Floor Statements

Madam President, yesterday, an overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the other body--reflecting the clear will of the American people--voted to oppose President Bush's decision to escalate the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. That vote was preceded by 4 full days of debate on the resolution. But here in the Senate, the Republican minority refuses to allow us even to bring a resolution to the floor for debate.

My office has been flooded with phone calls and e-mails from Iowans. The overwhelming majority of them are upset with the President's escalation plan. But they are also upset that the Senate is being obstructed. They simply cannot believe that Republican Senators are blocking debate on the No. 1 issue before our Nation, the No. 1 concern on the minds of the American people.

In a nutshell, callers are saying that Republican Senators have a right to support President Bush's war in Iraq. Republican Senators have a right to embrace his escalation of that war. But they do not have a right to block legitimate debate in the Senate on whether that escalation is wise or appropriate. They do not have a right to silence the voices of tens of millions of Americans--an overwhelming majority-- who have had enough of the quagmire in Iraq.

People in Iowa--and, I suspect, across the country--are saying that the election last November was a referendum on President Bush's war. Voters spoke loudly and clearly: They want our troops out of the civil war in Iraq.

The American people thought that their elected leaders in Washington heard this message. But they realize, now, that the Republicans simply don't care about the results of the election. They are determined to escalate the war. They are determined to prevent consideration of any resolution expressing disapproval of that escalation.

As a coequal branch of Government, Congress has a duty to debate this escalation. Out of respect for all our soldiers and Marines in Iraq--to keep faith with them--we as Senators have a duty to ask: Does their Commander-in-Chief have a credible plan in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice? Is the President's plan to escalate in Iraq in the best interest of the United States? Will the additional troops be sent into combat with proper equipment?

Unfortunately, the answer to those questions--after nearly 4 years of incompetence, bungling, and disastrously bad judgment by this administration--is a resounding ``no.''

Frankly, the President's plan to escalate is not just deeply disappointing, it is deeply disturbing. I am disturbed because Mr. Bush refuses to learn, and he refuses to listen. The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously opposed this escalation, as did our generals on the ground in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group warned that there cannot be a military solution to the sectarian chaos in Iraq, and said we should begin to bring our troops home. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is on record as opposing an increase in American troops. Most importantly, the American people said loudly and clearly on November 7 that they want our soldiers out of the civil war in Iraq.

But Mr. Bush refuses to listen to reason. Instead, he seems to listen only to his gut--the same gut that got us into this misguided, misbegotten war in the first place.

The President asserts that this latest escalation in Iraq is ``a new way forward.'' But what he has proposed is not new, and it is not a way forward. It is the same old ``stay the course'' policy--and it will drag us deeper into the Iraqi quagmire.

The President has previously ordered three troop surges in Iraq, in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Just last June, he unveiled ``Operation Forward Together'' to surge troops in Baghdad and secure the capital city. This operation was supposed to be led primarily by Iraqis, with U.S. troops in support. But the Iraqi forces never showed up.

Again and again, we have set goals for the Iraqi leaders. But there have been no deadlines, no accountability, no consequences. And, predictably, we have seen no positive results. The Iraqi leaders have reneged on their promises to rein in the militias. They have refused to compromise. And they have pursued their sectarian agendas with a vengeance.

So let's not kid ourselves. The President's latest Iraq plan is just a repackaging of his old, failed Iraq plans.

I am especially concerned about the impact of this escalation on our troops and their families, and on the U.S. military overall. Army brigades are supposed to be in combat for 1 year, and then have 2 years back home to retrain and reequip. But they have only been allowed an average of 1 year to regroup. And some brigades are now on their third deployment in Iraq.

One reason why the Joint Chiefs opposed this latest escalation is because of the deep strain on our combat forces. In December, the Army chief of staff bluntly warned Congress that the current pace of combat deployment threatens to quote-unquote ``break'' the Army. Meanwhile, we lack resources to meet any other contingency, such as a challenge from Iran or a flare-up on the Korean Peninsula.

Some supporters of the President's escalation claim that by debating the President's conduct of the war in Iraq and the merits of his escalation plan, we are somehow not supporting the troops.

I strongly disagree. I have complete confidence in our men and women in uniform in Iraq. They have brilliantly completed the tasks they were sent to Iraq to accomplish, and they did so despite a series of disastrous decisions by their civilian leaders in Washington.

But as a veteran myself, I am angry at the way these brave men and women have been misused and mistreated.

The President rushed them into combat without proper equipment, and in insufficient numbers. He has insisted on ``staying the course'' with a failed policy for nearly 4 miserable years. He has sent many troops back to Iraq for a third and even fourth rotation, with insufficient time to retrain and regroup. Now he insists on sending another 21,500 troops into the middle of a sectarian civil war in Baghdad and elsewhere without properly armored Humvees and other essential equipment.

Yet despite all of these acts of mismanagement and misfeasance-- directly jeopardizing the lives and welfare of our soldiers and Marines--the President's supporters have the gall to say that anyone who opposes this latest escalation somehow ``doesn't support the troops.''

This would be laughable if it weren't so tragic and deadly. The Senate has a duty to debate the proposed troop escalation. We have a duty to speak up when we believe the President's policy is wrong, and is likely to waste lives. We also have a duty to speak up for the overwhelming majority of Americans, who oppose this latest escalation, and who consider the entire war to be a tragic mistake.

At this point, the single best way to support the troops is to tell President Bush: Four years of bungling, bad judgment, and bullheadedness are enough. We have complete and total confidence in our troops. But we have no confidence in your leadership.

During debate in the other body this week, Republicans repeatedly charged that criticism of the President's escalation serves to ``embolden the enemy.'' And what exactly are these people saying? That Senators are supposed to stand silent like potted plants as this administration sinks us even deeper into the Iraqi quagmire?

Our enemies have indeed been emboldened. They were emboldened when this administration allowed Bin Laden to escape capture at Tora Bora. They were emboldened when this administration took its eye off the terrorists in Afghanistan, and diverted our military and intelligence assets to a reckless invasion of Iraq. They were emboldened when President Bush taunted the insurgents in Iraq to ``bring it on,'' and they successfully did just that. They were emboldened when the President pledged to get Bin Laden ``dead or alive,'' and failed to do so. They were emboldened when the greatest army in the world was allowed to get bogged down in a civil war in Iraq and on January 10, when another 21,500 troops were ordered to deploy to Ground Zero in that civil war.

Let's be clear: Our enemies have been emboldened by Mr. Bush's repeated, catastrophic mistakes, not by anyone's criticism of those mistakes.

The only true way forward in Iraq is to set a timetable for redeployment of U.S. forces. Only this will give the Iraqi leaders the incentive to resolve their differences and take responsibility for their own future.

As GEN George Casey, our commander in Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee: ``Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation, contributes to the dependency of Iraqi security forces on the coalition, [and] extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.''

Mr. Bush has it exactly backward. He has said that as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down. The truth is that the Iraqis will only stand up when it is clear that the U.S. troops are leaving.

By redeploying our troops to strategic locations elsewhere in the Middle East, we will be able to refocus our efforts to destroy the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001, and who continue to threaten us. Redeployment would free up U.S. forces to combat the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Other troops would be available to help respond to terrorist threats not just in Iraq, but also in Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and elsewhere.

The proposed troop escalation in Iraq is not a way forward; it is a way deeper into a tragic quagmire. This is not in our national interest. It is not in the interest of the long-suffering Iraqi people. And it is certainly not in the interest of our troops, who will be in the crossfire of a vicious civil war.

The conflict in Iraq cannot be solved militarily. It can only be solved through political compromise and reconciliation in Baghdad, and through aggressive diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors and across the Middle East.

It's time for a truly new course in Iraq. And, to that end, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture, and to allow the Senate to debate this important resolution.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2007, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Cochran, Dodd, Durbin, Kerry, Kohl, Murray, Rockefeller, Snowe and Stabenow.

The 1996 Telecom Act required that all television broadcasts were to be captioned by 2006 and all Spanish language programming was to be captioned by 2010. This was a much needed reform that has helped millions of deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans to be able to take full advantage of television programming. And now the first deadline has passed. On January 1, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began fining stations for not captioning.

Unfortunately, the United States has fallen behind in training captioners. We must jump start training programs to supply captioning for the many broadcasters just realizing their obligation now. And looking forward, we need to get students in the pipeline now to begin to address the need for Spanish language broadcasting.

