have been experiencing for the last several years, where we simply cannot grapple with the big and responsible basic public policy issues of our country? It appears to be that way. I will blame both sides on this issue. It is both sides that are at fault that they cannot come together and, if you will, split the difference and solve a problem that is the basic public policy for American agriculture. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, opposes the tax provision within the bill. Why? She isn't a member of the Finance Committee or a member of the Agriculture Committee. Yes, she is the majority leader and, therefore, if she opposes it, she could certainly block it, and she can kill farm policy.

I have worked with Senator Harkin and Senator Saxby Chambliss for the last month, and I know they have worked overtime. This is not a criticism of our colleagues; it is a criticism of a dysfunctional system that no longer can cut a deal and make basic and important public policy. So here we are, with one more extension. Saxby Chambliss called me this morning and said: Larry, would you give us another week? I said I would give them 1 more week, but, frankly, this is it; I will not accept another extension next week on the farm bill, unless the deal has been cut, unless the agreement has been made and it is simply the procedure of putting it in writing and getting it to print and to the President.

The President, when he signed the extension last time, said: ``Enough is enough.'' Even this week, he softly talked about vetoing an extension. So I guess the point I am trying to make is, what is at stake? Why are we bickering over the fine points, when the fundamental policy points are in place?

Let's look at what we have done, because we ought to be proud of the work of the new farm bill: Significant increases in conservation funding for our working farmlands, including conservation, stewardship, and environmental quality incentive programs. These are programs that encourage farmers and ranchers to incorporate better tillage practices, thereby sequestering more carbon and doing their part as it relates to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have added, for our dairies, better manure management practices to reduce methane gas emissions. Here we are talking about climate change. The President spoke to climate change yesterday. Yet we cannot come to an agreement on something that would allow American agriculture to advance their practices to make it work, in their instance, and allow a contribution to the climate change carbon emissions issue.

There is a provision within the new farm bill that I and Senator Stabenow have worked on--literally for 5 years--to get a new provision in the farm bill to recognize the near 50 percent of gross revenue coming out of agriculture today, known as specialty crops. For the first time, we have a new title on specialty crops. If I say at the end of the week--and their work is not done--I am not going to extend it any more, I am going to have to forgo this. I am going to forgo it and say to the farmers in Idaho and across America: Let's do a 2-year extension on existing policy, or at least 1-year extension so you know where you are when you get to planting season, instead of watching Congress fall all over itself because they cannot cut a deal.

Isn't it about time we settle our differences and show America we can function, that we can work the process? Have we truly become so dysfunctional and partisan on these fundamentally bipartisan issues that they simply cannot be resolved? On our side, there is a bipartisan effort. I cannot speak to the House side. I have not been in the negotiations. I can only see the results. The results simply don't exist. That is why this Senator is on the floor today speaking with considerable frustration over why we have a Congress that, months after the expiration of the law, simply cannot get its work done. Commodity programs maintain a safety net. Yes, commodity prices are high today and farmers are profiting. What goes up clearly can, and does, come down in the commodity markets. A property safety net for wheat and barley was in there. It is extremely important we do that.

There are nutritional program increases, making the school snack program nationwide to deal with better health, and fresh fruit availabilities for our schoolchildren. That is different and better. The disaster assistance program will help aid our farmers and ranchers in a more efficient fashion in periods of serious drought and fire and other whole farm types of disasters.

There is an issue in agriculture and beef production that has been an issue of considerable contention over time. It is called country-of- origin labeling. The American consumer today, when they go to the shelf and pick up a commodity and look at it, wants to know where it comes from. Is it a domestic U.S. product or was it produced somewhere else in the world?

We know we have concern today about certain types of products coming out of China and other areas, and the consumer's right to know the marketing certainly is important in country-of-origin labeling. We finally acquiesced to implement country-of-origin labeling by September of this year. I don't know if we can do it if we keep shoving the farm bill out, keep extending it and not allowing the operative language to come in place.

There are critical tax provisions within this bill. My colleague, Senator Mike Crapo, has an Endangered Species Act compliance in reduction and credits. There are wind energy credits and production tax credits for cellulosic ethanol. Once again, as a nation that has grown increasingly dependent on foreign energy sources, we are saying to American agriculture in this farm bill: Here are some incentives for increased production.

I was recently in Ottawa, Canada, looking at a cellulosic ethanol production plant, hoping it will be brought south of the border into the United States so we can begin to use agricultural residues for the purpose of making ethanol, lessening the pressure on some of our grain crops, especially our corn crops.

There are provisions in the bill to incentivize biodiesel. Yet those incentives are the kind Speaker Pelosi says are nonstarters, they are deal breakers. How can making our country energy independent, how can incentivizing the promotion of the Endangered Species Act within private lands and giving folks the benefit of doing that be a deal breaker? It simply demonstrates how this Congress cannot function today. We are basically on hold right now. We are not getting our work done in a variety of areas, and agriculture and the farm bill is simply a very tragic example of that type of effort, or lack thereof.

As I have said, September 30 of last year the policy expired. Current law was extended until March 15 and then again until tomorrow, and that is why the leader was on the floor today advancing it for 1 more week so that agriculture is not without policy in place.

This is the 17th. The work has not been done. This Monday, Chairman Harkin said he was fed up. If he is fed up and he is a prime negotiator, what do we get? How do we deliver an ultimatum? I am not sure. But I am sure we will not, nor should we, allow American agriculture to be without policy.

All of the gains I have talked about, all of the gains that were negotiated inside the Senate Agriculture Committee and inside the House Agriculture Committee could simply be wiped away because there is no willingness or ability to come together and work together in behalf of American agriculture.

