Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am concerned about a possible misunderstanding of the intent of the language in the proposed Senate rule XLIV concerning earmarks. My specific concern goes to the definition in the proposal concerning ``limited tax benefits.'' The definition contains two parts. The first is a two-part test that provides that limited tax benefit is one that ``provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and (B) contain eligibility criteria that are uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision''. The key here is the word ``and'' after 1986. The second part simply provides that if this test is not met, that only a tax that benefits a single entity is a ``limited tax benefit.'' I am told that there are some who might define ``potential beneficiaries'' to only include a variation in the treatment of the class covered by the amendment. This would not be logical. My perception, prior to our voting, is that the intent of those two words ``potential beneficiaries'' means a category or class of taxpayers impacted by the tax provision. In other words, if the Senate was considering the modification of the alternative minimum tax to not include a specific tax provision in the code as counting as income under the AMT, that would not be considered a limited tax benefit, because it would impact all of the potential beneficiaries equally. On the other hand, if one was considering a provision that went into the code and said that we should not count that class of income as AMT income as applied to X or Y, that would not be treating everyone in the class the same. In the latter case, we would be triggering subsection ``B,'' because there was not uniform treatment of all potential beneficiaries of the break. And accordingly, if the number impacted in the second case was a ``limited group of beneficiaries,'' it would be considered a limited tax benefit.

Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 11, as Amended

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, over the past several years, our national energy security has deteriorated rapidly. Petroleum and natural gas prices have gone up and appear to be staying up. Almost daily, we hear projections of increases in electricity prices around the country. The environmental impacts of energy use, especially from autos and power plants, are still a major health concern. The evidence of climate change is absolutely clear and very ominous, especially in the disappearance of glaciers, the break up of polar ice sheets and the increasing intensity of storms. We know that combustion of fossil fuels is the primary contributor of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases emissions that drive this global warming. Despite these negative consequences, our dependence on petroleum is rising steadily, and we are importing over 60 percent of that petroleum from foreign sources, many of whom are politically unstable or unfriendly to the United States. In short, we need to initiate a major transition of our energy sector, to one that is far more efficient, is much less reliant on fossil fuels and imported oil, and is utilizing vastly more domestically produced renewable energy. We have seen waxing and waning concerns about our national energy economy now for over 30 years. Many of us have believed all along that we should be doing more to promote energy efficiency and to accelerate the development and use of clean, domestic renewable energy, but during most of that time, cheap energy supplies have lulled us into relatively minimal actions. Over the past three years, however, there has been an increasingly acute awareness of the dire nature of our overall energy situation. It is now clear that our energy situation is a serious threat not only to our economy but to our national security. We can no longer postpone action. Today I am joined by my esteemed colleagues, Senator Lugar of Indiana, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Biden of Delaware, and Senator Obama of Illinois, in introducing the Biofuels Security Act of 2007. This bill directly addresses one of the most critical pieces of a sound national energy transition policy. It charts a clear path forward for significantly increasing our national use of renewable fuels over the next 24 years, reaching a total of 30 billion gallons per year by 2020, and 60 billion gallons per year by 2030. That latter figure represents about one-third of our nation's current annual fuel use for highway transportation. The production of the two most common forms of biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel, is expanding rapidly. We have reason to believe that this provision will provide strong impetus to increasing biofuels' production and use because it is an extension of the renewable fuels standard that I promoted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That standard mandates using a total of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012, and already we are on a path to exceed that requirement by 2008. Thus, we can be very optimistic about the success of setting these longer term and more aggressive targets. This bill also will ensure that the vehicles to use these renewable fuels are readily available by requiring auto manufacturers over time to produce and sell increasing numbers of dual-fuel vehicles--that is, vehicles that can be fueled by gasoline or gasoline/ethanol blends. Because the turnover of vehicles on the highway takes many years, our bill requires the fraction of dual-fuel vehicles to increase from 10 percent in 2008 up to 100 percent in 2017 and beyond. In order to assure availability of alternative fuels, our bill requires installation of increasing numbers of E-85 pumps by major oil companies at fueling stations that they own or license under their brand. These pumps will dispense E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, which is a very popular renewable fuel because of its high ethanol content. The bill will require 50 percent of such owned and licensed stations to have pumps dispensing E-85 fuel by 2017. In addition, the bill includes a clause to ensure geographic distribution of such E-85 marketing stations. Today I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I request support for this bill and its rapid enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to pick up a little bit from Senator Murray's remarks and talk about S. 5, the stem cell bill, that was also introduced today by the majority leader, Senator Reid. Stem cell research, when it is stripped of all of the phony arguments and rhetoric, is basically about hope. It is hope for people with Lou Gehrig's disease. It is hope for people with spinal cord injuries, hope for kids suffering from juvenile diabetes, hope for people with Parkinson's disease. In this Congress, we are going to bring those hopes one giant step closer to reality. At long last, hopefully, we will lift the President's restrictions on stem cell research and finally give our Nation's best scientists the tools they need to produce treatments and cures. The bill we have introduced today, S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, is the exact same bill that passed both Houses last year with strong bipartisan support. The House passed the bill 238 to 194. The Senate passed it 63 to 37. Regrettably, the President chose to exercise his first and only veto of his administration in vetoing this bill. And with his veto, the President ignored the will of the American people, he ignored scores of Nobel laureates, he ignored top scientists at the National Institutes of Health, and with one stroke of his pen, he dashed the hopes of millions of Americans suffering from diseases that could one day be cured or treated through stem cell research. But now we are back, it is a new Congress, and the voices of hope are stronger than ever. In November, the American people elected many new Members of Congress who support stem cell research and replaced many former Members of Congress who opposed this research. As a result, we will pass this bill again this year, and the margins of victory will be even wider. Let me spend a moment reviewing what S. 5 would accomplish. More than 5 years ago, the President announced in a speech that federally funded scientists could conduct research only on embryonic stem cell lines that were derived prior to 9 p.m. on August 9, 2001. The President gave his speech that evening, August 9, 2001. He said all of those stem cell lines derived before 9 p.m., that was OK, but if they were derived after 9 p.m., they could not be funded with Federal funds. I never understood that. Why was it 9 p.m.? Why wasn't it 9:15 p.m. or maybe 8:45, 9:13? Why was it 9 p.m.? At the beginning, one has to question the logic of why 9 p.m. was the time barrier. When the President announced his policy, he said that 78 stem cell lines were eligible for research. We now know that is not so. Only 21 are eligible, not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity of this Nation. What is more, every one of those lines, all 21 of those lines are contaminated with mouse cells. They were grown on mouse cells, so they are all contaminated. So none of them will ever be used for any kind of human treatment. Meanwhile, hundreds of new stem cell lines have been derived since the President's arbitrary deadline. Many of these lines are uncontaminated, they are healthy, but they are totally off limits to federally funded scientists. That is really a shame because if we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research, our scientists need access to the best stem cell lines possible. We need a stem cell policy that offers true and meaningful hope. That is what S. 5 would provide. Under this bill, federally funded researchers could study any stem cell line, regardless of the date it was derived, as long as certain strong ethical guidelines are met. I point out, again, as I have in the past and I will continue to point out, that the ethical guidelines in S. 5 are stronger than the ethical guidelines under the existing policy. What are those guidelines? One, no money can be exchanged. No one can ever be paid for donating embryos. Second, these embryos can only be used for stem cell research and for nothing else. And third, the donors have to give informed consent for them to be used. The final point is most important. The only way a stem cell line could be eligible for this federally funded research is if it were derived from an embryo that was otherwise going to be discarded. Let me, again, say what that means. There are more than 400,000 embryos frozen in in vitro fertilization clinics all over the country--over 400,000. Right now, the only thing that can happen to those is that they be discarded. They are thrown away every day. Every day embryos are discarded in in vitro fertilization clinics all over America. The donors have no other choice. Take friends of mine, a young couple. They couldn't have children. They finally went to an IVF clinic. That didn't work. They went to another one. Now she is pregnant, and they are going to have twins. They may have one or two more children--I don't know--but there are going to be some of those embryos left over. Right now my friend's only choice is to have them discarded. That is her only choice. But as she said to me: I would love, after I have my children and my family, if there are embryos left over, I would love to be able to donate them for stem cell research to help cure disease and to help people who are sick. Right now she cannot do that. Neither she nor her husband can do that. Our bill would allow them to have that option. No one is forced to do anything, but it would allow them to have that option. I also, wish to point out again one of the misconceptions. These are embryos. They are blastocysts. They have about 100 cells. I always do this: I put a dot on a piece of paper, hold it up and say: Can anybody see that? That is what we are talking about. It is about the size of a period at the end of a sentence. There is a lot of misinformation about what we are talking about. As I said before, Congress is going to pass this bill, that is certain. Sadly, some are already predicting the President will veto it for a second time. I hope they are wrong. I hope the President will respect the will of the people and sign the stem cell research bill. But if he does veto it, we will persist. We will use every legislative means at our disposal to make sure S. 5 is enacted into law, and it will happen during this Congress. My nephew Kelly is one of the millions of Americans whose hopes depend on stem cell research. Kelly was in the Navy. He had a terrible accident on an aircraft carrier, and he has been basically a paraplegic now for 28 years. But he has kept his hopes alive that our scientists will be able to find a cure. Stem cell research offers the best hope for people suffering from spinal cord injuries. Now is the time to give them the hope, to lift the ban on stem cell research. As I said, we will do that in this Congress. It will be one of the first bills we pass. I hope the President will sign it and we can move on. But if not, for Kelly and for so many millions of Americans, we hope the long wait is almost over. I predict that hope will prevail in this Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Washington for a very eloquent and very profound statement. The message the Senator from Washington put forward on the Senate floor is one that all Americans ought to hear. It is a message of hope and promise. I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership in so many areas but especially in the area about which she spoke so eloquently-- the area of education. I had not known that about her family. It