Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee for accepting my amendment to provide mandatory funding for the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program. Biodiesel is a home-grown renewable fuel. Even as world oil prices are tightening, America's farmers are producing record crops of soybeans. Unfortunately, U.S. soybean prices are now at record lows. Building demand for biodiesel will help increase these commodity prices while enhancing our Nation's energy security. In Minnesota, soybeans are the number one cash crop, grown on about 7 million acres. As we increase demand for soybeans, thus boosting market prices, we are also investing in the economic well-being of farmers and rural communities across our country. Minnesota has been a long-time leader in the production of renewable fuels such as ethanol, wind-generated electricity, biomass, and solar energy. As Minnesota's Commissioner of Energy and Economic Development during the 1980's, I know firsthand the important role that federal and state programs play in developing these industries during their infancies. So I strongly support legislation that promotes the use of renewable energy and programs that educate the public in order to create demand. Last June, I, along with Senator Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, introduced legislation to provide tax incentives for increased use of biodiesel, a renewable fuel made from soybean and other vegetable oils. The biodiesel bill provides a Federal excise tax credit similar to the excise tax credit for ethanol-blended gasoline. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that the resulting increase in biodiesel sales will increase soybean prices by at least 25 percent per bushel. As market prices go higher, the cost of government price supports become lower. The savings realized by the Commodity Credit Corporation, and the American taxpayer, would then be used to cover the cost of the tax credit. My bill directs the savings to the Commodity Credit Corporation to reimburse the Federal Highway Trust Fund for its lost revenues. Over the past year I have been working with the Senate Finance Committee to include the biodiesel tax credit in the energy tax package that is scheduled to be marked up by the committee this afternoon. I wish to commend the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, for her help in this effort. If we are successful in passing this tax credit, an effective education program to educate the public on the benefits of biodiesel fuel will be essential as biodiesel makes the transition from research and development to commercialization. During the markup of the energy title of the farm bill, the Senate Agriculture Committee passed my amendment to authorize $25 million over the next five years for the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program. My amendment, which passed the committee unanimously, increased the amount available from $1 million to $5 million annually through 2006 for grants to educate Americans about biodiesel. The passage of this amendment was a critical step toward encouraging the production and use of biodiesel. I am pleased to report that the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee have now accepted my floor amendment that will provide mandatory funding for the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program. My amendment will avoid the need to go through the annual appropriations process by providing $5 million in mandatory funding annually in fiscal years 2003 through 2006. The biodiesel tax credit, together with the Biodiesel Fuel Education Program, provides a comprehensive approach to facilitate the entry of biodiesel fuels into the marketplace. Working in tandem, these legislative initiatives will educate the public, increase demand for biodiesel, bring higher prices for farmers, lower government outlays, improve the environment, and lower our dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his strong support for U.S. dairy farmers. I respectfully withdraw my plans to offer this amendment.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to take a different tack from some of my Democratic colleagues and say to the Senator from Arizona and others who have expressed his point of view that I understand and respect his sentiment as one which reflects also accurately what I have heard from a lot of Minnesota farmers, a lot of Minnesota business owners throughout the State. I am convinced, regardless of what my particular view might be and regardless of what the facts of the situation might be, that any farmer or business person or probably anybody who has accumulated some estate who even believes it is possible that he or she will ultimately be affected by this tax considers it onerous. I can see for those it does impact, they consider it onerous. I agree with the Senator from Arizona that the decision made a year ago by the Congress, signed into law, to finally repeal the estate tax entirely in the year 2010 and then reverse that repeal and go back to the pre-2001 tax level is nonsensical, absurd, and should have been recognized last year for what it was, which was an attempt--in fact, a successful effort--to compress 10 years of tax cuts permitted by the budget resolution into the first 9 years of the budget so we would face exactly this predicament and there would be, as the Senator said, and properly so, no logical explanation to the American people for why these tax cuts which occurred over those 9 years are suddenly all going to disappear in the 10th year. In fact, I think that argument can equally apply to the reduction in the rates which would also go back to their pre-2001 levels if no change is made. The child tax credit, which will go up to $1,000 per child, reverts back down to its pre-2001 $500 level. I agree with the Senator what was done last year was nonsensical, and any rational person trying to look into that situation, any tax planning expert advising someone about his or her tax plan decisions, especially as that year 2011 approaches, is going to say what it is, and with which I agree: It is nonsensical and ridiculous to conduct tax policy in that way. I invite the Senator from Arizona to work with me--and I look forward to doing so--to change this practice which I encountered last year which, for the first time, my first year--I understand the tactic, but I think it is fundamentally wrong no matter who perpetrates it, to be having tax changes phasing in, phasing out, and the like. These are the kinds of games and manipulations we all realize occur. No wonder the American people do not think we have a Tax Code they can depend upon, trust, that makes sense. They are right. In my experience, just about any tax that is imposed upon people is considered onerous. As a policymaker, I guess I am left wondering which of those taxes, from the standpoint of perceived burden and actual burden, would be the prime candidates to be reduced if we had the resources to do so. I certainly note that competing with the estate tax elimination, in terms of what taxes impact most Americans, the payroll tax would certainly be my first candidate, especially as it affects the employee. Seventy-five percent of working Americans pay more out of their payroll taxes than they do out of their income taxes. And certainly for employers, for businesses, it is perceived as a cost and as an impediment to hiring additional people. Another inequity we will face over this next decade as it stands today is some 39 million Americans will be bumped up against the alternative minimum tax by the year 2011 under current law. We should remedy all of those inequities. The bottom line is, and what Senator Conrad was asking his colleagues to recognize tonight, and what the American people need to understand about the course that we are about to head down, is we cannot afford to make all of these tax cuts and all of the spending increases which the President's budget proposes without seriously weakening the financial strength of this country so that in a decade, at the end of this 10-year budget period, we are likely to be unable to meet the increased demands of Social Security and medical benefits of an aging population. If we take the President's budget, assume that the Congress does not change one thing about it, and then apply the Office of Management and Budget, the administration's own fiscal expert, consequences of that budget, as Senator Conrad said, and it bears repeating, for those next 10 years