So I agreed on a 1-week extension. This is not an ultimatum, this is simply a statement of fact. I cannot agree any longer. American agriculture and Idaho's farmers need to know. They deserve to know. They should not be kept in limbo bouncing on the end of a string because the politicians in Washington cannot get their act together and simply cannot agree. We have always come to an agreement on agriculture. It has always been a bipartisan policy. I hope that practice of the past is a practice that ultimately can dominate the negotiations over this coming week.

I hope my colleagues will keep their lights on during the weekend. It is time we work a little overtime to get this done because I am one of several Senators who are simply at a point of saying: Can't go there anymore; time to finish it; time to tell American agriculture: Here is the new policy. And if we cannot, then let's extend the old policy and give them certainty for a minimum of at least 1 year.

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

I will speak in morning business.

I have been listening to Senator Dole speak of her husband, a great American. I would like to tell the Senator that as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, we are now examining the Dole-Shalala proposal that the Senator referenced, which is a quantum leap in good advice and sound understanding of the needs of America's veterans. We thank you. More importantly, we thank Senator Dole for that great effort.

Tax Code Reform

I rise today, on the eve of Tax Day, 2008, to discuss the State of our Nation's Tax Code. Only a few weeks ago, we debated the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution and some recurring themes very quickly emerged.

Over and over again, both sides of the aisle were speaking of the problems they heard about, the death tax and problems with the alternative minimum tax and the unfair tax advantage of the wealthy and the burden on the middle class and other problems that are systemic within America's Tax Code.

You know what we did about these problems? We only offered temporary solutions like we have offered for the last decade. Here is what is wrong with that type of thinking: There are not temporary problems that can be fixed with temporary solutions, they are fundamental problems that require fundamental changes in America's Tax Code.

Our current Tax Code is broken, and you saw Democrats and Republicans alike opining on the floor of the Senate during the debate over the budget resolution about taxes. We tried to fix it with a temporary measure, but we have served only to make things worse. There is exactly what we have done over the last good number of years.

Today's Tax Code is over 67,000 pages long, and it is growing. According to IRS estimates, taxpayers spend 6 billion hours annually trying to fit themselves into the Tax Code and over $265 billion in related compliance costs.

Ladies and gentlemen, fellow Americans, it is only going to get worse. Since the last major overhaul of the Tax Code in 1986, we have made 15,000 changes. That is right, since 1986, we have made 15,000 changes. That equates to a couple of changes to our Tax Code every day.

This nonstop tinkering has created a tax system that is overly complex, incredibly inefficient, and extremely unfair. We cannot continue down this unsustainable path of temporary fixes. We need to do fundamental reform to our Tax Code. We need a system that is simple and transparent and fair. We need to wipe the slate clean and start all over.

I am amazed we have not done the very fundamental aspects of what we need to do to fix the Tax Code. Our broken code does more than cost us money in compliance costs and a waste of time, it hurts us both socially and economically. Socially our Tax Code tells us when is the best time to marry, how many children we ought to have, how much to save, how much to invest, where to live, and even, to a degree, what time we should die in our lives that is the most economically advantaged to our estate.

That is what our Tax Code does. Economically, we waste billions of dollars that could have been reinvested in the economy. Instead, we employ some of America's brightest minds on innovation, while we waste them on finding ways to navigate through this phenomenally complex 67,000-page code. Moreover, our complex Tax Code and high corporate tax rate are putting Americans out of business as we compete in a world around us, not just here in America but all over the world. Companies today are locating where they have a greater tax advantage.

I spent several years examining several different tax systems, and after examining the facts, I believe the best alternative to a broken Tax Code has been the very tax idea I introduced some years ago. That was a flat tax--no games, no gimmicks, a straightforward approach.

Our Tax Code is the workhorse pulling our economy, as I stated earlier, pulling us in the wrong direction. This horse that pulls our economy, the American Tax Code, has grown very lame. I grew up farming and ranching. Let me tell you, when the horse got lame, you took it out of the harness and put it in the barn. Sometimes, if it could not get well, you would simply have to dispose of it. How tragic that was.

But today's tragedy is the lame horse that is still in the harness, attempting to pull the Tax Code and the American people and the economy in the right direction when it is headed in the wrong direction.

So now as Americans file their taxes responsibly and dutifully, after they have navigated their way through a maze, and they have taken them to their accountant, and their accountant puts his or her final seal on it, and they send it in, if they were to ask an IRS agent: Did I do it right, there is no IRS agent today, no matter how schooled and how learned and how long-serving in the IRS, who can say: Yes, you have done it right. And that is not appropriate. The best they can tell you is that they think, in fact they guess, that you did it right.

That ought to be an embarrassment to our country, and more importantly it ought to be an embarrassment to America's policymakers. That is us, those who write the Tax Code of our country that drives our economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to mark the 100th anniversary of the Children's Home Society of Idaho.

For the past century this organization has served Idaho's abandoned, abused and neglected children, first as an orphanage, and now as a counseling and foster care support system. Through the efforts of this remarkable organization, tens of thousands of lives have been touched and changed for the better.

Over the past 4 years, I have become acquainted with the society's newest program, ``The Bridge.'' This program is a partnership with the Junior League of Boise, Inc., and the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. It was created to address the crisis Idaho and the rest of the nation are facing with an abundance of children entering foster care, and a lack of homes providing the care those children so desperately need and deserve.

``The Bridge'' is now helping Idaho to meet its obligation to these children by bringing the State into compliance with federal mandates and by leading the way for significant foster care reform.

As an adoptive father who is familiar with the trials and challenges of the foster care system, I commend the Children's Home Society of Idaho for its contribution to America's children and families and am honored today to mark this important milestone.

Madam President, I hope the tabling motion that the Senate has dealt with has broken the logjam and we can move to the amendments, such as the one we are now on, and work our way through the evening. The reason I say that is because there are a good many of us, well over a month ago, who said if you want to fix the economic trouble in our country today, solve the housing crisis.