brings home once again that in the America we love, anything should be possible for any child. No child should be deprived of the hopes and dreams of having an education and succeeding in life simply because they were born poor or born on the wrong side of the tracks, so to speak, or maybe the wrong color--whatever. Every child ought to have that opportunity. I thank the Senator for so eloquently putting it forward on the Senate floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, over the past several years, our national energy security has deteriorated rapidly. Petroleum and natural gas prices have gone up and appear to be staying up. Almost daily, we hear projections of increases in electricity prices around the country. The environmental impacts of energy use, especially from autos and power plants, are still a major health concern. The evidence of climate change is absolutely clear and very ominous, especially in the disappearance of glaciers, the break up of polar ice sheets and the increasing intensity of storms. We know that combustion of fossil fuels is the primary contributor of the anthropogenic greenhouse gases emissions that drive this global warming. Despite these negative consequences, our dependence on petroleum is rising steadily, and we are importing over 60 percent of that petroleum from foreign sources, many of whom are politically unstable or unfriendly to the United States. In short, we need to initiate a major transition of our energy sector, to one that is far more efficient, is much less reliant on fossil fuels and imported oil, and is utilizing vastly more domestically produced renewable energy. We have seen waxing and waning concerns about our national energy economy now for over 30 years. Many of us have believed all along that we should be doing more to promote energy efficiency and to accelerate the development and use of clean, domestic renewable energy, but during most of that time, cheap energy supplies have lulled us into relatively minimal actions. Over the past three years, however, there has been an increasingly acute awareness of the dire nature of our overall energy situation. It is now clear that our energy situation is a serious threat not only to our economy but to our national security. We can no longer postpone action. Today I am joined by my esteemed colleagues, Senator Lugar of Indiana, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Biden of Delaware, and Senator Obama of Illinois, in introducing the Biofuels Security Act of 2007. This bill directly addresses one of the most critical pieces of a sound national energy transition policy. It charts a clear path forward for significantly increasing our national use of renewable fuels over the next 24 years, reaching a total of 30 billion gallons per year by 2020, and 60 billion gallons per year by 2030. That latter figure represents about one-third of our nation's current annual fuel use for highway transportation. The production of the two most common forms of biofuels, ethanol and biodiesel, is expanding rapidly. We have reason to believe that this provision will provide strong impetus to increasing biofuels' production and use because it is an extension of the renewable fuels standard that I promoted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That standard mandates using a total of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012, and already we are on a path to exceed that requirement by 2008. Thus, we can be very optimistic about the success of setting these longer term and more aggressive targets. This bill also will ensure that the vehicles to use these renewable fuels are readily available by requiring auto manufacturers over time to produce and sell increasing numbers of dual-fuel vehicles--that is, vehicles that can be fueled by gasoline or gasoline/ethanol blends. Because the turnover of vehicles on the highway takes many years, our bill requires the fraction of dual-fuel vehicles to increase from 10 percent in 2008 up to 100 percent in 2017 and beyond. In order to assure availability of alternative fuels, our bill requires installation of increasing numbers of E-85 pumps by major oil companies at fueling stations that they own or license under their brand. These pumps will dispense E-85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, which is a very popular renewable fuel because of its high ethanol content. The bill will require 50 percent of such owned and licensed stations to have pumps dispensing E-85 fuel by 2017. In addition, the bill includes a clause to ensure geographic distribution of such E-85 marketing stations. Today I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I request support for this bill and its rapid enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, with the close of the 109th Congress, the Senate will lose to retirement one of our most seasoned and respected Members--Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland. Across five terms in this body and before that three terms in the House of Representatives, where I was privileged to serve with him also, Paul Sarbanes has made his mark as a serious and diligent legislator, a classic workhorse Senator rather than a showhorse Senator. The Baltimore Sun has called him the silver fox Senator who ``works quietly but with shrewd skillfulness.'' I have always respected and admired Senator Sarbanes, both as a stalwart Democrat and also always a proud, unabashed progressive. As a young man, he graduated from Princeton and went on to Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and then Harvard Law School. But he never forgot his experiences growing up among the families of Maryland's Eastern Shore. He never forgot his roots as the son of a Greek immigrant who worked long hours to build a successful restaurant business. In the Senate, Paul Sarbanes has been outspoken in his support for public schools, expanded access to higher education, to job training, and the other essential rungs on the ladder of economic opportunity in America. He has fought to protect Social Security, to clean up corruption in the business world. In the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals, Senator Sarbanes took the lead in crafting legislation to prevent the recurrence of the rampant accounting fraud that was destroying confidence in corporate America. In the early years of this past decade, in classic Sarbanes style-- methodically, thoughtfully, and minimum of partisanship--he held 10 hearings on the issue in 2002, listening to all points of view. The result is known universally as the Sarbanes-Oxley law which cleaned up the accounting industry and mandated new disclosure and conflict-of- interest reporting requirements on U.S. corporations. There are many reasons why Paul Sarbanes is the longest serving Senator in Maryland history. Throughout his career in this body, he has fought hard on issues of special importance to Maryland, including legislation to protect the Chesapeake Bay. But he has never lost touch with his roots among working people and the immigrant community. He has always been a model public servant, a person of enormous intellect, intelligence, integrity, and industry. For 30 years in the Senate, Paul Sarbanes has faithfully served the people of Maryland and the people of the United States, and there is no doubt he will pursue new avenues of public service in retirement. I will miss his friendship, I will miss his wise counsel in the Senate, but I wish Paul and also his wonderful wife Christine all the best in the years ahead. Mark Dayton Mr. President, I would like to follow that up by expressing my respect and admiration for a longtime friend of mine, my neighbor to the north, so to speak, who is also retiring this year; that is, our Senator from Minnesota, Mark Dayton. Senator Dayton is a public servant in the purest sense of that term. He did not come to the Senate 6 years ago in search of status or celebrity or power for power's sake. He has never sought the spotlight. He came here for one reason: to serve the people of Minnesota and of the United States. He has done so in a diligent, consistent, and selfless manner. I especially appreciate the way Senator Dayton has followed in the progressive tradition of Minnesota's great Senators, Hubert Humphrey, Gene McCarthy, Chris Mondale, and Paul Wellstone. On issue after issue, he has fought for working people and their families, for seniors, and for the least fortunate among us. To take just one case in point, no Senator has been more persistent and eloquent in fighting to allow seniors to purchase prescription drugs in Canada where pharmaceuticals are oftentimes less expensive. He has donated his entire Senate salary to the Minnesota Senior Federation to help finance trips on the ``Prescription Express'' to purchase cheaper drugs in Canada, and he has gone to bat for seniors when they were harassed by border agents upon their return. To his everlasting credit, Senator Dayton voted against a resolution effectively authorizing the war in Iraq. He spoke out passionately against the dangers of launching that war. He has used his seat on the Armed Services Committee to take the administration to task for its multiple mistakes and failures in conducting that war. There has been a singular absence of effective oversight of this war on the part of this Congress, but as an individual Senator, Mark Dayton has done his best to fill that vacuum. On the Armed Services Committee, he has been courageous and outspoken, and we will remember him for that. Throughout his adult life, Mark Dayton has been devoted to serving others and looking out for those in the shadows of life. After graduating from Yale, he could have gone on in the family retail business. He could have coasted on his family's wealth, but he chose a very different course. He chose to work as a teacher for 3 years in a pretty tough public school on Manhattan's Lower East Side. Later he went to work as a counselor for runaway young people, as chief financial officer of a social service agency in Boston, and then as a staffer to Senator Walter Mondale. After returning home to Minnesota, he also served as the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development. He was elected State auditor in 1990. I think the first time I met Mark Dayton, I was a Congressman in Iowa and he was running for the Senate in Minnesota, and that was 1982. I went up to campaign for him. I had been involved in agriculture and agricultural endeavors, and so I went up to meet with them and met this young guy running for the Senate. He was unsuccessful that year--I hope not due to the fact that I went to campaign for him. He was unsuccessful that year, but he never gave up. He never gave up trying to find new avenues to serving the people of Minnesota. As I said, that culminated in him serving as the commissioner of the Department of Energy and Economic Development for a number of years under Governor Perpich and then being elected in his own right as the State auditor in 1990. Under his leadership as State auditor of Minnesota, he did a lot to make sure that State government was running efficiently and effectively and transparently and making sure the auditor's office kept a check on all the different agencies in Minnesota to make sure they were expending the taxpayers' dollars wisely and legally and transparently. So I was delighted when, even though in 1982 he didn't make it to the Senate, he then made it in the year 2000. In the last 6 years, again, as I said, Mark Dayton has devoted himself selflessly to helping people less fortunate in our society. His common theme has been amplified powerfully: his passion for public service and his commitment to looking out for others. So I have no doubt that Mark will pursue other avenues of public service in the years ahead. I will miss his friendship here on the Senate floor, but our friendship will continue. I know that in whatever capacity he can find, he will do what he can to make Minnesota and our country a better, fairer, and more just place for all its citizens. I certainly wish my good friend Mark Dayton the best in the years ahead.