Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I wish to take the floor for a few minutes before we adjourn today to talk about the economy and about this stimulus package we are hearing the House is developing and will send over here some time in the next few weeks.

I must say, first, it is clear that there is a downturn in the economy that is causing a lot of anxiety among all Americans. It is clear we need to do something. Over the last 6 years, I must admit, I have been disturbed by the lack of fiscal discipline by this White House and by this Congress, as the deficits have piled up.

Think about this: In 2001, when President Clinton left office, we had surpluses. We were going to have surpluses as far as the eye could see. We were talking about paying down the national debt, saving our Social Security system. That all changed. It all changed because the new President came in and said: What is more important than paying down the debt, paying our bills, putting us on a sound fiscal basis? What is more important than that is tax cuts for the wealthiest people in our country. Oh, sure, everybody got a little bit, but a lion's share of it went to the wealthiest in our country.

I guess I shouldn't have been too surprised. The President's philosophy has always been one of trickle down, trickle-down economics. How many times do we have to keep enduring trickle-down economics when time after time we know it does not work? It may give you a little bit of a good feeling for awhile, but it always leads to disastrous consequences.

So that is what we had in 2001. We had trickle down, give the most to the wealthiest in the country; it will trickle down to everybody. It didn't trickle down. What it did was widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The very highest income earners in our country have gotten wealthy beyond Midas' imagination and the rest are down here, and the poor have gotten poorer and they have gotten to be a bigger part of our population. Children in poverty have gone up since 2001.

I suppose it was a nice dinner party for those who were at the top of the ladder for the last 5, 6 years, a wonderful ride, but look what it has led to. Now we have these huge deficits. The debt has piled up. We are now stuck in a war in Iraq that is costing us $10 billion to $12 billion a month, with no end in sight. Still we have these big tax cuts for the very wealthy going on and on.

Again, here we are. And, now we have a downturn. What do we do? We have to do something. There are times when deficit spending in the short term is prudent and necessary. That is when there is an economic downturn. But during the times when the economy is sound, that is when you ought to be paying down your debts. When the economy was sound for the last few years, we gave it all away. We gave it away, again, mostly to the wealthiest in our country. Now we are in a situation in which we want to ward off a deep recession.

Recessions always hurt those at the bottom worst. And now we are going to have to, because we don't have any money, do it with deficit spending, which I don't like, but we are going to have to do it.

I think it behooves us if, in fact, we are going to have to ask our grandkids and great-grandkids to pay the bill--that is what the national debt is; they have to pay it--if we are going to borrow from them for right now to get us through a recession, then we ought to be prudent about what we do with that money and how we do it.

I guess from my standpoint, taking a bunch of money and throwing it out there is not the way to do it. Don't throw money at the problem. That is why I have very serious reservations about what I hear coming from the other body. We haven't seen anything. All I know is what I read in the paper and see on the news and what I hear about what the White House is doing.

I have no doubt the House is acting in good faith. I am all for a bipartisan solution. But I remind both the President and my colleagues that we in the Senate are going to have some say-so in shaping the final stimulus package. Any bill that comes from the House is

going to be fully amendable here, and I intend to be here with a number of my colleagues to amend it if what I hear is coming from the House, and that is mainly a rebate. I don't know what the parameters are of the rebate. That is to be decided yet. But I hear the rebate can go to couples making $150,000 a year. I guess when you figure out what the average income of Americans is, that is pretty high.

Everybody likes free money. Hey, come on, everybody likes to have the Government send them a check. Why not? I repeat, if we are going to borrow money from our grandkids and great-grandkids, let's be prudent about it. Let's put the money where it is most effective and where it is most needed, and that is not some kind of a general rebate for people.

We have unemployment rising, house prices are falling, and the home construction industry is in a severe slump. That affects everything, not just the house that is going to be built or is not being built. That is the window manufacturers, the tubing, the piping, the plumbing, the heating and air conditioning, and everything else down the line.

That is a real factor, something about which we should be concerned. Furniture makers, appliance makers, so many are also affected. Millions of Americans face the prospect of foreclosure, losing their homes. Banks are tightening their lending requirements. New credit is drying up. Even as the Fed reduces their interest rates, banks are tightening up the requirements. And who always gets hit the hardest? You got it, low-income people.

Prices are rising. I need not tell everybody about the rising price of fuel. But I also have to tell you that in many cities in this country, the price of a gallon of milk is higher than a gallon of gasoline. I read where somebody said once a price of gasoline may not affect a lot of low-income people because they ride mass transit and they don't have a car. They eat. And when the price of a gallon of milk is higher than a price of a gallon of gasoline, you don't have much choice.

If a gallon of gasoline is high and you don't like it, I supposed you can ride mass transit, ride a bicycle, or walk. If you are hungry, you have to have food. I don't know any substitute yet for food.

We need a stimulus package, but we have to get it right, targeted to those who have been hit the hardest and invest in the growth in the U.S. economy. Don't think about this as a one-time thing, if we spend a lot of money now that will get us through it. If you have someone who makes $150,000 a couple or $75,000 for, let's say, a single person, you give them 600 or 700 bucks, what they are talking about, I think studies have shown a big portion of that will be saved. There is nothing wrong with that. That is fine. I am all for saving. People ought to save more. But another portion of that will be used to pay past bills, and another portion of that, guess what, is going to be used to buy things. One might say: That is the deal, we want people to buy things; that is the idea of a stimulus. Yes, but what are they going to buy? Are they going to buy a new flat-screen TV made in China? Are they going to buy a new electronic game made overseas? So many of those items are made in foreign countries, so a lot of money will flow from here right to China, Japan, Korea, or who knows where else.

You can buy clothes. Most of our clothes are made overseas. You can buy a pair of shoes. We don't make many shoes here anymore. I am saying you have to think about who is getting helped and where is the money going, and is it going to help build the structure of America and make for our economy to be sound.

On that score, the proposal I see from the House does not quite do it. There are three big items, as I understand, that they leave out. The first is food stamps. I was in my office today listening and I heard some speakers on the floor talk about all we need in a stimulus package. Some of them never even mentioned food stamps, and yet these are the people hit the hardest by a recession. We know the multiplier effect of food stamps is better than any other single program in which we can invest. Here is a chart that indicates that. This is prepared by Moody's Economy. It is not a Government source. Here are the proposals that deliver the demand generated by $1 of stimulus. For $1 of stimulus, what do you get back? For business investment writeoffs, if you invest $1, you get 27 cents; extend the Bush tax cuts, you get 29 cents. Who is going to invest a dollar to get back 29 cents, I ask you. Then income tax cuts, payroll tax rebates, aid to States, unemployment, food stamps, a $1.73 multiplier effect for every dollar you put in. These are the people hit the hardest. We know food prices are extremely high. A gallon of milk is more than a gallon of gasoline. There is no substitute for food.

It seems to me that if we are going to invest in a stimulus package, this is a key place where we ought to be investing our money. Not only does it help the poorest in our Nation, to give them the food they need, but think about it in another way. When you give someone food stamps, they can't spend it on a flat-screen TV made in China, they can't spend it on a new electronic game or an iPod; it has to be food. For the most part, most of that food is grown in the United States, it is processed in the United States, it is packaged in the United States, it is shipped in the United States, and it is sold in stores in the United States. And, they will spend it all. That is why the multiplier effect is so big.

Now, from what I hear, the House proposal has zero in it--zero--for food stamps. Well, that has to be taken care of. And when that bill comes, if it doesn't have it in here when it comes here, I, along with others--and I see my colleague from Ohio, who I know is going to be stalwart on that too--we are going to demand that any stimulus package have food stamps. Food stamps. And why shouldn't it? That is the biggest bang for the buck right there.

Now, again, everybody likes rebates and stuff. Maybe I am a little more conservative on this issue than others and I see it in those terms, that we have to be very careful about how we are spending deficit money. Put it here and it gets spent and it will go for everything made in the United States. You get a big multiplier effect on that. And it has to be a distinct change.

Here is what I would propose that we do on food stamps. First of all, raise the asset level for which you qualify for food stamps. Right now, it is $2,000. Let me make it very clear what I mean by that. Let's say that you are a single parent, you are working at a low-income job, and you temporarily get unemployed, which is what is happening now because unemployment goes up in a recession, and you find it necessary to get food stamps for your children. If you have $2,000 that you have salted away in a savings account, in a 401(k), no matter what, if you have $2,000 salted away, you don't get food stamps.

Now, that level was set in 1977--in 1977. What if that had just kept pace with inflation through all these years? What if we had the same asset level exclusion today in real dollar terms as we had in 1977? What would it be? I will tell you right now. It would be about $6,000. So what we are saying to food stamp recipients today is: You are worse off, you are worse off than a food stamp recipient was in 1977. So the first thing we have to do is raise the asset level for which you qualify for food stamps, and we ought to raise it up to what the level would be had it kept pace with inflation, and that is roughly in the neighborhood of about $6,000. Imagine that, $6,000.