every dollar in the Federal Government's operating budget, the surpluses, will be eliminated. All of the surpluses in the Medicare trust fund for every 1 of those 10 years will be eliminated. Sixty percent of the Social Security trust fund surpluses, totaling $1.5 trillion during that time, will have to be spent to pay for the operating deficits which will result, leaving at the end of those 10 years in the fiscal year 2012, $1 trillion of surpluses in the Social Security trust fund, and $1.9 trillion of debt that has not been paid because of this additional spending--national debt that, I might add, was projected originally a year ago to have been eliminated by the end of these 10 years. So I repeat, if we, today, were to adopt the budget which the President has sent to the Congress, without a change, if the economy of this country over the next decade performs according to OMB's assumptions, which are that we will come out of the recession quickly, we will boost up above average GDP, and then we will continue at a rate for the rest of the decade that will result in a decade average of 3.1 percent real growth in GDP; in other words a reasonably optimistic economic assumption sustained over 10 years--low inflation, 2.1 percent, unemployment staying at 4.9 percent, good economic conditions--we will still face $849 billion in deficits in our operating budgets which have to be made up by Social Security and Medicare trust fund dollars. At that point, we end up facing the proposal of Senator Kyl and others that we should eliminate the estate tax permanently during that following decade, which the Congressional Budget Office predicts would cost $4 trillion. If we look at the numbers, we will see we cannot afford to sacrifice another $4 trillion in tax revenues during that time. The Social Security payments are going to increase. The national debt has not been eliminated. Frankly, I am not even as concerned about that decade, at least not tonight, as I am about the decisions we will be making over the next few weeks and months that will affect what precedes that decade. I assume Senator Kyl's amendment will pass tomorrow. It is a sense- of-the-Senate resolution. It has no force of law. It does not start to take effect until the year 2011. That is about as easy a tax cut vote as anybody can ever hope for. I implore my Republican colleagues, I implore all of my Senate colleagues, to review the President's budget proposals and to review Senator Conrad's predictions because they essentially agree. They say if that budget is adopted, we are heading into another decade-long spree of cutting taxes. We did last year. Now some want to accelerate those tax cuts. We want to make some of those tax cuts permanent in following decades--popular decisions, every one of them not in context. We are proposing to embark on a major military spending spree, $451 billion of additional defense spending in the next 5 years compounded through the next 5 years, spending that we are not paying for with the tax cuts; that we are paying for with the Medicare and Social Security trust funds. Those are the unavoidable realities, the unpleasant realities that we would prefer to avoid. If we do that, we will jeopardize the long-term financial security of this Nation. If we repeat what occurred in the 1980s and send this country down the path of ongoing budget deficits, we will bequeath to our children and those who follow a fiscal nightmare of unprecedented proportions. Regardless of what we do tomorrow with the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, the real decisions we are going to face in the months ahead will not be those kinds of cosmetics. They will be real commitments to tax cuts and to spending increases that will be sweet and appealing at the time, but the reality is they will jeopardize this country's financial strength and stability. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today I planned to offer an amendment to the Senate farm bill that would close the milk protein concentrate loophole. During the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the United States agreed to allow a substantial increase in dairy product imports into this country. Tariff-rate quotas were established to allow imports of most dairy products to rise from an average of 2 percent of domestic consumption to as much as 5 percent. Until recently, these controls have been effective, but foreign exporters now have found ways to circumvent these quotas. Importers are adjusting the protein content of nonfat dry milk so that it is classified by the U.S. Customs Service as milk protein concentrate, or MPC, a product that is not limited by a tariff-rate quota There is no tariff-rate quota on MPC because it was a relatively new product when the Uruguay Round WTO agreement was negotiated. In March 2001, a General Accounting Office study requested by Congress determined that MPC imports have surged by more than 600 percent in just 6 years. MPC imports doubled between 1998 and 1999 alone. According to the GAO study, it appears that some foreign exporters are blending previously processed dairy proteins, such as casein and whey, into nonfat dry milk to boost its protein content. This is being done solely for the purpose of avoiding the U.S. tariff-rate quota for nonfat dry milk. This practice, specifically cited in the GAO report, circumvents statutory regulations designed to restrict imports of nonfat dry milk powder. I have introduced legislation, S. 847, that would close this loophole by regulating MPC imports in the same manner all other dairy product imports are regulated, by establishing new tariff-rate quotas on MPC. It also would close a similar loophole that exists for casein used in the production of food or feed, while continuing to allow unrestricted access for imports of casein used in the manufacture of glues and for other industrial purposes. The Minnesota Farmers Union, the Minnesota Milk Producers, the National Milk Producers Federation, and the National Farmers Union strongly support this bill. I have worked closely with these organizations over the past year to find an appropriate legislative vehicle for my bill, and that is why I am now offering this legislation to the Senate Farm Bill.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this week, the U.S. Senate will begin consideration of a historic National Energy Policy, which will guarantee our citizens access to affordable, reliable, and renewable sources of energy far into the future. As we begin this historic debate, we can learn much from the efforts of many organizations that have led the way in promoting a greater reliance on renewable sources of energy. Moorhead, MN is an exceptional example of a city that has demonstrated a clear commitment to renewable sources of energy. Moorhead city officials, and the citizens themselves, are to be applauded for their vision of a city that will continue to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels for their future electricity needs. The city of Moorhead initiated its ``Capture the Wind'' program in 1998--offering its municipal electric customers the opportunity to purchase wind energy from a turbine that would be owned and operated by the city. The success of the program has been nothing short of phenomenal. Three weeks after the announcement of the Capture the Wind program, over 400 Moorhead Public Service customers signed up to purchase electricity from the proposed wind turbine. Because these 400 customers would consume the entire capacity of the proposed turbine, the city began placing additional residents on a Capture the Wind program waiting list. While all other Moorhead Public Service customers would receive two- thirds of their electricity from hydropower and one-third from a coal- fired electric generation plant, the 400 Capture the Wind charter members would replace their coal-generated electricity with electricity generated by the 750 kilowatt wind turbine to be constructed on the edge of town. The Capture the Wind customers agreed to pay the additional cost of wind-generated electricity, amounting to one-half cent more for each kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed. The additional cost amounts to approximately $5 more per month for the average residential customer. This additional cost is among the lowest in the Nation for wind-generated electricity. Due to the overwhelming success of the Capture the Wind Program, the city of Moorhead appealed to its utility customers to help Moorhead ``catch its second wind'' in the fall of 2000. Once again, over 400 new customers signed up for the program--enabling the city to build a second wind turbine alongside its first. As of last fall, the twin turbines have generated over 3.5 million kilowatt-hours of electricity. Thanks to the customers who have embraced the Capture the Wind program, these turbines have already prevented the emission of over 7.7 million pounds of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. That has the same positive effect on the environment that would be achieved if we were to remove 770 cars from the road for one year. At this time, over 925 Moorhead Public Service customers have become Capture the Wind members, accounting for 7.3 percent of all Moorhead utility customers. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has recognized Moorhead Public Service as the utility with the highest percentage of its customers participating in a renewable energy program in the nation. Moorhead's Capture the Wind program has also earned it the 2001 Energy Innovator Award from the American Public Power Association. Moorhead City officials are to be commended for the phenomenal success of the city's Capture the Wind program. While many officials staked their reputations on the program's outcome, I would be remiss if I did not mention several leaders who especially contributed to its success. First and foremost, Moorhead's former mayor, Morrie Lanning--a man who served his city as mayor for over 22 years before retiring last December--is to be applauded for his solid support and advocacy for the Capture the Wind program. Moreover, the program would not have been possible without the thousands of hours of work invested by Bill Schwandt, General Manager of Moorhead Public Service, and Christopher Reed, Manager of Energy Services and Marketing. But most important, the 925 members of the Capture the Wind program deserve special recognition for their commitment to renewable energy. The rest of the Nation can learn much from Moorhead's example. We can learn that when citizens are informed about the importance of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels for our energy needs, many are willing to pay a little bit more to help secure our energy future. The citizens of Moorhead can lead the way to a brighter future for all of us.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, February is a very special month for people in Minnesota and throughout our country. It is ``Black History Month,'' when all of us recognize the many outstanding achievements of African-Americans and their important contributions to our nation. We also honor the African-American men and women who achieved these successes despite obstacles which would have defeated lesser people. In 1926, Carter Woodson, considered by many to be the ``Father of Black History,'' created Negro History Week. It evolved into Black History Week in the early 1970s. In 1976, February was chosen to be Black History Month, because it included the birthdays of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, both of whom made heroic contributions to the lives of African-Americans in this country. So throughout this month, let us celebrate the accomplishments of so many African-American heroes. They dared to take risks to ensure a better way of life for all people, and the results of their courageous acts have been felt around the world. Though we have come a long way in our battle for equal rights for all Americans, there is still much to be done. We must be bolder in our efforts to ensure that Americans of every race have every opportunity to share in and contribute to our economic prosperity. That means quality education and health care and adequate housing for all Americans. It means a good job with living wages, so that everyone can earn the American dream. And it means that our tax and budget policies must spread their benefits across all social and economic lines. We must intensify our push toward a justice system that is color blind in enacting and enforcing our laws. Hate crimes, prejudice, racial profiling, and discrimination must be eliminated now and forever. We must continue to honor the people who have shaped our society and also recognize the work of today's leaders who endeavor to continue that crusade for equality. Minnesota takes great pride in the African- Americans who have made our State and our country a better place. Their achievements abound throughout public service, the arts, sports, and academia. Sharon Sayles-Belton has just completed two terms as the Mayor of Minneapolis. Throughout her eight years, she provided extraordinary leadership. Her many accomplishments have left Minneapolis a better City than when she took office, and they will be her lasting legacies for many years to come. Sharon exemplifies the highest caliber of dedicated public service, which has been a great Minnesota tradition. As a very successful and visible African-American woman, she served as a role model for many girls and young women in the City. And her compassion for others, her steadfast resolve, and her effective leadership are models for all of us. Mahmoud El Kati, professor of African-American Studies at Macalester College in St. Paul, teaches courses such as ``The Black Experience Since World War II'' and ``Sports and the African-American Community.'' He is a frequent contributor to the opinion pages of both Twin Cities newspapers as well as the local Black press, and he speaks candidly about African-American society today. Most recently, El Kati has campaigned to name a street in St. Paul after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Evelyn Fairbanks, a St. Paul native who died last year, was a Renaissance woman. She became the first Black employee at St. Paul's Hamline University, as a cashier. She wrote a memoir, ``The Days of Rondo'', which portrays her experiences growing up in the Rondo community, the largest Black neighborhood in St. Paul, in the 1930s and '40s. While still employed in various jobs such as factory worker, maid, and director of a neighborhood arts center, Fairbanks earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Minnesota at the age of 40. Later, her memoir was adapted for the stage, as the play Everlasting Arms. In 1995, Hamline University awarded this accomplished woman an honorary doctorate degree. The mission of Minnesota's Penumbra Theatre is ``to bring forth professional productions that are artistically excellent, thought provoking, relevant, entertaining and presented from an African-American perspective.'' That is how Lou Bellamy, Penumbra's founder and artistic director, runs this nationally recognized theatre. Under Bellamy's leadership, the Penumbra has received numerous honors, including the Jujamcyn Theaters Award for the development of artistic talent. As the Dean of the University of Minnesota General College, David Taylor does what he loves, assisting educationally disadvantaged students. He is also a scholar of African-American Studies whose greatest influences have been his mother and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Taylor, who grew up in the Summit-University neighborhood of St. Paul, is often called upon to provide an historical perspective on Minnesota's African-American community. These are just a few of the Minnesotans, past and present, who exemplify the struggle for attainment of human dignity, justice, and self-determination. As we celebrate Black History Month, we can look to them as models of leadership, making Minnesota and this country all that it should be for all our citizens.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, as we all know, the 2002 Winter Olympics begin tonight in Salt Lake City. These games have taken on a special importance in our country this year in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and will be an important part of our Nation's healing process. That is why I am so proud that Minnesotan Stacey Liapis will help carry the flag that once flew at the World Trade Center into the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics. Stacey Liapis is a curling team member from Bemidji, who at the age of 27, is competing for the first time in the Winter Olympics. Before making it to Salt Lake City, Liapis finished eighth at the 1998 World Championships and came in fifth in 2001. Stacey took up curling in 1987 and has played most of her career with older sister Kari Erickson, the skip for the U.S. team. They were inspired by their parents, both of whom were recreational curlers. In honor of Stacey's many accomplishments and to mark her being chosen as one of the eight Olympic athletes to carry the ground zero flag into the Opening Ceremony of the Winter Olympics, I am having a U.S. flag flown over our Nation's Capitol. The chosen athletes, one from each of the eight Winter Olympic sports, were selected by their teammates. I congratulate Stacey on being recognized by her teammates with this honor. Thank you, Stacey for your participation in this historic event. Tonight, you will make all Minnesotans and the entire Nation proud.