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I now turn to a topic not as good as what I just talked about. In the final hours of the Congress, as we have here today--maybe going into tomorrow--I am always amazed at how those who are well off in our society, those who are doing quite well, how they always get taken care of in the final hours when the Congress closes down. Tax extenders--why, there is stuff for everybody in there, for the people who are doing well. A continuing resolution will come through, basically taking care of all the running of Government. We have a few other cats and dogs coming through here. It is always at this time that I am amazed at how often it is that people who are at the bottom rung of our ladder economically speaking fall through the cracks and no one cares. Hey, we have business to do here. We have to get the tax extenders through. We have to get out of here and go home. Because of the failure of the Appropriations Committee in the House, because of their failure to do a small extension, which I will explain in a second, because of their failure, beginning in January, 54,000 kids will not be able to go to Head Start Programs in this country. Fifty-four thousand kids have been in Head Start Programs in December and November, but in January, January 3--they probably won't be going to Head Start. Now, again, they will only be out for a couple of months because once we get back in here and we do another extension, either a CR--a continuing resolution--or an omnibus bill, we will take care of it. The authorizers aren't opposed to it; I have checked with them. The appropriators aren't opposed to it. But it wasn't put in the bill. They filed the rule in the House, and they can't change it, they say, now. Let me describe what I am talking about, why 54,000 kids--poor kids-- won't get Head Start beginning in January. What happened was on January 18, 2001, a rule was promulgated from the Department of Health and Human Services. A rule was promulgated which said that by January 18, 2006--last January 18--it required that all Head Start children be transported only on buses that are or very closely match school buses. Well, I have pointed out continually since that time that this is very onerous for a lot of kids who are now transported on paratransit buses. These are transportation vehicles which are not school buses, but they are paratransit vehicles which usually take the elderly to places or they take people with disabilities to work or to shop or whatever. They are paratransit vehicles. They are usually smaller vehicles, but they are not a ``schoolbus.'' But they are effectively used, and have been for many years, to transport kids to Head Start Programs. Of course, the children are transported in child safety seats that are placed on the paratransit buses. Well, they estimate there are about 54,000 kids in America today who get transported to and from Head Start using paratransit. The rule which said they had to go on schoolbuses was supposed to go into effect last January 18. Well, it didn't. Why? Because a lot of us here bipartisanly said: Wait a minute, this is not right. This is not right. We need to fix this. Well, how do you fix it? You fix it with Head Start reauthorization. The last Head Start reauthorization was in 1998. We thought there was going to be a Head Start reauthorization this year. We thought, finally, this year we are going to get a Head Start reauthorization bill and we will take care of this mess created by this rule of the Department of Health and Human Services. So we extended this deadline from January 18; we extended it until June. Well, they still hadn't passed a Head Start reauthorization, so on the Katrina supplemental we extended it until December 31 of this year. So what we did was we extended a moratorium, an abeyance of that rule until December 31 of this year so that kids--Head Start kids had been riding paratransit buses to and from Head Start since--well, for years but since January 18 of this year when that rule was supposed to go into effect, the rule that said they can't ride them anymore, which, again, is nonsense--nonsense. It is much cheaper, it is just as effective, and there are a number of other reasons why riding these paratransit buses are fine for these kids. So we put it off. We held this rule in abeyance until December 31; that is, this December 31. Once again, we didn't get a Head Start reauthorization, so we wanted to extend it again past December 31. So how do you extend it? You extend it on the appropriations bill, the continuing resolution. Now, had we done our job and gotten the various appropriations bills up, we would have put this in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill. We would have extended the time probably until next September 30 to give us time to pass a Head Start reauthorization. So I called over last night. I talked to the staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. I told him about this: Can't you put it in? There is no opposition to it. Well, they didn't put it in. I called him today. He said, well, he checked with the authorizing committee and he said the authorizing committee was opposed to it. I couldn't believe it. So I called the chairman of the authorizing committee, Congressman McKeon from California, with whom I have worked in the past. I talked to him about it. He got back to me and he said: I don't have any opposition to it. I checked with the appropriators; the appropriators didn't have any opposition to it on either side of the aisle. They thought: Yes, this is fine. But it was left out. You know, if this had been a provision to take care of some wealthy people in this country, some special interest group, you can bet it would not have been dropped. It wouldn't have been dropped. But now 54,000 kids won't get to go to Head Start. I mentioned that to someone today, and here is what they said: Well, why can't their mamas take them? I am not talking about kids who have BMWs or SUVs. These are poor kids. They don't have cars. They don't have vehicles. I am not talking about middle-income kids who live in the suburbs; I am talking about the poorest kids in our country going to Head Start Programs. They don't have mamas who can take them in an SUV or a carpool. So here we are. So I put the word out. I said: Well, when that CR comes over here, it is amendable. I will offer an amendment to put it on there. There is no cost. Everybody is for it. Nobody wants to object. Now I hear that if I do, there will be a motion to table my amendment. They will table it because the House will send over their continuing resolution and then they are going to go home, adjourn and go home. So if I offered my amendment, and if it were to pass, it would mean the House would either have to stay in or come back. Then they will tell me, Oh, you can't do that, Harkin, because don't you know the Government will shut down. You see, the continuing resolution that we are on now funds the Government until midnight tonight. They will say if you do that, they will have to come back, it will shut the Government down, and blah, blah, blah. Mr. President, those 54,000 kids not going to Head Start, January, February, maybe March until we can get our bill through, I think is more important--I stand tonight to tell you and tell anyone who is watching, it is more important for those 54,000 kids to go to Head Start in January, February, and March than it is to allow 435 Congressmen to get out of town and go home. It is more important. Once in a while I have gotten a reputation around here for doing things in the last hour. Usually it is because something such as this happens. It seems to me it is always true that at the end, the final hour, it is something such as this, and some on the bottom rungs of the economic or social ladder of this country get dropped and forgotten. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We can't fix this? We can't take care of this? Because they filed, they have a rule, this and that? I tried to get this on the postal reform bill. There is a postal reform bill out there floating around someplace. Oh, we can't do it now. They are done writing it and blah, blah, blah. We just can't do it. It is a shame, isn't it? It is a shame that we can take care of the rich and the powerful, it is a shame that we can take care of postal reform. It is a shame we can take care of continuing the resolution to keep everyone paid in the Federal Government. But, we can't find it in ourselves somehow to take care of these kids, these Head Start kids. We are just going to say I am sorry, that is the way it is. I haven't made up my mind yet whether I am going to offer this amendment tonight, or whenever that CR gets over. I have a right to. It will probably get tabled which means killed. The word has already gone out that we will probably have to table the Harkin amendment. I suppose people will say there goes Harkin again. We want to get out of town and he has something else. I don't know. I haven't made up my mind yet. I wanted to set the record straight. You are going to hear about it. Senators are going to hear about this in January. You are going to hear about the fact that Head Start kids for some reason can't get on these paratransit buses and we are wondering why it happened. I don't know, I may offer the amendment tonight, and if someone moves to table, I may ask for a rollcall vote, and we will see how important 54,000 kids are compared to 435 Congressmen over there who can't come back in a moment to take care of these kids in January and February, the coldest parts of the winter in certain parts of our country. So we will have to see, we will see what happens to the CR when it comes over. I guess I want to tell my colleagues they will probably have to vote on this. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have been seeking a small change in the tax law that would simply undo a provision in the 1986 tax bill, eliminating the special treatment given to a few buildings in Sioux City, IA, allowing them to be treated like any other property under the general laws. The desire is to rehabilitate one of those buildings, an old historic hotel. It has long been boarded up. The goal is to renovate it for use as affordable elderly housing, an adult respite care facility and perhaps other uses. I believe the Finance Committee has been aware of the technical tax issues involved for a long time. The provision is of no or minimal cost to the Treasury. And, as I noted, the property's owners are not asking for special treatment but, unusually, are asking that they be treated like other taxpayers with a similar property.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Civil Air Patrol for more than two decades and now commander of its Congressional Squadron, I am proud to speak to you today about CAP, an all-volunteer organization celebrating 65 years of service to the United States of America. CAP was created on Dec. 1, 1941, to assist the U.S. military. During World War II, when Nazi U-boat submarines had infested our coastal waters, volunteer aviators of CAP's Coastal Patrol distinguished themselves valiantly. It was a time when the U.S. military was unable to effectively counter these submarines. Flying small single- and twin- engine aircraft armed with 50 and 100-pound bombs, these brave men and women flew more than 24 million miles during 86,000 over-water missions--a total of 244,600 flight hours to help win the battle against U-boats that were preying on coastal shipping. Despite the risk of death, they spotted 173 subs, attacked 57, hit 10 and sank 2. The Coastal Patrol aircrews also called in aid for 91 ships in distress, saved 363 survivors of sub attacks, discovered 17 floating mines, and flew 5,684 special convoy missions. Fifty-nine members of these courageous aircrews died, 26 were lost at sea, and 7 others were seriously injured. They were inspired by the highest sense of patriotism, and they served with pride. Today, CAP continues that tradition as one of the most unique volunteer organizations in America, consisting of everyday heroes from pilots, teachers, and youth counselors to technology experts, communicators, and more. These volunteers, most employed at a paying job, perform 95 percent of inland search-and-rescue missions in the continental United States. Whether performing search and rescue missions or helping communities recover from floods, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, or terrorist attacks, CAP members are there to aid their Nation. In 2005 alone, they saved 73 lives. Following last year's terrible gulf coast hurricanes, 1,800 CAP volunteers from 17 States converged on hurricane-ravaged communities, serving over 50,000 volunteer hours. These patriotic members flew 1,000 air missions during 2,000 hours of flight time and provided more than 2,000 time-critical images of affected areas. They also ensured the well-being of Americans by visiting 4,266 homes, contacting 8,500 residents, and distributing 30,000 pounds of relief supplies. Coming full circle from its beginnings in World War II, Civil Air Patrol is again taking on homeland security responsibilities for the Nation. These include assisting the Air Force in ensuring the skies above Washington, DC, are safe and flying target-intercept training missions for U.S. military pilots all at a low cost of about $100 per mission. With 530 aircraft and thousands of trained aircrew members, CAP is a tremendous asset to the United States at a critical juncture in our history. This capability, however, is now greatly enhanced because CAP, over the past few years, had the foresight to invest in developing and obtaining sophisticated new technologies to help with its emergency missions. Today it uses two high-technology imaging systems Airborne Real-time Cueing Hyperspectral Enhanced Reconnaissance, ARCHER, and satellite-transmitted digital imaging systems, SDIS, to assist in search and rescue, disaster-assessment missions and other missions. These technologies make it a vital asset to the Air Force, State governments and local communities. CAP also provides exceptional growth opportunities to 22,550 youth in cadet programs, which stress leadership and moral responsibility and teach aviation and emergency response skills. Through CAP, these youth gain access to scholarship opportunities, top national summer flight academies, flight training in powered and glider aircraft, and programs that emphasize leadership and careers in aviation. They routinely help communities when disaster strikes and other emergencies occur by operating radios, helping park aircraft, and serving on ground search and survey teams. In addition, CAP's Aerospace Education Program touches over 400 educators, over 20,000 cadets, and thousands of other youths in classrooms across America by teaching them aerospace concepts that emphasize aviation's connection to history, math, science, government, and economics. CAP's Missions for America annually impact the lives of thousands of Americans. These 56,000 volunteers all everyday heroes are deserving of our highest praise. Please join me in honoring and recognizing the Civil Air Patrol on the occasion of its 65th anniversary of service to our great Nation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I introduced along with several colleagues legislation that will extend the current waiver