This is an issue that I feel very strongly about because my late brother, Frank, was deaf. I know personally that access to culture, news, and other media was important to him and to others in achieving a better quality of life. More than 30 million Americans are considered deaf or hard of hearing and many require captioning services to participate in mainstream activities. In 1990, I authored legislation that required all television sets to be equipped with a computer chip to decode closed captioning. This bill completes the promise of that technology, affording deaf and hard of hearing Americans the same equality and access that captioning provides.

With baby boomers aging, the percentage of the population with hearing loss is increasing dramatically and will continue to outpace population growth for the next decade. But let me emphasize that the deaf and hard of hearing population is only one of a number of groups that will benefit from the legislation. The audience for captioning also includes individuals seeking to acquire or improve literacy skills, including approximately functionally illiterate adults, immigrants learning English as a second language, and children learning to read. Empirical research studies have been conducted repeatedly since 1988 to demonstrate that captions improve the performance of individuals learning to read English.

I see people using closed captioning to stay informed everywhere-- from the gym to the airport. Here in the Senate, I would wager that many individuals on our staff have the captioning turned on right now to follow what is happening on the Senate floor while they go about conducting the meetings and phone calls that advance legislation. Captioning helps people educate themselves and helps all of us stay informed and entertained when audio isn't the most appropriate medium.

Although the 2006 deadline has passed, our nation is facing a serious shortage of captioners. The rate of job placement upon graduation nears 100 percent. In addition, the majority of closed captioners are independent contractors. They are the small businesses that run the American economy and we should do everything we can to promote the creation and support of those businesses.

That is why my colleagues and I are re-introducing this vital piece of legislation. The Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2007 would establish competitive grants to be used toward training real time captioners. This is necessary to ensure that we meet the promises we made in the 1996 Telecom Act.

The Senate Commerce Committee reported this bill unanimously in the last two sessions, the full Senate has passed this Act without objection three times now, and we stand here today, once again at the beginning of the process. I am hopeful that this will be the Congress moves our country forward on this accessibility issue. I ask my colleagues to join us once again in support of this legislation and join us in our effort to win its passage into law.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2007, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Cochran, Dodd, Durbin, Kerry, Kohl, Murray, Rockefeller, Snowe and Stabenow.

The 1996 Telecom Act required that all television broadcasts were to be captioned by 2006 and all Spanish language programming was to be captioned by 2010. This was a much needed reform that has helped millions of deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans to be able to take full advantage of television programming. And now the first deadline has passed. On January 1, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began fining stations for not captioning.

Unfortunately, the United States has fallen behind in training captioners. We must jump start training programs to supply captioning for the many broadcasters just realizing their obligation now. And looking forward, we need to get students in the pipeline now to begin to address the need for Spanish language broadcasting.

This is an issue that I feel very strongly about because my late brother, Frank, was deaf. I know personally that access to culture, news, and other media was important to him and to others in achieving a better quality of life. More than 30 million Americans are considered deaf or hard of hearing and many require captioning services to participate in mainstream activities. In 1990, I authored legislation that required all television sets to be equipped with a computer chip to decode closed captioning. This bill completes the promise of that technology, affording deaf and hard of hearing Americans the same equality and access that captioning provides.

With baby boomers aging, the percentage of the population with hearing loss is increasing dramatically and will continue to outpace population growth for the next decade. But let me emphasize that the deaf and hard of hearing population is only one of a number of groups that will benefit from the legislation. The audience for captioning also includes individuals seeking to acquire or improve literacy skills, including approximately functionally illiterate adults, immigrants learning English as a second language, and children learning to read. Empirical research studies have been conducted repeatedly since 1988 to demonstrate that captions improve the performance of individuals learning to read English.

I see people using closed captioning to stay informed everywhere-- from the gym to the airport. Here in the Senate, I would wager that many individuals on our staff have the captioning turned on right now to follow what is happening on the Senate floor while they go about conducting the meetings and phone calls that advance legislation. Captioning helps people educate themselves and helps all of us stay informed and entertained when audio isn't the most appropriate medium.

Although the 2006 deadline has passed, our nation is facing a serious shortage of captioners. The rate of job placement upon graduation nears 100 percent. In addition, the majority of closed captioners are independent contractors. They are the small businesses that run the American economy and we should do everything we can to promote the creation and support of those businesses.

That is why my colleagues and I are re-introducing this vital piece of legislation. The Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2007 would establish competitive grants to be used toward training real time captioners. This is necessary to ensure that we meet the promises we made in the 1996 Telecom Act.

The Senate Commerce Committee reported this bill unanimously in the last two sessions, the full Senate has passed this Act without objection three times now, and we stand here today, once again at the beginning of the process. I am hopeful that this will be the Congress moves our country forward on this accessibility issue. I ask my colleagues to join us once again in support of this legislation and join us in our effort to win its passage into law.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets Act of 2007.'' Cosponsors joining me in introducing this legislation are: Senators Enzi, Feingold, Thomas, Dorgan, Baucus and McCaskill. This legislation seeks to level the playing field for agricultural producers by strengthening and clarifying the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 and strengthening enforcement of both laws by USDA. I intend to use this legislation as the basis for developing a proposed competition title in the new farm bill this year.

Consolidation is happening in all sectors of agriculture and having a negative effect on producers and consumers across the Nation. Consolidation in itself is not a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, but when some entities become larger and more powerful that makes enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act absolutely critical for independent livestock and poultry

producers. The statistics speak for themselves. For example, today, only four firms control 84 percent of the procurement of cattle and 64 percent of the procurement of hogs. Economists have stated that when four firms control over 40 percent of the industry, marketplace competitiveness begins to decline. Taken together with fewer buyers of livestock, highly integrated firms can exert tremendous power over the industry.

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, GIPSA, at USDA has the responsibility to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. This Act is critical, and protects livestock producers from unfair, unjustly discriminatory and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. For years I have had my doubts about whether USDA was serious about enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act. In 2005, I requested an audit by USDA's Inspector General to investigate USDA's oversight, and enforcement of the law. Last year, the Inspector General confirmed the concerns I had and uncovered even more systemic problems. The report described widespread inaction, management of the agency actively blocking employees from conducting investigations into anti- competitive behavior and a scheme to cover up the lack of enforcement by inflating the reported number of investigations conducted.

That is why today, the legislation I introduce will reorganize the structure in how USDA enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act and create an office of special counsel on competition matters. The special counsel would be appointed by the President with advice and consent from the U.S. Senate. Some would argue that Senate advice and consent is not needed. However, for over five years, GIPSA failed to move competition investigations forward and no one above the level of deputy administrator at GIPSA seemed to have any idea that any problems were going on, despite the fact I was sending letters to the Secretary of Agriculture pointing out that USDA was failing to enforce the law.

In the past year, GIPSA has worked in good faith to improve its enforcement activities. However, GIPSA only investigates potential violations of the law, they do not litigate and follow-through with the investigation to the end. Litigating cases is reserved only for USDA's Office of General Counsel, OGC, unless they refer it to the Department of Justice.

USDA's Office of General Counsel has not been active on cases involving anti-competitive practices in recent years since GIPSA was not referring cases to them. To be sure, only two cases involving anti- competitive practices were referred to OGC in 5 years. But there are concerns that OGC is not as committed to enforcing competition investigations as they should be. This lack of commitment was clearly evident last year in testimony provided by OGC Assistant General Counsel in the Trade Practices Division at a hearing by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Concerns about OGC's attitude toward enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act are not new. USDA's Inspector General stated in its 1997 audit that Packers and Stockyards program officials were concerned that OGC did not want to litigate competition cases ``because they are complicated and time consuming'' and OGC had ``limited expertise'' with them. In 2000, the Government Accountability Office found ``disagreements'' between OGC and GIPSA regarding the interpretation of the Act's competition provisions. By combining investigation and prosecution activities into the proposed special counsel office, designated to handle competition issues, it reduces the ability for investigations to be batted back and forth within USDA.

This legislation also makes many important clarifications to the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Packers and Stockyards Act prohibits unfair, unjustly discriminatory and anti-competitive practices, but some courts have ruled that producers need to prove an impact on competition in the market in order to prevail in such cases involving unfair or deceptive practices. For example, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a poultry grower operation failed to prove how its case involving an unfair termination of its contract adversely affected competition. The court indicated that the grower had to prove that their unfair treatment affected competition in the relevant market. That is very difficult to prove and was never the intent of the Packers and Stockyards Act.

This legislation also modifies the Packers and Stockyards Act so that poultry growers have the same enforcement protections by USDA as livestock. Currently, it is unlawful for a livestock packer or live poultry dealer to engage in any unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice, but USDA does not have the authority to enforce violations because the enforcement section of the law is absent of any reference to poultry. This important statutory change is long overdue. In addition, to better reflect the integrated nature of the poultry industry, this legislation also ensures that protections under the law extend to all poultry growers, such as breeder hen and pullet operations, not just those who raise broilers.