I did not agree with the stimulus package we debated a month ago. I did not agree with borrowing $150 billion and standing on street corners and handing out $500 bills. That helps someone, but it does not help the economy in general because that money has not been handed out yet.

What we do today, and if it were to become law in a reasonable period of time, would deal with one of the bigger industries in our country. I think few people, unless you look at it, recognize the value of the housing industry to our country, its breadth and its depth.

One of the things I monitor in Idaho, and I know my colleague from Montana, who is on the floor, monitors as chairman of the Finance Committee is mill closures; that is, sawmill closures, across the United States since the first of the year because the timber industry is flat. It is at a 40-year low in prices of dimensional lumber.

Why is it? Because the housing industry is flat. Talk to plumbing fixture manufacturers and everybody else out there and look at the breadth and the depth of the housing economy.

So it is time we deal with the real problem. Had we dealt with it a month ago, possibly the House would have been done with it, it could have been signed into law, and, more importantly, it would be recognized in the marketplace today as a reality and the marketplace would be adjusting. That is the banking industry, that is the mortgage industry, that is the housing industry.

There are real problems out there, and they are very real problems if you are involved in it. If you have been conned into a subprime loan and it sounded so good at the time you took it and it turned south on you and your values drop, that is one thing and you are out on the street or you simply walked because you used the ``credit card'' economy of the subprime market to buy a house.

If I am across the street from you and you have left your house and the bank now has it and they knock it down 20 percent in the market, what does that do to the value of your home? You may be in better shape. You may have a fixed-rate 30-year mortgage. You may not be losing your job or you may not be in a subprime market, but your house went down 20 percent because the house across the street that is comparable went down 20 percent.

That is the reality of the world in which we are playing, and that is why I was so extremely pleased when Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby came to grips with this issue in a very real, honest, brokered bill in a bipartisan way and have brought to the floor the bill before us. I hope the House will respond quickly, and we can get this to the President and it actually can become law in our timeframe so the markets can begin to react.

Back at the time we were debating the $150 billion bailout, I and Senator

Isakson and others said: Wait a moment, that is all well pleasing and it may be politically correct for the time and the White House and the majority party in the Congress may agree with it, but when will it get to the ground and how much will it stimulate?

I had a lot of people in Idaho say: Larry, we are not going to buy anything; we are going to pay off the credit card debt; in other words, we are not going to move the money through the market in a way to stimulate the economy, we are simply going to put it in savings or pay off a debt. We are not going to go out and buy a new Chinese or Japanese television set or anything in the market that was not produced in our market that is oftentimes the kind of consumer product that kind of money buys today.

So Senator Isakson and I said we ought to go back and look at history and what worked. In the seventies, we had a housing bubble, and it broke. The housing industry said we have a 3-year inventory. At that time--and I was not here; some who serve today were here--they put a tax credit out there, and they said: If you are going to be an owner occupant and you are going to buy out of inventory or repo or bankruptcy, you get the credit. What was supposedly a 3-year glut in the market of housing inventory turned into a 12- to 15-month glut, and the lights came on in our sawmills, workers went back to work, contractors went back to work, and we were able to effectively get that economy stabilized.

In December of 2007, housing starts fell to the weakest level since May of 1991. As a whole, housing starts were down 24.8 percent in 2007, the second largest decline on record, and housing prices declined almost 9 percent in the final quarter of 2007, the largest year-to-year drop in a 20-year history of the index. That is what we were looking at in February and in January and saying to this Senate in a bipartisan way: Let's fix this problem; let's do it now; let's do it sooner rather than later.

It is now later, and I wish it had been done earlier. But, most importantly, the Congress has recognized it, or at least the Senate has recognized it. Leaders such as Senators Dodd and Shelby have recognized it and they have come to an agreement. I hope we stick to that agreement.

There are amendments floating around that ought not pass, and if they do pass, all of us will have to reevaluate the compromise because the compromise, in large part, is a bipartisan effort to solve this problem.

We owe it to the American people this time to get it right, this time to fix the underlying primary problem that is dragging the economy down, threatening everyone out there in that industry, in the mortgage banking industry, and we ought to get it done in a way that makes it work.

I believed all along that a timely targeted housing stimulus bill would focus on the builders and the buyers, and I think this housing legislation is workable and does that.

Overall, I think it is a pretty good package, as I have said, and I will support it as long as we do not mess it up with more partisan-like amendments that might make their way to the final text.

I believe in compromises when it is necessary and appropriate and when issues are as big as this issue is, when the problem is as big as this problem is, whether it is Boise, ID, or Las Vegas, NV, or San Diego, CA, or Seattle, WA, it is a problem that deserves to be dealt with in a timely and an appropriate way.

Extending the carryback period for net operating losses will allow these companies, these builders to receive the infusion of cash helping them stay in business and pay their employees. The legislation will also help the buyer, as I have mentioned. We are proposing to provide additional money to tax-exempt private activity bonds authority to be used to refinance subprime loans which will keep families in their homes and make it easier for them, the home buyers, to buy that home.

We are also going to allow taxpayers who do not itemize on their Federal taxes, which tends to be middle-class and lower income families, to deduct property taxes from their Federal tax liability. Frankly, that is a good deal. That makes sense in this interim period of time.

Finally, the last tax provision in this legislation, in my opinion, is one of the most important provisions in the bill because it is the Isakson concept I listened to, helped develop, bought into very early on several months ago as we were looking at this problem, and that is giving taxpayers a $7,000 direct tax credit to buy homes that have been foreclosed on, payable over a 2-year period of time.