of the 15- year term limit on USDA guaranteed loans which will expire on December 31, 2006. Starting January 1, 2007, many producers nationwide will become ineligible for Farm Service Agency, FSA, guaranteed loans. These loan guarantees enable producers to obtain credit to purchase farmland, livestock, feed, seed, farm equipment, and fuel essential to their farming operations. Without the Government guarantee many farmers will be unable to secure operating credit and will be forced out of their livelihood. The FSA guarantee loan allows lenders to make agricultural credit available to farmers who may not meet the lenders' normal underwriting criteria. Borrowers apply for a guaranteed loan through an agricultural lender who then secures a guarantee from FSA. The guarantee covers up to 95 percent of the loss to the lender of principal and interest on a loan in case of default. Admirably, default rates on these loans are very low at 1.4 percent. While the 15-year limit on eligibility is intended to graduate producers to commercial credit, we have found that in many cases producers simply are unable to meet lenders' standards without the guarantee. Term limits on guaranteed loans do not adequately take into consideration economic and weather conditions. In recent years, many of America's producers have suffered through high energy costs, droughts and hurricanes. Without this legislation, producers who have suffered through bad years due to these weather and economic conditions will no longer be eligible for loan guarantees they need to continue their operations. Our bill will extend the term limit waiver until September 30, 2007. This step will help farmers and ranchers nationwide and allow Congress to address term limits on FSA guaranteed loans in the coming farm bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill, Chairman Lugar and Senator Biden, for accepting my amendment. I thank my colleagues. My amendment is very simple and straightforward. It requires the President to determine that India was fully and actively participating in U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, sanction, and contain Iran's nuclear program consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolutions. As my colleagues know, Iran is one of, if not the most, urgent nuclear nonproliferation challenges the world faces today. For two decades Iran secretly built up its nuclear capabilities in violation of the safeguards commitments it made with the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. To date, Iran has completed most of the construction of a massive uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz, opened a heavy-water production plant at Arak and began construction of a 40- megawatt reactor there. It also began construction on a fuel manufacturing plant at Isfahan; tested centrifuges with uranium, hexafluoride, produced their first samples of low-enriched uranium; and nearly completed construction of their first nuclear power reactor at Bushehr, set to open in 2007. Iran says these programs are for peaceful purposes, but experts agree and the Bush administration believes, that Iran is on its way to acquiring the capability to produce large quantities of bomb grade nuclear material. Additionally, Iran has not fully answered numerous questions from the IAEA about activities that may be related to a weapons program. These activities are very concerning. Earlier this year, the IAEA Board of Governors found Iran to be in violation of its safeguards commitments and reported Iran's file to the U.N. Security Council. The Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program and construction of a heavy- water production reactor. These technologies can be used to make bomb- grade nuclear material. However, Iran continues to stiff-arm the IAEA's investigation of its program. This week Iran again thumbed its nose at the international community boasting that the world would have to ``live with a nuclear Iran.'' A new report this week from the IAEA says the agency found new traces of plutonium and enriched uranium at a nuclear research facility in Tehran. As we are here debating this bill, U.S. diplomats are engaged with our partners in the U.N. Security Council on this very important issue. They are working to build support for a new resolution that would mandate targeted sanctions on Iran to help persuade its leadership to change course and halt its uranium enrichment work. This diplomatic course of action is appropriate at this stage, and I fully support it. To succeed, any targeted sanctions policy must not only have the active support of Security Council member states, but also the cooperation of other member states of the international community. Targeted sanctions against Iran will not work unless they are fully and actively supported by states close to Iran and with ties to Iran, such as India. They will not work, I would add, without effective diplomatic engagement with Iran. This is a time when we need to have the support of every country as the United States works with our allies to contain and constrain Iran's troubling nuclear program. Now my colleagues may be wondering what this has to do with India. India has a robust relationship with Iran. India actively engages in military-to-military cooperation with Iran and the two countries have a significant trade relationship. India plans to build a gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan. India's leaders see Iran as a diplomatic partner on many issues. In fact, Iran's Foreign Minister will be visiting New Delhi today. Given India's proximity to Iran, none of this is surprising, but it means that India has a particular responsibility to help contain Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities and support possible U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran. Obviously, India, like most other states, does not support a nuclear weapons option for Iran. However, Indian views of the threat posed by the Iran nuclear program and its perspective on Iran's so-called ``right'' to peaceful nuclear technology differ significantly from U.S. views. Unfortunately, some of India's policies appear to embolden Iran's leaders to press forward with their ambitious nuclear plans. As we move forward in our effort with the international community to deal, contain, and if necessary sanction Iran for its defiance of international demands to halt its sensitive nuclear activities, we will need greater support from all states, including India, in this effort. Over a year ago, on September 24, 2005, India voted with the United States and 20 other states on the IAEA resolution which found Iran in compliance with its safeguards agreement. But the resolution did not refer the matter immediately to the Security Council and according to a recent report produced by the Congressional Research Service, India was one of a handful of countries seeking to avoid such a referral. Disturbingly, India's official explanation of its vote highlights India's differences with the United States on how to deal with Iran's nuclear transgressions. It stated that: In our Explanation of Vote (this is the Indian government), we have clearly expressed our opposition to Iran being declared as noncompliant with its safeguards agreements. Nor do we agree that the current situation could constitute a threat to international peace and security. Nevertheless, the resolution does not refer the matter to the Security Council and has agreed that outstanding issues be dealt with under the aegis of the IAEA itself. This is in line with our position and therefore, we have extended our support. India again voted with the United States on February 4, 2006, when the IAEA Board of Governors voted to refer Iran's noncompliance to the U.N. Security Council. This was welcomed at the time. Yet the Indian Ministry of External Affairs responded to questions about its vote by noting that: ``While there will be a report to the Security Council, the Iran nuclear issue remains within the purview of the IAEA. It has been our consistent position that confrontation should be avoided and any outstanding issue ought to be resolved through dialogue. . . . Our vote in favour of the Resolution should not be interpreted as in any way detracting from the traditionally close and friendly relations we enjoy with Iran.'' By keeping the issue under the purview of the IAEA Iran would not be subject to sanctions. The IAEA does not have that capability, the Security Council does. In April 2006, the U.N. Security Council issued a statement calling for an immediate suspension of all Iranian enrichment activities. Iran responded by announcing that it had produced a small quantity of low- enriched uranium using a test assembly of centrifuges and noted it planned to expand the facility's production capacity. What was India's response? On May 30, India signed onto a statement by the Non-Aligned Movement, which said that concerns surrounding Iran's nuclear program should be resolved at the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors and not the U.N. Security Council, again seeking to avoid sanctions, contrary to what U.S. diplomats and others were urging at that time. In July, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1696, which gave Tehran until August 31 to suspend its uranium enrichment program and required Tehran to fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency's, IAEA, investigation of its nuclear programs. Again what was India's response? Apparently, in an attempt to patch up relations with Tehran over its earlier votes at the IAEA Board of Governors, India added its name to the September 2006 joint statement on Iran's nuclear program released by the Non-Aligned Movement at its meeting in Havana. In this statement, India called nuclear research and development a ``basic inalienable right'' of Iran's, and said that nuclear ``choices and decisions'' of different countries ``must be respected.'' Newspaper headlines in Iran trumpeted the news. The Iran Times headline on September 18 read: ``118 Countries Back Iran's Nuclear Program.'' Iran's President met with India's Prime Minister in Havana to discuss how to deepen Indo-Iranian ties. Since then, talks between Iran and the EU to halt the Iranian nuclear program have broken down, and in October, Iran took additional steps to improve its enrichment capability and is now seeking IAEA nuclear safety assistance on its Arak heavy-water reactor. U.S. diplomats are working hard now to lobby fellow members of the IAEA Board of Governors to reject this request. We need India's active support when that happens. In a recent report, the Congressional Research Service detailed some concerns about India's proliferation record with respect to Iran. The U.S. Government, as a result of the Iran-Syria Nonproliferation Act, has sanctioned Indian companies for transferring WMD technologies and materials to Iran and other countries. On August 4, the Bush administration publicly announced in the Federal Register sanctions on two Indian entities for transferring chemicals that can be used to produce missile propellant to Iran. The sanctions determination had been made July 25, a day before the House passed its version of the India bill. For its part, India contended the sanctions were unwarranted. A Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson asserted on August 7th the transfers were ``not in violation of our regulations or our international obligations.'' This is deeply disturbing. What this means is that India's current export control laws are inadequate and do not meet the same high standards of U.S. export laws. As we move forward in our effort with the international community to deal, contain, and if necessary, sanction Iran for its defiance of international demands to halt its sensitive nuclear activities, we will need greater support from a regional partner. We will need India to be more effective and diligent in preventing the proliferation of technologies, goods, and material that might be used by Iran to produce weapons of mass destruction or the means to deliver them. I think that my colleagues would agree that the ties between India and Iran are troubling. That is why I believe we must--through my amendment--require the President to provide a determination that India is actively supporting efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program before he can waive existing restrictions on civil nuclear commerce with India. I want to be clear--my amendment is not ``anti-India.'' My amendment is a positive and vital step in safeguarding our own national security interests. There are some in this body who have argued that this legislation, and the possible agreement for nuclear cooperation, will enhance our strategic relationship and improve India's nonproliferation record. Others have warned that this will damage the vital effort to reduce nuclear weapons dangers in South Asia and elsewhere if we don't make adjustments to strengthen the nonproliferation requirements in the package. Whatever our differences may be regarding other aspects of this proposal, one issue that I hope we can agree on is the need to ensure we have India's full and active cooperation and support in the effort to prevent Iran or other states from acquiring the capability to produce bomb material. As the Senate considers reversing 36 years of nuclear proliferation restrictions, it is important that we ensure that India is a true strategic partner in the effort to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues in accepting my amendment.