The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 was passed by Congress to ensure that producers are allowed to join together as an association to strengthen their position in the marketplace without being discriminated against by handlers. Unfortunately, this act was passed with a clause that essentially abolishes the actual intent of the law. The act states that ``nothing in this Act shall prevent handlers and producers from selecting their customers'' and it also states that it does not ``require a handler to deal with an association of producers.'' This clause in effect allows handlers to think of any reason possible to not do business with certain producers, as long as the stated reason is not because they belong to an association.

I propose to expand the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to provide new needed protections for agricultural contracts. As I have mentioned earlier, consolidation in all sectors of agriculture is reducing the number of buyers of commodities and for the very few who are left, many require contracts to conduct business. With so few buyers, it increases the chances that some firms will force unfair contracts upon producers. As a result, some producers have little or no choice but to contract with a firm with questionable practices or face leaving the industry they have known for their whole lives.

This amendment to the Agricultural Fair Practices Act requires that the contract spell out in clear language what is required by the producer. This legislation prohibits confidentiality clauses, ensuring producers the ability to share the contract with family members or a lawyer to help them make an informed decision on whether or not to sign it. This legislation also prevents companies from prematurely terminating contracts without notice when producers have made large capital investments as a condition of signing the contract. And it only allows mandatory arbitration after a dispute arises and both parties agree to it in writing. Producers should not be forced to sign contracts with arbitration clauses thereby preventing them from seeking legal remedy in the courts.

Mr. President, producers deserve to have a fair and evenhanded market in which to conduct business. This legislation won't be able to turn back the clock, but it will strengthen laws and enforcement of them so that markets operate more fairly.

Mr. President, I am honored to join with the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon, Senator Smith, to introduce the Safe Babies Act of 2007.

It is a tragic fact that America's child welfare system is failing our most vulnerable. From birth to age five, children develop their social, emotional, cognitive and moral capacities more rapidly than at any other time in life. Early experiences and relationships are absolutely critical to future development; they set the stage for how well individuals learn, think, control their emotions, and relate to others.

This critical period is a time of tremendous promise, but also a time of great vulnerability. Unfortunately, infants and toddlers are disproportionately affected by child abuse and neglect. Children between birth and age three are twice as likely as older children to become victims of maltreatment, and are three times more likely to be placed in foster care. Abuse and neglect during this significant period can lead to perilous developmental outcomes, including school failure, delinquency and crime, substance abuse, and mental health problems.

Yet the current child welfare system does a particularly poor job of serving infants and toddlers. Once in foster care, infants and toddlers are more likely to be abused. And they stay in foster care longer than older children. More than 40 percent of infants and toddlers involved in a maltreatment investigation are developmentally delayed, yet only 10 percent of these young people currently receive treatment for developmental problems.

A Federal review of 19 States' performance on child welfare outcomes found that all of the States received failing grades on outcomes related to providing adequate physical and mental health services.

Without intervention, we put our future generation at risk and perpetuate the cycle of maltreatment. But we can alter these developmental outcomes by ensuring that children are in safe, permanent homes and have access to necessary mental and physical health care. The Safe Babies Act authorizes funding for juvenile courts to create Court Teams for the integrated handling of infant and toddler abuse and neglect cases. By bringing together the legal, child welfare, and children's services communities, we can promote the health and well- being of our babies and toddlers.

First, this bill establishes a National Court Teams Resource Center. This Resource Center would provide grants and technical assistance to juvenile courts for the creation of local Court Teams to better handle infant and toddler abuse and neglect cases. Few judges have all the necessary knowledge about early childhood development and they frequently lack resources in the community for services necessary for young children. They are often frustrated by the piecemeal provision of services and the overburdened child welfare system. To adequately serve children, they need the expertise of child welfare workers, Guardians Ad Litem, Court Appointed Special Advocates, substance abuse treatment providers and mental health care providers. Court Teams bring together this expertise. Through monthly case reviews, judges can coordinate efforts by all members of the team to ensure efficient and effective provision of services. The goal of these courts is to prevent multiple placements for infants and toddlers in foster care, secure needed services, and find a permanent home for these children as quickly as possible.

Court Teams work with families in an effort to reunite children with their parents. By bringing together multiple service providers, they can facilitate opportunities for parents to learn to create a safe and nurturing home environment. Court Teams ensure support for future reunification only when the

parent is ready and able to step up to provide an appropriate and safe environment. We know from research that each visit between a child and birth parent triples the likelihood of achieving permanence. Through the Court Teams, judges are able to coordinate education and supervision so parents can visit their children and continue to nurture a loving bond.

Although reunification with parents is the ultimate goal, when that is not possible, Court Teams are also focusing on Plan B. By conducting concurrent planning, Court Teams are more likely to find an appropriate placement that will lead to permanency and minimize disruptions. By supporting training for foster parents and newly reunified biological parents, we can prevent children from being bounced around in the foster care system.

Court Teams are also able to coordinate services for children. Judges and child welfare services are able to collaborate to include necessary medical and developmental interventions. By improving access to mental health and substance abuse treatment for parents and children, Court Teams make sure children are able to access needed services and increase the chances of successful, healthy development.

Finally, Court Teams provide services and supports for families to preserve and stabilize homes for children. Judges are able to use court oversight to ensure compliance, facilitate visits with caregivers to promote positive attachments, and make sure that children are in safe environments after placement.

The Safe Babies Act will make an important impact in the way we treat infants and toddlers in the court system. By facilitating involvement from all parties, Court Teams are better equipped to ensure that young children have the community support and services they need. Early evaluation research in the Miami/Dade County court project finds a high rate of permanency for children in the court and increased quality of parent-child interaction. By finding permanent homes, children were able to escape the limbo of the foster care system. More importantly, the court was successful in preventing any future recurrence of abuse or neglect.

Together we can work to protect the safety and well-being of our infants and toddlers. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to ensure that children are placed quickly in safe and loving homes. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is passed and signed into law.

Mr. President, as you may have heard, today we are launching the Partnership for Play Every Day and it has been spearheaded by three terrific organizations: the YMCA, the National Recreation and Park Association, and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Together, they have 350 years of experience in helping our kids to be physically active or, to use the old-fashioned word, ``to play.''

More than a century ago, these groups came together to support the Playground Movement, which took kids out of factories and coal mines, and gave them parks and playgrounds where they could be children again.

Well, today we face a different challenge. As we confront an epidemic of childhood obesity, as many new elementary schools are built without playgrounds, as recess and PE are phased out of so many of our schools, we need a 21st century Playground Movement. And that's what we are launching this morning.

On a personal note, I have been a lifelong admirer of the YMCA. When I was in my early 20s and aspiring to join the Navy as a fighter pilot, they told me: First you've got to learn how to swim. So what did I do? I signed up at the Y in downtown Des Moines for swimming lessons.

Well, the Y was there for me, just as the Y is there for millions of American families, giving them the facilities and tools to stay fit and healthy.

You know, there is something fundamentally wrong when kids spend their free time parked in front of the TV instead of playing in parks.

I mentioned the childhood obesity epidemic. ``Epidemic'' is not my word. That's what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call it. Today, nearly 15 percent of American children and teenagers are obese. A quarter of the children between the ages of 5 and 10 already show the early warning signs of heart disease. Cases of adult-onset diabetes in children--which used to be almost unheard of--have exploded tenfold in the last two decades.

Add it all up, and experts say there is a very real prospect that today's kids could be the first generation in American history to have a shorter lifespan than their parent's generation.

And that is unacceptable. We are not going to let that happen. And that is why we have set the goal of ensuring that every child in America gets 60 minutes of play and physical activity every day.

Hand in hand with this important new initiative, today I am honored to introduce with Senator Hillary Clinton a bill called the PLAY Every Day Act. That first word, PLAY, is an acronym for ``Promoting Lifelong Active Communities.''

The PLAY Every Day Act will help to promote the national physical- activity standards for both children and adults.

To that end, the legislation will do two things:

One, it will mandate the development of a well-validated assessment tool called the ``community play index,'' to identify barriers preventing young people from being physically active in a given community.

And two, it will help local coalitions to use this ``community play index'' as they craft plans to promote physical activity and wellness in their communities.

My vision is to have every community in America focused on promoting

health and preventing disease--instead of just dealing with the bad consequences of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

By the way, I am grateful to the good corporate citizens that are joining in the Partnership for Play Every Day, including PepsiCo, Toyota, Kellogg Company, General Mills, PlayCore, and Landscape Structures. Your support of this legislation and new initiative is going to be critical to the Partnership's success.

