Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Menu Education and Labeling Act of 2006, along with my colleague, Senator Cantwell of Washington. Our bill would extend the successful nutrition labeling that has been on packaged foods since the mid nineties to include foods at chain restaurants with 20 or more outlets and food sold in vending machines. The aim of this bill is to help Americans to take better charge of their health by giving them the tools that they need to make sound nutrition choices for themselves and their children.

It is no secret that poor health and the resulting health costs are major problems in the United States. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total health care spending in the United States in 2004 was $1.8 trillion, and is expected to double by approximately 2014. Furthermore, chronic diseases, which are, in many cases preventable, account for approximately 75 percent of health care costs annually.

Poor nutrition, diet-related chronic diseases, overweight, and obesity are public health threats of the first order. Heart disease and stroke are the first and third leading causes of death in the United States and together, they account for about 40 percent of annual deaths in the United States. In addition, nearly two-thirds of adults are either overweight or obese.

But it is not just adults who are affected by poor diets. Kids are increasingly at risk as well. According to the National Academy of Sciences, over the last three decades, the obesity rate has doubled among preschoolers and adolescents, and tripled for kids between ages 6 and 11. For children born today, it is estimated that 30 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls will develop diabetes. Some scientists are predicting that the current generation of children may well be the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents, largely because of poor diets and diet-related chronic disease.

The issues are economic as well. The economic impact of chronic disease can be seen in the annual costs associated with various conditions. Cardiovascular disease and stroke are estimated to cost $352 billion annually. The yearly economic impacts of obesity, cancer, and diabetes are estimated at $117 billion, $172 billion, and $132 billion, respectively. So we need to promote common-sense steps to prevent these conditions. Increasing consumer knowledge is one of them.

This bill will give consumers a much-needed tool to make wiser choices and achieve healthier lifestyles. Will individual steps like this, by themselves, be enough to turn the tide of chronic disease and poor health? Of course not. But we must look for opportunities to give consumers information they can use to take better control of their health.

In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, NLEA, requiring food manufacturers to provide nutrition information on nearly all packaged foods. The impact has been extremely positive. Not only do nearly three-quarters of adults read and use the food labels on packaged foods, but studies indicate that consumers who read labels have healthier diets. It's time to extend this same opportunity to consumers who want to make smart nutrition choices in restaurants and at vending machines.

More and more of Americans' food dollars are spent in restaurants. Restaurants play an increasingly important role in Americans' diet and health. But restaurants were excluded from the NLEA.

Today, American adults and children consume a third of their calories at restaurants. Nutrition and health experts say that rising caloric consumption and growing portion sizes are causes of overweight and obesity. We also know that when children eat in restaurants, they consume twice as many calories as when they eat at home. Consumers say that they would like nutrition information provided when they order their food at restaurants. However, while they are fully informed about the nutrition content of food available in supermarkets, consumers at restaurants are almost totally in the dark, left to guess about what is in the foods they are ordering. This legislation seeks to remedy this so that consumers can make the same informed choices in a restaurant that they are currently able to make in the grocery store.

This legislation requires restaurants to convey only minimal but essential information, including calories, grams of fat and trans fat, and milligrams of sodium for each serving. In addition, it recognizes there may be inadvertent human errors that affect things such as variations in serving sizes and food preparation, so the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services,

in promulgating regulations, to allow for some reasonable leeway. And finally, it recognizes that menus change from time to time, so the labeling requirements would not apply to daily specials or to temporary menu items. In short, we are not trying to require information for every individual thing that is made available at restaurants, but we are asking restaurants to provide clear and consistent information on those menu items that are broadly and consistently available.

There are some who will say this is impractical and an extraordinary burden on restaurants. I disagree. I have been through this debate before, when Congress was considering the NLEA. We heard the same parade of arguments and horror stories. But the law was passed anyway and, lo and behold, the sky did not fall. To the contrary, businesses made simple adjustments. Americans got access to the necessary information. It had positive health benefits. And at the end of the day, things worked out just fine.

In fact, you can even look at the Senate to see the potential success of this law. A couple of years ago, I wrote to the administrator of the Senate cafeteria, to which I often send out for lunch. I simply requested that the cafeteria, if possible, provide nutrition information on standard menu items. Not more than a couple of months later, printed handouts were available in the cafeteria with detailed nutrition information on the daily menu. This is not McDonald's, Burger King or Arby's. This is the Senate cafeteria. And by gosh, if the Senate cafeteria can do this without an undue burden, then surely so can the largest restaurant chains in the country.

I believe that most Americans want to take more charge of their health. They want to make the best decisions for both themselves and for their children. But it is hard to do so without nutrition information upon which they can base their informed decisions. This legislation seeks to give Americans the information they want and need. This will be a simple but very important step in the right direction, helping ourselves and our children to live healthier, happier, and more productive lives. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Menu Education and Labeling Act of 2006.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Menu Education and Labeling Act of 2006, along with my colleague, Senator Cantwell of Washington. Our bill would extend the successful nutrition labeling that has been on packaged foods since the mid nineties to include foods at chain restaurants with 20 or more outlets and food sold in vending machines. The aim of this bill is to help Americans to take better charge of their health by giving them the tools that they need to make sound nutrition choices for themselves and their children.

It is no secret that poor health and the resulting health costs are major problems in the United States. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total health care spending in the United States in 2004 was $1.8 trillion, and is expected to double by approximately 2014. Furthermore, chronic diseases, which are, in many cases preventable, account for approximately 75 percent of health care costs annually.

Poor nutrition, diet-related chronic diseases, overweight, and obesity are public health threats of the first order. Heart disease and stroke are the first and third leading causes of death in the United States and together, they account for about 40 percent of annual deaths in the United States. In addition, nearly two-thirds of adults are either overweight or obese.

But it is not just adults who are affected by poor diets. Kids are increasingly at risk as well. According to the National Academy of Sciences, over the last three decades, the obesity rate has doubled among preschoolers and adolescents, and tripled for kids between ages 6 and 11. For children born today, it is estimated that 30 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls will develop diabetes. Some scientists are predicting that the current generation of children may well be the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents, largely because of poor diets and diet-related chronic disease.

The issues are economic as well. The economic impact of chronic disease can be seen in the annual costs associated with various conditions. Cardiovascular disease and stroke are estimated to cost $352 billion annually. The yearly economic impacts of obesity, cancer, and diabetes are estimated at $117 billion, $172 billion, and $132 billion, respectively. So we need to promote common-sense steps to prevent these conditions. Increasing consumer knowledge is one of them.

This bill will give consumers a much-needed tool to make wiser choices and achieve healthier lifestyles. Will individual steps like this, by themselves, be enough to turn the tide of chronic disease and poor health? Of course not. But we must look for opportunities to give consumers information they can use to take better control of their health.

In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, NLEA, requiring food manufacturers to provide nutrition information on nearly all packaged foods. The impact has been extremely positive. Not only do nearly three-quarters of adults read and use the food labels on packaged foods, but studies indicate that consumers who read labels have healthier diets. It's time to extend this same opportunity to consumers who want to make smart nutrition choices in restaurants and at vending machines.

More and more of Americans' food dollars are spent in restaurants. Restaurants play an increasingly important role in Americans' diet and health. But restaurants were excluded from the NLEA.

Today, American adults and children consume a third of their calories at restaurants. Nutrition and health experts say that rising caloric consumption and growing portion sizes are causes of overweight and obesity. We also know that when children eat in restaurants, they consume twice as many calories as when they eat at home. Consumers say that they would like nutrition information provided when they order their food at restaurants. However, while they are fully informed about the nutrition content of food available in supermarkets, consumers at restaurants are almost totally in the dark, left to guess about what is in the foods they are ordering. This legislation seeks to remedy this so that consumers can make the same informed choices in a restaurant that they are currently able to make in the grocery store.

This legislation requires restaurants to convey only minimal but essential information, including calories, grams of fat and trans fat, and milligrams of sodium for each serving. In addition, it recognizes there may be inadvertent human errors that affect things such as variations in serving sizes and food preparation, so the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services,

in promulgating regulations, to allow for some reasonable leeway. And finally, it recognizes that menus change from time to time, so the labeling requirements would not apply to daily specials or to temporary menu items. In short, we are not trying to require information for every individual thing that is made available at restaurants, but we are asking restaurants to provide clear and consistent information on those menu items that are broadly and consistently available.

There are some who will say this is impractical and an extraordinary burden on restaurants. I disagree. I have been through this debate before, when Congress was considering the NLEA. We heard the same parade of arguments and horror stories. But the law was passed anyway and, lo and behold, the sky did not fall. To the contrary, businesses made simple adjustments. Americans got access to the necessary information. It had positive health benefits. And at the end of the day, things worked out just fine.