We want poor people to save. One of the reasons people get stuck in poverty is they do not save any money. Yet we tell them: If you save and you hit a rough patch and you get unemployed, guess what, no food stamps. You have to spend your savings. What kind of message does that send? So that is No. 1.

Number 2, we ought to take off the childcare cap. Take it off. Now, I will admit that the Bush administration, in their farm bill proposal they sent down, also asked that we take off the cap. So there shouldn't be any argument there. So if you have to have childcare, whatever you spend for childcare is not taken into account. You get to deduct all that. You get to deduct whatever the cost of childcare is from your income. Right now, it is capped at $175 per month. That is not enough and it is very hard to work with young children with no one at home to take care of them without

child care. So we shouldn't have the argument from the administration since they proposed that too.

The third thing is to exempt from your savings, from your income, anything that you put into an education account or into a 401(k). That ought to be exempt. The administration proposed that, also, so we shouldn't have any problem there.

The fourth thing we need to do is to raise the standard deduction. Now, the standard deduction is a deduction that applies to a family who depends basically on income and depends on how many kids you have. That standard deduction was set in 1996--welfare reform. Guess what. It hasn't changed since then. So the standard deduction needs to be raised to keep pace with inflation, and it needs to be indexed. We need to index both the asset level and the standard deduction so that in the future we don't have this problem anymore.

We should do those four things.

Now, the fifth thing we ought to do is to recognize that many people who get food stamps don't get enough food stamps. During an economic downturn, a lot of people rely upon our food banks to get food for the rest of the month. You can go to any food bank in your cities, anywhere, and they will tell you that the third and fourth weeks of the month is when they get hit the hardest because people run out of food and come in there to supplement their food. But our food banks are in dire need of more food. So I would suggest, modestly suggest, that we ought to put somewhere in the neighborhood of about $100 million in this stimulus package to go out--that is under the Emergency Food Assistance Program--to be able to get food to our food banks. Again, not only does this go to people who are on food stamps but also to homeless people, soup kitchens, and the things that really help the poorest people in our country. Yet this is nowhere in the stimulus package. Again, keep in mind this money would be spent for food produced in the United States, processed, packaged, and for people who work in a lot of our food banks and in our soup kitchens and places such as that.

So, again, those are five things which need to be done on food stamps.

The second thing we need to do is to extend unemployment benefits. Second only to food stamps, unemployment benefits give you the biggest return on every dollar--$1.64 for every dollar spent. After all, isn't that what we are talking about, people who have been on unemployment but their benefits have run out? They should be extended. I mean, common compassion would tell you they ought to be extended, but common sense should also tell you that too. In a stimulus package, we ought to extend our unemployment benefits for those who no longer have jobs. Yet, as I hear about and read about the House package, that is not there. That is not there.

Now, the third thing we have to do is invest in the future structure of America so that we have some investments that will lead to a better economic footing for this country. As I said, and I will repeat myself for emphasis' sake, if we just give someone money and they spend it on a flat-screen TV made overseas, some of that helps here, but a lot of it doesn't. What is there that we can invest in that will put people to work right away, spend money in this country, and most of the money stays right here in America? What that means is infrastructure money. That is money that goes out for repairing our roads and bridges and sewer and water systems, school construction and weatherization.

There was some talk that we need to put money in here for LIHEAP, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It is a vital program. It helps a lot of low-income elderly heat their homes during the winter and, in the South, cool their homes in the summer. We ought to be putting money into weatherization programs for insulation and things such as that for these homes as well to save for the long term and also to create jobs. It puts people to work.

I actually did a workday once with a weatherization group, and when you think about it, you get this done, and then their heating bills for the next 5 to 10 years will be lower. That is what we need, to invest in the infrastructure of our country.

Right now, I know that in the Department of Agriculture, we have over $1 billion backlogged right now for just sewer and water projects, just sewer and water programs. Many are ready to go with all of the plans that are there, designs all set, but they just don't have the money. Small towns and communities could benefit from this, and it would put a lot of people to work. School construction--so many of our schools have outdated heating systems that cost a lot of money every year. They may need to expand, or they may need new fire and safety materials. Sometimes they just need to build new schools. A lot of these are ready to go. Why not invest the money there? Roads and bridges, our interstate highways and bridge rehabilitation projects that are ready to go, courthouses that need to be built with the plans done but are waiting for funds. People could be at work on these by this summer. Some time government will be paying for these projects. Why not do the work this year when it will help a weak economy?

I hope people don't get deluded into thinking that all we have to do is pass $150 billion, throw it out there in the next couple of months, and it is all over with. That is not going to happen. Better we do it carefully. If we can get this money out by this summer and put people to work, it would be one of the best things we could do.

Again, keep in mind, when you give aid to the States for infrastructure--think about this--put a new roof or remodel the school or whatever--think about this--the work is all done here. You can't outsource that. So the work is done here, the people who work here are paid here, and they spend their money here.

Secondly, most of the materials that go into construction are made in America--your lights, your heating, your wiring, your drywall, windows, doors, and rerods. When you think about it, it is almost all made in America. There may be some things made elsewhere, but probably 90 percent of all the construction materials we use in this country are made in America. That is why this multiplier effect is so big. So not only do you employ people here, who spend their money here and help their families out, you are buying materials that are made somewhere else in America. That helps those jobs and helps those people go to work, whether it is making windows or doors or floors or faucets or piping or wiring or lightbulbs or whatever it might be.

So that is why I say that what I hear about coming from the House I think really misses the point. It misses the point. Don't just throw money at the problem. Don't just throw money at it. And don't throw money at it in a way that people who make a lot more money than poor people get a bigger piece of the pie. Let's put it where it really has an effect--food stamps, unemployment benefits, and investment in needed infrastructure. If we just did those three things, that would do more to stop a recession in this country than anything we could do, and it would do more to build for the future--to build for the future--than anything else we could do.

So I hope, Mr. President, we get a better package than what I am reading about. I hope when it comes over here that we will have it on the floor, it will be open, and we will be able to offer amendments, and I hope we can be heard on this and we can offer these amendments to try to focus this where it is really needed. To me, that is what a stimulus package ought to be about. No more trickle down. No more just throwing money out there.

Everybody loves free money. What the heck, everybody loves free money. That is not the point. The point is, we are borrowing from our kids and grandkids. We ought to treat it carefully, be conservative about it, and we ought to do what will get the most bang for the buck and lead to a more sound economy in this country.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation introduced this week to extend unemployment benefits temporarily as a means of stimulus. Like many of my colleagues I certainly have a list of ideas for best stimulating our struggling economy. But unemployment insurance certainly needs to be a part of the picture. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy for so quickly introducing this bill to extend current unemployment benefits by at least 20 weeks, and by an additional 13 weeks in States experiencing especially high unemployment rates.

There are two key principles this legislation addresses. First, we need to make sure that we are prudently spending money in a way that encourages an increase in actual economic activity. Second, we need to help the people who are most hurt during difficult times. We need a combination of prudent fiscal policy and human compassion.

So first, it is just plain good sense to target people who are unemployed. They are going to spend this money immediately on food and clothing, and this money will very quickly churn in the local economy. But equally importantly, the goal of stimulating the economy should be one of improving the quality of life for Americans. The people who are in the greatest need of help, directly hurt by economic decline, are those who have lost their jobs. It only makes sense that we make their needs a priority.

I think that this period of economic difficulty also highlights the need to pass the broader unemployment reform efforts that Senator Kennedy is spearheading. While this stimulus measure will help many people who are unemployed, we need to cover part-time workers who have lost their jobs, and make sure we are counting all recent periods of work toward unemployment eligibility and levels.

Extending unemployment benefits is regularly employed to stimulate a flagging economy, and these payments have been proven to quickly add demand to the economy. I hope that we are all in agreement that this is an essential component of any stimulus package.

Mr. President, the end of this year brings the loss of one of this body's most talented, dedicated, and accomplished staff members. Patricia Knight, Senator Hatch's longtime chief of staff, is retiring after three decades of distinguished public service to the Senate, House of Representatives, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

I have had the pleasure of working with and knowing Ms. Knight for at

least 13 years. My work with her began when Orrin Hatch and I teamed up in 1994 to pass the landmark Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, DSHEA. That legislation, which assured continued consumer access to and better research into dietary supplements, is a testament to Trisha's mastery of health care issues, her commitment to legislating across party lines, and her sharp attention to detail. Truly, without her, there would be no DSHEA today.

For the past nearly 30 years, Trisha Knight has been in the middle of almost every major piece of health legislation enacted into law. From DSHEA to the Children's Health Insurance Program, from the Medicare prescription drug legislation to the FDA Modernization Act, her stamp is on a host of major laws that will endure for many years to come.

Mr. President, the American people owe a debt of gratitude to Patricia Knight. While most may not know her, they know and appreciate the public policies she has helped create. She has worked day and night for many years of public service. And all the while she carried with her a passion for public policy, an unflagging dedication to her bosses and great, sharp wit.

I wish Trisha all the best as she moves on and tip my hat to her for a job well done. She will be missed.