So, again, I salute all the players in this new Partnership. Together, we can build a better, healthier future for America's children.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets Act of 2007.'' Cosponsors joining me in introducing this legislation are: Senators Enzi, Feingold, Thomas, Dorgan, Baucus and McCaskill. This legislation seeks to level the playing field for agricultural producers by strengthening and clarifying the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 and strengthening enforcement of both laws by USDA. I intend to use this legislation as the basis for developing a proposed competition title in the new farm bill this year.

Consolidation is happening in all sectors of agriculture and having a negative effect on producers and consumers across the Nation. Consolidation in itself is not a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, but when some entities become larger and more powerful that makes enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act absolutely critical for independent livestock and poultry

producers. The statistics speak for themselves. For example, today, only four firms control 84 percent of the procurement of cattle and 64 percent of the procurement of hogs. Economists have stated that when four firms control over 40 percent of the industry, marketplace competitiveness begins to decline. Taken together with fewer buyers of livestock, highly integrated firms can exert tremendous power over the industry.

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, GIPSA, at USDA has the responsibility to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. This Act is critical, and protects livestock producers from unfair, unjustly discriminatory and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. For years I have had my doubts about whether USDA was serious about enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act. In 2005, I requested an audit by USDA's Inspector General to investigate USDA's oversight, and enforcement of the law. Last year, the Inspector General confirmed the concerns I had and uncovered even more systemic problems. The report described widespread inaction, management of the agency actively blocking employees from conducting investigations into anti- competitive behavior and a scheme to cover up the lack of enforcement by inflating the reported number of investigations conducted.

That is why today, the legislation I introduce will reorganize the structure in how USDA enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act and create an office of special counsel on competition matters. The special counsel would be appointed by the President with advice and consent from the U.S. Senate. Some would argue that Senate advice and consent is not needed. However, for over five years, GIPSA failed to move competition investigations forward and no one above the level of deputy administrator at GIPSA seemed to have any idea that any problems were going on, despite the fact I was sending letters to the Secretary of Agriculture pointing out that USDA was failing to enforce the law.

In the past year, GIPSA has worked in good faith to improve its enforcement activities. However, GIPSA only investigates potential violations of the law, they do not litigate and follow-through with the investigation to the end. Litigating cases is reserved only for USDA's Office of General Counsel, OGC, unless they refer it to the Department of Justice.

USDA's Office of General Counsel has not been active on cases involving anti-competitive practices in recent years since GIPSA was not referring cases to them. To be sure, only two cases involving anti- competitive practices were referred to OGC in 5 years. But there are concerns that OGC is not as committed to enforcing competition investigations as they should be. This lack of commitment was clearly evident last year in testimony provided by OGC Assistant General Counsel in the Trade Practices Division at a hearing by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

Concerns about OGC's attitude toward enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act are not new. USDA's Inspector General stated in its 1997 audit that Packers and Stockyards program officials were concerned that OGC did not want to litigate competition cases ``because they are complicated and time consuming'' and OGC had ``limited expertise'' with them. In 2000, the Government Accountability Office found ``disagreements'' between OGC and GIPSA regarding the interpretation of the Act's competition provisions. By combining investigation and prosecution activities into the proposed special counsel office, designated to handle competition issues, it reduces the ability for investigations to be batted back and forth within USDA.

This legislation also makes many important clarifications to the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Packers and Stockyards Act prohibits unfair, unjustly discriminatory and anti-competitive practices, but some courts have ruled that producers need to prove an impact on competition in the market in order to prevail in such cases involving unfair or deceptive practices. For example, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a poultry grower operation failed to prove how its case involving an unfair termination of its contract adversely affected competition. The court indicated that the grower had to prove that their unfair treatment affected competition in the relevant market. That is very difficult to prove and was never the intent of the Packers and Stockyards Act.

This legislation also modifies the Packers and Stockyards Act so that poultry growers have the same enforcement protections by USDA as livestock. Currently, it is unlawful for a livestock packer or live poultry dealer to engage in any unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice, but USDA does not have the authority to enforce violations because the enforcement section of the law is absent of any reference to poultry. This important statutory change is long overdue. In addition, to better reflect the integrated nature of the poultry industry, this legislation also ensures that protections under the law extend to all poultry growers, such as breeder hen and pullet operations, not just those who raise broilers.

The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 was passed by Congress to ensure that producers are allowed to join together as an association to strengthen their position in the marketplace without being discriminated against by handlers. Unfortunately, this act was passed with a clause that essentially abolishes the actual intent of the law. The act states that ``nothing in this Act shall prevent handlers and producers from selecting their customers'' and it also states that it does not ``require a handler to deal with an association of producers.'' This clause in effect allows handlers to think of any reason possible to not do business with certain producers, as long as the stated reason is not because they belong to an association.

I propose to expand the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to provide new needed protections for agricultural contracts. As I have mentioned earlier, consolidation in all sectors of agriculture is reducing the number of buyers of commodities and for the very few who are left, many require contracts to conduct business. With so few buyers, it increases the chances that some firms will force unfair contracts upon producers. As a result, some producers have little or no choice but to contract with a firm with questionable practices or face leaving the industry they have known for their whole lives.

This amendment to the Agricultural Fair Practices Act requires that the contract spell out in clear language what is required by the producer. This legislation prohibits confidentiality clauses, ensuring producers the ability to share the contract with family members or a lawyer to help them make an informed decision on whether or not to sign it. This legislation also prevents companies from prematurely terminating contracts without notice when producers have made large capital investments as a condition of signing the contract. And it only allows mandatory arbitration after a dispute arises and both parties agree to it in writing. Producers should not be forced to sign contracts with arbitration clauses thereby preventing them from seeking legal remedy in the courts.

Mr. President, producers deserve to have a fair and evenhanded market in which to conduct business. This legislation won't be able to turn back the clock, but it will strengthen laws and enforcement of them so that markets operate more fairly.

Mr. President, I am honored to join with the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon, Senator Smith, to introduce the Safe Babies Act of 2007.

It is a tragic fact that America's child welfare system is failing our most vulnerable. From birth to age five, children develop their social, emotional, cognitive and moral capacities more rapidly than at any other time in life. Early experiences and relationships are absolutely critical to future development; they set the stage for how well individuals learn, think, control their emotions, and relate to others.

This critical period is a time of tremendous promise, but also a time of great vulnerability. Unfortunately, infants and toddlers are disproportionately affected by child abuse and neglect. Children between birth and age three are twice as likely as older children to become victims of maltreatment, and are three times more likely to be placed in foster care. Abuse and neglect during this significant period can lead to perilous developmental outcomes, including school failure, delinquency and crime, substance abuse, and mental health problems.

Yet the current child welfare system does a particularly poor job of serving infants and toddlers. Once in foster care, infants and toddlers are more likely to be abused. And they stay in foster care longer than older children. More than 40 percent of infants and toddlers involved in a maltreatment investigation are developmentally delayed, yet only 10 percent of these young people currently receive treatment for developmental problems.

A Federal review of 19 States' performance on child welfare outcomes found that all of the States received failing grades on outcomes related to providing adequate physical and mental health services.

Without intervention, we put our future generation at risk and perpetuate the cycle of maltreatment. But we can alter these developmental outcomes by ensuring that children are in safe, permanent homes and have access to necessary mental and physical health care. The Safe Babies Act authorizes funding for juvenile courts to create Court Teams for the integrated handling of infant and toddler abuse and neglect cases. By bringing together the legal, child welfare, and children's services communities, we can promote the health and well- being of our babies and toddlers.

First, this bill establishes a National Court Teams Resource Center. This Resource Center would provide grants and technical assistance to juvenile courts for the creation of local Court Teams to better handle infant and toddler abuse and neglect cases. Few judges have all the necessary knowledge about early childhood development and they frequently lack resources in the community for services necessary for young children. They are often frustrated by the piecemeal provision of services and the overburdened child welfare system. To adequately serve children, they need the expertise of child welfare workers, Guardians Ad Litem, Court Appointed Special Advocates, substance abuse treatment providers and mental health care providers. Court Teams bring together this expertise. Through monthly case reviews, judges can coordinate efforts by all members of the team to ensure efficient and effective provision of services. The goal of these courts is to prevent multiple placements for infants and toddlers in foster care, secure needed services, and find a permanent home for these children as quickly as possible.