In fact, you can even look at the Senate to see the potential success of this law. A couple of years ago, I wrote to the administrator of the Senate cafeteria, to which I often send out for lunch. I simply requested that the cafeteria, if possible, provide nutrition information on standard menu items. Not more than a couple of months later, printed handouts were available in the cafeteria with detailed nutrition information on the daily menu. This is not McDonald's, Burger King or Arby's. This is the Senate cafeteria. And by gosh, if the Senate cafeteria can do this without an undue burden, then surely so can the largest restaurant chains in the country.

I believe that most Americans want to take more charge of their health. They want to make the best decisions for both themselves and for their children. But it is hard to do so without nutrition information upon which they can base their informed decisions. This legislation seeks to give Americans the information they want and need. This will be a simple but very important step in the right direction, helping ourselves and our children to live healthier, happier, and more productive lives. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Menu Education and Labeling Act of 2006.

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

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to add my voice to the rising chorus of people both here in the Senate and back in my home State of Iowa who are fed up with the misplaced priorities of the Republican leadership in this Congress. Our country faces mounting challenges: High energy prices, skyrocketing health care costs, tens of millions of Americans without health insurance, the cost of college tuition going through the roof, individuals with minimum wage jobs going nearly a decade without a raise. So how does the leadership here respond to these challenges? By squandering a week of the Senate's time debating a constitutional marriage amendment that has already been soundly rejected by the Senate and by debating repeal of the estate tax which would benefit only about 3 out of every 1,000 people in America at the most and would add $1 trillion to the deficit in the coming years, so that the superrich can get yet another tax break, a tax break that won't build one additional school, would not provide one new additional job, while working families get absolutely nothing.

Again, the great majority of American people are getting madder and madder about this. All you have to do is look at the polls of Congress. The

only thing lower than President Bush's polls is the standing of Congress. You wonder why? Look at what we are debating while all of these issues go by the wayside. What about the real needs and concerns of working Americans and their families.

Let me give one case in point. The majority leader cannot find time to bring H.R. 810 to the floor. It is pending at the desk. It was passed by a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives--a bill to lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Evidently, we don't have time. No time? Well, the majority party found plenty of time this week for these two dubious, devisive measures. But when it comes to the No. 1 research priority of the American people--embryonic stem cell research--the majority leader refuses to bring it to the floor; we don't have the time.

This is outrageous. No wonder the American people say Congress is not doing anything. We are not doing anything to address the real needs of our people.

Two weeks ago, on May 24, we reached the 1-year anniversary of the House passage of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This bill is supported by the majority of Senators on a bipartisan basis. It enjoys the support of large majorities in every public opinion poll. Yet we cannot bring it up. Removing the straitjacket on embryonic stem cell research is a matter of life and death for millions of Americans. As the Senate squanders yet another week, people we love are dying from Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's disease and juvenile diabetes. People are unable to walk due to spinal cord injuries. These Americans are desperate for progress on embryonic stem cell research, which is being blocked by the majority leader's failure to allow H.R. 810 to come to the floor for debate and a vote. No time. Yet we have time to debate this constitutional amendment on marriage, which has been soundly rejected already by the Senate, and which everybody knows will be soundly rejected again, or we will have time to bring up for a vote the repeal of the estate tax, benefiting only the richest of the rich in our country. We have time for that, but we don't have time to bring up a bill to open the doors of medical research that hold such promise for people with incurable diseases.

There are also other urgent priorities being sidetracked. Forty-five million Americans have no health insurance. The majority leader says there is no time to debate this. There is no time to consider a measure that would make it possible for small companies to offer employees a health care plan similar to the one we have in Congress. Indeed, we Democrats were prevented from getting an up-or-down vote on this during the so-called Health Care Week last month.

In the Midwest, we have a bill that is very important not only for the Midwest but for the rest of the country, which is the Water Resources Development Act. We have 81 signatures on a letter, Republicans and Democrats, to the majority leader supporting this bill, asking that it be brought up. That is not only more than it takes to break a filibuster, if this was one--and I don't think there is one pending on it or to override a veto--that is more than two-thirds. Yet no action on it. I guess we don't have time.

The majority leader says we have time this week to consider a mammoth tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, but we don't have any time to consider a bill to raise the minimum wage for Americans at the bottom. The minimum wage has been stuck at the low level of $5.15 for more than 9 years. During those 9 years, Members of this Senate have voted seven times to raise their salaries. Yet for those at the bottom, we don't have the time to bring a minimum wage increase bill to the floor of the Senate.

If we can keep this up, the approval of Congress will go into the negatives. At least it is in the positives now. It is maybe 10 or 12 percent. If that happens, it will be the first time in history that it will be in the negatives. I don't blame the American people for having that opinion of Congress.

Last month, we learned that some 26 million Americans--most veterans--had personal information stolen, including names, birth dates, Social Security numbers. This puts every one of these veterans in jeopardy of identity theft and fraud. Why are we not this week bringing to the floor the urgently needed Veterans Identity Protection Act? This bill would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide 1 year of credit monitoring to each affected person and one additional free credit report each year for the following 2 years. This bill would make a real difference for millions of veterans. Why is it being ignored? It seems to have bipartisan support. Why is it not being hotlined, as they say around here, for immediate consideration on the floor? We should bring it up this week. We should be debating that today. I guess we don't have time for that.

One other matter. I don't think we have a higher priority right now in terms of our national economy and our national well-being than ending our addiction to foreign oil. Senator Lugar, a Republican, and I have a bill that would dramatically ramp up ethanol and biodiesel production. It would make these home-grown fuels available and usable at the pump and in communities all across the United States. Our national security is at stake. Why isn't this bill being brought to the floor on an expedited basis this week?

The answer, Mr. President, is that we are not addressing the real concerns and priorities of the American people because the majority leader--and I assume his party--are putting their own narrow special interest priorities first. Apparently, it is more important to cater to a narrow vocal base of the Republican Party than to listen to the broad majority of the American people.

It boggles the mind that the Republicans have once again brought the so-called Federal marriage amendment to the floor. It will fail this week for the same reason it failed the last time. It is because deep down inside we all know it is wrong. It is just basically wrong.

Yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, said this amendment is ``a solution in search of a problem.'' He is exactly right. For more than two centuries, our States have done an excellent job of making their own laws governing marriage without Federal interference. The last time the Senate debated this amendment, the cloture vote on the motion to proceed garnered only 48 votes--12 votes short of the 60 needed to invoke cloture, and far short of the 67 votes needed to pass a constitutional amendment. You have to have 67 votes. There isn't one person here who thinks they are even close to that. They cannot even get a majority. It is not surprising.

The amendment tramples on the authority of each State to regulate the civil laws of marriage within its borders--authority, by the way, I point out, that the Congress strengthened by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents any State from being forced or required to recognize a same-sex marriage in another State. Wait a minute. The Congress passed a law saying that we, the Federal Government, cannot require a State to recognize a contractual agreement in another State dealing with same-sex marriage. Well, guess what. No State has been forced to recognize a same-sex marriage or civil union joined in another State.

Yet now the Republicans would have us force upon each State a constitutional amendment that would take away the right of those States to enact their own contractual laws. It seems to me that what is happening is we are going down a road rapidly of more and more power to the President of the United States, less and less power to the Congress and the courts, more and more power to the Federal Government under a President.

The last time I looked, that could have been called something like a monarchy. Come to think of it, that is what we overthrew a couple hundred years ago. Most people tend to forget that when we declared our independence from Great Britain and fought the Revolutionary War and established our Constitution, England had a Parliament. But guess what. The King reigned supreme. It was King George at that time. So we recognized that. We recognized the inherent inability of the Parliament in England to go up against the King. So when we devised our Constitution, that is why we had the separation of powers--the courts, the Congress, and the President, all separate

and equal. Then we reserved to the States certain powers not enumerated in the Constitution. One of the powers is the right to set contractual laws. Now this Republican Congress wants to take that away. It is almost like we are going full circle back to the monarchy of Great Britain--a Congress that lays prone before the President--a President that is able to tap your phones, read your e-mails under some guise of a power that, since we are at war, he can do whatever he wants, taking away our civil rights and liberties. What does Congress do? Nothing. We sit back and let it go on. Now we are going to take another step to take away power from the States.

Well, again, this is something that is inherently wrong. It is wrong to take away this power from the States, take away the authority to set up their own contractual framework. As Senator Kennedy said, I think eloquently, a few moments ago, it should be the right of every religion, under the freedom of religion, to decide the sacramental laws of marriage as defined by that religion. But when it comes to the contractual right, the civil right, that is determined by the State. That is why when you go to get married, you do two things--find a minister, a rabbi, a priest, whatever, but then you have to go to the courthouse of your State and get a license. Why? Because you are entering a contractual relationship. That is what this amendment would take away. Again, I would defend to the death the right of a religion to determine its own sacramental laws of what it determines a marriage to be, but also defend the right of a State to set up its own contractual laws within and under the umbrella of equal rights for all and nondiscrimination under the Constitution of the United States.