Mr. President, we have a saying in my Senate office: Once a member of the Harkin family, always a member of the Harkin family. On Monday, with the passing of Donna Anthony, a longtime staffer in my Des Moines office, we lost a very valuable and dear member of our family.

It seems like just yesterday that I was presenting Donna with a pin recognizing her 20 years of service to the people of Iowa as a Senate employee. In Donna's case, that wasn't ``service to the people of Iowa'' in the abstract; it was service to thousands of individual Iowans whose lives she touched in very real, concrete ways.

Donna was one of those people who give bleeding-heart liberals a good name. She was always on a personal mission to save the world, or at least as many people as she could.

She was constantly taking up the cause of people who are down on their luck, whether it was a senior citizen getting stiffed by Medicare, an immigrant family who desperately needed a visa, a victim of domestic violence, you name it. Her title may have been ``caseworker supervisor,'' but these were not just cases to her, they were people-- and she took each one to heart. She put the passion in compassion.

I remember in Catholic school being taught that Saint Jude was the patron saint of lost causes. Well, I was blessed to know Saint Donna, the patron saint of people in dire need. Saint Jude intercedes with God. Saint Donna interceded with the Federal Government--which may be more challenging. She was constantly working her little miracles.

Donna certainly came through for me--again and again. I long ago lost track of the number of people thanking me for the work that Donna did. And her personal loyalty was just extraordinary. She was always looking out for my best interest and for ways to make me look good.

I remember when I was in Iowa Falls this past August, meeting with the economic development group. They had heard about the great work Donna had done for Marshalltown, and they wanted her to do the same for Iowa Falls.

In fact, what she did in Marshalltown was typical of Donna Anthony going the extra mile, going the extra 10 miles. She worked closely with the Marshalltown Chamber of Commerce when they started making their trips to Washington to lobby for assistance. She drove back and forth to Marshalltown for countless meetings and served as an all-round counselor and advocate for their projects. The Marshall County sheriff, Ted Kamanches--a prominent Republican--became a big supporter of mine because of the great work Donna did for his police force, including having a Federal drug task force placed in Marshalltown.

Twenty years ago, Donna started out in my Des Moines office as receptionist

and front-desk person. She kept getting calls from people on the north side of Des Moines who wanted me to do something to stop prostitution in the area. Donna went to bat for them, and that is how she got her start in community casework and making connections with local law enforcement. She had a knack for bringing people and agencies together and helping them to get things done. This was the beginning of a long and fruitful relationship not only with neighborhood groups in Des Moines but with law enforcement officials all across Iowa.

Mr. President, there is an old expression that we make a living by what we make, but we make a life by what we give. For 20 years in my office, Donna gave her all for the people of Iowa. She touched countless lives. And she made a life to be proud of.

I can offer no higher praise for Donna--or anyone else, for that matter--than that she was a good, decent, and caring human being. I valued her friendship, her counsel, and her incredibly hard work. I think I speak for all of us in the Harkin Senate family in saying that we love Donna very much, and we are deeply grateful that she was a part of our lives.

Mr. President, I am disappointed with the omnibus appropriations bill that is before us today. With the McConnell amendment, this omnibus bill will write yet another blank check--this one for a whopping $70 billion--for the President to spend on his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, this bill will grossly underfund urgent priorities here at home--everything from cancer research to law enforcement to home heating assistance.

And why is this happening? It is happening because President Bush has refused to compromise, refused to negotiate, refused to respect Congress as a coequal partner in the budgeting process.

The President claims that he is standing on principle, the principle of budget restraint and fiscal conservatism. But this claim is laughable.

Think about it: Mr. Bush provoked a bitter confrontation with Congress over the $22 billion that we proposed spending on urgent domestic priorities above his budget request. Democrats offered to split the difference, lowering that amount to $11 billion. But Mr. Bush still refused to negotiate or compromise.

Meanwhile, he and his allies have insisted on vastly more than that-- a total of $144 billion--for the war in Iraq this year, all of which will simply be added to the deficit. At the same time, he demands a $50 billion AMT fix--which we all favor--but he insists that we not pay for it. That's another $50 billion piled onto the deficit.

So the President has forced Congress to cut $22 billion in domestic funding from the budget, and he turns right around and demands that Congress add more than 10 times that--more than $200 billion--for wars and tax cuts, all of it unpaid for, all of it added to the deficit. And this is what he calls budget restraint and fiscal conservatism? As I said, that claim is simply laughable.

Actually, this is not so much laughable as it is shameful. Bear in mind that in October the Senate passed an appropriations bill for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education by an overwhelming 75 to 19 margin, including a strong majority of Republican Senators. That bipartisan support reflected the fact that the bill funded essential, life-supporting, and life-saving services for millions of people in this country. That bill reflected the values and priorities of the American people.

But even before we brought the health and education appropriations bill to the floor, President Bush threatened to veto it. He dismissed the bill as ``social spending,'' as though it pays for Saturday night socials or something. Then, on November 13, in one fell swoop, Mr. Bush vetoed the bill, and insisted, again, that we bend to his budget demands.

Let me remind our colleagues what Mr. Bush was demanding. The President demanded that we cut cancer research and other medical research at the National Institutes of Health.

He demanded that we cut thousands of families from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

He demanded that we completely eliminate the safety net that includes job training, housing, and emergency food assistance for our most needy citizens, including seniors and people with disabilities.

He demanded that we slash funding for Community Health Centers, preventing 225 new centers from opening.

He demanded that we dramatically cut funding for law enforcement and the COPS program.

He demanded that we cut funding for special education and Head Start.

I am pleased to say that we did not allow these heartless, misguided priorities to prevail entirely. The President has refused to compromise, refused to negotiate--and, no question, this is going to hurt millions of Americans, including the most needy among us. Nonetheless, I am pleased with what we have been able to salvage in this bill.

The omnibus bill before us today technically yields to the President's top-line number of $515.7 billion. But I am pleased to report that it shifts funding in order to address some of the bottom- line priorities of the American people and of the Democratic majority in Congress.

Even within the constraints of this bill, the final Labor-HHS- Education section of the omnibus includes significant increases above the President's budget. For instance, it includes: an

additional $607 million for the National Institutes of Health, additional $788 million for LIHEAP, the home-heating assistance program for low-income families.

It provides $77 million above the President's budget for community Health Centers, allowing more than 50 new centers to be opened.

It provides an additional $955 million for Head Start, Title I, special education, and teacher quality.

It also provides an additional $150 million for the Social Security Administration to help clear out the backlog of disability claims.

However, because of the President's veto threat and refusal to compromise, law enforcement remains woefully underfunded, in particular support for local police departments. Fewer community health centers will be opened and fewer children will be vaccinated. More than 80,000 fewer children will be served under Title I.

Every dime of additional funding in this bill goes to meet basic, essential needs here at home--needs that have been sadly neglected in recent years, even as we have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq.

I voted against the McConnell amendment to provide another $70 billion in funding, mostly for Iraq. The war in Iraq has not reduced the threat of another terrorist attack in America, it has increased that threat. It has not defeated Islamic terrorists, it has brought more recruits to the ranks of al Qaeda.

Nor has the so-called ``surge'' in Iraq succeeded as advertised. The whole rationale for the surge was to create breathing space for new elections in Iraq and reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. These things have not happened.

I joined with Senator Feingold to attempt to link any new funding for Iraq to a deadline for redeployment of our troops. Unfortunately, that amendment failed. This means that the next $70 billion appropriation for Iraq will not require any redeployments, nor will it include any benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet. It is simply a blank check, untied to any demands or expectations, and that is unacceptable.

Indeed, I find it ironic that Mr. Bush has been more than happy to spend untold billions of dollars on schools, hospitals, job training, and law enforcement--in Iraq. But when we try to address those priorities here at home, Mr. Bush gets out his veto pen and hoists the flag of what he calls ``fiscal conservatism.''

But, as I have said, Mr. Bush's pose as a fiscal conservative is absurd.

During the six years that the Republicans largely controlled Congress, Mr. Bush did not veto a single appropriations bill, including many that exceeded his budget requests.

He is demanding that we pass supplemental bills that bring war spending, this year alone, to more than $196 billion, mostly for Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that Mr. Bush's war in Iraq will cost a staggering $1.9 trillion through the next decade. Yet, just last week, he pledged to veto the omnibus bill because of $11 billion in funding for education, health, biomedical research and other domestic priorities.

Think about it: The President is demanding that we continue to spend $12 billion a month on his war in Iraq, yet he objected to an additional $11 billion over a full year for domestic funding. This is simply not reasonable or rational.

At the same time, the President is insisting that we send him an Alternative Minimum Tax fix costing $50 billion. Yes, we need to fix the AMT, and we need to do so in a responsible way. But, Mr. Bush has a different idea. He refuses to pay for the AMT fix. He insists that we simply pile it onto the deficit, dumping it on our children and grandchildren.