Court Teams work with families in an effort to reunite children with their parents. By bringing together multiple service providers, they can facilitate opportunities for parents to learn to create a safe and nurturing home environment. Court Teams ensure support for future reunification only when the

parent is ready and able to step up to provide an appropriate and safe environment. We know from research that each visit between a child and birth parent triples the likelihood of achieving permanence. Through the Court Teams, judges are able to coordinate education and supervision so parents can visit their children and continue to nurture a loving bond.

Although reunification with parents is the ultimate goal, when that is not possible, Court Teams are also focusing on Plan B. By conducting concurrent planning, Court Teams are more likely to find an appropriate placement that will lead to permanency and minimize disruptions. By supporting training for foster parents and newly reunified biological parents, we can prevent children from being bounced around in the foster care system.

Court Teams are also able to coordinate services for children. Judges and child welfare services are able to collaborate to include necessary medical and developmental interventions. By improving access to mental health and substance abuse treatment for parents and children, Court Teams make sure children are able to access needed services and increase the chances of successful, healthy development.

Finally, Court Teams provide services and supports for families to preserve and stabilize homes for children. Judges are able to use court oversight to ensure compliance, facilitate visits with caregivers to promote positive attachments, and make sure that children are in safe environments after placement.

The Safe Babies Act will make an important impact in the way we treat infants and toddlers in the court system. By facilitating involvement from all parties, Court Teams are better equipped to ensure that young children have the community support and services they need. Early evaluation research in the Miami/Dade County court project finds a high rate of permanency for children in the court and increased quality of parent-child interaction. By finding permanent homes, children were able to escape the limbo of the foster care system. More importantly, the court was successful in preventing any future recurrence of abuse or neglect.

Together we can work to protect the safety and well-being of our infants and toddlers. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to ensure that children are placed quickly in safe and loving homes. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is passed and signed into law.

Mr. President, as you may have heard, today we are launching the Partnership for Play Every Day and it has been spearheaded by three terrific organizations: the YMCA, the National Recreation and Park Association, and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Together, they have 350 years of experience in helping our kids to be physically active or, to use the old-fashioned word, ``to play.''

More than a century ago, these groups came together to support the Playground Movement, which took kids out of factories and coal mines, and gave them parks and playgrounds where they could be children again.

Well, today we face a different challenge. As we confront an epidemic of childhood obesity, as many new elementary schools are built without playgrounds, as recess and PE are phased out of so many of our schools, we need a 21st century Playground Movement. And that's what we are launching this morning.

On a personal note, I have been a lifelong admirer of the YMCA. When I was in my early 20s and aspiring to join the Navy as a fighter pilot, they told me: First you've got to learn how to swim. So what did I do? I signed up at the Y in downtown Des Moines for swimming lessons.

Well, the Y was there for me, just as the Y is there for millions of American families, giving them the facilities and tools to stay fit and healthy.

You know, there is something fundamentally wrong when kids spend their free time parked in front of the TV instead of playing in parks.

I mentioned the childhood obesity epidemic. ``Epidemic'' is not my word. That's what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention call it. Today, nearly 15 percent of American children and teenagers are obese. A quarter of the children between the ages of 5 and 10 already show the early warning signs of heart disease. Cases of adult-onset diabetes in children--which used to be almost unheard of--have exploded tenfold in the last two decades.

Add it all up, and experts say there is a very real prospect that today's kids could be the first generation in American history to have a shorter lifespan than their parent's generation.

And that is unacceptable. We are not going to let that happen. And that is why we have set the goal of ensuring that every child in America gets 60 minutes of play and physical activity every day.

Hand in hand with this important new initiative, today I am honored to introduce with Senator Hillary Clinton a bill called the PLAY Every Day Act. That first word, PLAY, is an acronym for ``Promoting Lifelong Active Communities.''

The PLAY Every Day Act will help to promote the national physical- activity standards for both children and adults.

To that end, the legislation will do two things:

One, it will mandate the development of a well-validated assessment tool called the ``community play index,'' to identify barriers preventing young people from being physically active in a given community.

And two, it will help local coalitions to use this ``community play index'' as they craft plans to promote physical activity and wellness in their communities.

My vision is to have every community in America focused on promoting

health and preventing disease--instead of just dealing with the bad consequences of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

By the way, I am grateful to the good corporate citizens that are joining in the Partnership for Play Every Day, including PepsiCo, Toyota, Kellogg Company, General Mills, PlayCore, and Landscape Structures. Your support of this legislation and new initiative is going to be critical to the Partnership's success.

So, again, I salute all the players in this new Partnership. Together, we can build a better, healthier future for America's children.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Georgia, as a cosponsor of legislation to provide some needed improvements to the Food Stamp Program's eligibility rules.

Senator Chambliss' legislation, the Food Stamp Personal Savings and Investment Act of 2007, would exempt retirement accounts and educational savings accounts from the current asset limits test in the Food Stamp Program. Additionally, this bill would index the current asset limit to inflation.

For most households, the current asset limit in the Food Stamp Program is $2000; $3000 for households with an elderly individual or an individual with a disability. This limit has not been raised in over 20 years, making it inconsistent with the economic challenges faced by today's low-income working families in America.

In addition, current Food Stamp Program resources rules are inconsistent. Many types of retirement accounts and all educational savings accounts are counted against the asset limit, meaning that a working mother who has recently become unemployed but managed to save $2500 for her daughter's college education is actually ineligible for food stamps. This forces otherwise eligible households to have to choose between liquidating such savings, which in many cases are also subject to a financial penalty, or going without needed food assistance.

It is clear that current Food Stamp Program rules actually discourage people from planning responsibly for their futures and deny them a helping hand at a time when they need it most. It makes no sense for the government to force families that are suffering through periods of unemployment to spend down the savings which represent their only source of security in times of hardship. In essence we require people to trade-off their minimal savings for meager food stamp benefits that equal an average of one dollar per meal per person.

If our true goal is to provide low-income families with a hand up--to help make a better life for themselves and their children--then we must enact policies that actually encourage them to build the resources that are necessary to get out of poverty and remove the barriers to saving that exist in current law. Exempting retirement and educational savings accounts from the Food Stamp Program's asset limits test will help do that.

Similarly, adjusting the current asset limit so that it rises with inflation will provide a more reasonable, less-restrictive threshold that, though modest, will at least prevent further erosion in the current asset limits. I'm hopeful that we can do more than just indexing the current limit, which is too restrictive. I hope that we can first increase the asset limits and then index them annually to inflation. But Senator Chambliss' bill is a good start, and I commend him for seeking to address this problem.

Taken together, these are common sense changes that are needed throughout our federal anti-poverty programs to allow low-income Americans who are currently discouraged from saving to invest in their futures. The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry obviously has no jurisdiction over other anti-poverty programs, but we can start by removing the unrealistic and damaging limits that currently exist within the Food Stamp Program.

I should also make clear that this is not the only change needed to improve upon the Food Stamp Program. We clearly must do more to help those who suffer from food insecurity in this country, and there are a number of other improvements that we should make to our federal food assistance programs to help low-income families put food on their tables.

This legislation is a good start to the larger objective of simplifying and strengthening our food assistance programs to make them more responsive and relevant to helping meet the needs of today's low- income American families. I commend Senator Chambliss for introducing this bill, am happy to cosponsor it and look forward to continuing to work with him to promote economic and food security and stability for low-income Americans and families.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak as if in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, I have been periodically tuning in today during committee hearings and other work we do around here on some of the debate surrounding whether we are going to have a debate on Iraq. It is hard for the average American out there who may be watching C- SPAN to understand whether there is any sanity in this place, whether we are really rational individuals running the Senate.

This is supposed to be the most deliberative body, as we keep calling ourselves, in the world. The function of the Senate is to debate and to discuss, sometimes ad nauseam, different measures. Sometimes we can debate for a long time around here. People in this country wonder what is happening here that the Republicans won't even allow debate on the most important single issue confronting America today: the war in Iraq and the escalation.

I make it clear from the outset to those who may be watching, to try to clear it up as much as possible, the Republicans, through parliamentary maneuvers and through their vote yesterday, will not even allow the Senate to

debate Iraq. I can talk on it if I want to. Of course, I can. But they will not allow us to go to a debate on the Warner resolution, which has very strong bipartisan support, and has a majority of the votes in the Senate.

We are faced with an unusual situation which I don't know has ever occurred here before. A matter which is life and death for so many of our young men and women--disrupting families, causing untold drain on our Federal Treasury, not just now but for years in the future, causing us to lose friends and allies around the world--and we can't even debate it. But that is the situation in which we find ourselves.

I can tell you, over the last few weeks I have had thousands contact my office through e-mails and phone calls. I must say, the vast majority, the overwhelming majority, oppose the President's escalation and the war in Iraq.