Foreclosed homes are a significant problem in any housing market. For the reasons I explained a few moments ago, they drive down the prices of everybody else's values. They are oftentimes not maintained, they are attracted to vandalism and burglary, and they become eyesores in communities if banks and those companies that hold them are not doing the due diligence to make sure the lawns are mowed and the house is maintained and at least the house looks as if it is being occupied.

Oftentimes, if there are too many in the market, that simply does not happen. This tax credit will help clear our housing inventory sitting in today's market. I talked about the seventies. There is no reason to believe we cannot clear the inventory in a reasonable period of time.

Lastly, let me once again turn to Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby and thank them. We are all partisan, but we are all bipartisan when we see big issues that deserve a solution, that demand it, and these two Senators stepped up and, in my opinion, have put a very good package together. It is certainly a package I wish to support, that I hope we can move in a timely and responsible way to conclude because it is, in my opinion, the greatest stimulus to the biggest problem in the economy today.

In Idaho, a State that has experienced phenomenal growth over the last good number of years, those foreclosures are beginning to develop. But unlike some States, we have something else happening. We have sawmills going down and lights going out and hard-working men and women simply not having their jobs in the housing industry because the housing industry is flat.

This kind of legislation, when it becomes law, will work in the marketplace to solve those problems and allow the markets to adjust in a way we ought to be allowing them to do, not to step in and fix it with a Federal bailout but to allow the markets to adjust, the buyers to adjust, and those who may have been victimized, in part, by the uniqueness of the loan packages of a few years ago, to make sure they can be helped a bit. But more importantly, they have learned their lesson that there is no free ride, that you cannot buy a house with a credit card, that a little savings and a little investment and a little fortuitousness can help you into probably one of the largest investments you will make in your lifetime and historically--and it will be true tomorrow as it was true yesterday--will be the best buy you have ever made in your lifetime and that is to own a home in a community of your interest and your support.

I hope we can work this through the evening. I hope we can move to final passage with the quick handling of these amendments. It is important we get this work done and say to the American people: You see, when there is a big problem out there, the Congress can respond in a responsible way.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about a piece of legislation that has been introduced by our colleague, Senator Jim Inhofe, of Oklahoma, S. 2551. It is entitled the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2008.

The reason I do this is multiple in the issue of nuclear energy today and the management of the waste stream that flows from not only current nuclear reactors operating in our energy portfolio, but, of course, the growth of generating capability through nuclear reaction as it relates to all that is going on out there from the creation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the 30-plus reactors that are on the drawing boards today, and the opportunity to see new reactors built in our country to supplement and build our energy base, and the issue of how we handle the waste.

As most Senators know, Yucca Mountain, a permanent deep geologic repository in Nevada, has become increasingly controversial over the years largely because of the delegation from Nevada and the antinuclear folks, but also the reality of reprocessing and still finding a permanent repository for nuclear waste. I strongly support Yucca Mountain. I believe we need a deep geologic repository, whether it is for the current waste that is in storage at most of our reactors or whether it is for the refined waste that would come from a reprocessing stream. So for a few moments today I thought I would share with fellow Senators a legacy that most don't realize but I find extremely important in this overall debate of a nuclear renaissance and Congress getting real and honest about how we handle a waste stream, instead of the political football that some would like it to be and, therefore, create the uncertainty that results from that.

In my State of Idaho, I have a national laboratory. The State of Idaho hosts one of our Nation's premier energy laboratories, known as the INL, Idaho National Laboratory. It started in 1949. It started for the sole purpose of a national reactor testing site, where reactors would be built and tested before they went into commercial use or, at this time and place, mostly military use and for national security purposes. So a site that was started in 1949 actually saw by 1951 the lighting of the first light bulb ever lit in America by nuclear reaction. That site today is now a museum, so dedicated by President Lyndon Johnson. Many people have come to see the first reactor ever built to light the first light bulb ever lit by nuclear reaction in this country.

Since that time, 52 test reactors have been built onsite at the Idaho National Laboratory. Idaho is also, therefore, the home of something else--the legacy of nuclear reactors. Three hundred metric tons of spent nuclear material and 4,000 metric tons of high-level waste are stored at this national laboratory. Most of this waste was generated from defense and from our Navy's nuclear program. In fact, one of the most successful programs ever in the history of the world has been our naval vessels powered by nuclear reaction. All of the waste from those reactors over the years has been stored at Idaho.

Idaho was the premier training location for our men and women in the nuclear Navy to come and learn how to manage and operate nuclear reactors in our nuclear Navy. We also have waste from West Valley in New York, and other locations, because Idaho has been the recipient of that waste. But I must say that as a result of that, the Federal Government signed an agreement with Idaho some years ago that all of that waste would go to Yucca Mountain by 2035, or to a deep geologic repository other than the State of Idaho, where it is now stored in dry storage and in wet storage.

There is no other disposable option for our Navy's high-level waste. Because of the configuration of the waste, of those reactor fuel rods, they cannot be reprocessed. So they, unlike the commercial reactor spent fuel rods, have to go into a permanent home and permanent waste. Idaho, South Carolina, and the State of Washington are all relying on Yucca Mountain for permanent disposal of this waste.

So it is critical that this Senate, this Government, doesn't put aside the issue of Yucca Mountain, but that we deal with it in a forthright way, that we recognize there is truly a need for some geologic storage of our types of waste, especially our military waste that, in many instances, is stored in South Carolina, Washington, and my State of Idaho.

As I said in my opening comments, since we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and we began to streamline the process to bring a new design construction concept on line and grant guarantees for the construction of nuclear reactors for commercial electrical production, there has been what many call a renaissance as it relates to the possibility of pouring concrete to actually build new reactors.

Certainly, the debate of climate change, the emission of greenhouse gases has caused us to recognize the need for what we call baseloading of our electrical system with large units of production that are nonemitting. And, of course, at this time, technology says the only one that is out there in that high-capacity way would be a nuclear reactor. That is also clearly what has fed the growth, the desire to develop, the licensing process that is underway, the design concepts, the attempt to locate new reactors at current sites and facilities.