Senator Kennedy referred to it, and I will refer to it again. It wasn't too long ago where people of different races could not get married in this country. States had laws that said a Black person could not marry a White American, or an Oriental could not marry a Black or a White. You could not marry someone of another race. It is not too long ago in my own lifetime, but that was true.

Discrimination is what it was. The courts struck it down. Would these same Republicans who keep coming here saying the courts should not be interfering in this say the courts should not have interfered there, too; that we should have left those discriminatory laws intact under the Constitution of the United States?

I keep hearing all this stuff about protecting the American family. I submit to my friends on the other side, if they really want to do that, how about raising the minimum wage? That would do more to protect the American family than anything they are talking about here.

How about addressing the skyrocketing health care costs? How about the high cost of gasoline? If they want to defend the American family, how about giving access to health insurance to 45 million people a day who can't afford it? If they want to defend the American family, how about doing something about the rising cost of college tuition in this country and helping low and moderate families meet those costs of college education? In other words, if Majority Leader Frist and his party want to protect the American family, why don't they deal with the real challenges confronting families instead of wasting the Senate's time on this cynical, trumped-up issue of same-sex marriage? Why can't we make bipartisan progress on issues such as providing access to health insurance and raising the minimum wage?

I close by making one point very clear: If the Democrats were in charge of the Senate, if we were setting the agenda, we would be charting a different course for our Nation. We would not be wasting the Senate's time on divisive, partisan constitutional amendments which seek to divide our people, pit families one against another, pit Americans one against another by dividing us. We would not be passing yet another mammoth tax cut for the wealthiest in our society called the estate tax, a tax we can't afford for people who don't need it.

If we could set the agenda, we would have the minimum wage issue out here. We would have a health care issue out here. We would have issues out here that provide for families getting a college education for their kids. We would have bills on the floor addressing the addiction to oil and moving us to more energy independence.

Every day it is becoming clearer and clearer to the American people that they face a choice: We can stay the current course--more divisiveness, more deficits, more debt, more drift--or a new direction for our country. If the majority party wants to continue to squander our time and taxpayers' money, as they are doing this week, well, that is their choice. But the American people get to choose, too. The American people are eager to cut out this divisiveness, to move on to the real agenda that confronts our country, to move in a very different direction, and I say it is time to do that.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Scott McDonald of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Up to 10 minutes.

I commend and compliment my distinguished colleague from California for presenting this amendment.

I wonder if I might engage in a little colloquy with the author of this amendment. I am proud to join her as a cosponsor because this is the way we have to go.

I was interested in the pie chart that showed the 4.4 million, if I added it correctly, the people here less than 2 years and those here 2 years to 5 years. All of those people have to leave the country?

Under Hagel-Martinez?

Some will leave and can't come back and some will petition to come back?

I ask my friend, how are they going to deal with families? Many of these people who have been here 2 to 5 years, maybe some less than 2 years, may have gotten married, maybe they brought their spouse along with them, and there are children. I have come across some myself. What will happen to these children who have been born here who are American citizens?

If I could pursue that a minute longer, again, contemplating the breakup of families, I ask my friend from California, wouldn't that also then make it even more difficult, harder or less likely that these people would come forward. If they know their families may be split up or they might have to leave their children behind and in the care of someone else, why would they come forward?

I thank my colleague from California for offering this amendment.

Quite frankly, the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein is the only way I see that we can get out of the mess we are in, so to speak, with all of the undocumented people here, in a way that is pro-family, pro- worker, pro-American, pro-national security.

The amendment offered by the Senator from California meets all of those requirements. It will cost a heck of a lot less, just in terms of dollars.

While I respect the efforts by Senators Hagel and Martinez and others to craft some sort of compromise, the fact is the Hagel-Martinez bill will be difficult, costly to implement, will tend to separate families and will not be in the best interests of our country.

Quite frankly, as the Senator from California just pointed out, we do not even know if it is workable. How are you going to find these people? As the Senator so aptly pointed out, people who have been here just shy of 2 years, by a month, aren't they going to find some documentation, forging rent receipts, and things like that, to make it seem as though they have been here at least 2 years? And those who have been here 3 to 5 years, won't the same thing happen there also?

The Hagel-Martinez compromise is totally unworkable. By contrast, the approach taken by Senator Feinstein to create a new kind of an orange card--because this is a unique group of people--this orange card is realistic, and it is enforceable, and it is fair. It would require undocumented immigrants, as the Senator said, to register immediately with the Department of Homeland Security. Once they have passed a criminal and national security background check, they could apply for an orange card.

As the Senator said, they would have to pay a $2,000 fine, any back taxes owed, learn English and American civics, and pass extensive criminal and security background checks. Then, after working for at least 6 years, orange card holders could apply for legal permanent residence, but, again, as the

Senator pointed out, they would have to get in back of all the green card holders who are existent right now. So, again, this is a tough approach, but it is workable. It will work. It is fair. And, as I said, it will cost a lot less money and a lot less manpower to implement.

I think, as the Senator from California said, we just have to deal with reality, what is real. Twelve million undocumented immigrants, many who have lived here for many years, have children, family members who are U.S. citizens. They are working. They are contributing to society. They may be undocumented. They may be living in the shadows. But, make no mistake about it, they are de facto members of the American economy and the American society. They are integrated into the fabric of our national life. They are filling jobs that in many cases would otherwise go unfilled.

In essence, they are a part of our American family. And they are not going away. In fact, we would face huge problems if they did. Just last week, I say to my friend from California, a delegation from the Marshalltown, IA, Chamber of Commerce was in town. Several of them pointed out that immigrants play an indispensable role in the Marshalltown economy. As one put it: If you rounded up and kicked out all the immigrants, our city's economy would come to a screeching halt.

I say to my friend from California, I was in Denison, IA, on Friday. There is a Job Corps center there. It is a small-town community in western Iowa. They have a couple meatpacking plants there. So we have a lot of Latinos who come in from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, places like that. The mayor took me aside and he said: I want to talk to you about immigration. I didn't know which side he was coming from. He said: I just wanted to let you know how important it is to Denison that you resolve this in a fair and equitable manner. He said: We have people here who have bought homes that were abandoned. People have left town because the town was kind of dying out. They bought these homes. They fixed them up.

Then he told me something very interesting. He said: A lot of Latinos have taken over small businesses on Main Street. They are operating these small businesses that were going out of business. He said: If you want an answer to Wal-Mart, here is your answer to Wal-Mart. He said: They are actually running businesses on Main Street in Denison. He said: I know for a fact that many of them are undocumented aliens. He said: We cannot afford to lose them.

So it is not just in the big cities, I say to my friend--Los Angeles and San Francisco--but in the small towns and small communities of rural Iowa that would be drastically affected by the Hagel-Martinez so- called compromise.

Most of these new immigrants have found work, but they have not found freedom. This spring, at United Trinity Methodist Church in Des Moines, IA, I met with a group of new immigrants, and I asked how many of them were undocumented. I looked around. They didn't know whether to raise their hand, and finally they decided, OK, they would. I would say probably a third of them were undocumented. They are living in the shadows. They live in fear. Many pay taxes. They make Social Security payments, but they receive nothing in return.

They want to become loyal, contributing American citizens, to pursue the American dream. But, instead, they are living an American nightmare of anxiety and exclusion and exploitation. One young girl there was 18 years old, just graduating from high school, who wants to go on to college. They have no money. Her folks work. They have a modest income. We know what college tuitions are like. She came here as a 3-year-old when her folks fled the strife in El Salvador. She is now 18. She is undocumented. She has no papers. She cannot get any loans to go to college. She cannot get any college aid or anything else to help her through. She just wants to be a good American citizen. What about her? What are we going to do about people like that?

So it is time to find a constructive and positive way to bring these people out of the shadows and into the sunshine. The Feinstein amendment does it. It establishes a legal framework, where people can learn English. They have to learn English. They have to pass security background checks, pay the fines and penalties, and can earn the right to eventually become U.S. citizens.

I thank my friend from California.

Again, the orange card program will increase participation by decreasing fear. More people will come forward because fewer families will be separated. They will become full participants. It is pro- family, pro-work, pro-American, pro-national security.

Let me close by saying one personal thing. My mother came to this country as an immigrant. I have the documentation when she came to this country. Was she legal? Well, I don't know. She came on a boat with a lot of other people--steerage class. They landed in Boston. They could not get into New York because of a storm. They landed in Boston. She had $7 in her pocket and a one-way train ticket to Des Moines, IA. Yet she became a fully contributing member of our American community. Later on she became a citizen.

So when I see our new immigrants, and I look into their face, I see the face of my mother. Why do we have an immigration problem in America? Because people want to come here. They want to work. They love America. They love our freedoms. They love our society and the opportunities that it presents.