Over the last 24 hours, since yesterday, much of their anger and focus has been not so much on the President and his misguided policies but on the Republicans in the Senate who won't allow Members to debate the issue. As one said, we debate this in our workplace, we debate it in the parking lot, we debate it after church on Sunday, we debate it with our neighbors, in our clubs, at the bowling alleys, but you guys can't debate it in the Senate? They just cannot believe that Republican Senators are blocking debate on the No. 1 issue before our Nation.

In a nutshell, what callers are saying to my office is that Senators have a right if they want to support the President's position on the war in Iraq. They have a right to embrace his escalation of the war, but they do not have a right to block legitimate debate in the Senate on whether the escalation is wise or appropriate. They do not have the right to silence the voices of tens of millions of Americans who have had enough of our quagmire in Iraq.

People in Iowa, and I suspect across the country, are saying the election last November was a referendum on the war. Voters spoke loudly and clearly; they want our troops out of the civil war in Iraq. I imagine the American people probably thought their elected leaders in Washington got the message. Well, maybe they see now that the Republican minority in the Senate does not even care about what happened in the election. They want to escalate the war. But that is fine. If that is their choice, that is their choice. But what should not be their choice is to silence debate by a majority of Senators who oppose the escalation in Iraq.

I think this is what got people so upset and are calling and e- mailing my office. People in this country, in times of crisis such as this, are always way ahead of the politicians. They know that by voting against debating the war, the Republican Senators have voted to endorse President Bush's escalation of that war.

It is one thing for Republican Senators to ignore the Iraq Study Group's recommendations. It is one thing for Republican Senators to ignore the results of the November election. It is one thing for them to ignore all the warnings of the generals last year. But what is unacceptable is that Republicans in the Senate refuse to listen to the families of soldiers who are being asked to put their lives on the line for this last and reckless roll of the dice in Iraq.

Among those being committed to the escalation are more than 600 soldiers from the Iowa Army National Guard. Many of them are from the 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry headquartered in Waterloo, IA. Other units are from Dubuque, Iowa Falls, Charles City, and Oelwein. These soldiers have been deployed since early last year in Anbar Province, the most violent region in Iraq.

These soldiers were supposed to come home in the spring. But just 1 day after the President announced his escalation, they learned they would not be coming home. Instead, their combat tour in Iraq would be extended to 16 months. Think about that--nearly a year and a half in the middle of some of the most deadly combat in Iraq. To make matters worse, as we now know, many of the soldiers and their families learned about it through the media before they were officially notified.

I want to make it clear, I know some of these members of the Iowa Army National Guard. They are disciplined professionals. Even those who I know profoundly disagree with this escalation, I know they will do their duty. And they are doing their duty in Iraq. They deserve our profound respect and admiration. But they deserve to be listened to. And their families deserve to be listened to.

From the letters, e-mails, and phone calls I have gotten, people are outraged that Republicans are not allowing the Senate to even debate the escalation.

We got some e-mails in, and I started reading some of them. I asked my staff to contact them to see if I could read them on the Senate floor. I would not want to read an e-mail on the floor unless I had permission from the sender.

So I have three letters I am going to read because they are so profound. One is from Barbara--I will not use the last name--in Iowa whose husband is with the 133rd Infantry. This is what she writes:

Senator Harkin: I sit here to write this letter, not

knowing why since I'm feeling like no one cares anymore or

will be able to do anything about it. I am a 41 year old

woman, (as of today), a military wife of 23 years and a

mother of 3. My husband is a proud member of the 1-133rd

Infantry. This unit was called up to serve in the Sinai for 9

months from April 2003 until January of 2004. Just a short 18

months later they were ripped away from their families once

again to be a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. They are

currently serving in Iraq and have been gone for 16 months so

far on this mission. The soldiers and the families have

finally been feeling like we were seeing the light at the end

of the tunnel. As the new year began we all started our

countdown for our reunions expected for the first part of

April. Three days ago, our worlds came crashing down once

again as we learned that our loved ones would not be coming

home in April, but were being extended until August, thus

being deployed for almost 2 years by the time they return. I

am angry, I am devastated! How could this happen? How could

you let this happen? How could this be right? I have lost all

hope and faith in our government. I don't understand much

about politics so my biggest question is if so many people

are against this war and the increase of troops being sent

over then why is the president not listening? Doesn't he

care? I voted for him and believed in him and he has let me

down. I attended a meeting that was to discuss this extension

and we were told some good things were happening for the

future for the guards. Limited times of 12 months being

deployed and 5 years in between call ups. Even though I am so

happy for these changes for the future, you have to

understand that 700 families are devastated right now,

feeling left out, and not cared for because this doesn't help

our soldiers or us right now. Please, please think about the

effects this is having on our soldiers and their families. We

all have given so much and though we are proud to have been

part of serving our country, it's time for our soldiers to

come home. Please bring them home.

Sincerely,

Barbara

The next letter is from Jodi in Iowa. She said:

I have a 20 year old son who has put his life on hold for

the past 18 months. He left after only two weeks of his

freshman year of college. He deployed to Iraq last April and

was due to come home in three months. Now we are told he is

to stay another 4 months. I have seen no progress in the

Iraqi war and can not justify my son losing another 4 months

of his life. I feel it is the lower and middle class people

who are providing the men and women who are fighting this

war. How many of your fellow congressmen have sons,

daughters, husbands, wives, nieces or nephews serving in this

war? I have a son, a nephew and a niece in Iraq. They joined

the Guard for money so they could attend college, not

because they were eager to go to war. They were assured

when they signed up that they would not need to worry

about being deployed. They do not want nor do we want them

to stay longer than what they were told when they left

last April. Please help bring my son home. He has served

his time and his country and served it well.

Sincerely,

Jodi

Last, I will read a letter from Nikole:

Dear Senator Harkin:

I write to you as the wife of a soldier in the 1-133. My

husband, SSG Nicholas . . . , has been stationed in Iraq

since the end of March 2006. He also trained at Camp Shelby,

Mississippi for five months prior. He was to come home at the

beginning of April; however, he has now been extended for an

additional four months.

My husband and I have been married for almost six years. He

was in the US Army when we married and then joined the Iowa

National Guard after exiting the service to continue to serve

his country. My husband is 27 years old. He has served eight

years in the military. Before his deployment he was a junior

at Iowa State University majoring in Community Regional

Planning and had plans to attend graduate school.

Our lives have been put on hold during this deployment. We

both went into the deployment knowing that it would be

difficult, but

we knew that our love would allow us to make it through. Our

motivation was the ability to secure our future with

financial freedom.

Think about that: ``Our motivation was the ability to secure our future with financial freedom.''

We planned to purchase our first house with the money that

we saved.

During his two-week leave in September, we began building a

new home. The house was to be finished in February. This

would allow me time to move in and decorate just in time for

his return. It was PERFECT timing. We would be able to pick

up our lives and move on.

As you can imagine, we were both extremely disappointed to

hear the news that he would be extended for an additional

four months, already a longer time than any other unit

deployed to Iraq.

I have not only lost my husband. I have lost my very best

friend, my lover, my confident, my motivation and inspiration

for life, that one person that knows and understands me the

most. I am sure you can relate to someone in your own life.

Sure, my wife.

Now imagine that person being torn away from you for two

years and place them in harm's way in a war zone. I act tough

to my husband so that he will have one less thing to worry

about. However, it IS an act. I miss him. I need him. I am

falling apart.

My intention is not to be rude, complain, and say nasty

comments. I am sure that you receive enough of those types of

letters. I just pray that our story can give you a glimpse

into our lives and the effect of the situation. I also pray

that by hearing a personal story you will reconsider and

allow the 1-133 to return home to their families, their

children, their jobs, and continue their lives as American

citizens.

Sincerely,

Nikole

Mr. President, I took the time to read those three letters. If we do not speak for these families, who will? If we are not allowed to debate here, are their voices to be silenced? They do not have the right to come here on the Senate floor and speak. I have the right to read their letters, with their permission, but why can't we debate this and speak on behalf of them and so many other families in this country who want their stories told and who want an end to this quagmire in Iraq?

They now know--people are so far ahead of us; they are so far ahead of the politicians around here--they know what is happening. They know that Iraq was a lie; it was a mistake. They know there was never any weapons of mass destruction. They know now that Saddam Hussein, however bad he was, was not involved in acts of terrorism against the United States--against his own people but not against the United States.