Bear in mind, by the way, that this AMT problem is not a surprise to anyone. The 2001 tax cut bill deliberately refused to address the AMT issue in order to squeeze in hundreds of millions of dollars in additional tax cuts, overwhelmingly for the well-off. Mr. Bush used the AMT to mask the true cost of the tax cuts. But, in doing so, he left the AMT as a ticking time-bomb that would soon double the number of Americans subject to the tax.

Today, that time-bomb is exploding, threatening to hurt millions of middle-class families. The House of Representatives, to its great credit, came up with a responsible way of paying for the AMT fix. The House proposed to eliminate the so-called ``carried interest'' tax break for hedge fund managers with multi-million-dollar incomes--a tax break that allows them to pay their taxes at lower marginal rates than middle-income Americans.

Eliminating this egregious tax break is a matter of basic fairness. It also would help to pay for the AMT fix. But the President said no. He promised to veto it. All of which means that the $50 billion we spend on the AMT patch will not be paid for; it will be added to the deficit and the debt. That is not just a shame; it is shameful.

So I regret that the President vetoed a good, bipartisan Labor-HHS- Education appropriations bill that passed this body overwhelmingly. I regret that Mr. Bush has refused to negotiate or compromise. I regret that he demands that we spend endlessly on his war in Iraq, even as he demands that we slash essential services and programs here at home.

But, despite all of these disappointments, we can take pride in the fact that this omnibus bill, in important ways, reflects the values and priorities of the American people. We have found additional funding for our priorities--priorities ranging from cancer research to education to law enforcement. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the legislation pending before the Senate today, which will ensure that Iowa's seniors continue to have access to their physicians and will reauthorize the SCHIP program through March 31, 2009, with additional funds for the ``shortfall States,'' like Iowa. I am however concerned about one provision that is not included in the legislation, a provision that is critically needed to help Iowa's midsized hospitals.

Unfortunately, current Medicare payment rates for hospitals do not account for the fact that most rural facilities cannot achieve the same economies of scale as large hospitals. This leads to inadequate reimbursement, which threatens the very existence of some of these facilities. To help address this situation, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee MedPAC has recommended implementing a payment adjustment for certain small rural hospitals that serve a lowvolume of patients. For example, Grinnell Regional Medical Center in Grinnell, IA, is having difficulty keeping their doors open simply because of its size and location. Due to Medicare policies, they are currently reimbursed at 60 percent of its costs. This cannot continue. These hospitals are essential to giving our seniors good access to healthcare.

I appreciate that commitment. I look forward to working with both of you early next year to move legislation to assist these hospitals, in Iowa and throughout the country.

Mr. President, I certify that neither I nor any of my family members have a pecuniary interest in the New Century Farm Programs for which I requested congressionally directed spending via floor action on Harkin amendment No. 3500, a substitute to H.R. 2419.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--it is Friday afternoon. As chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I am seeking to get the agriculture bill done, and Members want to get finished and go home. We only have 1 amendment left on the farm bill, which can be disposed of. We can, I hope, shortly go to final passage on that. If we don't get to the farm bill we could be here for a long time. I say to my friends who are here, we do want to wrap up this farm bill.

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

Mr. President, the managers' package of amendments is at the desk. Under the previous order, I ask that it be agreed to.

Mr. President, we will very shortly go to final passage of this bill. I will ask unanimous consent shortly to wrap that up. But first, again, I want to respond in kind to someone I didn't know until--well, we knew each other sort of slightly when he was in the House and I was in the Senate during the last farm bill, when we did that one, and then he came over and he took over as chairman of the Agriculture Committee here and did a great job. In fact, I say to Senator Chambliss that we wouldn't be here today were it not for his leadership of the Agriculture Committee in the previous years where he traveled the country and chaired hearings all over the United States. He came to Iowa and I appreciated that very much. He laid the groundwork for what we did this year.

He has become a friend and a close worker. I can say honestly that in the development of this farm bill, Senator Chambliss and his staff worked very closely with us. I can't think of any one instance in which we were surprised or anything came up that we didn't know about. I hope that worked both ways. We had a very open relationship on this, and I thank Senator Chambliss for his many kindnesses and for working so closely with me personally and with others on the committee, and working with his side of the aisle to bring us to this point today. It has been a great relationship. I look forward to going to conference and getting this bill worked out as soon as possible after the first of the year, and I look forward to getting this done, hopefully even before the end of January.

I also thank all of the members of the committee. We have a great committee. I can honestly say this farm bill has the imprint of every single member of our committee. There is something in here that each one on both sides of the aisle contributed to, either specifically or generically, whether it is energy or conservation or farm income protection or specialty crops or nutrition--literally every person on this committee had his or her hand in developing it. So we have a great committee. I am very proud of every single member on this committee.

I also want to recognize and thank members of our committee who, as leaders on other committees, were instrumental in completing this bill. Senator Conrad, played a key role as chairman of the Budget Committee and senior member of our committee. Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Grassley, the ranking Republican member of that committee, worked to obtain critical funding for this legislation and helped shape it in our committee.

The bill we are passing today, the Food and Energy Security Act, is a solid, forward-looking, fiscally responsible bill. It conforms to a strict budget allocation and pay-as-you-go budget rules, yet still addresses the varied geographical and philosophical views of Senators in a very balanced way. This is my seventh farm bill, and as I've said many times before: farm bills are bipartisan, not partisan. There are regional, philosophical and other differences, to be sure. It is a very bipartisan bill. We obviously had regional concerns, budgetary concerns and differences of views, but I think we have answered those in a very balanced way.

We do so much in conservation and nutrition, specialty crops, energy initiatives, disaster assistance and crop insurance programs, stronger income protection and promoting new opportunities for farmers and rural communities in this country. This is a bill that is good for farmers and ranchers. We have provisions in here for young, beginning farmers. We have provisions in here to help people transition to organic farming. We have major new investments in initiatives to help producers of specialty crops. And we continue and improve income protection for dairy producers.

I wanted to say thank you to Senator Chambliss and all of the members of the committee, and I also want to recognize all of the committee staff members because these staff members have worked very hard and they deserve recognition for the passage of this bill here today.

First and foremost, I thank our very capable staff director, Mark Halverson. Mark is a farmer in his own right, farms in my State of Iowa and works here, so he combines it all. He is a lawyer, he is a professional staff person, and he does actually farm. So he brings a lot of expertise and has been a guiding hand in all of this.

I thank Martha Scott Poindexter, the chief of staff on the Republican side,

for all of her guidance and for all of her great work. I thank you very personally, Martha Scott. Thank you.

And, I say thank you to Todd Batta, who did so much on credit and forestry; Richard Bender, on rural development; Eldon Boes, who did so much on energy; Phil Buchan, on conservation; Dan Christenson, on nutrition and specialty crops; Kate Cyrul, our communications director; Katharine Ferguson, who does some of everything, covering issues and keeping our committee on track; John Ferrell, on livestock; Kerri Johannsen, on energy; Susan Keith, our general counsel, who has now worked her second farm bill with us and covers all of the commodity title. Then there is Peter Kelley, who set up all of our hearings; Amy Lowenthal, our counsel; Tina May, again on conservation; Stephanie Mercier, who did so much work on crop insurance and on trade; Derek Miller, who put together a great nutrition title; Adela Ramos, who did all of our title work on the research title and food safety; Jonathan Urban, who worked hard on getting the reauthorization of the Commodity Exchange Act last night; and, of course, Dave White, who has done so much work on conservation.

I also thank our chief clerks, Bob Sturm, of course, and Jessie Williams. As we know, Bob has retired, but he comes back once in a while to help and we appreciate that; and we appreciate Jessie Williams' hard work.

I would also like to mention all of the staff on the Republican side. I thank Martha Scott Poindexter, the chief of staff on the Republican side; Vernie Hubert, Hayden Milberg, Cameron Bruett, Kate Coler, Betsy Croker, Anne Hazlett, Christy Seyfert, Dawn Stump, Patty Lawrence, Alan Mackey, Erin Hamm, Matt Coley, Jane Anna Harris, and Carlisle Clarke. They are all good, dedicated people who worked very hard on this bill.

I now wish to propound a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be withdrawn, that no further amendments be in order, that the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill--Mr. President, I am told the managers' package still has not been worked out. I had assumed it was. It still has not. So we are going to have to wait a few more minutes to get the managers' package put together and make sure it is agreed to.

With that, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, again, as I understand the situation--and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong--we have a managers' package at the desk, which has been cleared on both sides; that the amendments which were objected to previously now are put back in; that there is an amendment in that package which sets a lower program level in a USDA program offsetting those amendments. With that, I understand the managers' package is acceptable; am I correct?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be withdrawn; that no further amendments be in order; that the substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill read the third time, and that the cloture motion be withdrawn; that without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

I am informed that it has.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the final passage of the farm bill.

Mr. President, again this is a great vote--79 votes in favor of the farm bill is a great vote. I think it is an affirmation of the hard work our committee put in all this year to get to this point, on both sides of the aisle, with Senator Chambliss leading his side. On our side, we had great cooperation and great work from all the members of our committee.