This is not the time to go to some convoluted thing such as the Hagel-Martinez amendment, which is going to make the mess even messier. It is going to make it even worse. Let's clear it up once and for all, in a fair and equitable manner. And the only way to do that, I submit, is with the Feinstein amendment.

I thank the Senator from California for coming up with this amendment. I am proud to be her cosponsor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tod Bowman, a member of my staff, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. President, my inquiry is, is the Senate under a unanimous consent agreement that it would go from one side to the other in this debate or is it just jump ball? It is just whoever gets recognized by the Chair to speak?

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to salute the achievement of four Des Moines police officers who received richly earned recognition from the National Association of Police Organizations last week at the TOP COPS Awards here in Washington.

Every year for the past 13 years, the National Association of Police Organizations has presented awards to outstanding law enforcement officers across the country for their actions above and beyond the call of duty. This year, Captain Kelly Willis, Sergeant Jeff Edwards, and Officers Chris Hardy and Robert Clark, all of the Des Moines Police Department, were recognized for their professionalism and valor in saving the life of a teenage robbery suspect.

Last winter, when officers attempted to stop a stolen vehicle being driven, the suspect, a teenager from Nebraska, abandoned the vehicle and attempted to swim across the icy waters of the Des Moines River. Sergeant Edwards and Officer Hardy realized the teen was in trouble when the suspect grew tired and his head went under water. They understood the risks of entering the frigid river; nonetheless, they jumped in after the teen and attempted to pull him ashore. Captain Willis and Officer Clark also entered the river to assist with the rescue. After pulling the teenager to shore, Officer Clark performed CPR on the unconscious teen, who was taken to the hospital in critical condition but eventually recovered.

I congratulate these four public servants for their courageous actions last winter. Law enforcement officers are often required to make life-or-death decisions in a split second. This requires superb training and excellent judgment, which these four officers clearly possess in abundance. The people of Des Moines are very fortunate to be served by such outstanding professionals. I thank these four officers for their service, and I congratulate them on their well-deserved recognition by their peers at the TOP COP Awards program last week.

Today, I am introducing, along with Senators Lugar, Johnson, Dorgan and Biden, tax legislation that is designed to complement the Biofuels Security Act of 2006, also being introduced today. I will walk through these provisions very briefly.

The legislation amends the existing tax credit for installing alternative fueling infrastructure, such as E85 fueling pumps and tanks which was enacted as part of last year's energy bill. That existing provision allows a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of installation, with a maximum credit of $30,000. Our bill modifies this credit in three ways. First, we would eliminate availability of the credit for the large oil companies that would be required to install such E85 pumps under the companion Biofuels Security Act. These companies have the financial wherewithal to install these pumps without the need for a tax credit. Second, for retailers who would not be required to install E85 pumps and tanks under our proposed legislation, our bill would enhance the tax credit to 50 percent of the cost of installation, with a maximum credit of $30,000. Third, for small retailers, that is, those with 5 or fewer stations, our bill would increase the credit to 75 percent of the cost of installation, up to a maximum credit of $45,000.

This tax legislation would also create a new consumer tax credit for the purchase of flexfuel vehicles if the vehicles have no fuel efficiency loss from the use of E85 as compared to regular gasoline. Current flex-fuel models do have some mileage loss. We understand that there is technology available--for example, a Saab ``biofuel'' flex- fuel E-85 vehicle on the market in parts of Europe--allowing vehicles to have no fuel efficiency loss when burning E85 in comparison to gasoline, and perhaps even some mileage gain. The tax incentive we propose here will help foster further development of biofuels-related technology and promote better fuel efficiency as well.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, high prices for gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum-based energy continue to cause pain for millions of people, in Iowa and all across the country. Our dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our national security.

If we are serious about national security, we need a bold national commitment to renewable energy--a commitment on par with the Apollo moon-shot program in the 1960s. Today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar in proposing a major component of such a program--the Biofuels Security Act--a comprehensive plan to ramp-up ethanol and biodiesel production, and to make it available and usable at the pump in every State in America.

Perhaps Senator Lugar said it best earlier this year when he commented that energy is the albatross around the neck of U.S. national security. The distinguished senior Senator from Indiana has been a thoughtful, prescient thinker about the national security implications of our addiction to foreign oil, and I am delighted to be joining with him, today.

Senators Johnson, Dorgan and Biden are also original cosponsors of this legislation, for which I am grateful. The Senators have been outspoken champions of biofuels for many years now, and strong advocates for their home States.

The goal of this legislation is to help restore America's energy security--which, in this day and age, is synonymous with national security. Transportation fuels, accounting for two-thirds of our oil imports, are the place to start this transition.

Our plan has three key components. First, we are proposing a substantially higher, but achievable, renewable fuels standard or RFS, requiring that our Nation blend into the gasoline supply 10 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by the year 2010, 30 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by the year 2020 and 60 billion gallons annually in the year 2030. The current RFS is 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2012. At the time we enacted the present RFS in last year's energy bill, many of us believed this was a reasonably ambitious schedule. However, it is now evident that biofuels growth will outpace this figure within the next couple of years--well in advance of the 2012 target date. This is very good news.

Second, our plan would make E85--the blend of gasoline and 85 percent ethanol--available at gas stations all across America. Major oil companies would be required to increase the number of E85 pumps at their stations by 5 percentage points annually. Within a decade, approximately 25 percent of gas stations nationwide would be required to have E85 pumps.

The major oil companies have the financial wherewithal--and the ability--to provide E85 infrastructure at a growing percentage of gasoline stations over the next decade. This is a reasonable, responsible reinvestment of a fraction of their recent earnings in the many billions of dollars. The bottom line is that our domestic oil companies have a shared responsibility to help enhance our energy security, and this is one excellent way for them to contribute.

Third, our plan would make flex-fuel vehicles nearly universal in the United States. Automakers would be required to increase the production of flex-fuel vehicles--capable of using both gasoline and 85 percent ethanol blends--by 10 percentage points annually, until nearly all new vehicles sold in the U.S. are flex-fuel within a decade. Our legislation calls for all of the auto manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of FFVs, rising to 100 percent of vehicles 10,000 pounds or less over the next decade. This is eminently achievable, and probably easy enough to do much sooner than that.

Recent estimates for the extra cost of manufacturing an FFV are as low as $30. It is a matter of modifying the engine, fuel line and adding a fuel sensor, which most vehicles have anyway. That is less expensive than many other federal requirements for the auto industry. Air bags are more expensive, for instance. And the bottom line is FFVs are being sold for the same price as regular cars.

America's dependence on foreign oil is the source of so many of our problems, today. We are transferring vast amounts of wealth to regimes that are not friendly to our interests. We are vulnerable to price hikes and embargoes. Millions of petrodollars are finding their way into the hands of terrorists and other extremists. And we are accelerating the pace of global warming.

Substituting biofuels for oil in the transportation sector won't solve these problems overnight, but it will make a difference, and a potentially dramatic one in the longer run.

Let me mention a few eye-opening facts and figures to illustrate these points. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population, but we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. If crude oil prices remain above $60 a barrel this year, we will spend well over $300 billion on oil imports. Projections indicate that, over the next 25 years, world demand for energy will grow by 50 percent. All of this growth in energy use, of course, contributes to dangerously rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The reality is that gasoline is much more costly than most Americans realize, even at $3 a gallon. According to a recent study entitled the ``The Hidden Cost of Oil,'' gas really costs more than $10 a gallon. This is because of all the costs we don't factor into its price at the pump, including wars, other military expenses, subsidies, and so on.

There is no question that the ambitious goals set forth in this bill are achievable.

Several decades ago, Brazil committed itself to a similar course. Renewable fuels have played a big part in Brazil's achieving energy independence. Currently, ethanol production in

the U.S. is increasing by 25 percent annually. If we sustain that rate of increase, we will be able to reach the aggressive renewable fuels standard in the Harkin-Lugar plan. In fact, we will be able to beat it.

For example, Brazil, years ago directed that all gasoline stations carry ethanol as an alternative fuel. Our legislation would require the major oil companies to do their share by installing E85 pumps over the next decade. This should not pose too much of a challenge or burden.

Another key to Brazil's success is the fact that, in just 3 years' time, nearly 70 percent of new vehicles sold there are flex-fuel vehicles. We are asking the auto companies to accomplish a similar goal of nearly universal production, only we are giving them a decade to phase in the production and sale of flex-fuel vehicles. Most of the companies that sell vehicles in the United States also sell them in Brazil. If they can produce flex-fuel vehicles for Brazil, they can also produce them for the United States.

Let me explain in more detail why what Senator Lugar and I are proposing can be accomplished.

The 10 billion gallon goal can certainly be met by 2010. The ethanol industry will produce more than 4.5 billion gallons this year. There are 97 ethanol plants in operation, with 35 more coming on-line in the near future. Biodiesel production is growing remarkably, as well, at more than 60 plants nationwide.