They now know that what is happening in Iraq is a civil war. As I was told some years ago by a person from the Emirates--close to there--he said to me: Senator, you have to understand that Iraq was really three countries. It is just a figment of the British imagination that they put it together in the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War. He said: Really it is three countries, the Shias, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. He said: Furthermore, Senator, it is a civil war waiting to happen, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Yes, maybe someone as ruthless as Saddam could put the lid on it for a while. And we would hope they would come to their senses and not have a civil war. They have had an election. They have a parliament. And now it is time for the Iraqis to take matters into their own hands. The longer we are there, the more involved we become, the more it becomes America's war against the Iraqis.

I read the article in the Washington Post this morning about how our troops are now going door-to-door in Iraq, and they just bust in. They busted into the home of a woman who had a master's degree in English translation, whose husband was a major in the Iraqi Army. And she said: Why didn't you just have the courtesy to knock? I would have let you in.

These soldiers are going into homes. They are going into bedrooms and looking under beds, tearing sheets off the beds, looking through dressers of people who have nothing to do with the war. These are just civilians and they happen to be caught in a zone.

You wonder how they feel about us after something like that happens. One soldier was quoted in the paper this morning talking about his first tour of Iraq right after the invasion. He said: Things were fine. We went out with the Iraqi people. Now I go over there and they spit at us, every one of them.

So the people of this country understand that this war was a terrible mistake from the beginning. It has been not only a mistake and a lie to get into it, it has been mismanaged from the very beginning. It has cost over 3,000 of our young men and women's lives. How many Iraqi lives? I am told the count is now way over 50,000, maybe as high as 100,000, with millions more displaced from their homes, going into Jordan. That is going to cause a lot of unrest in Jordan with all the displaced people and refugees there.

The answer is not to continue this miserable escalation the President wants to do. Everyone realizes this won't do it. It is just going to cause more misery, more suffering, cost more money, cost more lives.

That is the kind of debate we want to have. But Republican Senators will not allow us to have the debate or even to have a vote on the resolution of disapproval. We have a duty to debate this escalation, to speak up when we believe the President's policy is wrong. We have a duty to speak up for families, such as the ones whose letters I read, and for the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose this new escalation. It is unconscionable that Republicans leaders, at the behest of President Bush, are refusing to allow the Senate to debate the escalation in Iraq. It is time for them to listen to the American people and the families of our troops in the field. It is time to stop the obstruction, allow the Senate to debate the Warner resolution, and to have a vote. That is all we are asking for. Vote your conscience. If people want to vote to support the escalation, if they want to speak on behalf of it, that is their right as U.S. Senators. But I hope they don't realize they have a right to silence the voices of millions of Americans who are looking to us to do something, to bring some reasoning, some rational discourse, and some clear thinking to what is happening in Iraq and to confront the truth.

As I said earlier, our young men and women are doing their duty. I know. I have an e-mail I received the other day from a young man in Iraq who has been there for quite a while. I won't use his name because I didn't ask his permission to use the e-mail. He said in his e-mail that he--I am not sure of the word--disagreed with the war. He said: This war is not winnable. The military cannot do this over here. But he is doing his job. He is putting himself in harm's way day after day. They realize this is a bad mistake. You think we would start realizing it around here, too.

War is not the answer in Iraq. Diplomacy is, bringing in other countries. Does it mean we have to talk with Iran? I have no problem with that. The President once said he didn't want to talk to Iran because they were our enemies. I guess all we want to talk to is our friends. If I disagree with someone here, I want to talk to that person. I want to find out why. Is there any way we can reach resolution? So we ought to be talking with Syria and Jordan and Iran, Iraq, of course, Turkey, Syria--all the countries around there. We ought to be talking to them. And there ought to be a more concerted effort on the diplomatic side than there is on the military side. We are putting too much on the military and not enough on diplomacy. I would hope the Iraqis would come to their senses and not engage in a civil war, but that is their decision to make. We can't make it for them.

The longer we are there, the worse it becomes. The longer we are there, the more and more Iraqis turn against us. More and more people in the Mideast turn against us. And more and more we lose our standing in the world community. I daresay we have precious few friends around the world today who are willing to stand with us. Prior to this war, after 9/11, the entire world was on our side. After those planes hit the Twin Towers and the one hit the Pentagon and the one went down in Pennsylvania which was probably coming here, the world was on our side. Countries all over the world--Muslim nations were on our side. Even Iran sent out some feelers to go after the Taliban. They didn't like the Taliban, either. And here we squandered it all, with the whole world on our side 5 years ago. Now we would be hard-pressed to find a few. They may be with us here and there on this or that, but

we know what they are saying about our involvement in Iraq. We know what they are saying about our standing in the world community. We know that. It is going to take a long time to rebuild it. The longer we persist in this unconscionable, unwinnable quagmire war in Iraq, the longer it is going to take us to get our standing back in the word community. Try we must. We need to bring this war to its conclusion.

It is not losing the war. People say: We can't lose it. I wasn't in the Senate, but I was in the House of Representatives when the Vietnam war finally came to a close. We heard the same arguments then, that we can't afford to lose, that the whole of Southeast Asia would be in flames, communism would take over the Philippines, communism would take over Indonesia. We heard it time after time. Guess what. None of it happened. And you look back now and you go down here to the Vietnam Memorial wall and you read those names and you think about their sacrifice, families that were left behind, children, loved ones. You wonder what for. What for? They served their country proudly. They did their duty. But you wonder in the end, what was it for?

I think, as we look back on this war in Iraq years from now, the thousands of Americans who have lost their lives, we will ask that same question: What for? Why? War is not the answer. Escalation is not the answer. We need to bring our troops home.

Those on the other side are saying we ought to talk about cutting off funding. That is going to come. We are going to have a supplemental appropriations bill. It will be here probably in the next couple months. I, for one, am going to do everything I can to make sure we have some kind of amendment on that bill which will limit the President's ability to spend the taxpayers' money on the war in Iraq. After all, the Constitution gives us the power of the purse strings, not the President. If we want to say: Mr. President, you can spend the money to redeploy troops out of Iraq and to protect them while they are being deployed, you can do that, but you can't spend any of that money to send any more troops there and put them in harm's way and have them going door to door in Baghdad and have them be shot at by snipers, we will have that opportunity when the supplemental appropriations bill comes before us.

Right now is time for us as a Senate to stand up and say whether we approve of the escalation or disapprove. Republican Senators on the other side of the aisle won't even give us that opportunity. I hope they hear from more families like the letters I just read. Maybe we will get that opportunity. It is time for us to quit shirking our responsibility, time for us to stand up and say whether we are for the escalation. I, for one, am not. Maybe others are for it. I think that is what we ought to debate, and that is what we ought to vote on.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mitchell Lincoln and Shakti Shakti of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Madam President, I rise to discuss an amendment I have filed to eliminate a provision that was added to the minimum wage bill regarding employee leasing firms, also known as professional employer organizations, or PEOs.

I have fought for a clean minimum wage bill, on the grounds that workers have been waiting 10 long years for this raise. During that time, businesses have seen record profits and productivity--and that has been equally the case in States and regions that have raised the minimum wage. Yet now we are being asked to include this aggressively anti-worker PEO provision in order to pass a minimum wage increase in the Senate.

For my colleagues and others who may not know what a PEO is, let me explain. It is an organization that handles administrative details for workers who actually do work for another company. For example, I might technically be employed by Tristate PEO, but I actually show up to work every day at Main Street Construction Company. Companies use PEOs so they don't have to handle the tax-and-benefits paperwork for many of their workers.

The language in the PEO provision, however, seeks to make these PEOs the ``employer of record'' for tax purposes. PEOs have sought to become the ``employer of record'' under various laws because they would like to be able to tell employers that the PEOs can independently take care of payroll taxes, workers' compensation, unemployment

insurance, and the like. However, in the past, PEOs have misrepresented what jobs are covered by workman's compensation--for instance, by characterizing construction workers as clerical. Under current law, legal responsibility for employer obligations typically remains partly or wholly with the worksite employer.

Making a PEO the sole employer makes the evasion of labor and employment standards much easier. The National Employment Law Project and other worker-rights advocates have concluded that the language now in the bill would make it harder for employees to go to an arbiter and get unpaid overtime, unemployment insurance benefits, or workman's compensation benefits if the PEO collapses. And this is by no means hypothetical. Such collapses have happened not just with small, fly-by- night operations, but with large PEOs like Administaff and Simplified Employment Services, SES.

For example, when SES allowed health insurance premiums to go unpaid and then went bankrupt, it left employees like Melanie Martin out in the cold. She said ``We trusted him to pay our insurance premiums, and now I'm stuck with a $7,000 surgery bill. Every time I think about this, I cry.''