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, one of the joys of my job as a Senator is working closely with talented, dedicated Iowans from all walks of life. One of those exceptional people is Chuck Larson, Sr., U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa. With his retirement next month, he will conclude an extraordinary career in public service spanning nearly four decades. Chuck has dedicated his life to the law and public safety, as director of Iowa public safety in the 1970s, as a consultant in Saudi Arabia to the Kingdom's Highway Patrol Project in the early 1980s, as director of the Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy, and as a member of the President's Drug Free Communities Committee. In December, he will complete two terms as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Iowa. My staff and I have worked closely with Chuck for many years. I could cite many examples of his leadership and professional excellence, but one instance stands out in particular. Some time ago, my office was contacted by members of an Iowa jurisdiction where various law enforcement agencies and key players in the community were not communicating effectively, leading to an increase in drug and gang activity. My staff contacted Chuck, and he intervened in that community personally and directly. He set up meetings with community members and law enforcement agencies and brought them together in a positive spirit. Today, that community is considered a national model for cooperation in the fight against drugs and gangs. And one thing that all groups in the community agree on is that it was Chuck's leadership and personal skills--going above and beyond his job description--that led to this success. Thanks to Chuck's work in that community and cross my State, Iowa is a better, safer place to live, work, and raise a family. Indeed, there is no doubt in my mind that Chuck's dedicated work is one big reason why Iowa has one of the lowest crime rates in the United States. One key to Chuck's success is that he speaks with the authority of a seasoned veteran of decades on the front line fighting crime and improving public safety. Throughout his distinguished career, he has put public service above personal gain. We have all heard the saying that ``you get what you pay for.'' But in Iowa, when it comes to U.S. attorneys, that is not the case. We get far better than we pay for. Despite modest salaries, Iowa has been blessed with U.S. attorneys of the highest caliber. And most folks in Iowa know this and appreciate it. We hold our law enforcement professionals--from police officers right up to the highest ranking prosecutors--in special esteem. And we are grateful for the excellence, professionalism, and long hours that they bring to their jobs. I will miss Chuck's counsel and his can-do, cooperative attitude. My staff and I have turned to him again and again over the years, and he has never let us down. It has meant so much to be able to rely on someone of his caliber for authoritative answers and prompt action. Though I am sorry to see Chuck go, I know how much he is looking forward to spending more time with his family--his wife Ellen and his children and grandchildren. I am grateful for his decades of truly distinguished and brilliant public service, and I wish him the very best.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I wish to pay tribute to a very special Iowan, Roberta Till-Retz, who is retiring this month after more than two and a half decades as a scholar and leader at the University of Iowa Labor Center. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that ``the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.'' I would add, however, that it doesn't bend all by itself. It does so because of the dedication, passion, and tireless strivings of people like Roberta Till-Retz. In addition to her work as an instructor at the University of Iowa Labor Center, Roberta has worn many other hats. She has been a prolific author, a respected scholar, an enormously popular teacher, a mentor to up-and-coming union activists, and a valued consultant to the labor community, not just in Iowa but nationally. One key to Roberta's success is that she is both a student of organized labor and also a deeply experienced veteran of the labor movement. Over the years, she has served as executive director of the Iowa Federation of Labor's Iowa Labor History Oral Project, as vice president of the United Association for Labor Education, and as book review editor for the Labor Studies Journal. Here in Washington, we are daily witness to the persuasion of power. By contrast, Roberta's trademark is the power of persuasion, the passion of her advocacy. She is deeply committed to social and economic justice, and that is what drives her dedication to unions and collective bargaining. The lesson she has taught to thousands of students down through the years is that it was organized labor that fought for and won the minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, safe workplace standards, workman's compensation, decent pensions, and health insurance. And out of those victories emerged the great middle class in this country. So I salute Roberta Till-Retz for a job brilliantly done. As long as I have known her, she has always had a tank full of enthusiasm and a heart full of dreams, so I am sure that she will continue to contribute powerfully to the family of organized labor in Iowa and nationally. Our beloved late colleague, Senator Paul Wellstone, said that ``the future belongs to those with passion.'' By that standard, Roberta has a very bright future. And I wish her the very best.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ethanol Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2006. This bill directs the Department of Energy, DOE, to study and evaluate the feasibility of transporting ethanol by pipeline. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Lugar of Indiana, is joining me as a cosponsor of this bill. There is broad recognition that we need to reduce our almost-complete dependence on oil for energy in our transportation sector. We also understand that there is not a single, simple solution to this dependence. I believe that we need to use energy more efficiently and promote alternatives to oil-based fuels in transportation. The most promising liquid fuel alternative to conventional gasoline today is ethanol. Use of ethanol as an additive in gasoline and in the form of E85 is expanding rapidly, and for good reasons. First of all, as a domestically- produced fuel, ethanol contributes to our national energy security. As a gasoline additive, ethanol provides air quality benefits by reducing auto tailpipe emissions of air pollutants. Because ethanol is biodegradable, its use poses no threat to surface water or groundwater. Finally, the production of ethanol provides national and regional economic and job-growth benefits by using local resources and labor to contribute to critical national transportation energy needs, My Congressional colleagues and I have recognized the benefits and potential of ethanol and have promoted its expanded production and use in numerous bills, including most recently in the 2005 energy bill. A key provision in that legislation is the renewable fuels standard under which motor vehicle fuel sold in the United States is required to contain increasing levels of renewable fuels. Several other provisions promote the production and use of ethanol from cellulose, which is an especially attractive approach because it enables the use of a broad variety of plentiful and low-cost feedstocks including corn stover, wheat straw, forest industry wastes and woody municipal wastes. The benefits of ethanol are reflected in the rapid expansion of its production and use, which has increased by more than 20 percent annually for the past several years. Moreover, ethanol's longer-term potential to become a very significant energy source for transportation also is gaining attention. A number of studies have concluded that ethanol can contribute 20 to 30 percent or more of our transportation fuel in the future. Several of my Senate colleagues joined me to introduce S. 2817, the Biofuels Security Act of 2006 which calls for domestic production and use of renewable fuels to reach 60 billion gallons a year by 2030. I am especially proud of the leadership role that my State of Iowa and the neighboring states of the Midwest are going to play in this expansion. Given this outlook, it is time for us to consider the full implications of such a transition. One issue that deserves prompt attention is that of ethanol transport. The volumes of ethanol to be shipped in the future strongly suggest that pipeline transport should be evaluated because of the potential economic and environmental advantages that alternative might offer as compared to shipment by highway, rail tanker or barge. As production volumes increase, especially in the Midwest, it is likely to be more economical to pump ethanol through pipelines than to ship it in containers across the country. Pipeline shipping also would reduce the vehicle emissions associated with rail or tanker shipment, as well as being more energy efficient. For all of these reasons, we should begin to consider development of an ethanol pipeline network. Given the pace of ethanol's growth, it is likely that our Nation could begin to benefit from pipeline transport of ethanol as early as the 2015 to 2020 timeframe. The current state of knowledge regarding transport of ethanol by pipeline is limited. However, it is being done in Brazil, a world leader in the production and use of ethanol. Still, it is also known that the water solubility of ethanol introduces technical and operational issues bearing on shipment of ethanol in multi-product pipelines. Thus, the planning, siting, design, financing, permitting and construction of the first ethanol pipelines may well take as long as a decade, perhaps longer. For that reason, we need to begin now to develop a better understanding of this ethanol transport option. This bill initiates that process by directing the Department of Energy to conduct ethanol pipeline feasibility studies. It calls for analyses of the technological, economic, regulatory, financial and siting issues related to transporting ethanol via pipelines. A systematic analysis of these ethanol pipeline issues will provide the substantive information necessary for assessing the costs and benefits of this transport alternative. DOE would either fund private sector studies or conduct the studies on its own. The results of these studies will provide a clearer picture of the benefits and challenges of pipeline transport of ethanol. They will provide critical information, both for the ethanol industry as it contemplates ethanol transport alternatives, and for policy-makers seeking to understand what federal policies or programs might be appropriate to promote the most cost- effective and environmentally sound ethanol transportation in the future. We have broad agreement on the need to do all that we can to reduce our dependence on oil. We are promoting expanding production and use of renewable fuels in many ways, but we need to consider the full range of infrastructure issues that broader ethanol use entails. Because of the rapid growth of ethanol production and use, these studies of pipeline transport of ethanol should be undertaken in the very near future. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in passing this important and timely legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I didn't realize I had a time limit. I ask for 2 more minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Education Department's inspector general released a blistering report last week about a program called Reading First. The inspector general reported that Education Department officials, one, mismanaged the program; two, steered school contracts to publishers they favor and away from others; three, flagrantly ignored Federal laws on maintaining local and State control of school curricula. These are serious findings by the inspector general. Reading First is one of the largest programs in the Education Department. Congress has appropriated about $5 billion, or about a billion dollars for each of the past 5 years. So when we learn that a program of this size is being mismanaged, that laws are being broken, we need to take pause and investigate further. Soon after Reading First was created, a number of publishers, researchers, and local school officials complained that the Department favored certain reading programs over others. They claimed that the Department pressured States and local school districts--sometimes subtly and sometimes bluntly--to purchase its preferred programs and reject others. These kinds of activities are illegal. The law that established the Education Department states: No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system . . . over the selection or consent of . . . textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law. Now, when we established the Department of Education--and I happened to be here at that time; I was in the House of Representatives at that time--the hue and cry went up to those who were opposed to establishing the Department of Education that the Department of Education would begin telling local school districts what to teach, what books to use. Well, none of us wanted that. We wanted the Department of Education to do certain things but not to control local schools. We wanted to leave the control of school curricula, textbooks, what they taught, in the hands of local school boards. So we put this in the law expressly forbidding the Secretary of Education, or anyone in that Department, to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over textbooks, and things like that. That is about as clear as night is from day in the law. Later, when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we