So I look upon this very strong vote as an affirmation of this hard work.

And, indeed, it was hard work. Someone said to me a little bit ago: Gosh, December 14 is late in the year to do a farm bill. I remembered the 1981 farm bill was passed on December 17 at 2 a.m. in the morning. How do I remember that? Because my daughter was born 2 hours later, at 4 a.m. in the morning. So, to me, this is early. But nonetheless, it is a great bill and we are delighted to get it through. We look forward to going to conference now.

I wish to say one other thing. Late last night, I received a phone call from Senator Biden and Senator Clinton and Senator Dodd and Senator Obama. They all reached out to me to ask: Do you need our vote for the farm bill? Because we want to be there to vote for it. We had taken a whip count, we knew we had a good bill, we knew we would have more than enough votes on this, and so I told each of them their vote was not needed. But they each assured me, Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd, and Senator Obama, if their vote was needed, they would have been here, and had they been here, they would have voted for that farm bill. So I wish to thank each of them, and I want the record to show Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Obama would have cast their votes in favor of the farm bill were they able to be here today. I appreciate their support, and, of course, I wish each of them excellent luck in the future.

With that, again I thank all my fellow Senators, I look forward to our conference and wrapping up our conference sometime soon, in January, but this is a good bill, and you can take it home. It is a good bill for rural America and for farmers and for everyone who eats food in this country.

I yield the floor.

I sure hope not.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

We have 19 minutes?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator, will he yield me 4 or 5 minutes?

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana. I am a cosponsor of the amendment.

First, I will just make an observation. In this body, out of 100 Senators, we have 2 bona fide farmers, one on the Republican side, my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, and one on our side, the Senator from Montana, Mr. Tester. These are people who actually do farm--not just own a farm, but they actually do farm. So when I hear them talk about things in agriculture, I give a lot of weight to it, not that they are always right, obviously. They would not claim that, I am sure. But you have to give some weight to their arguments, especially when they are making it on behalf of farmers.

So when this amendment was first offered by the Senator from Montana, I began to look at it and consider it because I, too, had thought about the issues raised by the Senators from Kansas about whether it would be restrictive of a packer who wanted to provide premiums. I think he maybe mentioned an Angus cut or a cowboy cut, Black Angus bone-in rib eye, those that have premiums.

So I was concerned. I asked my staff: Let's look at this and make sure we are OK on this. I think the way the amendment is drafted does, in fact, allow those kinds of contracts to be made because they are not manipulative of a marketplace.

What the Tester amendment really goes to, I think--and I think it is clear in the way it is drafted--it goes to the packers who, let's say, might engage in collusive practices that would, in fact, depress the market price on a certain day or during a certain time and then claim they have a pro-business reason for doing so.

I have not seen a business yet, in case after case--where they have colluded or where there has been some dealings--where they have not said, well, it is better for their business. Of course, if they can increase their profits, it is always better for their business, but increasing their profits at what expense? At the expense of a farmer who is relying upon the livestock market.

So I think the amendment is one that really gets to the heart of the case, the Pickett case. We all know about the Pickett case. I think the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals really went riding off the range. I do not know where they came up with some of their thoughts on that. It is not the first time that the courts have gotten off course.

The Packers and Stockyards Act was enacted to protect producers from packers. That was the intent, and it has been the intent ever since, to protect producers from packers. It was never intended to be some bill to ensure that packers are competitive or that they are competitive with other packers. That was never the intent of the Packers and Stockyards Act. It is to protect producers from packers to make sure there is as level a playing field as possible out there for the market to work.

Markets: many buyers, many sellers--that is how a market works. If you have many buyers and one seller, no market. If you have one buyer and many sellers, no market. You have to have many buyers and many sellers for the market to work. That is what the Packers and Stockyards Act aims to protect.

So, again, the amendment is not in any way intended to infringe upon contracts or forward contracts or the kinds of contracts that were mentioned in terms of giving premium prices for different kinds of meat produced. It was never intended--I know the Senator talked about the law of unintended consequences, but, again, I think the amendment is clear. The intent is to ensure anti-competitive practices in the marketplace are not allowed--are not allowed--regardless of a business justification.

So, again, right now I think we have a case where the packers--I know a lot of them--I would like to say the ones I know are honest and above board, and they are. But that does not mean they all are. When it comes to making a profit here, maybe dealing something on the side. Eventually they will think they have a green light to engage in collusive practices to manipulate the market, and all you have to do is go into court and say: Business justification. What is the business justification? I made more money. I made more money. But at whose expense? At whose expense?

That is why this amendment is so important. I think it is important we shine a light and at least clarify for our producers that the Eleventh Circuit Court's opinion on this is not the law of the land. We decide the law, not the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Schumer amendment No. 3720 be withdrawn.

Will the Senator yield?

The yeas and nays have been ordered on the Tester amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on or in relation to the Tester amendment occur at a time to be determined later.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I have read the Senator's amendment. I have sat and read the whole thing.

It is quite simple. It doesn't take a lot of time to read it. Then I listened to the Senator talk about the Kelo decision.

I am not a fan of the Kelo decision either, but it seems to me the way the amendment is written--and I ask the Senator this--if someone, if a private farmer had farmland, and a private developer came in and got the local jurisdiction to condemn that farmland and take it for private development, that would be allowed under your amendment?

I ask the question, though.

That is what I wanted to make clear; that the Kelo decision----

I thank the Senator for yielding and engaging in this colloquy. I was listening to the Senator talk about the Kelo decision, but the Senator's amendment doesn't reach the Kelo decision.

Well, if you allow----

I will have more to say about that later, but let me ask another question.

Under the Senator's amendment--I wish to make sure I read it correctly--if a local jurisdiction--planning and zoning--decided to condemn some land or to take land for a park, if the amendment were adopted and put into law, that would mean that jurisdiction, whatever that jurisdiction is--it could be a county or a State--couldn't even get any money for education. No title I money for education. They could not get special education money. Let's say, money for special education, they wouldn't be able to get that either; is that a correct reading? For 5 years, they couldn't get that?

Yes.

I think, then, we get to the crux of this issue. What the amendment of the Senator does is it has the Federal Government telling a local entity, a local government or a State government what it can and cannot do within its own jurisdiction.

This is a very powerful Federal Government, a heavy hand coming in telling people that we know better than they what they should be doing.

I say to my friend from Idaho that all of the things he mentioned--the Clean Water Act and all that kind of stuff--we can get into that, but, yes, if a local entity violates that, they are subject to certain sanctions, usually fines.

They are not subject to losing all their Federal money for education, for health, for transportation, for everything else-- nothing like that. I know of no instance like that in any Federal legislation. If the Senator can find one for me I would appreciate it. I can't.

But it seems to me, I say to my friend, those are the governments that are closest to the people, rather than some distant government in Washington telling them what they can and cannot do. Plus, I say to my friend from Idaho, with all due respect, this did not grow out of the Kelo decision. Local governments have had the power of eminent domain probably going back to the founding of our Republic. I was trying to find out exactly when, but probably the early 1800s, maybe the 1700s.

But I say to my friend, defined public good has been parks and recreation areas and things like that.

I say to my friend from Idaho I am sure he has visited Gettysburg. Gettysburg National Park would not be a national park were it not for

the power of the State of Pennsylvania to have the right of eminent domain because that is what they used. They had to use it in order to get that land together for Gettysburg Park. I say to my friend, with all due respect, it is a national historical monument. But that is what they had to use to do it.

Should Washington have been able to tell them no, you can't do that?

I say to my friend, again, the amendment doesn't even go to Kelo because my friend admitted a local government could condemn, eminent domain, take private farmland for a private developer. Under his amendment they can still do that.

It has been that way, as I say, going back to Gettysburg. They did use eminent domain in Gettysburg.

They carved out some sections where they didn't think they needed them, but they did on some other sections. So it has been that way forever. Kelo didn't open floodgates. What it did was open floodgates for private, and that I find anathema; that you could use eminent domain for some private purpose. But for a public purpose such as parks and recreation and things like that, it has been this way since the founding of our Republic, I say to my friend.

My friend, I know is a conservative. It seems to me conservatives are always looking askance at the Federal Government coming in, heavyhanded, and telling local jurisdictions what they can and cannot do. This, it seems to me, would be the heaviest hand that I have seen in my years here.

My friend is right. We, a lot of times, do pass laws, Clean Air Acts, things like that that he mentioned, and we impose fines if they don't do something. But we don't say if you violate it, we are taking away your education money, your health money, your transportation money, and everything else. I just know of no other case like that in Federal law.

Madam President, I just have a few minutes. I know we want to get to the Brown amendment. The Senator from Ohio has been very patient, waiting a couple of days to get to his amendment. I appreciate that. I have just a couple of things I wanted to respond to.

First, regarding the Craig amendment, I have here a letter dated December 11 from the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Council of State Governments, all writing in opposition to the Craig amendment.