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, as all of America knows, the XIX Olympic Winter Games begin tonight in Salt Lake City. For an athlete, making the Olympic team is one of the highest possible accomplishments. To be chosen by one's teammates to carry the American flag and to lead the American team into tonight's opening ceremony is an absolutely stratospheric achievement! That great honor has been bestowed by the American team on Minnesota's Amy Peterson. I wish to pay tribute to her extraordinary athletic skills and leadership abilities, and to all the other Minnesota athletes competing in this year's Games. Amy is a speed skater from Maplewood, MN, who at the age of 30 is competing in her fifth Olympics! She has already won a silver medal and two bronze medals for the United States, and this year she hopes to cap her career with a gold medal. Amy, I hope you achieve your goal. Yet, you have already surpassed that high achievement by the honor you earned tonight. Amy has been called, in recent press reports, ``arguably the greatest Winter Olympian in Minnesota history.'' That is quite a distinction, since Minnesota has always been one of the best-represented states in the Winter Games. Both the 1960 and 1980 gold medal-winning U.S. men's hockey teams were spearheaded by Minnesota players and coaches. In the most recent Winter Games, Minnesota players led the U.S. women's hockey team to win the gold medal. In so many other winter sports, Minnesota athletes have excelled. Now, to that roster of great Minnesota athletes and leaders, we proudly add the name of Amy Peterson. To honor Amy's many accomplishments and her selection by her American teammates to lead them, I am having an American flag flown today over the U.S. Capitol. When the Games are concluded, I will present this flag to Amy. I hope she will fly it proudly for her lifetime, and that it will always remind her of this most special night.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. We yield back all our time.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the amendment offered by my very distinguished colleague, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, regarding unemployment benefits for Americans who are not now receiving them. The legislation offered by Senator Daschle has a very important provision to extend unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for the people in this country who are receiving unemployment now and whose benefits are scheduled to run out in the very near future. We have lost, in this country, almost 2 million jobs since January of a year ago. Yet we have not done what this Congress has done in most previous recessions, certainly the last two or three recessions, which is to extend unemployment benefits. Already in Minnesota, and I am sure in other States, the unemployment benefits are running out for people who lost their jobs earlier in the year. It is just simple decency, it is simple justice, to be offering that extension now. In fact, as you know, we have tried to do that in this body, for instance, last September, at the time we passed legislation to prevent a bankruptcy in our Nation's airlines. At that time, many of us wanted to increase the unemployment benefits duration and were then not able to do so. This is something that is long overdue. I commend our majority leader for making that a keystone of his proposal now on economic stimulus. I was delighted to read the President purportedly will be indicating his support for extending unemployment benefits tonight. So I hope this is something we will be able to address on a bipartisan basis. Additionally, however, reports are that over half of the Americans who are out of work, who have lost their jobs during this last year, are not receiving any unemployment benefits whatsoever. They are not eligible. Even though they were working Americans, even though they have been in the workforce, because they held only part-time jobs, because maybe they held multiple part-time jobs, they are not receiving any unemployment benefits whatsoever. That is over half of the people who are out of work in this country, including my State of Minnesota. That is a national disgrace. That totally repudiates the kind of safety net that we say we are going to create for people who, through no fault of their own, who through no choice of their own, are thrown into economic hard times, their families into economic despair. They lose their health benefits; they lose their income; they lose their jobs. No wonder people are devastated by that kind of experience. The amendment of Senator Durbin very importantly would extend unemployment coverage for those 13 weeks to men and women throughout this country who have just lost their jobs but are now not receiving any unemployment benefits whatsoever. The Durbin amendment would also slightly increase the amount of money that those who are receiving unemployment benefits will get during those 13 weeks because, again, we are talking about people who, through no fault or choice of their own, are thrown out of the workforce. In many States, those unemployment benefits are not even enough to reach a bare minimum poverty level. We can afford to be generous. We can't afford not to be generous for people in that circumstance. I commend Senator Durbin for this important addition to Senator Daschle's amendment. I hope we will receive today the kind of compassion and support the President purportedly will be calling for tonight, and that we can do, in advance of his speech, what we should have done months ago, which is to provide this extension and include others in it. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of Senator Baucus's amendment to provide disaster assistance to farmers. I begin by thanking my very distinguished colleague from Montana who has consistently championed the need to help farmers throughout the country who have crop losses due to natural disasters. I thank the Senator for his leadership and strongly support this amendment that will provide disaster assistance to farmers who need it and will be further devastated without it. American agriculture has been in a recession for the last several years; or even for some farmers, a depression. Last August, the Minnesota Farm Service Agency calculated that Minnesota farmers had suffered $500 million in crop losses in the first half of 2001. Then in November of last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the largest monthly drop in commodity prices in USDA's 91 years of recording that statistic. In a single month, overall commodity prices plummeted nearly 10 percent nationwide. With prices that low, farmers have no ability to withstand additional losses that a disaster creates. At that time last November, the Senate Agriculture Committee was completing its markup of legislation that would provide desperately- needed assistance to farmers and producers. Amazingly, we spent most of December sitting through a filibuster of the farm bill. That filibuster was harmful to all farmers--it was catastrophic to those who need disaster aid and whose farms may not survive without it. Senator Baucus' amendment will provide this vital assistance before is too late. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DAYTON. My distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from Minnesota, has been in this body for 10 years. This is my first year in this body. I know, from my own experience in Minnesota, that it is unusual for the Minnesota Farm Bureau and the Minnesota Farmers Union to be in complete agreement. In this case, I believe we were both hearing from those organizations and many other farm organizations in Minnesota that represent the farmers in our State, that they wanted this bill. They wanted this bill to pass the Senate. My question is, not having been in this body as long as my senior colleague, in the 10 years my colleague has been in this body, is the Senator aware of a time when both national farm organizations--the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union--were standing at a press conference, the two of them, with Senators such as ourselves, and saying the same thing about this bill?