The 30-billion-gallon and 60-billion-gallon targets are attainable, as well. A joint study by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy found that biofuels could supply 60 billion gallons of renewable fuels a year--30 percent of current U.S. gasoline consumption--on existing lands without any disruption to our food or feed supply.

The key to ramping-up production will be commercializing ethanol made from feedstocks in addition to corn and other grains, including corn stover, straw from wheat and other crops, switchgrass or even trees. There are a host of provisions that I and others authored in the energy bill-- ranging from loan guarantees to increased biomass research and development--to make cellulosic ethanol production a reality.

Currently, at least three companies are planning commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants. They could be operating within the next 2 to 3 years. One company, Iogen, has the backing of Shell Oil. Just 2 weeks ago, according to reports, Iogen received a cash infusion from Goldman Sachs. By setting an ambitious new RFS, with a sufficient lead time, I believe the 60-billion-gallon threshold is not only attainable, but beatable.

In any case, should something unexpected happen to interfere with reaching these benchmarks, the Environmental Protection Agency has, within the existing RFS, authority to waive the requirement in whole or in part based on a finding of insufficient supply.

If we take bold actions to guarantee the fuel supply, if we increase the number of flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on E85, and if we increase the infrastructure ofE85 pumps, we will be poised to usher in a new era of energy security much sooner than previously imagined. That is the foundation we lay in this legislation.

This bill would also require that 100 percent of new vehicles purchased for federal fleets be alternative-fueled vehicles, which could include flex-fuel vehicles. The current requirement is 75 percent. I do not see why we shouldn't expect the federal government to be as aggressive as possible in this area.

Last year's energy bill closed a loophole in the purchasing requirement that had allowed agencies to buy alternative-fuel vehicles but not use alternative fuels such as E85. That was a step forward. Requiring all the federal fleet to be alternative fueled is yet another step forward in having the Federal Government lead by example when it comes to alternative fuels.

We also update the Gasohol Competition Act of 1980, legislation designed many years ago to ensure the reasonable availability of ethanol at the pump, so it applies to high blends such as E85 and so that oil companies cannot prevent a franchisee from installing E85 pumps.

The concern back then, and still today, is that petroleum companies were unreasonably preventing or prohibiting ethanol-blended fuels from being offered at gasoline stations. The Gasohol Competition Act did two things. First, it made it unlawful to charge additional credit card fees for gasohol. Second, it prohibited unreasonable discrimination against the sale of gasohol. Our legislation would update the Gasohol Competition Act to prohibit discrimination against E85.

We are also proposing several relatively modest tax components designed to bolster this legislation which will be introduced as stand- alone legislation.

The oil-producing countries think they have us over a barrel, but they will soon get the message: We have had enough. And we are dead serious about determining our own energy future.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Today, I am introducing, along with Senators Lugar, Johnson, Dorgan and Biden, tax legislation that is designed to complement the Biofuels Security Act of 2006, also being introduced today. I will walk through these provisions very briefly.

The legislation amends the existing tax credit for installing alternative fueling infrastructure, such as E85 fueling pumps and tanks which was enacted as part of last year's energy bill. That existing provision allows a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of installation, with a maximum credit of $30,000. Our bill modifies this credit in three ways. First, we would eliminate availability of the credit for the large oil companies that would be required to install such E85 pumps under the companion Biofuels Security Act. These companies have the financial wherewithal to install these pumps without the need for a tax credit. Second, for retailers who would not be required to install E85 pumps and tanks under our proposed legislation, our bill would enhance the tax credit to 50 percent of the cost of installation, with a maximum credit of $30,000. Third, for small retailers, that is, those with 5 or fewer stations, our bill would increase the credit to 75 percent of the cost of installation, up to a maximum credit of $45,000.

This tax legislation would also create a new consumer tax credit for the purchase of flexfuel vehicles if the vehicles have no fuel efficiency loss from the use of E85 as compared to regular gasoline. Current flex-fuel models do have some mileage loss. We understand that there is technology available--for example, a Saab ``biofuel'' flex- fuel E-85 vehicle on the market in parts of Europe--allowing vehicles to have no fuel efficiency loss when burning E85 in comparison to gasoline, and perhaps even some mileage gain. The tax incentive we propose here will help foster further development of biofuels-related technology and promote better fuel efficiency as well.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, high prices for gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum-based energy continue to cause pain for millions of people, in Iowa and all across the country. Our dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our national security.

If we are serious about national security, we need a bold national commitment to renewable energy--a commitment on par with the Apollo moon-shot program in the 1960s. Today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar in proposing a major component of such a program--the Biofuels Security Act--a comprehensive plan to ramp-up ethanol and biodiesel production, and to make it available and usable at the pump in every State in America.

Perhaps Senator Lugar said it best earlier this year when he commented that energy is the albatross around the neck of U.S. national security. The distinguished senior Senator from Indiana has been a thoughtful, prescient thinker about the national security implications of our addiction to foreign oil, and I am delighted to be joining with him, today.

Senators Johnson, Dorgan and Biden are also original cosponsors of this legislation, for which I am grateful. The Senators have been outspoken champions of biofuels for many years now, and strong advocates for their home States.

The goal of this legislation is to help restore America's energy security--which, in this day and age, is synonymous with national security. Transportation fuels, accounting for two-thirds of our oil imports, are the place to start this transition.

Our plan has three key components. First, we are proposing a substantially higher, but achievable, renewable fuels standard or RFS, requiring that our Nation blend into the gasoline supply 10 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by the year 2010, 30 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by the year 2020 and 60 billion gallons annually in the year 2030. The current RFS is 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2012. At the time we enacted the present RFS in last year's energy bill, many of us believed this was a reasonably ambitious schedule. However, it is now evident that biofuels growth will outpace this figure within the next couple of years--well in advance of the 2012 target date. This is very good news.

Second, our plan would make E85--the blend of gasoline and 85 percent ethanol--available at gas stations all across America. Major oil companies would be required to increase the number of E85 pumps at their stations by 5 percentage points annually. Within a decade, approximately 25 percent of gas stations nationwide would be required to have E85 pumps.

The major oil companies have the financial wherewithal--and the ability--to provide E85 infrastructure at a growing percentage of gasoline stations over the next decade. This is a reasonable, responsible reinvestment of a fraction of their recent earnings in the many billions of dollars. The bottom line is that our domestic oil companies have a shared responsibility to help enhance our energy security, and this is one excellent way for them to contribute.

Third, our plan would make flex-fuel vehicles nearly universal in the United States. Automakers would be required to increase the production of flex-fuel vehicles--capable of using both gasoline and 85 percent ethanol blends--by 10 percentage points annually, until nearly all new vehicles sold in the U.S. are flex-fuel within a decade. Our legislation calls for all of the auto manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of FFVs, rising to 100 percent of vehicles 10,000 pounds or less over the next decade. This is eminently achievable, and probably easy enough to do much sooner than that.

Recent estimates for the extra cost of manufacturing an FFV are as low as $30. It is a matter of modifying the engine, fuel line and adding a fuel sensor, which most vehicles have anyway. That is less expensive than many other federal requirements for the auto industry. Air bags are more expensive, for instance. And the bottom line is FFVs are being sold for the same price as regular cars.

America's dependence on foreign oil is the source of so many of our problems, today. We are transferring vast amounts of wealth to regimes that are not friendly to our interests. We are vulnerable to price hikes and embargoes. Millions of petrodollars are finding their way into the hands of terrorists and other extremists. And we are accelerating the pace of global warming.

Substituting biofuels for oil in the transportation sector won't solve these problems overnight, but it will make a difference, and a potentially dramatic one in the longer run.

Let me mention a few eye-opening facts and figures to illustrate these points. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population, but we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. If crude oil prices remain above $60 a barrel this year, we will spend well over $300 billion on oil imports. Projections indicate that, over the next 25 years, world demand for energy will grow by 50 percent. All of this growth in energy use, of course, contributes to dangerously rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The reality is that gasoline is much more costly than most Americans realize, even at $3 a gallon. According to a recent study entitled the ``The Hidden Cost of Oil,'' gas really costs more than $10 a gallon. This is because of all the costs we don't factor into its price at the pump, including wars, other military expenses, subsidies, and so on.

There is no question that the ambitious goals set forth in this bill are achievable.

Several decades ago, Brazil committed itself to a similar course. Renewable fuels have played a big part in Brazil's achieving energy independence. Currently, ethanol production in

the U.S. is increasing by 25 percent annually. If we sustain that rate of increase, we will be able to reach the aggressive renewable fuels standard in the Harkin-Lugar plan. In fact, we will be able to beat it.

For example, Brazil, years ago directed that all gasoline stations carry ethanol as an alternative fuel. Our legislation would require the major oil companies to do their share by installing E85 pumps over the next decade. This should not pose too much of a challenge or burden.