Something happened in my State of Idaho this past week that tells me and should tell the world there is still a great deal of uncertainty out there as it relates to siting a nuclear reactor. Part of that uncertainty is the unwillingness of this Congress to get on with the issue of siting a deep geologic repository, getting the licensing process over, dealing with reprocessing, and truly bringing our arms around the issue of the waste stream.

Mid-America, a large utility in the Midwest that has recently acquired utilities in Idaho and adjoining States or at least utilities that feed part of Idaho's electricity, made the decision that they would attempt to build a nuclear reactor in my State of Idaho. They looked all over the country and decided Idaho was the preferable location based on their needs and their need to load their service area and because they thought the climate was appropriate in Idaho. They studied it. They spent millions of dollars looking at that possibility. They determined this past week they would not move forward. Why? Because even under the most favorable conditions and in possibly the most favorable State, they found the uncertainty and the expense was still too great.

Who is Mid-America? It is an asset of Berkshire Hathaway. It is an asset of Warren Buffett, probably one of the deepest pockets in the world. Yet they and their studies, with due diligence, determined they would not move forward after millions of dollars were spent.

It was all based on cost and uncertainty, and part of that uncertainty rests right here in the Senate and with a Congress that will not in a clear, clean, decisive way say: We are going to deal with the issue of the waste stream as the rest of the component pieces that we put together to build a true nuclear renaissance in this country. It is critical we move forward. This legislation, S. 2551, speaks to that point. It speaks to that long-term importance.

I cosponsored legislation this past year that Senator Domenici and I introduced that dealt with the kinds of issues that are dealt with in S. 2551. These two bills, the Domenici-Craig bill, now the Inhofe- Craig-and-others bill, would allow Yucca Mountain to open on a predictable timeline, replacing, as I have said, the uncertainty. And it protects the citizens of Idaho, South Carolina, and 30 other States that are currently storing nuclear materials.

Nuclear energy, nuclear power clearly remains our best and brightest option in the near term as it relates to a sustainable, nonemitting source of energy for our country. Clearly, this Congress should not, and to date has not, stood in the way of building that renaissance from the policies passed in 2005, to the guarantees we are offering, to the new licensing process the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now in the final stages of developing. The only piece left undone is the issue of waste stream, and it is critically important we deal with it. If we do not, if we were to put a blight on the potential growth

of nuclear energy, here is what could happen. From 1995 to 2006, nuclear power helped us avoid emitting more than 8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Many States have started to say no to coal and yes to nuclear power or other forms of clean energy. But other than nuclear power, they are limited, and clearly we should not be saying no.

Our economy, our growth, future jobs for this country, the vitality of our economic leadership in the world is tied to available energy, abundant energy, and reasonable cost energy. We know today the one source of energy that answers all those charges is nuclear.

Yucca Mountain remains a key piece of all of that picture. That is why Senator Inhofe has introduced the legislation, why I am a cosponsor of it. I certainly encourage all my colleagues to look through clear glasses at this issue because we have to deal with the waste stream in a responsible fashion. We need to do so in a way that is acceptable to the industry and acceptable to the American people.

The efforts that have been put forth from day one in the examination of the geology, the development of the core tunnel at Yucca Mountain-- all those stages are there for the public to see. The licensing process is now underway, which is the next step. Let's don't arbitrarily and politically step into the middle of it and mess it up.

I must tell you the frustration I have had listening to Presidential candidates out on the road. If you want the endorsement of a single State, you are against Yucca Mountain and that single State was Nevada. This is a national issue; it is not a local issue. This is Federal land properly handled, properly researched, and it can be properly developed in a safe way for all Americans and for our future. That is what this legislation speaks to.

I am pleased to be a cosponsor with Senator Inhofe. He introduced it in a timely fashion. Clearly, in the course of this year, it is something that needs to be debated; it is something with which we need to deal. This administration has moved forward as quickly and responsibly as they could, and the licensing process is certainly something that needs to be completed in the overall effort of the renaissance of nuclear power in our country and that form of generation as an important option in our mix of energy sources for this Nation for now and into the future.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be extended to Colin Jones, a fellow with my office, for the duration of my speech today.

Mr. President, there is something that is being concluded tonight or upon the time we go sine die, and that is the career of Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi. While many have come to the floor over the course of the day to speak about Trent, I have not had that opportunity because of several other meetings and a committee that was in session. So I wish to take a few moments to visit with all of my colleagues about my friend and my associate Trent Lott.

There is not a lot I can say to add to what has already been said about his quality as a person, his ability as a leader.

I first got to know Trent in 1981 when I came to the House. He had already been there for 10 years and was

rapidly growing in stature amongst Republicans as a leader who would ultimately be chosen to work as a Republican whip in the House.

He and I grew to know each other and our wives got to know each other during that period of time and a clear friendship developed. But it was not until both of us left the House and came to the Senate that we developed a different kind of relationship and friendship that, frankly, most Senators don't have the opportunity to do.

Trent Lott and I and John Ashcroft, the Senator from Missouri, who became U.S. Attorney General under this administration, and a former Republican, and then to become a Democratic Senator and then to retire, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont, all four of us developed a very unique relationship that no other Senators shared. We found out that we could sing together and that in doing so, we could not only have fun ourselves, but that other people, sometimes with a smile, would suggest they enjoyed listening to us.

We formed a group called the Singing Senators, and over a period of about 4 years, we traveled from Los Angeles to Springfield, MO, to Branson to Houston to Nashville. We were on the ``Today Show.'' We sang at the Kennedy Center. What was most interesting was, we shocked folks. Not only after a lot of practice did we begin to sound pretty good, but can you imagine stuffy, blue pinstripe suit Senators all of a sudden singing ``Elvira''? That we did, and we had a lot of fun doing it, and we entertained people all over the United States.