Mr. DAYTON. I would hope all the farmers in the State of Iowa, the Senator's home State, and all the farmers in America would understand and know that Chairman Harkin has done everything for countless hours and hours over the last months to bring this bill to the floor, making it a good bipartisan bill, and one that, most importantly, speaks to the critical financial circumstances in which many Minnesota and other American farmers find themselves. I think it was extraordinary and heroic. I want to give the chairman that due credit. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DAYTON. I also ask the Senator--again, this is my first year in this body--I have just been in awe of Chairman Harkin. And I expressed last week my deep respect for Senator Lugar, who was the former chairman and now ranking member of the committee. I have never before, in this process, seen anyone lead a committee as he has hold hearings for months, and have the committee markup, where all points of view were recognized, where we voted and passed it out. Has the Senator ever seen a committee chairman give any stronger and better leadership to a committee bill than this one?

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my decision to vote against the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Conference Report. Let me first say what enormous respect I have for the bill's manager, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who, throughout his Senate career, has fought heroically to improve the quality of education for our nation's schoolchildren. He and other Senate conferees have labored long and hard for months to negotiate the best bill possible with the House and the White House, who have other, higher priorities. All year long, they have placed tax giveaways to the rich and the powerful above our nation's schoolchildren. Let there be no doubt: this legislation fails to achieve the President's stated goal: ``Leave No Child Behind.'' President Bush, this legislation leaves many thousands of children behind throughout this country. It fails, for the 25th consecutive year, to keep the Federal promise to pay for 40 percent of the costs of special education. This broken promise is costing my state of Minnesota over $183 million this year. It means the 110,000 Minnesota schoolchildren in these programs are receiving less special education than they need and deserve. It means that other Minnesota schoolchildren are harmed, as state and local money intended for their educations must be shifted to cover the Federal shortfall. It means that Minnesota taxpayers must pay higher property taxes to fund this broken Federal promise. To make matters worse, the House conferees refused to accept the Senate's bipartisan commitment to bring Federal funding for special education to 40 percent over the next six years. Earlier this year, Mr. President, I proposed an amendment to this legislation, which would have funded the 40 percent promise in two years. That amendment was defeated, in favor of a six-year timetable. Now, the House Republicans are saying that even six years is too soon. That is absolutely unconscionable, unjustifiable, and it should be, to this Senate, unacceptable. As a result, under this legislation, next year's Federal funding for IDEA will cover only 17.5 percent of those costs nationwide. In Minnesota, it will fund only 15 percent. This failure will leave thousands of children behind. House Republicans reportedly refused to accept the Senate position until after IDEA is ``reformed.'' Yet, just a few weeks earlier, the House added over $30 billion in tax breaks to large energy companies in their Energy Bill. The House Economic Stimulus package would repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax, and it would refund over $25 billion to some of America's largest and most profitable corporations. Neither of these two huge tax giveaways was predicated on any kind of ``reform.'' The failure to fully fund IDEA is tragic, because that money was available earlier this year. There was also enough money to significantly increase the Federal government's support of all elementary and secondary education nationwide. But massive tax cuts for the rich and powerful were the President's and the House Republicans' higher priorities. Now, those projected Federal surpluses are gone, and our nation's schoolchildren must wait in line again. Less money and more testing. That will be the legacy of this ``education President.'' Well, the President and the Congress have failed their big education test this year. It shouldn't be surprising when, as a direct result of their failure, more of our nation's schools and schoolchildren do also in the years ahead.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, one of Minnesota's greatest Senators and statesmen, recently spoke in Minneapolis at Westminster Presbyterian Church, of which I am a member. I found his insights into our country's present situation and our current deliberations to be most valuable. I ask unanimous consent to print the former Vice President's speech in the Record for the benefit of all my colleagues.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the 365th anniversary of a true American institution: The National Guard. Now, perhaps more than ever, it is fitting to pay a special anniversary tribute to our citizen-soldiers, the oldest of America's armed forces. The National Guard dates back to the first Americans. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias. These early colonial militias protected citizens from Indian attacks, foreign adversaries and eventually successfully waged our Nation's war for independence. Following independence, the framers of the Constitution empowered Congress to ``provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.'' Thus commenced the historic dual role of the National Guard as a state and a Federal force. My home State of Minnesota formed a Territorial Enrolled Militia in 1850, and in April 1856 the first uniformed, volunteer company was formed in St. Paul. Called the Minnesota Pioneer Guards, it was a source of pride and inspired the subsequent formation of nine sister companies in St. Paul, St. Anthony, Minneapolis, and in river towns from Stillwater to Winona. From these roots grew the Minnesota National Guard on which we depend so greatly. Each State has a similar, distinguished inspirational story. Throughout the 19th Century, the size of the regular U.S. Army was small. The militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. The National Guard comprised 40 percent of American troops deployed in France during World War I. In World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight. Following World War II, National Guard aviation units, some of them dating back to World War I, because the Air National Guard, the Nation's newest Reserve component. September 11 ushered in a new chapter in the storied history of our heroes in the National Guard. We called on them to secure our Nations' most vital infrastructure from terrorists committed to evil and violence. They did not hesitate to leave their jobs and families to answer the call to protect the American freedoms we hold so dear. Today the National Guard continues to provide the States' trained and ready units equipped to protect life and property at home. And it stands ready to defend the United States and its interests all over the globe. Whether called upon by governor or President, from the village streets of Bosnia, to the terminals of our own Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, our coworkers and neighbors in the National Guard continue to answer the call to defend freedom.