Another key to Brazil's success is the fact that, in just 3 years' time, nearly 70 percent of new vehicles sold there are flex-fuel vehicles. We are asking the auto companies to accomplish a similar goal of nearly universal production, only we are giving them a decade to phase in the production and sale of flex-fuel vehicles. Most of the companies that sell vehicles in the United States also sell them in Brazil. If they can produce flex-fuel vehicles for Brazil, they can also produce them for the United States.

Let me explain in more detail why what Senator Lugar and I are proposing can be accomplished.

The 10 billion gallon goal can certainly be met by 2010. The ethanol industry will produce more than 4.5 billion gallons this year. There are 97 ethanol plants in operation, with 35 more coming on-line in the near future. Biodiesel production is growing remarkably, as well, at more than 60 plants nationwide.

The 30-billion-gallon and 60-billion-gallon targets are attainable, as well. A joint study by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy found that biofuels could supply 60 billion gallons of renewable fuels a year--30 percent of current U.S. gasoline consumption--on existing lands without any disruption to our food or feed supply.

The key to ramping-up production will be commercializing ethanol made from feedstocks in addition to corn and other grains, including corn stover, straw from wheat and other crops, switchgrass or even trees. There are a host of provisions that I and others authored in the energy bill-- ranging from loan guarantees to increased biomass research and development--to make cellulosic ethanol production a reality.

Currently, at least three companies are planning commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants. They could be operating within the next 2 to 3 years. One company, Iogen, has the backing of Shell Oil. Just 2 weeks ago, according to reports, Iogen received a cash infusion from Goldman Sachs. By setting an ambitious new RFS, with a sufficient lead time, I believe the 60-billion-gallon threshold is not only attainable, but beatable.

In any case, should something unexpected happen to interfere with reaching these benchmarks, the Environmental Protection Agency has, within the existing RFS, authority to waive the requirement in whole or in part based on a finding of insufficient supply.

If we take bold actions to guarantee the fuel supply, if we increase the number of flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on E85, and if we increase the infrastructure ofE85 pumps, we will be poised to usher in a new era of energy security much sooner than previously imagined. That is the foundation we lay in this legislation.

This bill would also require that 100 percent of new vehicles purchased for federal fleets be alternative-fueled vehicles, which could include flex-fuel vehicles. The current requirement is 75 percent. I do not see why we shouldn't expect the federal government to be as aggressive as possible in this area.

Last year's energy bill closed a loophole in the purchasing requirement that had allowed agencies to buy alternative-fuel vehicles but not use alternative fuels such as E85. That was a step forward. Requiring all the federal fleet to be alternative fueled is yet another step forward in having the Federal Government lead by example when it comes to alternative fuels.

We also update the Gasohol Competition Act of 1980, legislation designed many years ago to ensure the reasonable availability of ethanol at the pump, so it applies to high blends such as E85 and so that oil companies cannot prevent a franchisee from installing E85 pumps.

The concern back then, and still today, is that petroleum companies were unreasonably preventing or prohibiting ethanol-blended fuels from being offered at gasoline stations. The Gasohol Competition Act did two things. First, it made it unlawful to charge additional credit card fees for gasohol. Second, it prohibited unreasonable discrimination against the sale of gasohol. Our legislation would update the Gasohol Competition Act to prohibit discrimination against E85.

We are also proposing several relatively modest tax components designed to bolster this legislation which will be introduced as stand- alone legislation.

The oil-producing countries think they have us over a barrel, but they will soon get the message: We have had enough. And we are dead serious about determining our own energy future.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. President, if you want to know why this Republican- controlled Congress's approval rating has plunged to 22 percent and why President Bush's approval rating is an equally dismal 31 percent, exhibit A is this reckless, irresponsible tax reconciliation bill.

Let's consider the context in which the Republicans are pushing this latest giveaway of $70 billion, all of which will be added to the deficit and national debt:

The Republicans are ramming through these new tax breaks despite the fact that they we are facing a deficit, this year, in excess of $300 billion a year despite the fact that they have run up $2 trillion in new debt since President Bush took office, despite the fact that they are trying to raise the debt limit to an astonishing $10 trillion, despite the fact that we are spending $10 billion a month on their endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and despite the fact that they have increased spending by 25 percent in just 5 years' time.

The level of irresponsibility here is just breathtaking. There is nothing conservative about handing out $2 trillion in tax breaks over 5 years and passing the bill to our children and grandchildren. Rather than providing for our children's education, health, and well-being, this bill will provide them with another huge dose of our debt.

That is plain, old-fashioned recklessness and irresponsibility. It is simply shameful.

In his State of the Union speech 3 years ago, President Bush made this statement: We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations.

But that is exactly what this new tax-break bill will do. It will add to the $2 trillion in new debt that President Bush is passing on to other generations. It will deliberately create a fiscal time bomb set to detonate on January 1, 2011, which a future President and future Congress will somehow have to defuse. And it will result in higher interest rates in the years ahead--indeed, interest rates are already rising rapidly.

This morning's New York Times runs two editorials that are dead on. One editorial is titled, The Republican Agenda for 2006: Tax Cuts for a Favored Few. The second editorial is titled, The Republican Agenda for 2006: Tax Increases for Everyone Else.

This bill is one of the most cynical giveaways to the wealthy we have seen. If this bill were entirely in effect this year, taxpayers making more than $1 million a year would be getting an average tax cut of more than $40,000 this

year, enough to buy a new Mercedes. Taxpayers with middle incomes will get an average tax cut that may pay for a tank of gas or tow, for many it will be less than that.

According to the Brookings Tax Policy Center, assuming that all of major tax provisions were put into place this year, taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year will get seven-eights of the benefits in this reconciliation bill. Taxpayers in the lower 60 percent of the income scale--average working Americans--will get only 1 percent of the benefits in this bill--1 percent. This is simply outrageous.

But the cynicism does not stop there. The Republican tax conferees glued this package together with the worst kind of gimmickry. In order to stuff more tax breaks into this bill, they deliberately designed it in such a way as keep the revenues just within the $70 billion limit over 5 years. But they did it in a way that will drain countless billions of dollars from the Treasury in the decades beyond the budget window.

How did they do this? They put in provisions to encourage the wealthy to convert their 401(k) plans and regular IRAs into Roth IRAs, which, itself, will be a bonanza for the rich. As one newspaper put it, this morning:

This is what passes for fairness in Washington these days:

a big windfall for the wealthy to ``pay for'' another tax cut

for the wealthy.

The core of this bill is an extension of the 15 percent tax on capital gains from 2008 to 2010. To make this possible, the tax-writers jettisoned two very useful provisions that help ordinary Americans. They did not extend the work opportunity tax credit, which creates incentives to provide job training for the more difficult to employ in our society, and they did not extend the research and development tax credit, which promotes improvements in our efficiency and the development of new products. Those provisions have already expired.

Because this bill costs more than the $70 billion allowed, offsets were needed. Did the tax writers cut the billions in excessive tax breaks going to the oil companies--provisions such as the last in first out rule on their overseas operations? Even the oil company executives have said they don't need this. After all, Exxon made $36 billion last year. Exxon payed its CEO more than $140,000 a day. But the tax-writers didn't touch this tax break for the oil companies which had been in the Senate bill.

Republicans claim that their endless tax cuts have created a strong economy, and that the tax cuts will almost pay for themselves by creating new revenue. This is the old supply-side economic theory--you know, the idea that the best way to feed the sparrows is to give an extra big bag of oats to the horse. The first President Bush got it right; he called it ``voodoo economics.''

The truth is that current economic growth and job creation during this recovery are well below normal, and they are well below the levels we saw when President Clinton was doing what was necessary to balance the budget.

Let's look at this economy. Business investment always recovers after a recession. But, by historical standards, we have seen a sluggish recovery in business investment. In the past 5 years, business investment has grown 65 percent more slowly than the average for all recoveries since World War II. In the early 1990s, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton signed significant tax increases into law in order to balance the budget. But business investment was far greater during that period.

In addition, job creation during this recovery has been anemic, at best. Last Friday, the administration ballyhooed the fact that 138,000 jobs were created in April. The cheerleaders didn't mention that 138,000 new jobs is not even enough to keep pace with population growth. And it is less than half of the job creation we experienced, month after month, under President Clinton. Remember, he dared to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to balance the budget, and the resulting economic boom created more millionaires than any recovery in history.

When President Bush passed his third round of tax breaks in 2003, he claimed that it would create 5.5 million new jobs by the end of 2004. That was when Congress cut the tax rate on dividends and capital gains, which the current bill would extend. That bill did not create the promised 5.5 million new jobs. Job growth was only 2.4 million, less then the norm without tax cuts. Over the past 19 quarters since the recession, the growth in employment has been consistently below normal. Meanwhile, incomes of workers have not kept up with inflation.

We have seen the same disappointing results in terms of gross domestic product. Since the end of the last recession, GDP growth has been less then the average GDP growth following recessions since World War II.