But what came out of that was a friendship and a bond that probably few others have because the four of us traveled together with our spouses in all of these locations that I mentioned and a good many more, not only to entertain the public and to show we were human by our character, while we could still be Senators, but also to raise money for our party or to raise money for a Senate candidate.

I will never forget the time when we were in Los Angeles and there were about a thousand people out there waiting to hear us. We were singing off of a CD with our background accompaniment music, and the system broke down. And what do you do when the music stops? Well, most people quit singing. But we found out that we could sing a cappella, or without accompaniment. So we sang ``God Bless America,'' we sang a couple other songs, and then they got the music fixed. And I think the audience enjoyed us without music more than they enjoyed us with music. Anyway, we had a lot of fun.

But in the end we did something else. We went to Nashville and put all our songs together on a CD, produced several thousand CDs, just to give away, and found out that they were in demand. So we sold them all, and all of the money went to the Ronald and Nancy Reagan Alzheimer's fund. And, frankly, we found out to our great surprise that it raised a lot of money.

I know Trent and John and Jim and I still today, every so often, will get a phone call from somebody who says: I just listened to your CD again, and you know, you guys were amazingly good for United States Senators.

Now, that is probably a side of Trent Lott that was not spoken to today, but it is a side of Trent Lott that you all ought to know--the smile, the joy, the fun we had of singing the kind of songs we sang in a way that Senators are just not supposed to do. For in the end, Senators are like an awful lot of other folks out there--we are human. We have a very human side to us, with our friends and our families, and that is what we learned about Trent and Tricia Lott and John Ashcroft and his wife and Jim Jeffords and his wife, as we traveled around the country singing on behalf of Republicans, but really singing on behalf of America because we enjoyed it and we hoped others would enjoy it.

That is something I will miss when Trent Lott leaves because we have had an opportunity since that time to get together on occasion and sing a few songs and enjoy ourselves. Trent Lott, a great United States Senator from Mississippi, and a guy with a pretty good bass voice.

Mr. President, will the Senator consider yielding to me for no more than 5 minutes on a separate issue before we get heavily into the debate?

Mr. President, the Senator from Washington and all of us recognize that this may be the conclusion this evening of this session of Congress, and there may be a lot of issues out there that will be brought to a final vote. I think for all of us, as any session concludes, we have to look at the work product and say that is a job well done or a job not so well done. Frankly, for those of us on the Republican side who stayed together and fought the fight and exchanged our differences with those on the Democratic side, to bring a budget back into constraints that are at or near the President's proposal is without question a victory. Some of us will recognize that and honor that tonight as we conclude this first session of this Congress.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me join with the Senator from Tennessee in applauding an action that ultimately now will be taken by the Senate and therefore by the Congress to add substantially to an energy policy in this country that begins us down the road in a long march toward a higher degree of energy independence.

I have been in the Congress 27 years. I have always supported, up until this year, leaving CAFE or fleet standards for efficiency alone.

I got here in 1980. We had just come out of the 1970s oil crisis. We had put policy in place that was helping transform the automobile industry in our country to a more efficient fleet average. But over the course of the last 5 years, I have seen it become increasingly important that we focus on every aspect of energy in our country.

I used to be somewhat selective in what ought to be produced versus what ought not be, where we ought to put our incentives, where we ought to put our tax dollars to improve availability in the marketplace. But it became increasingly obvious to me that just a few miles per gallon per automobile in this country could make all the difference in the world.

We now import $1 billion a day in oil, approximately; $360 billion of America's money goes overseas to foreign nations which are, at best, indifferent to our interests, and at worst, using the term that I call ``petronationalism,'' use the power of their energy not only to squeeze us, but then they take that money and reinvest in our country or invest somewhere else, in many instances not in our interests.

I have always been frustrated that a great nation such as ours could not move toward energy independence, could not set as a goal that by a certain time our country could and would become energy independent in all sectors if we did the following things and if we began to drive public policy in that direction. So this spring, Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and I did something I had never done before: We introduced legislation for a mandatory 4-percent change in fleet efficiencies on an annual basis. Well, you would have thought the roof caved in.

The automobile industry came to me wringing their hands and saying: We simply cannot do that. You have always been with us.

I said: Yes, that is right. In 27 years, I have not changed, frankly, and in 27 years you have not changed, and it is time we do change a little bit.

Now there are a lot of new efficiencies coming on out there, from hybrids to flex vehicles, and hopefully we are going to see a hydrogen fuel cell car on the market in a very short period of time that will begin to move its way in the market. So the automobile industry deserves a lot of credit for beginning to recognize the need to change what we use to drive America's transportation fleet.

But the opportunity to change the industry, to cause them to move down that road in a discernable and a direct way because it is the public policy of this country, is something I decided to become a part of. I believe it was with the introduction of that bill, with Senator Dorgan and I working together, that we got those kinds of things out of the Commerce Committee and into the Energy bill that passed the Senate. And that was a strong energy bill. It had all of the right blends and mixes in it to begin to create a cleaner energy consumptive world for us and at the same time a more independent and a more efficient world.

Today's vote was critical. We are going to send an energy bill to the President in relatively short order, I hope, that has a lot of those things in it and that causes America's transportation fleet to move in the right direction.

Mr. President, $3 dollars a gallon for gas is coming out of the hip pockets of moms and dads in this country today, and if that pace continues to go up, it is going to do more to change--I think in a negative way--the American economy than anything we have seen. We ought to be all about helping the average American change that equation, and I think efficiencies do that. Conservation is critical as a component of a total energy package because that which you save you do not have to produce. Just a couple of miles to the gallon across America's transportation fleet is millions and millions of barrels of oil. That is what we ought to be about. It will be a cleaner fleet and a fleet that will produce less carbon into the atmosphere.