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks made by the Senator from Idaho and by the two Senators who preceded him from Minnesota and North Dakota. I was not aware until the Senator from Idaho pointed out the history in the sugar program, but I think this testimony today certainly underscores the bipartisan support for this program and also the benefits not only to sugar beet producers in these respective States but, as Senator Crapo has pointed out, to the American people. I see no one else is here right now so I thought I would take a moment. I have been asked by the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, who is managing this bill, to sit in for him briefly because he has to chair a conference committee on one of the appropriations subcommittees. In baseball terms that is called ``reaching deep into the bench'' to put me in that position. It does give me an opportunity to speak for a moment about the superb job which the chairman, Senator Harkin, has done in leading our Agriculture Committee and also in bringing this bill to the floor. As the Presiding Officer knows, since he and I were both on this committee for this first year, we have had the good fortune to serve under two very distinguished and outstanding chairmen of the committee. Senator Lugar from Indiana, when we first joined the committee, provided magnificent leadership. His longstanding commitment and concern not only to American farmers and to setting the right policy for American farmers is evident, but also his deep support for the nutrition programs and benefiting children, consumers throughout this country. When Senator Harkin became chairman, I had the opportunity then, along with the Presiding Officer, to watch him provide the same kind of outstanding leadership. He has had the responsibility to bring this bill through our committee and to the Senate floor. I can honestly say, after watching him over the last couple months, one of the positions I would least want to assume is that of chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. While it has great responsibility and great opportunity to be of service to those States, such as Nebraska, Minnesota, and others, which are so heavily dependent on agriculture, frankly, the work the chairman has performed I think has been nothing short of miraculous, trying to pull together all the agricultural interests in our very diverse country. We have had some of our differences and disagreements, certainly, but I think they have been more based on representing the interests of the farmers in our particular States than anything else. Maybe some are on philosophy and views on what the Government's role in agriculture policy ought to be. Most of all, we come from 50 diverse States with very different agricultural interests, and we are trying to knit that all together here. Again, I think Senator Harkin has been phenomenal in his ability to bring together all the points of view and to reflect not only the interests of his own State of Iowa--which, coincidentally, is contiguous to my State of Minnesota, so we share many issues in common--but also those interests from all over the country. I think the bill that the chairman brought forward is really remarkable. I have listened to the debate over the last couple of days. Again, there are many different points of view, and they all have considerable merit. I hear some who are critical of this effort because of the costs involved and the need to provide some of these supports to American farmers and producers, and I sometimes think we have lost the context for this legislation and the reason that we, even in the committee, had to adopt some of these provisions. As a Senator from Minnesota, where commodities such as corn, wheat, soybeans, and dairy are certainly beneficiaries of these programs, I wish--and I know every farmer in Minnesota wishes and would greatly prefer not to--we did not have to receive any Government payments or subsidies whatsoever--call them AMTA, countercyclical, or whatever. They would much rather make a decent price and get a good profit in the marketplace. I come from a business family, and I know the Presiding Officer has been involved in business as well. You don't stay in business in this country if you can't make a profit on what it is you produce and sell. That is what American farmers want to do. They are business men and women first and foremost. They love the land and the work they do, but they are in agriculture to make a profit--a sufficient profit to pay for all their equipment, their seed, and other investments, and to get a fair return. Most important, they want to be able to provide for their families. Something strikes me as terribly wrong in this country when these hard-working men and women--America's farmers--want to spend their lives and devote their careers to feeding the people in our country and throughout this hungry world, yet they can't make a decent profit on what it is that they themselves produce. I know farm families in Minnesota where the families and their children are literally going hungry because they can't make enough producing commodities to be able to buy what they need for their own families. That is the crisis we have seen in the past. I think we have seen it clearly--at least speaking from Minnesota's perspective--get worse and worse under the current farm bill. It was put together with all the best intentions. I don't think there was anybody in the Senate or in the House 6 years ago, when this bill was put together, who had any intention other than to best serve the interests of American farmers and the American people. But the fact remains that in the aftermath of that legislation, the decoupling of prices from payments and setting up of AMTA payments that were based on pre-1996 levels of production has essentially locked in historical production, as well as the payments made according to the size of these farm operations, and that is, prices declined for many key commodities, and in subsequent years Members of Congress from both parties came back and agreed together, under the administration of the former Democratic President-- so this was bipartisan--they came back together year after year and authorized these emergency payments. Last year in the United States, the Federal Government was the largest provider of financing and income for American farmers. In some States, including parts of my own, net farm income in these areas was less than the amount of the Federal Government payments in support of these commodities. In other words, in the marketplace the farmers lost money. If they had not received these Government payments, they would have been out of business. That is again why, from my perspective, the Congress, and the administration, year after year, acted as they did, because they knew if they did not do so, given the market prices that were not just through the floor; they were in the sub-basement, the farmers would be going out of business. If they hadn't acted as they did, Minnesota farmers, by the thousands, would have been out of business. Therefore, if we don't act as we are today, if we were to say take away all these subsidies and let's return the dollars and use them for some other purpose, that would absolutely bankrupt farmers in Minnesota and, I believe, throughout significant parts of this country. So the goal of Chairman Harkin's work and our work on the committee, as I view it, has been to take the predicament in which we find ourselves today with American agriculture and say how do we move ourselves out from behind this economic eight ball that we find ourselves behind and move forward in a way that restores some of the market prices, at least if I had my way, to levels that are such that farmers could make a good price and profit. Even though we dodge that issue in this country, frankly, there are forces--and some have been referred to by some of my colleagues--who prefer to see the price that goes to the farmers themselves as low as possible, and who benefit from having low market prices for basic commodities because then, through the processing and the transport and retail and the like, they have a greater margin for profit in their own enterprises, striking that balance so that the American consumer, at the end of that, still pays a reasonable amount, which the consumers do today--remarkably less of their total family income as a percentage for basic food than virtually any other country in the world, because we have an efficient agriculture system, one that overall provides food for the consumer at a low price, providing for quality as well. Those who want to keep prices low--and we have had this discussion in the Agriculture Committee, the Chair will remember, with the Secretary of Agriculture, where I asked the Secretary, because there are some in that administration and part of that Department who reportedly, from what I have read of their remarks, think the prices should be kept fairly low, should not get too high, because then it would have a negative effect on our efforts to expand trade and the like. So I asked