further elaborated on that, and No Child Left Behind established the Reading First Program. It reiterates this point: No funds provided to the Department under this act may be used by the Department to endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum. The Department officials repeatedly denied that they showed any favoritism. However, the inspector general's report shows that, in fact, they went to great lengths to influence exactly which instructional materials school districts must use. They accomplished this in several ways. First they--I mean the Department of Education officials--stacked their grant review panels with members who shared their own philosophy, directly contradicting the No Child Left Behind Act which laid out specific rules designed to ensure the panels were balanced. Next, they designed the grant applications in such a way as to discourage States from using certain reading programs--reading programs that had been approved at the local level and had been approved at the State level. So the Department designed the applications in such a way as to discourage the States from using these reading programs, even to the point of selectively eliminating phrases from the No Child Left Behind Act they didn't like. The No Child Left Behind Act put in certain phrases they had to use in terms of getting grants. Guess what. They just left those out of the grant application--just left them out totally. Third, they leaned heavily on school districts to drop reading programs that didn't meet the Department's approval. For example, the Reading First Director opposed a whole-language reading program sold by a company called the Wright Group. In an e-mail, he urged a staffer to make it clear that the Wright Group didn't have his approval. Here is an excerpt from his e-mail. This is an e-mail from the Reading First Director Christopher Doherty. He said: They-- This is the group that wanted to come in and make an application-- They are trying to crash our party and we need to beat the [expletive deleted] out of them in front of all the other would-be party crashers who are standing on the front lawn waiting to see how we welcome these dirtbags. What does all that mean? That means: Look, we have our programs, we have what we want; others want in and, guess what, we are going to keep them out. ``They are trying to crash our party''--``our party.'' What did Mr. Doherty mean by ``crash our party''? They have selected publishers, selected materials they want these schools to use. ``Party''? What does that mean? Here is how it played out in Massachusetts for one State. The Reading First Director, this same guy, Christopher Doherty, called a State official to say he had concerns about certain reading programs that four school districts were using. All of these programs had gone through the appropriate approval process at the local and State levels. Nevertheless, the State official conveyed that concern to the local districts. The three that dropped those approved programs continued to get their Reading First funding. The one district that stuck with the old program that had been approved had its Reading First funding taken away. What is that saying? It is saying: OK, school districts, if you want money, you have to play our ball game, you have to accept our textbooks, you have to accept what we want, not what you at the local, what you at the State level want, but what we want in Washington. When we step back and look at the big picture, we see a Department of Education where the attitude is: We know best, and to heck with Congress, to heck with Federal laws. They are saying basically it doesn't matter what the law says about local control of schools. If we like a particular program, we are going to make sure a school uses it, and if we don't like it, we are going to make sure they don't use it; we know best, and we will decide. That seems to be the attitude of the Department of Education. We live in a nation of law. We have offices such as the inspector general to investigate whether agencies such as the Education Department are really following the laws we pass. Guess what. The inspector general found they are not following the law at the Education Department. They are basically thumbing their nose at it. So far, the person who has borne most of the blame has been the Reading First Director, Christopher Doherty, but I think we need to look a little higher. Secretary Spellings responded to the report by blaming other Department employees and noting that the events occurred before she took over the Department. However, as President Bush's domestic policy adviser, she exerted enormous control from the White House over the Department of Education activities. Michael Petrilli, a former Department official who worked in the Department from 2001 to 2005, wrote a column this week in which he said that Mrs. Spellings knew exactly what was going on. Here is what Mr. Petrilli wrote: As the President's first-term domestic policy advisor, she micromanaged the implementation of Reading First from her West Wing office. She put one of her most trusted friends inside the Department of Education to make sure that Doherty and his colleagues didn't go soft and allow just any reading program to receive funds. She was the leading cheerleader for an aggressive approach. And now she bobs and weaves: ``Although these events occurred before I became Secretary of Education, I am concerned about these actions and committed to addressing and resolving them.'' A quote from Secretary Spellings.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if this description is accurate, it is hard to imagine that Secretary Spellings didn't know anything about the abuses described in the inspector general's report. Instead of making others take the fall for what happened, she needs to stand up and say whether she had any knowledge of or involvement in these activities when she worked in the White House. Last week's report from the IG was just the first of several on the Education Department's management of the Reading First Program. I am afraid that what we have learned so far is just the tip of the iceberg. Secretary Spellings needs to explain as soon as possible her role in this program. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, over the August recess, I had the opportunity to visit the newly opened community health centers of Southern Iowa, located in Leon, IA. I had been fortunate to secure $300,000 for renovations and equipment at the facility, and I was eager to see how these resources are being put to use. As I toured the facility and talked with staff, I was freshly reminded of the extraordinary public service rendered by community health centers all across the United States. But the center in Leon is truly exceptional. The facility itself is welcoming, modern, and well equipped. And the staff members--from physicians to nurses to custodians--are truly an inspiration. They clearly have a special passion for their work, and they take pride in the fact that they are providing first-rate health care in one of the most underserved areas of my State. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., used to say that ``Life's most persistent and urgent question is: What are you doing for others?'' Let me tell you, the dedicated professionals at the community health centers of Southern Iowa have answered that question in powerful ways. They have committed themselves to providing high-quality health care to all comers, regardless of ability to pay. All are welcomed equally. All are served with excellence. This is why, as ranking member on the education and health appropriations subcommittee, I am 100 percent committed to securing appropriate funding for community health centers. One thing I know for certain: Every dollar Congress appropriates for centers like the one in Leon is a dollar spent wisely and frugally. It never ceases to amaze me how their staffs are able to do so much--and to serve so many people-- with such modest resources. I daresay that nobody in the health care profession faces greater challenges than those who choose to work in community health centers-- challenges including chronic illness, cultural and linguistic differences, geographical barriers, homelessness, and on and on. Nothing stops these superb professionals. And one more thing: community health centers have a well-deserved reputation for caring and kindness. In some ways, their physicians and nurses are a throwback to another era. They offer a direct and personal style of health care. They follow up. They care about prevention and wellness. So I am deeply grateful to executive director Gary Rees, to medical director, Dr. Patricia Magle, and to all the wonderful staff and board members at the community health centers of Southern Iowa. They work their hearts out to provide the very best health care in a part of my State that has been neglected for too long. I deeply appreciate their passion, their compassion, and their dedication to public service. Mr. President, in late August, I had the pleasure of attending a ceremonial ribbon-cutting ceremony at the new United Community Health Center in Storm Lake, IA. Having secured funding for the center, which actually opened its doors last March, I was eager to meet with the staff and assess their progress. I was incredibly impressed by all that this facility has been able to accomplish with relatively modest resources. I call it ``the little community health center that could.'' The facility is welcoming, modern, and well equipped. And the staff members are truly an inspiration. They have a special passion for their work, and they take pride in the fact that they are providing first-rate health care to underserved communities. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., used to say that ``Life's most persistent and urgent question is: What are you doing for others?'' Let me tell you, the dedicated staff members at the United Community Health Center have answered that question in powerful ways. They have committed themselves to providing high-quality health care to all comers, regardless of ability to pay. All are welcomed equally. All are served with excellence. This is why, as ranking member on the education and health appropriations subcommittee, I am 100 percent committed to securing appropriate funding for community health centers all across America. One thing I know for certain: Every dollar Congress appropriates for centers like the one in Storm Lake is a dollar spent wisely and frugally. It never ceases to amaze me how their staff members are able to do so much--and to serve so many people--with such limited resources. I daresay that nobody in the health care profession faces greater challenges than those who choose to work in community health centers-- challenges including chronic illness, cultural and linguistic differences, geographical barriers, homelessness, and on and on. Nothing stops these superb professionals. And one more thing: community health centers have a well-deserved reputation for caring and kindness. In some ways, their physicians and nurses are a throwback to another era. They offer a direct and personal style of health care. They follow up. They care about prevention and wellness. So I am deeply grateful to executive director Renea Seagren, to board chair Mark Prosser, and all the other members of the staff and board at the United Community Health Center. And also to founding board member Larry Rohret, whose dedication to improving the lives of those in greatest need was instrumental in establishing the health center. I was saddened that Larry did not live to see the health center open its doors. These devoted people work their hearts out to provide the very best health care to some of our most needy citizens. I deeply appreciate their passion, their compassion, and their dedication to public service. Mr. President, earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit the newly opened Community Health Center of Fort Dodge in north-central Iowa. I had been fortunate to secure $280,000 for planning and equipment at the facility, and I was eager to see how these resources are being put to use. As I toured the facility and talked with staff, I was freshly reminded of the extraordinary public service rendered by community health centers all across the United States. But the center in Fort Dodge is truly exceptional. Thanks to their new community health center designation, the folks, there, were able to transition from two free clinics operating very much part time, to a full-time, comprehensive primary care center serving all of Webster County. And the staff members--from physicians to nurses to custodians--are truly an inspiration. They clearly have a special passion for their work, and they take pride in the fact that they are providing first- rate health care to some of the most underserved people in my state. Mr. President, several years ago, I encouraged leaders in the Fort Dodge community to apply to for community health center designation. I remember visiting a free clinic being operated by St. Mark's Episcopal Church back in 2003 and meeting a woman who was in such pain from a toothache that she had removed her own tooth with a hammer and screwdriver. No human being should have to resort to such a crude remedy--certainly not in the United States of America. And thanks to the new center in Fort Dodge, those kinds of desperate measures are a thing of the past. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., used to say that ``Life's most persistent and urgent question is: What are you doing for others?'' Let me tell you, the dedicated professionals at the Community Health Center of Fort Dodge have answered that question in powerful ways. They have committed themselves to providing high-quality health care to all comers, regardless of ability to pay. All are welcomed equally. All are served with excellence. This is why, as ranking member on the education and health appropriations subcommittee, I am 100 percent committed to securing appropriate funding for Community Health Centers. One thing I know for certain: Every dollar Congress appropriates for centers like the one in Fort Dodge is a dollar spent wisely and frugally. It never ceases to amaze me how their staffs are able to do so much--and to serve so many people--with such modest resources. I daresay that nobody in the health care profession faces greater challenges than those who choose to work community health centers-- challenges including chronic illness, cultural and linguistic differences, geographical barriers, homelessness, and on and on. Nothing stops these superb professionals. And one more thing: community health centers have a well-deserved reputation for caring and kindness. In some ways, their physicians and nurses are a throwback to another era. They offer a direct and personal style of health care. They follow up. They care about prevention and wellness. So I am deeply grateful to executive director Kathy Wilkes to Randy Kuhlman and Father Steve Hall, who spearheaded the CHC designation effort; to board chair Craig Johnsen and the other board members; and to all the wonderful staff members at the Community Health Center of Fort Dodge. They work their hearts out to provide the very best health care to all who pass through their doors. I deeply appreciate their passion, their compassion, and their dedication to public service.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I too wish to pay tribute to the accomplishments of Mr. Frank Ippolito and thank him for his many years of dedicated service to the American people and especially to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, FNS. Mr. Ippolito has done an outstanding job as the career civil servant responsible for communications between FNS and Congress. During his long tenure, this critical agency, which benefits millions of Americans, has been greatly improved. Mr. Ippolito has crossed many a path with countless elected officials and staff over the years, and without regard to party affiliation, he has treated each and every one of us with dignity, respect, and a helpful attitude that allows the work of Government to be performed efficiently and effectively. And in addition to his professionalism and competence, he has always carried out his work with a generous spirit and a cheerful personality. In sum, Mr. Ippolito exemplifies the very model of a public servant. Frank Ippolito reminds us that, at its best, working for the Federal Government is ultimately about working for the people of the United States. At the end of a career, all of us who have worked in the Government or elected office should ask ourselves if, as a result of our careers, the people throughout America are better off as the result of our efforts. I am confident that Frank can enter retirement after three decades secure in his knowledge that the answer to that question is an emphatic yes. I thank Mr. Frank Ippolito for his years of extraordinary service and wish him and his wife Donna all the best on this occasion for his retirement.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Ethanol Infrastructure Expansion Act of 2006. This bill directs the Department of Energy, DOE, to study and evaluate the feasibility of transporting ethanol by pipeline. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Lugar of Indiana, is joining me as a cosponsor of this bill. There is broad recognition that we need to reduce our almost-complete dependence on oil for energy in our transportation sector. We also understand that there is not a single, simple solution to this dependence. I believe that we need to use energy more efficiently and promote alternatives to oil-based fuels in transportation. The most promising liquid fuel alternative to conventional gasoline today is ethanol. Use of ethanol as an additive in gasoline and in the form of E85 is expanding rapidly, and for good reasons. First of all, as a domestically- produced fuel, ethanol contributes to our national energy security. As a gasoline additive, ethanol provides air quality benefits by reducing auto tailpipe emissions of air pollutants. Because ethanol is biodegradable, its use poses no threat to surface water or groundwater. Finally, the production of ethanol provides national and regional economic and job-growth benefits by using local resources and labor to contribute to critical national transportation energy needs, My Congressional colleagues and I have recognized the benefits and potential of ethanol and have promoted its expanded production and use in numerous bills, including most recently in the 2005 energy bill. A key provision in that legislation is the renewable fuels standard under which motor vehicle fuel sold in the United States is required to contain increasing levels of renewable fuels. Several other provisions promote the production and use of ethanol from cellulose, which is an especially attractive approach because it enables the use of a broad variety of plentiful and low-cost feedstocks including corn stover, wheat straw, forest industry wastes and woody municipal wastes. The benefits of ethanol are reflected in the rapid expansion of its production and use, which has increased by more than 20 percent annually for the past several years. Moreover, ethanol's longer-term potential to become a very significant energy source for transportation also is gaining attention. A number of studies have concluded that ethanol can contribute 20 to 30 percent or more of our transportation fuel in the future. Several of my Senate colleagues joined me to introduce S. 2817, the Biofuels Security Act of 2006 which calls for domestic production and use of renewable fuels to reach 60 billion gallons a year by 2030. I am especially proud of the leadership role that my State of Iowa and the neighboring states of the Midwest are going to play in this expansion. Given this outlook, it is time for us to consider the full implications of such a transition. One issue that deserves prompt attention is that of ethanol transport. The volumes of ethanol to be shipped in the future strongly suggest that pipeline transport should be evaluated because of the potential economic and environmental advantages that alternative might offer as compared to shipment by highway, rail tanker or barge. As production volumes increase, especially in the Midwest, it is likely to be more economical to pump ethanol through pipelines than to ship it in containers across the country. Pipeline shipping also would reduce the vehicle emissions associated with rail or tanker shipment, as well as being more energy efficient. For all of these reasons, we should begin to consider development of an ethanol pipeline network. Given the pace of ethanol's growth, it is likely that our Nation could begin to benefit from pipeline transport of ethanol as early as the 2015 to 2020 timeframe. The current state of knowledge regarding transport of ethanol by pipeline is limited. However, it is being done in Brazil, a world leader in the production and use of ethanol. Still, it is also known that the water solubility of ethanol introduces technical and operational issues bearing on shipment of ethanol in multi-product pipelines. Thus, the planning, siting, design, financing, permitting and construction of the first ethanol pipelines may well take as long as a decade, perhaps longer. For that reason, we need to begin now to develop a better understanding of this ethanol transport option. This bill initiates that process by directing the Department of Energy to conduct ethanol pipeline feasibility studies. It calls for analyses of the technological, economic, regulatory, financial and siting issues related to transporting ethanol via pipelines. A systematic analysis of these ethanol pipeline issues will provide the substantive information necessary for assessing the costs and benefits of this transport alternative. DOE would either fund private sector studies or conduct the studies on its own. The results of these studies will provide a clearer picture of the benefits and challenges of pipeline transport of ethanol. They will provide critical information, both for the ethanol industry as it contemplates ethanol transport alternatives, and for policy-makers seeking to understand what federal policies or programs might be appropriate to promote the most cost- effective and environmentally sound ethanol transportation in the future. We have broad agreement on the need to do all that we can to reduce our dependence on oil. We are promoting expanding production and use of renewable fuels in many ways, but we need to consider the full range of infrastructure issues that broader ethanol use entails. Because of the rapid growth of ethanol production and use, these studies of pipeline transport of ethanol should be undertaken in the very near future. I urge my Senate colleagues to join me in passing this important and timely legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, more than 41 million Americans suffer from a moderate or serious mental disorder each year. Unfortunately, because of the lingering stigma attached to mental illness, and lack of coverage under health insurance, these disorders often go untreated. I am particularly concerned that we are neglecting the mental health of our returning war veterans. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill directing the Department of Veterans Affairs to create a program to address the shocking rate of suicide among veterans returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. That bill, the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act of 2006, was named in honor of a young hero from Grundy Center who killed himself soon after returning from a tour of duty in Iraq. But we also need a broader strategy for addressing the mental health needs of service members exposed to the stress and trauma of war. And that is why I introduced legislation today directing the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop a comprehensive plan to improve the diagnosis and treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, in our veterans. My bill would require the VA to create a curriculum and required protocols for training VA staff to better screen PTSD. It also would require the VA to commit additional staff and resources to this challenge. During my years in the Navy, I learned one of the most important lessons of my entire life: Never leave a buddy behind. That's true on the battlefield--and it's also true after our service members return home. Often, the physical wounds of combat are repaired, but the mental damage--the psychological scars of combat--can haunt a person for a lifetime. One study shows that about 17 percent of active-duty service members who served in Iraq screened positive for anxiety, depression, or PTSD. This number is comparable to rates of PTSD experienced by Vietnam War veterans. But, in the decades since, scientists have learned that quick intervention is critical to ensuring that an acute stress reaction does not become a chronic mental illness. This is exactly the aim of my bill: to improve early detection and intervention . . . to save lives . . . and to prevent long-term mental illness. The Federal Government has a moral contract with those who have fought for our country and sacrificed so much. This bill is about making good on that contract.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, since my years as a pilot with the U.S. Navy, nothing has been more important to me than protecting the American people and ensuring the security of our country. Today, we are at war with extremists who want to do grievous harm to America. We all want to fight these extremists and defeat them. We all want to ensure that those who committed or supported acts of terror are brought to justice. The only disagreement is about how best to do that. What is the smartest, most effective way to fight and defeat our enemies? Unfortunately, as the newly declassified National Intelligence Estimate testifies very clearly, our current course is, in many ways, playing into the hands of the terrorists. It is stirring up virulent anti-Americanism around the world, it is drawing new recruits to the jihadists' cause, and it is making America less safe. We have to do a better job, and we can do a better job. It is not good enough to be strong and wrong. We need to be strong and smart. This is especially true when it comes to our policies on interrogating and trying suspected terrorists. Again, we all want to extract information from these suspects. We all want to try them and, if guilty, punish them. The only disagreement is about how best to do that. What is the smartest, most effective way to interrogate and to try these suspected terrorists? There is plenty of evidence that our current course, which clearly includes torturing suspects and imprisoning them without trial, is not working. To take just one case in point, consider the Canadian citizen, whom we now know to be completely innocent, who was arrested by the CIA--I use the word ``arrested'' loosely. He was picked up by the CIA, bound, gagged, blindfolded, and sent to Syria for interrogation under torture. Not surprisingly, he told his torturers exactly what they wanted to hear--that he had received terrorist training in Afghanistan. The truth, of course, is that he was never in Afghanistan, had no terrorist ties, and is completely innocent. The cost to the United States for this miscarriage of justice, in terms of our