All of us are concerned about greenhouse gasses and climate change, and efficiencies and new technologies, in my opinion, are the best direction to lead us to accomplish a cleaner world, and today a critical vote occurred that will allow us to do that.

Amendment No. 3666

Mr. President, may I make an inquiry?

Are there any more who wish to debate the Tester amendment prior to us moving to--

All right.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment, the Tester amendment, be set aside and amendment 3640 be called up.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, earlier on, we thought we had a 40-minute time agreement. We are going to start the debate on this amendment. Some of our colleagues want to discuss it. With that in mind, let me open the debate on amendment No. 3640, an amendment we think is critical to America's farmers and ranchers and the value of private property.

Ever since the Supreme Court in 2005 decided on the Kelo decision, I have felt and many others have felt, including the American Farm Bureau, that America's farmers' and ranchers' property is now at a greater risk today than ever before by the issuance of eminent domain, or the broadening of the power of Government as it relates to that issue.

I debated this amendment earlier. Several of my colleagues are on the floor and want to debate this amendment. Let me now turn to my colleague from Colorado, the senior Senator, Mr. Allard, and yield to him 10 minutes for the purpose of debate on this amendment.

We are operating under an open time agreement. With that in mind, I yield 10 minutes to our agricultural counsel from the great State of Kansas, Senator Brownback.

I said ``counsel.''

Madam President, it is important for my colleagues to understand this is a private property rights debate. For some who have said, well, this is in the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee--and I understand the other side is going to ask for a 60-vote threshold-- one of the reasons we are on the floor in a post-Kelo decision environment is because things are beginning to happen out there that frustrate all of us.

My colleague from Kansas echoes the sentiment of the American Farm Bureau and their president, speaking out about the risk now that open space property, farming property, ranching property has as a result of Kelo. Some would say on the floor it doesn't appear to be a problem. Let me suggest it is.

In Scattaway, NJ, a family protested its eviction from their 75-acre farm the town had seized under eminent domain for an open space designation. That happened in New Jersey. In Woodland, CA, in Yolo County, CA, the board of supervisors decided to seize a large area of farmland using eminent domain and declared the property open space. So here a government entity steps in and says: We are going to take open space and make it open space and we are going to use our power to do that--no willing seller, no willing buyer, a new shaping of eminent domain.

Eminent domain, as we knew it pre-Kelo, said, public use for a legitimate public use, and that usually almost always fell into rights of way, roads, power lines, and those kinds of things where, for the public good, access was being denied.

Kelo tipped that upside down.

New Brunswick, NJ. New Brunswick moved forward to condemn, using its power of eminent domain, a 104-acre farm. Open space again. Telluride, CO. The senior Senator from Colorado was on the floor supporting our amendment. The town decided to use its power of eminent domain to take about 570 acres of an 800-acre ranch and designate the property as open space. Once again, the power is being used.

That is why America's farmers and ranchers and America's agricultural organizations that represent them grow increasingly alarmed.

Sussex County, NJ. The State of New Jersey used its power of eminent domain to take 17 acres of working agricultural property to create a wetlands. Open space again.

Matthews, NC. York County, PA. York County, PA, was the one I used as I introduced this amendment a couple days ago, where the family fought, invested lots of money, and took on the county. As a result, two county supervisors were defeated in the election because they were going after private property for an open space designation, and the county said: Oh, no, you don't; you are out. Ultimately, the family won but at great expense defending their right of private property.

That is why the American Farm Bureau has said this is a high priority for us.

Madam President, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissenting in Kelo v. the City of New London, which has tipped this eminent domain issue upside down, said this in her dissenting views, and it is so clear today the vision of this justice.

The outfall from this decision will not be random. The

beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with

disproportionate influence and power in the political

process, including large corporations and development firms.

As for the victims, the government now has license to

transfer property from those with fewer resources to those

with more.

She spoke with great wisdom, particularly about the victims--those are the property owners--because that is exactly what is happening out there.

Is open space necessary? You bet it is. Does open space have value? You bet it does. There is no question in an urbanizing environment, parks and parkland and open space is critical. Why not willing seller/ willing buyer? Why not go into the market as a city that has taxing power or a county that has taxing power ought to do and say, you know, we are going to raise a bit to go out and buy a piece of open property, instead of taking it? Now, yes, they compensate in eminent domain, but they basically establish the price. They do not have to compete.

So Kelo tipped us upside down, because in New London, as we remember, the city used their right to take away private property and gave it to a private developer because there was someone who was holding up a development. They were trying to hold onto their land. This is a critical private property rights debate and so very necessary.

I mentioned the family in Pennsylvania. For over 3 years, in Pennsylvania, that family fought their local government. How do you do it? You hire attorneys. Attorneys are expensive. You do the battle, you set up the legal case, because the county--in this instance the county government--wanted to take the land. As I mentioned, it didn't sit well with the citizens. Most citizens respect the right of private property. Most citizens understand that under our Constitution, there is a legitimate purpose for taking, and it was called eminent domain when the public good and the public value was clear.

That is the issue. It is quite simple. Now, is it a judiciary issue? Yes, it is. It is also an agricultural, farm bill issue. The reason I am on the floor with the amendment is because this taking is beginning to accelerate across our Nation and our Judiciary Committee has done nothing, to date, to reshape the Kelo decision, to protect the rights of the private property owner beyond the legitimate public good, and it is an important thing we do. That is why we are speaking out at this moment, and that is why it is important.

I yield to the chairman of the Senate Ag Committee.

Sure.

It is quite simple.

Our amendment speaks to open space versus open space.