And what about the Republicans' argument that tax cuts largely pay for themselves? Are they kidding? They have passed $2 trillion in tax cuts over the last 5 years. And, over that same period of time, the national debt has increased by--you guessed it--$2 trillion.

Yes, we are seeing an increase in revenues at the moment, as one would expect during a recovery. But our revenue estimates are actually below the levels predicted by the Congressional Budget Office in early 2003, before we passed the capital gains and dividend tax breaks we are rushing to extend today.

And let me make one more point about these tax breaks on capital gains and dividends. Over and over again, our friends on the other side of the aisle claim that middle-income families are big beneficiaries of these breaks. Yes, but the typical middle-income taxpayer gains a $20 cut here and a $100 cut there. But the lion's share of the benefits go to you know who. Half of the benefits go to those making more than $200,000 a year. When we just look at the cut in the capital gains and dividends rate: over half of those benefits go to those making over a million a year and over 93 percent of those benefits go to those making over $100,000 a year, according to a table just released by the Joint Tax Committee.

This reconciliation bill gives $70 billion that we do not have, overwhelmingly to people who don't need it; and it passes the resulting debt to people who haven't even been born yet. This bill is reckless. It is irresponsible. And it is shameful.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this conference report so we can substitute a responsible bill--a bill that is progressively paid for, that prevents the alternative minimum tax from penalizing middle-income taxpayers, and that extends job training and the R&D tax credit.

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

Mr. President, something is wrong when 45 million Americans, 8 out of 10 of them in working families, cannot afford access to quality health insurance. This past weekend I met a woman in Des Moines who has been without health insurance for herself and her daughter since her husband died several years ago. She works hard as an administrative assistant in a small law office. She lives, like many Iowans, from paycheck to paycheck. She cannot afford private health insurance and she makes too much money to qualify for the State's Children's Health Insurance Program or Medicaid. This has consequences. She has not had any screenings or preventive care in years. Her daughter does not go to the doctor regularly, despite the fact that their family has a long history of diabetes and cancer. She knows she is at risk but cannot do anything about it. What happens to her if she gets sick?

Many people believe the United States has the best health care system in the world--the best treatments, the best medical technology, the best pharmaceuticals. But this is a cruel joke to the uninsured, including more than 8 million children, because they are forced to make do with substandard care or none at all. The result is a paradox. The United States has a world-class health care system, but we fall behind most industrialized countries when our general health outcomes are

measured. In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked our health care system 37th in outcomes that our health system provides. Just this week, CNN reported a new study which found that the U.S. ranked next to last in infant mortality among industrialized countries.

Bear in mind again that health insurance is not just about seeing a doctor when you are sick; it is about prevention as well. If you have insurance, you are more likely to have a relationship with a doctor or health care specialist who knows you and your health history. You are more likely to have access to preventive care so that chronic disease can be prevented in the first place. Without health care coverage, minor illnesses turn into major ones and small incidents turn into chronic conditions. Once this happens, it becomes almost impossible to afford quality health insurance without restrictions on benefits.

That is why this debate is so important. This week we are considering a major overhaul of the insurance system in an effort to help provide health care coverage to small business owners and their employees. I applaud the goal, but this particular legislation before us now is sorely lacking and will not provide access to quality health care at affordable prices.

I oppose the bill before us for the following reasons:

First, the bill eliminates consumer protections found in current State regulations, including in Iowa. In Iowa, under the bill, 840,000 consumers would lose coverage for diabetes testing supplies and education, emergency services, mammography screenings, State mental health parity, and well child care. They would also lose guaranteed access to dentists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and other providers. Iowa does not have a laundry list of coverage services. Iowa State regulations guarantee quality insurance. But S. 1955 would do away with the compromises that were worked out at the State level to guarantee quality.

Secondly, the supporters of this bill argue that the bill would lower insurance premiums for small businesses. What they don't tell you is that it comes at a cost. Many people, especially those who are older and sicker, would see their insurance premiums increase under the legislation, even with the changes found in the managers' amendment. CBO found that insurers will charge significantly higher premiums to those who are sicker, older, and otherwise less favorable to insurance companies. They will do this in order to reduce health insurance premiums for small firms with workers who have relatively low expected costs for health care. Imagine the shock of business owners all across America, including many I have met with recently in Iowa, when they are billed for the first insurance premiums under the new bill.

So keep in mind, of course, you can always get cheaper insurance, but what does it cover, at what cost, and what are the premiums going to be for the person who is covered?

Third, and importantly, this bill would undermine State efforts to guarantee coverage for preventive services. As I have often said many times, we don't have a health care system in America, we have a sick care system. If you are sick, you get care. But we spend precious little money and we have very few incentives for keeping people out of the hospital, keeping them out of the doctors' offices, and keeping them healthy in the first place. This bill would make it worse. In short order, insurers would offer stripped-down policies that do not cover preventive services. The result would be the elimination, as I said, of cancer screenings, well child care, mental health services, access to certain physicians or nurses or other providers such as chiropractors, for example, who might give you good care and keep you from getting a chronic condition, something that might cause you to have an operation in the first place. So importantly, this would mean elimination of benefits for everyone, not just small business.

Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care coverage. Coverage that is stripped down is not sufficient, and we shouldn't settle for it. People's lives, their livelihoods, their ability to contribute to society will all be undermined if they are not healthy.

I met with small business leaders in Iowa. Of course they want relief from high insurance premiums or from not even being able to get policies at all for their workers. We all do. Small business is the backbone of my State. And they need--they need--to have some kind of insurance coverage for their workers. With regard to this bill, what I have said to them is, don't think it is this bill or nothing. I also ask them: Are you willing to lose access to quality health insurance? Just check with the American Cancer Society. We have cancer societies in our small towns and communities all over America. People who run small businesses contribute heavily to our local cancer societies. But here is what the American Cancer Society said:

In one stroke, this bill would erase all that state

legislatures have done to prevent and more effectively treat

cancer by ensuring access to life-saving screenings for

breast, colon, and prostate cancer, cancer specialists

coverage for evidence based off label drug use, clinical

trials, and proven smoking cessation services.

That is from the American Cancer Society about this bill.

I ask all my friends; I ask anyone who has had a history of cancer in their families: Would you want insurance that doesn't cover screenings for breast cancer or colon cancer or prostate cancer?

How about the American Diabetes Association. We know that diabetes is hitting people younger and younger all the time. We have to do something to prevent diabetes. But here is what the American Diabetes Association said about this bill:

We must ask ourselves how people with diabetes will be able

to pay for a disease that costs an average of $13,243 per

person to manage. Unfortunately, it will be our emergency

rooms and Medicaid system that are forced to pay.

I ask my friends who are diabetic or who have family members with diabetes: Would you want insurance that doesn't cover diabetes-related services?

Those are just two examples, but there are many others. So, again, it is not this bill or nothing. There is a better option out there that will guarantee coverage for these services and at the same time provide small business access to quality insurance.

One realistic solution that I support would be to give small businesses the option of joining a program modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. That is the program that covers us here and we love it, believe me. All Senators, all Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, all our Post Office people--anybody who has anything to do with the Federal Government belongs to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. It is great coverage. Why shouldn't small businesses have access to the same kind of program we have?

That is why I have joined with Senators Durbin and Lincoln to introduce S. 2510, the Small Business Health Benefits Plan. Here is why this bill is superior to the bill we have before us:

First, it would create a larger purchasing pool, a nationwide pool, rather than the fragmented pools that will be created under S. 1955. A national pool would reduce insurance rates for everyone.

A few years ago, before I came to this place, I sold insurance. There is a principle in insurance that we all know: The more people in the pool, the cheaper it is for everybody. It is one of the fundamental principles of insurance. The more people in the pool, cheaper it is for everyone. So you want a big pool when you are dealing with health care.

S. 1955, the bill before us, sets up thousands and thousands of small pools. But the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan is one big pool. So if you have that national pool, insurers will be able to offer a range of plans such as we have now. Every year we have open season and I can choose from--I don't know, I didn't count last time--maybe about 18 different plans. But the Office of Personnel Management would negotiate the rates and benefits offered under the plans.

Should they do that? OPM has been negotiating with private plans for decades. They have consistently negotiated better rates for Federal employees than have been achieved in the non-Federal market.

All the Senators here, all those who love the free market system--you will hear speech after speech praising the

free market system, but everyone here belongs to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, and OPM is the one that manages the rates and negotiates the rates in these plans. As I said, they are better than anything that has ever been achieved in the non-Federal market.

Second, our bill offers a tax credit to small employers that would help offset the cost of premiums for employees if they make $25,000 a year or less. S. 1955 doesn't do this. There are no tax breaks for small businesses in S. 1955. There are more than 26 million Americans making $25,000 or less working in small businesses. Of those, 12 million, or 40 percent, are totally uninsured. That is what we want to get at.