It says--I just want to read what they said in this letter:

This amendment is not only ill-advised, but it is also

unconstitutional. Amendment No. 3640 would preempt state and

local land use laws by prohibiting any federal funding that

goes to state and local governments from being used for

acquiring ``farmland or gracing land for the purpose of a

park, recreation, open space, conservation, preservation

view, scenic vista, or similar purpose.'' This would severely

chill state and local historical preservation, community

service, and environmental efforts.

Under this amendment, if a state or locality were to use

the power of eminent domain for virtually any public purpose,

even if such action was completely in accordance with its own

statues and land use development ordinances and regulations,

the state or locality could lose all applicable federal

funding. The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution expressly

permits the taking of private property for public use

provided just compensation is provided to the owner of the

property.

The power of eminent domain has always been, and should

remain, a state and local power. The state power to use

eminent domain for public purposes is fundamental to a

state's and locality's ability to provide for the community

needs of its citizens, to protect unique and scenic areas of

a state by creating parks, and to preserve wildlife and

topography of a significant nature.

Again, we urge you to reject the Craig Amendment No. 3640

because it preempts state and local law and thwarts valid

state and local efforts to preserve their natural resources

for the use and enjoyment of all citizens.

I ask unanimous consent the letter representing the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Council of State Governments be printed in the Record.

I have a letter of December 11 from a number of environmental and wildlife groups: National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the World Wildlife Fund and others, in opposition to the Craig amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I think the Craig amendment, about which I just engaged in a colloquy with my friend from Idaho, the Craig amendment really is the heaviest of heavy hands I have ever seen proposed for the Federal Government. First, I do believe also, as I just stated, it does violate the fifth amendment to the Constitution. Also, it doesn't even get to the Kelo decision.

As the Senator himself admitted, even under his own amendment we would have the oddest of all situations. It would then be permissible for a local entity to condemn private land for private use, but it would not be permissible for a local entity to condemn private land for public use. That is the oddest of all circumstances. Again, to say to a local entity that you cannot use the power of eminent domain, granted to you by the Constitution of the United States, for a park or recreation area or whatever it is, a public use for future generations to enjoy--to me, that is an interference in local government and local government decisions.

My friend talked about, yes, somebody may want to pass farmland on to future generations and things like that. I am very sensitive to that. Yes, they should be able to. But shouldn't also a local entity or a State devise parks and recreation areas, also for future generations? There seems to be some thought if a State uses its power of eminent domain, they can just take the land away. The fifth amendment of the Constitution says, no, you have to have just compensation. That is where you get into courts a lot of times.

We have seen eminent domain used for power lines, for example, to go across the State. Again, the amendment of the Senator, I don't know if it would reach the power lines.

Yes.

Madam President, well, I say to my friend, one of the historic uses of eminent domain has been for parks. When was Central Park in New York set aside? The power of eminent domain was for Central Park in New York. I think that has been over a hundred years.

I say to my friend, I do not have a catalog----

But my point----

I say to my friend from Idaho, that is the point I was trying to make, that you could still have condemnation purposes for a private power line. Maybe a farmer does not want that power line going over his land; he does not like those big cables going over his land.

The State can come in and say: Here is your compensation.

I do not like it.

OK. We use power of eminent domain. We will go to court, and they will build that power line right across your land.

The amendment of the Senator from Idaho would still permit that to happen, would still permit that to go on, still permit that to happen, but it would not permit a local entity to say:

We have a lot of land; we want to preserve a park for future generations. We have some of this land here that is in there, and we need that for the park, and it is generally accepted by the public. You may have one person reticent to do that. So they say: OK, we use the power of eminent domain to do that. But that does not mean they get the land; that means they have to go to court to decide what is just compensation under the fifth amendment.

I say to my friend from Idaho, if he really wants to pursue this, he ought to introduce an amendment to overturn the fifth amendment of the Constitution. Let's have a constitutional amendment. Who knows what it might be next. You think of this as a precedent. What is next? What is next that we might not agree with? Maybe we do not agree with speed limits. I say to my friend from Idaho, maybe we do not agree with what a State's speed limits are, so if you do not adhere to Federal standards on speed limits, we are going to take away all of your education and transportation and health money. How about education policy? Let's say we do not agree with the local school board. We do not agree with the local school board as to what its education policy is. It has to be what the Federal Government says, and if you do not adhere to it, we are going to take away your education money, your health money, your transportation money, and your community development money. We will take it away just because you do not agree with the Federal Government's policy on education. Zoning and other areas like that--think of what kind of a path we are going down if we adopt this amendment.

Again, I say this amendment would again intrude the Federal Government into the local and State jurisdictions that have been preserved by the Constitution of the United States. We ought not to go there.

Madam President, I hope now we are ready to turn to the Brown amendment. I thank the Senator for his patience.

How much time remains?

Mr. President, I take a back seat to no one in my support for the crop insurance industry. I was here, as Senator Grassley said, on the House Agriculture Committee when we set up this system. I was on the Conservation and Credit Subcommittee. I remember why we did this. We had a bad system before, with the Government putting these policies out, relying upon ad hoc disaster payments. Eventually, we went to all crop insurance delivered through the private sector. I was one of the initial supporters of that. I fought very hard for the private sector to get this business, for obvious reasons. No. 1, we had our private companies out there already insuring houses, cars, and different things, such as equipment, for farmers. Why should they not also provide crop insurance? It made logical sense.

I think the years have proven us right. The private crop insurance industry in America has worked well. It has done an outstanding job. It has met all of the things we expected them to do when we created this program in 1982. So I have followed this all these years, and I have supported this industry and what they have been doing all these years. I still do. I take a back seat to no one.

I will be frank; when the Senator from Ohio first came up with his proposal on crop insurance in my discussions with him, I thought this was too big of a cut. I thought it was a little bit too heavy. I thought they were too harsh. But I do think that over the weeks, in working with Senator Brown and in moderating the size of the cuts and to shape the message about what needs to be done to reform the financial incentives provided to crop insurance companies, I think he is on the right path. I think the Senator from Ohio makes valid points about the problems with the current mechanism for reimbursing private crop insurance companies for the expenses they incur in delivering the Federal crop insurance program for farmers.

No one who is knowledgeable about how the program works--and I believe I am very knowledgeable about it--can deny that the significant increase in total premiums over the last few years has been driven by the increase in commodity prices, especially corn, wheat, and soybeans, which has resulted in an increase in A&O reimbursement per policy. That surge generated higher revenues for the companies that have not necessarily had an increase in expenses over the same period.

So we have had a system whereby the reimbursements are tied to commodity prices. Well, we have seen this huge increase in commodity prices in the last few years. In fact, I penciled out here that we went from about $3.5 billion to more than $5 billion in just a few years.

The insurance companies get, as we know, 21 percent of that amount. That is the reimbursement rate, 21 percent. That is a huge increase. The Senator from Ohio pointed out on his chart the increases in those years.

What the Senator is proposing is that we take the average of, I believe, it is 2004, 2005, and 2006, and we cap it at that level. It does not apply to the crop-year of 2007, and it would not apply to 2008, if I am not mistaken. I think it starts in 2009. It does not apply to 2007 or 2008. It does not start until 2009.

I have told some of my friends in this industry that I think this approach may be better for them in the long run to base it on those levels rather than to roll the dice. We have seen crop prices go up, and we have seen them go down. Obviously, I would like to see them stay up. But that is ignoring history.

I said to my friends in the industry: Look, this is not a bad deal. We cap the highest levels we have seen, except for

this year, obviously, for 2007, and that is the reimbursement rate. I think it might in the long run be better for them.

I don't see this as onerous on crop insurance. Some say there is going to be this big cut, but that does not apply to 2007 and 2008. By the time we get to 2009, there may not be any cuts at all, as a matter of fact, depending upon what happens with prices. In fact, it may be better. It actually may be better.

In exchange, what we do get is some more money for conservation, for EQIP. We need more money in the EQIP program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the Farmland Protection Program, as well as the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program. I think it is a pretty fair tradeoff. If I thought for 1 minute this was going to devastate, destroy, unduly harm the crop insurance industry, I could not support it. But I believe it is a fair and equitable approach and, quite frankly, I think the methodology is much better in the long term. ``Long term,'' what do I mean? Five years? Probably 5, 7, 8 years. It may be better for the crop insurance industry than hooking onto commodity prices.

Quite frankly, thinking back over the years, I find it hard to argue why it should be connected to commodity prices. What does that have to do with reimbursement? What does that have to do with policy numbers? We should have something that will protect our insurance people from undue happenings and events such as that, and I think that is what this methodology does. We took the average of those 3 years and capped it at that. In conference, we can look at putting in an inflation factor.

It seems to me that makes much more sense for the future of the program. As I said, for that we get more money for the conservation programs, the McGovern-Dole International School Lunch Program, and it also lifts the sunset provision on our nutrition program. Right now the increases we put in the Food Stamp Program with the standard deduction and minimum benefit sunset in 5 years.