I do not disagree with your interpretation of the current amendment.

Well, I would like to have gone further than that. The concern we had, and what appears to be most visible today in the new use of Kelo, is open space for open space. Municipalities and counties are stepping out--with the cases I gave, Mr. Chairman--and saying that for purposes of parks, we find this is a new tool. Historically, parks were willing seller/willing buyer, and wetlands, and now other broader interpretations of ``public good.''

But Kelo, being specific and relating to private government entities taking property for private development, we do not speak to that. We think it is a broader issue that the judiciary ought to speak to.

Oh, I disagree totally.

Madam President, let me respond. When the Senator says we don't reach the Kelo decision, we reach a portion of the Kelo decision that is now most frequently impacting farms and ranches, and that is open space for open space.

Municipalities and counties and in one instance, as I cited, a State, prior to Kelo, were not using these powers of eminent domain to acquire open space. They were going out and buying it in the market and competing for it. Now they are. So Kelo, in fact, is being used for this purpose. That is why we are addressing this.

If it were open and currently operating farmland and/or pasture land.

For agricultural purposes, and they did that for open space purposes, there would obviously, if this were law today, be a great debate in that community. That community would say, you cannot use this power and put our educational monies at risk.

We say, yes, Government monies, Federal Government monies. So it would clearly have a dampening effect. You and I both know, because we have been at those different levels of government, that there are thresholds by which a planning and zoning entity of a county or a municipality can and cannot operate. Would it have a chilling effect? Yes. It would stop them from doing that. That is the intent. Would it put the educational money in jeopardy? No, it wouldn't because they wouldn't put it in jeopardy.

You can use scare tactics, you can create, if you will, stalking kinds of arguments. But you and I both know, in practicality, they are not going to put those other values at risk. Sewage and water money and all of the kinds of other things that you and I work hard to get for our communities--that is not going to be put at risk because what is going to happen is they are going to quit using the Kelo decision. They are going to quit using eminent domain in its broadest sense until this Congress gets back in the business of shaping it again. That is why we are doing what we are doing here.

The Senator knows as well as I do that, with wetlands, with endangered species, you name it, the Federal Government, by law, by statute, by regulation, by Clean Water Act, does a lot of things. It is hard to deny that we do because local entities operate under those laws. We are simply asking local entities, in their exercise of eminent domain, to operate within the law. This amendment, broadly supported by American agriculture for fear of taking of their land, and by the livestock industry, and by the Public Land Council and others, says: No, don't do that.

You can point out, if you will, those kinds of arguments. But they are hollow in the sense that we constantly do that, and we have done that. Local governments operate under both local jurisdiction, local law, State and Federal law. So I do not see that as a problem. It can be argued, but it is not precedent setting in any sense of the word.

Yes.

I will not disagree with the Senator. I believe the taking of a person's wealth--and you and I in farm and ranch company know the assets of a farmer and rancher are tied in the land. It is their bank. It is their savings. It is their retirement. Some even like to pass it down generationally.

To have a municipality flex a new muscle that grew out of a decision at the Supreme Court level because of an entity in Connecticut using it is ominous and needs to have powerful teeth in it to say to that local municipality or county: Thou shalt not, for these very narrow purposes, use eminent domain.

I am saying you and I come from farm country. We know how valuable that land is. It is that farmer's or that rancher's savings. It is their retirement, should they choose to sell it, and they can sell it to the city for a park if they want to. But for a county or city to step in and take the land when you want to hand it to your daughter or your son or your grandson, generationally, to pass it down through for agricultural purposes--there ought to be teeth, very powerful teeth. I think counties and cities ought not be allowed to do it, period.

I have under the Constitution for ``the defined public good,'' and the defined public good was very clear, and we defined it in statute.

But they have not--excuse me. Senator?

Right in the middle of Gettysburg is a private operating farm today. The reason it is there is because they would not allow it to be condemned, and they did not meet the threshold price of a willing seller, willing buyer. The State of Pennsylvania, for rights-of-ways of road, but other than that in almost every instance in my knowledge as it relates to Gettysburg, bought it, acquired it, and they used Federal money to get it and they used the Federal Park Service and a variety of other tools.

No, there is something new happening out there in a post-Kelo environment. You need to talk to your Farm Bureau in your State, and others, and your cattlemen and other farm organizations. Something new is happening in farmland, especially those lands adjacent to rapidly expanding urban environments. It is happening in a post-Kelo environment. That is why we are addressing it today on the Senate floor.

We don't speak to that. We speak to the issue at hand today: taking private farmland in municipalities and urban areas, counties and States, for the purpose of open land, and that is a post- Kelo phenomenon.

They did use some, yes, I don't deny that.

Madam President, we have not yet a time limit. I have expressed the will and concern of those who are cosponsors of the amendment. I put into the record the expression of our largest national farm organization that sees the threat as clearly as I do, maybe less clear than the chairman sees it because there is a pattern rapidly growing out there in a post-Kelo environment--open space taken for open space purposes. They are taking it from the private landowner. We think there ought to be strong teeth here.

With that, I retain the remainder of my time. Others are here to debate the issue.

Will the Senator yield for that?

It is important to state for the record this amendment touches none of the standard uses of eminent domain and historic uses, and I said so and all the other Senators speaking to it said so. Rights-of-ways--this is open space land only. It is very clear, it is very targeted. It does not touch any other area of historic use of eminent domain. OK?

And a lot of people had their land acquired and purchased; eminent domain was used.

I think the Record is replete now with the fact that there has been an acceleration of counties and cities using it post-Kelo.

I know what your point is; I know we should be speaking through the Chair for that purpose. In my opinion, it is a broadening of the definition of public use in a post-Kelo environment that has put America's agricultural land at risk in a greater way than ever before. That is why this amendment is brought to the floor.