the Secretary if she could provide for us what are the target market prices for these commodities that the administration thinks are in the best interests of American farmers, as well as trade and everything else. I have not yet received an answer to that question that I raised some time ago. So to lay all the cards on the table here, clearly, as I say, there are many competing forces, and Chairman Harkin, in my view, has done an extraordinary job of balancing them and putting this bill before us. I might say the same about the conservation title. I know Senator Harkin and other Members have worked closely on that. He has been working on these new initiatives in conservation for the last couple of years. I know because I had an opportunity--and some of the environmental groups and farm groups in Minnesota told me even before I took office about how they have been working with Senator Harkin and with his excellent staff for the last couple of years framing these conservation programs. Senator Harkin recognized that we have already in current law-- through, again, bipartisan efforts and with bipartisan support--such very important conservation programs as CRP, WRP, the ways in which we have encouraged farmers and paid them through Federal funds to set aside lands that are probably better off not being in agricultural production--they may be marginal for that purpose; they may have environmental issues with extensive farm production--and where we therefore make it possible financially for farmers to do the right thing. What they would like to do is act as stewards of that land and to go ahead. So we have seen those programs. They produce wonderful results and support the men and women in my State of Minnesota and across the country--environmental groups and farmers. This is one of those times when people from all different interests, backgrounds, and perspectives seem to agree that, again, within the right balance, setting aside this amount of acreage has been in the best interests of our country. These are Federal Government programs that have worked for farmers and environmentalists. They have worked to preserve our resources. They have worked for sports men and women, fisher men and women, and hunters. Senator Harkin wanted to focus in particular on those farmers who have land in production but who themselves, especially during these times of economic hardship, would like to undertake some improvements for conservation purposes and do not have the resources, sometimes even the technical know-how, to do so. He crafted this new conservation program, the Conservation Security Act, which is a major component. It should be called the Harkin Conservation Security Act, to give due recognition to the leadership he has provided in support of farm organizations, environmental groups, and others in Minnesota and elsewhere in the country. If we initiate a new approach which is successful, I believe it will be a tremendous cornerstone of our nationwide conservation efforts by providing farmers with funds and working with them and with people with expertise in farmland conservation so they can bring more of their agricultural production into the best conservation practices known and provide them with funds to do so. I think that is an extraordinarily important part of the legislation. Finally, Mr. President, since I have the opportunity, I want to say how important I think the energy title of this legislation is. Again, I commend Senator Harkin for his leadership in this area as well. He has been one of the champions in the Senate for a number of years in taking our agricultural commodities, such as corn, which is certainly prevalent in his State of Iowa and my State of Minnesota, and using corn for purposes of ethanol production, providing what is a winner all around, providing an additional market for domestic commodities so we raise the prices, as I said earlier, in the marketplace, and providing for cleaner fuel as an alternative, as a substitute for some of the hydrocarbon additives. Ethanol is an enormous contribution to a cleaner environment across this country, and also to domestic oil reserves. I look forward next year to working in the area of expanding the use of soybeans for diesel fuel as an additive, and I know Senator Harkin has been willing to take the leadership, along with myself and others, in that area as well. Again, I commend the chairman. I certainly commend the ranking member as well, but I think through the chairman's hard work especially, we have a bill today I am very proud to support. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. I will yield while retaining my right to the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for raising a very important issue at this time. I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, much has been said during the last weeks, regarding the negotiations between the Senate and the House over economic stimulus legislation. Most recently, the rhetoric of House Republican leaders and even a couple of our Senate colleagues has become heated and even vitriolic. Some of their comments about our majority leader would be expected from a bunch of adolescents in a junior high school locker-room. They reflect much more on those who utter them than on the person about whom they are intended. The House Republican leadership also seems unduly preoccupied with the process our Senate Democratic Caucus reportedly might use to consider this proposed legislation. I really don't see how that is any of their concern. What they should be concerned about, instead, is how their proposals will affect our national economy and the citizens of our country. If people are wondering why we Senate Democrats are being so resolute, they should look at what the House Republicans are trying to foist upon us. Remember that their package was called ``show business'' by the Secretary of the Treasury. And that's the nicest thing one could say about it! It is a huge bundle of holiday goodies to the people who need them the very least: the wealthiest Americans and the largest corporations. Much of the House bill has nothing to do with providing an economic stimulus. Rather, it is a massive giveaway of taxpayer dollars. Take their proposal to repeal the corporate alternative minimum tax. That is a provision which requires profitable businesses, with numerous deductions, to pay a minimum amount of corporate taxes. Without it, they would pay little or even nothing. But the House Republicans did not only repeal this tax, they also made it retroactive to 1985, and they would immediately refund all the money companies paid under this provision during the last 15 years. According to the Wall Street Journal, that would result in a lump sum payment of $2.3 billion to the Ford Motor Company; $1.4 billion to IBM; $671 million to General Electric; $608 million to Texas Utilities Company; $572 million to Chevron Texaco; $254 million to Enron--in total, $25.4 billion of corporate payouts. It is bad enough that these huge checks come from the U.S. Treasury, from the taxes paid by working Americans. What is even worse is that they would actually come out of the Social Security Trust Fund's surplus. That is because the surpluses in the other funds--in the Federal general fund and in the Medicare Fund--have already been wiped out by last spring's excessive tax cut and by the current recession. Now the House Republicans want to use the only surplus left: in the Social Security Trust Fund, to give these huge cash payments to mostly profitable corporations, and masquerade them as economic stimulus. Minnesota's largest newspaper, the Star-Tribune, in an editorial, called the House stimulus package, ``. . . a brazen giveaway to affluent corporations.'' The Star-Tribune went on to say, Senate Republicans vowed to do better--and they introduced an economic stimulus package that is a brazen giveaway to affluent individuals. What the two packages have in common, apart from appeasing narrow constituencies, is that they have turned fiscal stimulus inside out. They would do almost nothing to help the ailing economy today, but would continue to drain away Federal tax revenues for years to come, long after the economy has recovered. To their credit, Senate Republicans rejected most of the corporate tax breaks that somehow found their way into the House fiscal package. Those provisions are so arcane and so irrelevant to the economy's current plight, that they could only have been written by corporate lobbyists. But the Senate GOP