Someone in the Democratic Caucus said recently to me: Why are we sun- setting in 5 years the programs that go to the poorest people in our country, yet we don't sunset the programs that go to some of the wealthiest people in our country? Fair question. So in order to lift this sunset, we need additional money, and the money we would save would go to lift the sunset provisions on both the standard deduction and the minimum benefit.

For those reasons, I support the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to conclude the debate with respect to the Klobuchar amendment No. 3810, and that the previous order with respect to the vote threshold remain in effect; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Klobuchar amendment; that upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate then vote in the relation to the amendments listed below in the order listed; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to each vote; that after the first vote, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes; with no second-degree amendment in order to any of the amendments covered under this amendment, prior to the vote; that the amendments covered here be subject to a 60-vote threshold; that if any of these amendments achieve an affirmative 60 votes, it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if it does not achieve that threshold, it be withdrawn: Coburn amendment No. 3530; Tester amendment No. 3666; Brown amendment No. 3819, and that the managers' package of cleared amendments be considered and agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I guess we are going to be in recess for an hour, from 2 to 3 p.m. We will come back at 3 p.m. and finish debate on the Klobuchar amendment. We will have that vote, and at the conclusion of that time, we will have three other votes. There should be four votes in sequence at that time.

How much time does the Senator have remaining?

Can I ask the Senator to yield me time?

How about 3.

Madam President, I am very proud of our bill. We worked very hard to craft a bill. But, you know, any bill needs to be improved when it comes to the floor. I think this is one item where we need to fix it. The bill that came out of committee, we did not do our job in this respect. I wish to echo what the Senator from Illinois said. I think of it this way. If you are a bona fide farmer, more than two-thirds of your income, it could be 70 percent of your income comes from farming, you have no limits. There are no limits. You could have an adjusted gross income of $10 million and you will still get Government benefits. There are zero limits.

Now, again, if your income from farming is less than that, less than two-thirds, then you have an income limit of $1 million, then it goes down to $750,000 in 2010.

The Senator from Minnesota is on the right track. There is absolutely no reason why someone whose bottom-line adjusted gross income, bottom line after they have taken all their depreciation, all their expenses and everything else, bottom line of $750,000, they do not need free Government money.

But I can understand why they are fighting this amendment. Who wants to give up free money? This is free money. Well, if you are going to give free money, then how about giving it to people who deserve it? That is what the Klobuchar amendment does. It takes this savings of $355 million and puts it into the Beginning Farmer Development Program, the Individual Development Accounts Pilot Program for beginning farmers, rural broadband grants, organic agriculture research and extension, Grasslands Reserve Program, community food projects, things that go to help rural America and help our legitimate small family farmers.

So that is why I feel this is one amendment I wish to speak out on as chairman of this committee. As I said, I am proud of this bill. We have put a good bill together. But there is one hole in it we need to patch up, and we need to have at least this amount of reform in this bill, or else people will continue to say: Well, there they go again. They are taking care of the richest and the biggest, the richest and the biggest.

Do you know what is happening now with farm programs? It is similar to a black hole. Do you know what black holes are in astronomy? Those are the things in space where there is so much gravity that nothing escapes, not even light. If anything gets near it, it sucks it in and nothing gets out.

Well, this is akin to what is happening in our farm programs now with this kind of a situation. The bigger you are, the more you get. That is what is happening here. The bigger you are, the more you get from the Government.

Now the more you get from the Government, the better able you are to bid up the price of land around you and buy it. Therefore, you get bigger. Now that you are bigger, you get more Government money, and you can buy up more land, and you get more Government money.

That is why it is similar to a black hole. We have to stop this. This is not in the best interests of rural America. What is in the best interest is the Klobuchar amendment. I mean $750,000, quite frankly, personally I think it ought to be lower. I think if you had an adjusted gross income over $500,000 or $300,000, you ought not be able to get Government programs.

But at least $750,000 is a lot better than what is in the bill. Because the bill says there are no limits, none, $10 million, you still get Government payments, if two-thirds of your income is from farming. That is why the Klobuchar amendment ought to be adopted.

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

Madam President, again, trying to work this through and get our amendments lined up, I have a unanimous consent request, and then we will be on our way to four votes in a row.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn amendment No. 3530 be modified with the changes at the desk, and that the amendment then be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that upon disposition of the Brown amendment, the Senate then return to the Craig amendment No. 3640, and that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote, with the time divided between Senators Craig and Leahy, and that the Craig amendment be subject to the same 60-vote threshold as is provided for in the previous order.

It is 3640.

Madam President, here is the situation, for all Senators. We are now going to be having a series of votes. The first vote will occur on the amendment by the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar. That will be a 15-minute vote. The next three votes will be Senator Tester's amendment, then Senator Brown's amendment, and then Senator Craig's amendment. Those will be 10-minute votes. Each one of these has a 60-vote threshold.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for offering this amendment. I am a cosponsor and a proud supporter.

I have been listening to the debate taking place, and quite frankly I do not understand the opposition by the Senator from Kansas. After all, as Senator Grassley pointed out, this is not the original bill. It was modified quite a bit.

All this amendment really does is create an Agriculture Competition Task Force to study problems in agricultural competition, establish ways to coordinate Federal and State activities, address unfair and deceptive practices in concentration, create a working group on buyer power to study effects of concentration in agriculture, and make recommendations to assist the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission in drafting agricultural guidelines. I don't know that anything could be more advisory than that. All we are doing is saying, use the expertise they have at the Department of Agriculture to look at these issues and advise and inform DOJ. It doesn't say that DOJ has to do what they say. It doesn't say they have to follow everything they say. It is advisory. I don't see why there would be such an objection to this kind of advice which would be given to DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission. There are some other things in there, but that is sort of basically the essence.

Again, as many times as we have seen decisions come down from the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, you wonder if they have anybody over there who understands anything at all about rural America. You wonder how many of these lawyers over there at the Department of Justice--I don't want to pick on any schools; we always say Harvard-trained lawyers and Yale-trained lawyers--have had any dirt under their fingernails from a farm or how many of them know anything about livestock issues.

This is a good amendment. Quite frankly, I am surprised there is this kind of opposition.

Having said that, I wonder if the Senator from Iowa--if we could ask to set the amendment aside temporarily so we can move on to a couple other amendments.

We are working out a unanimous consent agreement now. It is bouncing back and forth. Hopefully within a few minutes or so, we will have that. I have a feeling these votes might be stacked. I can't say right now. I have a feeling they will probably be stacked.

I asked my ranking member about that. He would insist on 60 votes. I am not insisting on 60 votes. He informed me that it would require 60 votes.

Amendment No. 3851 to Amendment No. 3500

(Purpose: To promote legal certainty, enhance competition, and reduce systemic risk in markets for futures and over-the-counter derivatives,

and for other purposes)

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

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

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

Mr. President, would the Chair please state what the amendment is before the Senate right now?

Mr. President, that is the amendment I had sent to the desk prior to the quorum call being established?

I thank the Chair.

This is basically an extension of the Commodity Exchange Act of 2013. I wish to state for the record we would not ordinarily include the Commodity Exchange Act in the farm bill, but for various reasons we were unable to reauthorize the CEA in the last Congress.

This amendment further regulates energy transactions that perform a significant price discovery function. This is an issue Senators Feinstein and Levin have been working hard on.

The amendment also addresses fraud and retail transactions in foreign exchange markets. It gives the CFTC broader authority to prosecute fraud in other commodities such as heating oil. I am very pleased we are able to work through the reauthorization issues with the ranking member, Senator Crapo, and numerous cosponsors of this amendment.

I yield the floor.

I thank Senator Chambliss. It is a great effort, a great product.

I see one of the main architects of the provisions of this bill, and I yield the floor.

Yes, I agree with the assessment of the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Again, I concur with the Senator from New Mexico. Nothing in this amendment would erode either Commission's authorities under the statutes that you have cited.

No, this amendment would not infringe on FERC's current ability to gain information from market participants.

This bill includes reauthorization of the Commodity Exchange Act. One of the issues addressed in the reauthorization is the problem of so-called ``rolling spot'' contracts, a type of contract that unscrupulous criminals use to defraud retail customers while avoiding the jurisdiction of the Commission. Because of several adverse court decisions addressing rolling spot contracts used in retail foreign exchange fraud, the Commission has been severely hampered in its efforts to protect consumers.

This reauthorization clarifies the jurisdiction of the Commission over these ``rolling spot'' contracts. In addition, because these ``rolling spot'' contracts have begun to be used in other commodities such as metals, this reauthorization clarifies the Commission's authority to address ``rolling spot'' contracts should they spread to other agricultural or exempt commodities.

Yes.

No. The provisions explicitly say that they have no effect on whether contracts are considered legal futures contracts or not.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add onto that amendment Senators Dorgan, Durbin, and Conrad as cosponsors.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments, and I thank him for all his help throughout a long year in the Agriculture Committee, helping us with our budget problems and getting us to this point.

I appreciated the fact that the Senator said the managers had handled this bill with grace. The Senator doesn't see what I do when I go home. I act out my frustrations later.