In 2004, when MidAtlantic Postal Express in Roanoke, VA, went bankrupt, the U.S. Treasury wasn't the only one left holding the bag. Employees were left wondering where to turn for thousands of dollars in back pay. Victory Compensation Services was the PEO handling the workers' pay and benefits, and admitted that workers had no workman's compensation coverage even though MidAtlantic had paid Victory premiums. But Victory blamed MidAtlantic for the unpaid payroll.

Now, let's say that you are newly unemployed trucker who is owed $7,000 in back pay. This is a complicated mess for a worker to try to navigate just to get a paycheck that he or she is owed.

This is part of a larger, systemic problem. Working people in the United States feel less and less empowered in our you're-on-your-own society. Seventy percent of families are headed by either dual-income couples or a single parent. The housing bubble is bursting. Globalization is sending American jobs overseas. Pensions are being frozen at an unprecedented pace. The national savings rate has actually gone into negative figures. Women are working an average of 500 more hours more per year than in 1979. But productivity has increased 70 percent since then. People are working harder and getting paid less.

In this context of economic anxiety, we shouldn't be making it even harder for workers to organize, negotiate or enforce contracts, or fight for their rights under law. But that will be the sure-fire result if the final bill has this PEO provision in it.

I urge my colleagues to strip this provision from the bill. We must not sacrifice worker rights in exchange for this modest and long- overdue increase in the wages for those at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.

Madam President, I rise to discuss an amendment I have filed to eliminate a provision that was added to the minimum wage bill regarding employee leasing firms, also known as professional employer organizations, or PEOs.

I have fought for a clean minimum wage bill, on the grounds that workers have been waiting 10 long years for this raise. During that time, businesses have seen record profits and productivity--and that has been equally the case in States and regions that have raised the minimum wage. Yet now we are being asked to include this aggressively anti-worker PEO provision in order to pass a minimum wage increase in the Senate.

For my colleagues and others who may not know what a PEO is, let me explain. It is an organization that handles administrative details for workers who actually do work for another company. For example, I might technically be employed by Tristate PEO, but I actually show up to work every day at Main Street Construction Company. Companies use PEOs so they don't have to handle the tax-and-benefits paperwork for many of their workers.

The language in the PEO provision, however, seeks to make these PEOs the ``employer of record'' for tax purposes. PEOs have sought to become the ``employer of record'' under various laws because they would like to be able to tell employers that the PEOs can independently take care of payroll taxes, workers' compensation, unemployment

insurance, and the like. However, in the past, PEOs have misrepresented what jobs are covered by workman's compensation--for instance, by characterizing construction workers as clerical. Under current law, legal responsibility for employer obligations typically remains partly or wholly with the worksite employer.

Making a PEO the sole employer makes the evasion of labor and employment standards much easier. The National Employment Law Project and other worker-rights advocates have concluded that the language now in the bill would make it harder for employees to go to an arbiter and get unpaid overtime, unemployment insurance benefits, or workman's compensation benefits if the PEO collapses. And this is by no means hypothetical. Such collapses have happened not just with small, fly-by- night operations, but with large PEOs like Administaff and Simplified Employment Services, SES.

For example, when SES allowed health insurance premiums to go unpaid and then went bankrupt, it left employees like Melanie Martin out in the cold. She said ``We trusted him to pay our insurance premiums, and now I'm stuck with a $7,000 surgery bill. Every time I think about this, I cry.''

In 2004, when MidAtlantic Postal Express in Roanoke, VA, went bankrupt, the U.S. Treasury wasn't the only one left holding the bag. Employees were left wondering where to turn for thousands of dollars in back pay. Victory Compensation Services was the PEO handling the workers' pay and benefits, and admitted that workers had no workman's compensation coverage even though MidAtlantic had paid Victory premiums. But Victory blamed MidAtlantic for the unpaid payroll.

Now, let's say that you are newly unemployed trucker who is owed $7,000 in back pay. This is a complicated mess for a worker to try to navigate just to get a paycheck that he or she is owed.

This is part of a larger, systemic problem. Working people in the United States feel less and less empowered in our you're-on-your-own society. Seventy percent of families are headed by either dual-income couples or a single parent. The housing bubble is bursting. Globalization is sending American jobs overseas. Pensions are being frozen at an unprecedented pace. The national savings rate has actually gone into negative figures. Women are working an average of 500 more hours more per year than in 1979. But productivity has increased 70 percent since then. People are working harder and getting paid less.

In this context of economic anxiety, we shouldn't be making it even harder for workers to organize, negotiate or enforce contracts, or fight for their rights under law. But that will be the sure-fire result if the final bill has this PEO provision in it.

I urge my colleagues to strip this provision from the bill. We must not sacrifice worker rights in exchange for this modest and long- overdue increase in the wages for those at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rules adopted on January 31, 2007, by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am honored to join with the distinguished senior Senator from my State, Senator Grassley, to introduce the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act.

During my years in the Navy, I learned one of the most important lessons of my entire life: Never leave a buddy behind. That's true on the battlefield--and it's also true after our servicemembers return home. Taking care of our veterans is a continuing cost of national defense, and we need to make sure we don't abandon them once they return home.

Our service men and women endure tremendous stress during combat. Almost all of our soldiers reported being under fire while serving in Iraq and knowing someone seriously injured or killed. Returning home and rejoining their families and friends can be a time of hope and joy, but it can also be a time of enormous stress. In particular, the traumas and memories of combat service can cause profound problems. Army studies show that around 25 percent of soldiers who have served in Iraq display symptoms of serious mental-health problems, including depression, substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Tragically, suicide disproportionately affects veterans. In 2004, veterans accounted for more than 20 percent of deaths by suicide, yet they make up only 10 percent of the general population. We should be addressing this shocking rate of suicide among our veterans. But the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) currently does not have appropriate suicide prevention, early detection, and treatment programs available to meet the needs of our veterans. This is unacceptable! The aim of our bill is to improve early detection and intervention; provide access to services for veterans in crisis; and, thereby, prevent the unnecessary deaths of the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend our nation.

Joshua Omvig was one such veteran. Josh was a member of the United States Army Reserve 339th MP Company, based in Davenport, IA. Before leaving for Iraq, he was a member of the Grundy Center Volunteer Fire Department and the Grundy Center Police Reserves. He felt honored to serve his country in the Reserves and hoped to return to serve his community as a police officer. Unfortunately, when he returned from his 11-month deployment in Iraq, he brought the traumas of war with him. He committed suicide a few days before Christmas in 2005. He was just 22 years old.

This was a preventable death. If Josh and his family had had better access to mental health services; if they had been trained to recognize the symptoms of PTSD; and if they had known where to turn for help; then the tragedy of his death might well have been avoided.

In his honor, Senator Grassley and I offer this legislation to improve the services offered by the VA, and to bring down the appalling rate of suicide among veterans.

First, this bill focuses on reducing the stigma associated with seeking treatment for mental health problems. Almost 80 percent of soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan who exhibited signs of mental health problems were not referred for mental health services. More than two-thirds of the servicemembers who screened positive for a mental health problem reported that they were concerned about the stigma associated with seeking treatment.

Given these statistics, our bill calls for the creation of a mental health campaign to increase awareness of mental illness and the risk factors for suicide. Veterans need to hear from members of the chain of command, leadership within the VA, and from their peers that seeking mental health services is important for their health, their families, and no different than seeking treatment for a physical health issue, such as chronic pain or a broken leg.

Second, this bill ensures that VA staff and medical personnel will receive suicide prevention and education training so that they can recognize when and where to refer veterans for assistance. Additionally, the legislation ensures 24-hour access to mental health care for those who are at risk for suicide, including those in rural or remote areas. Veterans who do not have easy access to VA hospitals and veterans centers must be assured of access to services during periods of crisis.

Finally, this bill recognizes the importance of family and peer support. It trains peer counselors to understand the risk factors for suicide, provide support during readjustment, and to assist veterans in seeking help. This bill also engages family members by helping them to understand the readjustment process; to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness; and let them know where to turn for assistance. By enlisting the aid and support of family members and peers, we will reduce the likelihood that our veterans suffer in isolation.

The stresses that our service men and women endure in combat are strong and can trigger severe mental

health issues. Although our men and women may come home safely, the war isn't over for them. Often, the physical wounds of combat are repaired, but the mental damage--the psychological scars of combat--can haunt a person for a lifetime. The Federal Government has a moral contract with those who have fought for our country and sacrificed so much. Together, we can work to make good on that contract. Our service men and women deserve to know that we will not forget about their service--and we will not leave them behind.