approach has an entirely different set of flaws. Its main tactic is to accelerate a series of rate cuts in the individual income tax, cuts that were supposed to phase in during the next several years. Because these rate reductions go exclusively to upper-bracket taxpayers, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 55 percent of the tax relief would go to the top one percent of households. That is bad stimulus policy, because such households, already spending at high levels, tend to save more new money than they spend. It is also disastrous fiscal policy, because three-quarters of the tax cuts would take place after 2002, making Washington's long-term budget outlook even worse than it is today.'' The Senate Republicans' proposal, which is also the President's proposal, would give $500,000 over 4 years to families making $5 million a year. And that figure illustrates another unwise feature of their plan. It's not just a one-time, economic stimulus, it gives continuing tax reductions to the wealthiest Americans, even after an economic recovery is underway. The Republicans' insistence on these egregious proposals is why we don't have an economic stimulus bill today. I want to thank--and I believe the American people will thank--our Majority Leader, Senator Daschle, and our two principal Democratic negotiators, Senator Baucus and Senator Rockefeller, for standing strongly against these giveaways, and for insisting on a bill that will provide a real, immediate economic stimulus. Our Democratic stimulus bill will direct money to working Americans, to people who have lost their jobs during this recession, and to businesses specifically for reinvestments in our economic recovery. As the negotiations continue, I am hopeful that leaders in both Houses, from both parties, will retain those principles. I am approaching the end of my first year of service in the U.S. Senate. I remain extraordinarily grateful to the people of Minnesota for giving me this opportunity. It has been a remarkable year for me, and for all of us. I have developed an enormous respect for the Senate, as an institution, and for many of its Members. Yet, this economic stimulus debate reminds me of what I most disliked about Washington before I arrived here, and what I have seen too much of while I have been here. It is the national interest being subverted by special interests; subverted by the special interests of the most affluent people and the most powerful corporations in America, by the individuals and institutions who already have the most and want more and more and more. When I arrived here a year ago, we were looking at optimistic forecasts of Federal budget surpluses totaling trillions of dollars during the coming decade. What a wonderful opportunity, I thought we all would have to put this money to work for America by improving our Nation's schools, highways, sewer and water systems, and other infrastructure. What an opportunity for all of us to work together and fulfill a 25- year broken promise that the Federal government would pay for 40 percent of the costs of special education in schools throughout this country. What a tremendous accomplishment in which we could all share: provide better educations and lifetime opportunities to thousands of children with disabilities; allow school boards and educators to restore funding for regular school programs and services, so that all students would receive better educations; and reduce the local property tax burdens of taxpayers to make up for this broken Federal promise. I thought another of our top priorities would be a prescription drug program, to help our nation's senior citizens and people with severe disabilities afford the rising costs of their prescription medicines. During my campaign last year, I listened to so many heartbreaking stories of suffering and despair by elderly men and women--the most vulnerable, aged, and impoverished among us. They are good people, who have worked hard and been upstanding citizens throughout their lives. Yet, their retirement years are now being ravaged by the effects of these escalating drug prices on their fixed and limited incomes. Many seniors have cried as they told me their stories. Some have even told me they prayed to die rather than to continue to live in such desperation. The budget resolution we passed last spring provided $300 billion to fund a prescription drug program to help relieve these terrible financial burdens and to lift these good and deserving people out of their black despair. Yet, not one piece of legislation to accomplish this purpose has made it to this Senate floor this year. Not one. Now, we're told, these anticipated budget surpluses have disappeared. There won't be enough money to fully fund special education. There won't be enough money for a prescription drug program. Yet, there was enough money last spring to fund a $1.3 trillion tax cut--40 percent of whose benefits will go to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. Not enough for schoolchildren and the elderly. Over $5 billion to millionaires and billionaires. And now they are at it again. Those in Congress who championed last spring's huge tax giveaway are proposing another one under the guise of an economic stimulus. And at the very same time, House Republicans on the Education Conference Committee have rejected the Senate's proposal to increase funding for special education to its promised 40 percent. They claim the entire IDEA program must first be reformed. Yet, a few weeks ago in the House, they passed an energy bill, giving over $30 billion in additional tax breaks to energy companies and utilities. They didn't require any reform from them. The administration hadn't even requested these tax breaks--but the House Republicans just gave them to the big energy companies and utilities anyway. There always seems to be enough money around here for the rich and the powerful, be they people, corporations, or other special interests. But there's no money for special education funding for children or for prescription drug coverage for seniors. It's very hard for me to understand how 535 Members of Congress, who were elected to represent the best interests of all the American people, could have produced this result. It's very hard for me to explain it to the schoolchildren, parents, educators, and senior citizens I see back in Minnesota. And it's, thus, very, very hard for me to witness yet more of the same going into this so-called economic stimulus legislation. We should pass a good economic stimulus package. It would benefit our country. But we would better do nothing than to pass another shameful example of greed and avarice once again. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Sure.

Mr. DAYTON. I yield.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, dislocated workers in Minnesota and throughout America need assistance now. The Nation's unemployment rate took another big leap upward in November, to 5.7 percent, the highest level in 6 years. An additional 331,000 Americans lost their jobs last month. For these families, there is no time to waste. As many of us worry about what to buy our loved ones for the holidays, unemployed workers are worrying about how to provide for their families. Unemployment benefits are running out and savings are being depleted. Laid-off workers are left worrying about how they will pay for the basic necessities of life; housing, clothing, food, and health insurance for their families. In Minnesota, the Department of Economic Security reported the number of applications for unemployment benefits increased nearly 24 percent this November compared to November of last year. Today there are 55,000 workers receiving unemployment assistance in Minnesota, with an additional 55,000 unemployed who receive no unemployment assistance. As the State of Minnesota faces a budget deficit of almost $2 billion, the problem is only getting worse. Today, Minneapolis-based Sun Country Airlines announced that it will immediately lay off 900 employees. This underscores the immediate need for Congress to help America's financially pressed unemployed now. We must extend unemployment insurance for laid-off workers, putting money into the hands of dislocated workers and their families. These are the people most likely to immediately spend any additional funds they receive. This spending on necessary goods and services will not only help these families make it through tough times, they will help spur our economy. Workers need assistance now.