I will be glad to go to any small business with those who are advocating S. 1955. We will take S. 2510 and we will take S. 1955, we will lay it out there and let the small business owner decide which one they would want to have. I would love to see that happen. I tell you I know what would happen: They would pick S. 2510, the one I am talking about, the one that would give them a tax break for covering and would provide quality insurance.

Third, our bill does not preempt State consumer protection laws. S. 1955, the bill before us, would do away with the guarantees I discussed, the guarantees of preventive services such as breast cancer screening, mammography, cancer, prostate screening, things such as that. By contrast, our bill would keep State insurance laws where they are. The insurance would cover mammograms, cervical cancer screening, diabetes testing supplies, immunizations, and on and on.

If you are a small businessperson and you happen to be watching this session and you are listening to my remarks, you are probably saying: Senator Harkin, that all sounds good. Why don't you get S. 2510, the bill you are talking about, up for a vote?

Welcome to the unreal world of the Senate, when we are not allowed to do things such as that. We have S. 1955. The majority leader has, if you will pardon the expression, filled the tree. That is sort of gobbledygook around this place which means they have blocked us from offering any amendments, and then we are supposed to vote on cloture on the bill, which means debate comes to an end on the bill and you can't file anything that is not germane.

Tomorrow night we are going to be asked to vote for cloture on it? I am not going to vote for cloture on that. If you want to have an open Health Week here and you want to bring out S. 1955, leave it wide open so we can offer S. 2510 and we can have a debate on it and have up-or- down votes. I am all for that. I think the small business community in America ought to know that we are not being allowed to bring up our bill for amendment and discussion. I think our bill would pass. I think the small business community would support it.

But as I have understood, being out in Iowa last weekend and as I talked with small business owners, they have sort of been led to believe it is S. 1955 or nothing. And of course they will take S. 1955. If I thought that was all there was, I would probably take it, too. But that is not the option before us. We have better options than S. 1955. We have the option of S. 2510, the bill I spoke about, introduced by Senator Durbin and Senator Lincoln.

Again, it is unfortunate--not for us. It is not unfortunate for us. We have great health care coverage. We have great health care coverage. It is not unfortunate for us but unfortunate for the small business owners and the 25 million Americans who work for small businesses--12 million who do not have any insurance at all. This is what is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that this bill has been brought up in a way that makes it impossible for our side to amend it.

Besides getting a vote on our bill, I was prepared to offer a series of amendments that focused on preventive care. I think if we are going to have a Health Week and we are going to have a bill, I want to start focusing on preventive care. We know it saves money. But we can't do that, either.

Count me as one who will not vote for cloture on this bill tomorrow, but count me as one who wants to have an open debate and amendment on a health insurance program that will be beneficial to our small businesses. I am sorry we are not going to be able to do it now.

Again, we are supposed to have a Health Week. Yet tomorrow I guess we will take all day tomorrow talking about the tax reconciliation bill, and then we are not going to be here Friday. What kind of Health Week is this? What kind of Health Week is it when we are not allowed to offer amendments and debate preventive health care, offer a different bill for the one before us?

I think the small business owners of America now know what is going on. I have heard from some who basically have been supportive of S. 1955 and they are backing off of it. They are saying no, we would rather have your bill, we would rather have the one that provides us with some tax credits so we can go out and join a bigger pool like the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program; so we can join a big pool and we can have preventive services; we can have the State mandates that are there now that cover quality. They would rather have that bill.

But I am sorry we probably will not be able to get it done this year and I think, as I said, that is not just unfortunate for us--heck, we have the best health care coverage. We have great health care coverage. The health coverage we have ought to be available to every American out there.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

He is a gentleman, and a good friend. I know he is serious about this because he is a small business owner himself.

As I said earlier--and I want to make sure we are clear--that under this gobbledygook, the filling of the tree--no one understands what we are talking about out there--because of the way the bill is laid down, the majority leader, under the rules of the Senate, today offered amendments to the bill so that we can't offer amendments. There is no way we can now offer amendments. If cloture is invoked tomorrow, then we have 30 hours on the bill, and that tree could stay filled. So we can never offer an amendment to this bill. We would then have a final vote on S. 1955 without being able to offer any amendments. Is that not so?

Inform me.

That is the problem with this whole cloture process. Why didn't we try to reach a time agreement and an agreement on how many amendments would be offered? As I understand it, our side was willing to do that. Then we would not have this problem of cloture where we are precluded then from offering amendments.

As the Senator pointed out, if S. 2510 is offered, I don't know what would happen after that. The Senator said it wouldn't be offered. This whole thing with the cloture has screwed up everything.

I say to my friend, I think if agreements were made with this side and the other side, we could agree on time limits and structures without having this on us.

I also say to my friend, I think we should take 3 weeks to debate health care. We have been wasting so much time around here doing nothing. Now tomorrow we have tax reconciliation. So my friend from Wyoming is getting a day cut out of his deal. I think we ought to take 3 weeks to debate health care around here. It wouldn't bother me any.

I ask my friend, what was the vote on the motion to proceed?

Then there was no problem with that.

We didn't have to wait 3 days to get the vote.

It is beyond my pay grade, too. I wasn't involved in that.

That is a shame.

If we get cloture, we have 30 hours. Every Senator gets one 1 to speak. That is putting handcuffs on people; 30 hours, run the clock out. One person can get up and offer an amendment and that could be the only amendment we would have for that 30 hours. That is the way things work under cloture. It is not a good way to proceed. I think that is why some of us are upset. We want to help small business. I think there is a fair debate to be had between S. 1955 and S. 2510, with amendments. But somehow we are told that we are going to do this in 1 week. Monday is shot. We didn't do anything Monday. We had two votes Monday night. Tuesday, Wednesday, and then Thursday, tomorrow, is tax reconciliation. Health Week is 2 days. I don't think that is fair to small business, either. I think it is worth taking a couple of weeks around here to do it, and to do it right.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, today, Senator Talent and I, along with a group of our colleagues, are introducing the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Act of 2006. In the 2002 farm bill, a research, education and economics task force within the Department of Agriculture, USDA, was established to evaluate agricultural research. A key recommendation of this task force was to create a National Institute for Food and Agriculture, NIFA, within USDA in order to support fundamental agricultural research to ensure that American agriculture remains competitive now and in the future. This bill does exactly that. The NIFA would be a grant-making agency that funds food and agricultural research through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. These funds would be in addition to, not as a substitute for, current research programs at USDA's Agricultural Research Service, ARS, and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, CSREES.

American agriculture must ensure that our Nation continues to produce safe and nutritious food for an increasing population. Other challenges in the areas of food and agriculture are problems we are facing right now: renewable energy, rural development, overweight and obesity, and environmental challenges. Investment in fundamental research remains our best hope to finding solutions to problems confronting American farmers and consumers of food and agriculture products now and in the future. Our Nation's investment in research has produced remarkable tangible results in the medical field, but food and agricultural research lags far behind. USDA's task force noted that the amount of funding designated for competitively awarded, peer-reviewed agricultural research grants is outpaced 100 to 1 by the National Institutes of Health. Our entire Nation is reaping the benefits of past agricultural research, but more can be done, and research will become much more important in the future as we face increased globalization and competition from foreign markets. Increasing our investment in food and agriculture research is a necessity for the future of America's food and agriculture industry and consumers alike. And that is why I support the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Act of 2006. I encourage my colleagues to do so too.

Mr. President, today, Senator Talent and I, along with a group of our colleagues, are introducing the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Act of 2006. In the 2002 farm bill, a research, education and economics task force within the Department of Agriculture, USDA, was established to evaluate agricultural research. A key recommendation of this task force was to create a National Institute for Food and Agriculture, NIFA, within USDA in order to support fundamental agricultural research to ensure that American agriculture remains competitive now and in the future. This bill does exactly that. The NIFA would be a grant-making agency that funds food and agricultural research through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. These funds would be in addition to, not as a substitute for, current research programs at USDA's Agricultural Research Service, ARS, and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, CSREES.

American agriculture must ensure that our Nation continues to produce safe and nutritious food for an increasing population. Other challenges in the areas of food and agriculture are problems we are facing right now: renewable energy, rural development, overweight and obesity, and environmental challenges. Investment in fundamental research remains our best hope to finding solutions to problems confronting American farmers and consumers of food and agriculture products now and in the future. Our Nation's investment in research has produced remarkable tangible results in the medical field, but food and agricultural research lags far behind. USDA's task force noted that the amount of funding designated for competitively awarded, peer-reviewed agricultural research grants is outpaced 100 to 1 by the National Institutes of Health. Our entire Nation is reaping the benefits of past agricultural research, but more can be done, and research will become much more important in the future as we face increased globalization and competition from foreign markets. Increasing our investment in food and agriculture research is a necessity for the future of America's food and agriculture industry and consumers alike. And that is why I support the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Act of 2006. I encourage my colleagues to do so too.