I say to the Senator, it has been frustrating, but that is the process of the Senate. The Senator is absolutely right, our leader is correct in calling for cloture. I am not disappointed. I am managing the bill under the rules we had, which was to try to accommodate as many amendments as possible, to move them as rapidly as possible, to get votes on them. Let's face it, we have had enough, and we have had enough amendments and we debated them.

This is a good bill. Some of the amendments that were not adopted maybe I wish were, and some that were adopted maybe I wish were not. That is the process. It is a good bill with which to go to conference. It is a bill that does a lot, as the Senator knows, in energy, it does a lot in conservation, and it provides a great safety net for our farmers, and what we do for specialty crops that we have never done before in any farm bill, and what we do for nutrition. We answer the call of church groups and people around the country who said we had to do more to take care of low-income people in the Nation and to meet our obligations to the poorest among our society. We have done that in this bill. We have done great work in the food stamp and nutrition programs.

It is a good bill. All of us worked very hard on it. We will go to cloture this evening. Quite frankly, I am not disappointed. I am happy we are bringing this to a close so we can get to conference. I hope we can get the conference concluded by the time we get back in January so we can have a conference report sometime toward the end of January.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his many kindnesses, for all of the hard work he has done, and his staff through this long process in getting us here. I thank him very much.

Mr. President, we are now operating postcloture on the farm bill. As we know, there are 30 hours. And germane amendments are obviously acceptable postcloture.

Right now I am working with Senator Chambliss to try to come up with a roadmap on how we proceed on this yet this evening and tomorrow. We had basically a kind of a finite list. Since there were only 20 amendments allowed on either side, we kind of know what that universe is.

Prior to the cloture vote, we were down to about 11--if the Chair will indulge me, 11 votes that could be held. Now some of those, it is just my own observation, without being the Parliamentarian, are nongermane.

For example, one of my own amendments I can truthfully say is not germane. The others I do not know, and those will have to be decided by the Parliamentarian. I would say, however, if there is anyone here who has a germane amendment--and I do believe perhaps the Feingold-Menendez amendment appears to be fully germane.

Now, again, there may be an objection raised to that, and the Parliamentarian will have to decide it, but that seems to me--that seems to be one in front of us now that is germane. I would say if the authors of that amendment, either Mr. Feingold or Mr. Menendez, were willing to debate that amendment this evening, under some reasonable time limit, we would like to do that.

So I hope that is at least one we might get to tonight that looks to be thoroughly germane to the bill. There is the Grassley-Kohl amendment. I am not certain about that one. That one is maybe a little bit more uncertain. But, again, that is up to the Parliamentarian to decide. But at least that decision could be made, and we might be able to move ahead.

So with the concurrence of my ranking member----

Right. The Coburn amendment is probably germane.

I agree. The only reason I was saying this is, keep in mind there is a limited amount of time. So I am saying, anyone who believes they have a germane amendment in this list, they ought to probably want to debate it tonight.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the Wyden amendment No. 3736 be withdrawn.

I thank the Senator. It is my understanding that she would like to speak about an issue facing the sugar beet industry in California.

I ask the Senator, how has this decrease in California's portion of the national allocation impacted growers and other sugar beet refineries in your State?

How much more in allocation would California need to keep the facility in Mendota open?

I appreciate the Senator providing that information. Can she suggest a possible solution that would allow the Mendota refinery to remain open?

I will raise this issue when the Senate and House meet to finalize a farm bill conference report.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I am here today to introduce, along with Senator Kohl, the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act. This legislation is designed to address what may seem at first glance like a small issue, but in fact has a dramatic impact on the retirement security of millions of Americans who have 401(k) plans. Not many people realize this, but the Employee Retirement Income Security act, ERISA, does not require plan sponsors to provide participants with information on the level of fees that participants are charged by the various plans they have to choose between.

The number of people participating in defined contribution plans grows every year, and unfortunately, these plans are a bigger part of their nest egg as employers freeze their defined benefit plans. One of the key challenges as we move away from guaranteed benefits is making sure people have all the relevant information to help them decide which plan will best serve their needs. Recently, AARP conducted a survey in which it asked individuals with 401(k) plans if they even knew what they paid each year in fees. Only 17 percent of people asked said that they know what their fee levels were.

This is far from an academic matter. In fact, this could be disastrous for folks when they reach retirement. One person--who wishes to remain anonymous--recently shared with me a story that highlights what's at stake. She noticed one day that her 401(k) wasn't actually earning anything at all. After some examination, she found that the agent who set up the plan for the company received a fee of 2 percent annually for the first five years, reduced to .25 percent after that, paid by the employees and not the company. The investment firm charged a fee of 1.25 percent which they said was standard for companies with under $1 million in their 401ks. So, last year, she was paying 3.25 percent in fees and earning less than 4 percent from her money market fund. She didn't have a clue about the fees until she inquired after she realized she wasn't making any money on the fund.

So looking back at this AARP survey, of those 17 percent who said they knew what their fees were, 33 percent thought they weren't being charged any fees at all. Some companies will even tell people they are not being charged fees. While it is true that in some cases, employers pay fees, that is hardly the norm. And investment managers don't do their jobs for charity. These fees that people don't know about can have a big effect on what they end up with at retirement.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office recently estimated that a 45 year old with $20,000 in his 401(k) would have $70,555 at age 65 for his retirement, assuming he was getting a 6.5 percent return and only paying 0.5 percent in fees. But that figure decreases dramatically if the fees are increased by just a single percentage point, to 1.5 percent. At that figure the same individual, investing the same amount of money, would have only $58,400 for his retirement, or more than $12,000 less.

AARP took the GAO assumptions and created some additional examples. Consider this case: if a 35 year old invested $20,000 in a 401(k) plan over 30 years, paying 0.5 percent in fees, that individual would have $132,287 for retirement. But increase the fees to 1.5 percent, and the amount available for retirement is only $99,679--that is a 25 percent reduction in the account balance. Even if the fee only increased from 0.5 percent to 1 percent, the value of the retirement account would be reduced by $17,417, or a little over 13 percent over the 30-year period.

If you awoke one day to find that your bank account, or your retirement account, had declined in value by 25 percent, you would understandably be alarmed, and you would act quickly to fix the problem. But with high 401(k) fees, the reduction in benefits isn't immediately obvious. It happens slowly, over time, and often flies under people's radar screens because they are not told the level of fees they are paying, or they don't understand that some 401(k) plans charge far lower fees for providing the same amount of services. It is that problem--that information gap--that the Defined Contribution Fee Disclosure Act is designed to fix.

My bill would provide participants with easily understandable information about the fees that they are paying. This information will be provided to them before they pick which plans they want to invest in, and again, regularly, on their quarterly statements.

In addition, this bill does something even more important: it would require companies to disclose more information to plan sponsors. Right now, if you provide your workers with a 401(k) plan, you are required to act prudently and in their sole interest in your fiduciary duties. However, there are hidden fees that are sometimes not disclosed even to plan sponsors, and sometimes those sponsors also are not told about business arrangements between service providers to steer participants into investment options in which they have a stake, a classic conflict of interest.

To fix this, the bill would require 401(k) plan providers to disclose all fees and relationships between service providers to the people selecting the plan a company will ultimately offer. The bottom line is that we want to create a situation where companies are picking several good options for their employees that all have decent reliable returns and fair fees.

One thing my bill does not do is set a limit on fees that can be charged. As I have noted, high fees can make a real difference in account balances at retirement, but so can high returns, in a more positive direction, obviously. Sometimes, it is well worth paying higher fees if a small increase in fees will have a big effect on returns. In addition, some people want to purchase insurance products so that every month, they are buying a more secure piece of retirement. That is just fine, and my bill doesn't touch that. People who fully understand the real cost of a guaranteed return at retirement are the kind of people who appreciate, and will push for, more defined benefit plans. But they can't do that if they don't know what it costs.

The bottom line is that people need to be investing more, and more confidently, in the 401(k) plans they are being offered. This is especially critical in a world where defined benefit plans are increasingly being slashed and frozen. For a growing number of workers, their only source of retirement income is their 401(k).

Congress needs to focus more squarely on how we get workers to participate in the plans they have available, and what we can do to make sure the savings they grow in them are adequate. When people know they are being given all the facts in an easy-to-understand manner, they are more likely to contribute. And when the fiduciaries who are supposed to be looking out for them make sure all of their

options are good, they end up saving more money at the end of the day.

This bill is a win for companies who want to provide their workers with a secure retirement, it is a win for 401(k) providers who have been providing reasonable fees all along, and it is a win for every American who has one of these plans. My colleagues and I introducing this measure have worked with interested parties on every side of this issue to make sure we're taking into account everyone's views. We also intend to work closely with the Department of Labor on their proposed regulations on this issue. While we believe that Congress has an obligation to address this issue, if we can all work together to develop regulations that address this issue in a way that will truly help participants and beneficiaries get a good deal, I am certainly not opposed to getting this done administratively. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this measure.