forfeited reputation and moral standing, has been disastrous--just as the revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib. What is more, it has endangered our troops in the field--now and in the future--should they fall into the hands of captors who say they have the right to subject American prisoners to the same torture and abuse. Again, it is not enough to be strong and wrong. We need to be strong and smart. We need to be true to 230 years of American jurisprudence, our Constitution, and the humane values that define us as Americans. Back during the dark days of McCarthyism in the 1950s, former Senator Joseph McCarthy went on a rampage. What he was basically saying to the American people is that we have to become like the Communists in order to defeat them. Cooler heads prevailed but not until Senator McCarthy had done a lot of damage in this country, not until a lot of innocent people were blacklisted, denied employment, many of whom committed suicide because they had no place to turn. The dark days of Joseph McCarthy come back to us in the guise of this military tribunal bill. We do not have to become like the jihadists. We don't have to become like the terrorists in order to defeat them. The best way to defeat them is the same way we defeated Joseph McCarthy and the Communists. We stayed true to our American ideals, our American jurisprudence, and the humane values we cherish as a free society. Regrettably, the bill before us fails this test. I cannot, in good conscience, support it. The bill includes no barrier on the President's reinterpreting our obligations under the Geneva Conventions as he pleases, allowing practices such as simulated drowning, induced hypothermia, and extreme sleep deprivation. The President can allow all of those to continue, in contravention of the Geneva Conventions. The bill before us rewrites the War Crimes Act in a way that fails to give clarity as to interrogation techniques that are allowed or forbidden, effectively allowing the administration--any administration--to continue the abusive techniques I just mentioned. The bill creates a very bizarre double standard, immunizing, on the one hand, policymakers and the CIA and its contractors for committing acts of torture--immunizing them--while leaving our military troops subject to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for the exact same practices. Let me repeat that. The bill creates this double standard: it immunizes the CIA, for example, and any contractors with the CIA, for committing acts of torture, while at the same time those same acts, if committed by a military person, would subject that military person to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What kind of a signal does this send? What kind of signal is this? The bill completely eliminates the ability of noncitizens to bring a habeas corpus petition, effectively removing the only remaining check on the administration's decision regarding torture and other abuses. Indeed, the habeas provisions in this bill would permit--get this-- the bill would permit a legal permanent resident of the United States-- a legal permanent resident of the United States--to be snatched off the street in the dark of night, bound, blindfolded, subject to indefinite detention, even torture, with absolutely no way for that person to challenge it in court. Is that what we want to become as a nation? A legal permanent resident in the United States, of which there are millions in this country, taken out of his or her home at night, and we don't know what happens to them? They go into the dark dungeons of who knows where. Maybe Guantanamo Bay. Habeas corpus is the only independent remedy available to people being held in indefinite detention who, in fact, have no connection to terrorism. I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle going on yesterday about this habeas provision. He went on about how habeas corpus is to protect U.S. citizens. It is in no way, he went on, aimed at protecting enemy combatants who are picked up. Therein lies the problem. How do we know they are enemy combatants? Is it because the CIA says they are an enemy combatant? Who says they are an enemy combatant? This is not World War II, folks, where the Germans are on one side and they have uniforms, and the Japanese are on the other side and they have uniforms. This is an amorphous terrorist war where the terrorists don't wear uniforms. They can be dressed like you or me. They can look just like you or me. So we don't know. We have instances where people have been thrown into Guantanamo, for example, and they were fingered by a neighbor who didn't like them and wanted their property or house or didn't like them because of something they had done to them in the past. They fingered them and said: Guess what. They are big terrorists. People were picked up and thrown in jail. Habeas is the one provision that allows someone snatched off the streets here or anywhere else suspected of being a terrorist to at least come forward and say: What are the charges against me? We have seen this happen in Guantanamo, people kept for months, for years, without ever having a charge filed against them, and many of them we found out were totally innocent. What does this say to the rest of the world? Senator Obama from Illinois told the story the other day about when he was in Chad in August and heard about an American citizen who was picked up in Sudan and held by the Sudanese. He made some calls to try to get this person released. It was an American journalist. After a while, he was released. The American journalist came back and said: I was picked up by the Sudanese officials. I asked for permission to contact the U.S. Embassy with a phone call so I could talk to our Embassy. The Sudanese captor said: Why should we let you do that? You don't let the people in Guantanamo Bay do that. The use of habeas is not just to protect the people who are suspected so that we know whether they really are an enemy combatant. It is also as a protection for our troops, our soldiers, our civilians, our business people traveling around the world, people traveling on vacation, journalists, just like this one, who may be snatched, picked up by a foreign government. We want to be able to say to that government: Produce the person. What are the charges? If we don't allow it, we are giving the green light to every other would-be dictator anywhere in the world to do the same thing--any government anywhere. If the moral argument against torture does not hold any weight with this administration, they should just examine the abundant evidence that torture simply doesn't work. This is not just my opinion, this is what the experts are saying. Let me quote from a letter signed by 20 former U.S. Army interrogators and interrogation technicians: Prisoner/detainee abuse and torture are to be avoided at all costs, in part because they can degrade the intelligence collection effort by interfering with a skilled interrogator's efforts to establish rapport with the subject. Simply put, torture does not help gather useful, reliable, actionable intelligence. In fact, it inhibits the collection of such intelligence. Earlier this month, the U.S. Army released its new field manual 222.3: ``Human Intelligence Collector Operations,'' which covers interrogations by the U.S. military in detail. This manual replaces the previous manual and is to be used by our military personnel around the world in performing interrogations. The Army Field Manual explicitly bans, among other things, beating prisoners, sexually humiliating them, threatening them with dogs, depriving them of food and water, performing mock executions, shocking them with electricity, burning them, causing other pain, or subjecting them to the technique called waterboarding, which simulates drowning. So if these techniques are explicitly banned in the Army Field Manual, why shouldn't they be explicitly banned for CIA personnel or CIA contract personnel? Why do we have a high standard for our military and effectively no standard for the CIA and its contractors? For me, this debate about illegal imprisonment and officially sanctioned torture is not an abstraction. It strikes very close to home for me. Thirty-six years ago this summer at the height of the Vietnam war, I brought back photographs of the so-called tiger cages at Con Son Island where the Vietcong and North Vietnamese prisoners, as well as civilians who had committed no crime whatsoever, were being tortured and killed with the full knowledge and sanction of the U.S. Government. That was July of 1970 when I was a staff person in the House of Representatives working with a congressional delegation on a factfinding trip to Vietnam. We had all heard reports about the possible existence of these so- called tiger cages in which people were brutally tortured and killed. Our State Department and our military officials denied their existence. They said it was only Communist propaganda. Through various sources, I thought that the reports about the tiger cages were at least credible and should be investigated further. Thanks to the courage of Congressman William Anderson of Tennessee and Congressman Augustus Hawkins of California and to Don Luce, an American working for a nongovernmental organization, and because of the bravery of a young Vietnamese man who gave us the maps on how to find the prison, we were able to expose the tiger cages on Con Son Island. This young Vietnamese man about whom I speak was let out of the tiger cages, but they kept his brother, and they said: If you breathe one word about this, we are going to kill your brother. Why did they let him out of the tiger cages? Because he was president of the student body at Saigon University. What had been his crime? He had demonstrated against the war. So they picked up he and his brother and threw them in the tiger cages and tortured them. The students refused to go back to class--this was a big deal--until they returned this young man to his university, which they did, but they kept his brother and said: If you breathe a word of this, we will kill him. This young man decided he needed to take a chance, and he took a chance on me. He drew the maps and gave us the story on how to find these tiger cages which were well hidden, and without the maps we never would have found them. Fortunately, I had a camera and a hidden tape recorder which proved useful when I returned to the United States. Supporters of the war claim that the tiger cages were not all that bad. But then Life magazine published my pictures, and the world saw the horrific conditions where, in clear violation of the Geneva code, North Vietnamese, Vietcong, as well as civilian opponents of the war-- just civilians--who committed no crimes whatsoever--were all crowded together in these cages, as I said, in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the most fundamental principles of human rights. At the same time, the U.S. Government had been insisting that the North Vietnamese abided by the Geneva Conventions in their treatment of prisoners in North Vietnam. Yet here we were condoning and even supervising the torture of civilian Vietnamese, along with Vietnamese soldiers and others in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. We may not have known about it--our public did not know about that-- but the Vietnamese sure knew about it. I thought we had learned our lesson from that, and then I saw Abu Ghraib and thought: Wait a minute. Haven't we learned our lesson? And, Mr. President, just as 37 years ago when the tiger cages were first talked about, they were denied--and they thought they could deny them because it was hard to get to the island. You couldn't really get out there. As far as they knew, no one had ever taken pictures of it and no one had really ever escaped from there, like a Devil's Island kind of place. So the military denied it. Our Government denied it year after year until I was able to take the pictures and bring back the evidence. Mr. President, I submit to you and everyone here and the American people that had not that courageous soldier taken the pictures of Abu Ghraib and kept those pictures, they would have denied that ever happened. They would have denied to high Heaven that such things took place at Abu Ghraib. Thankfully, one courageous young soldier decided this was wrong, it was inhumane, it was not upholding the highest human standards of America, and it was in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Had he not taken those pictures, it would be denied forever that ever happened at Abu Ghraib. So now, as if we learned nothing from that previous tragedy of the tiger cages 36 years ago or Abu Ghraib just a couple of years ago, here we go again denying obvious instances of torture and abuse, effectively giving the green light to torture by U.S. Government agents and contractors and watering down the War Crimes Act. This is a betrayal of our laws. It is a betrayal of our values. It is a betrayal of everything that makes us unique and proud to be Americans. The administration apparently thinks that we will just go along with this betrayal because there is an election in 6 weeks. Apparently they think we are afraid of being branded weak on terrorism. Indeed, some are no doubt hoping that we will vote against this bill so they can use it as a bludgeon against us in the election. All I can say is: Shame on them. What is more, it is not going to work. Because opposing this bill, which would give the green light to torture, is far, far bigger than the outcome of the November election. This is about preserving our core values as Americans. It is about standing up for our troops and ensuring that they do not become subject to the same acts of torture and retaliation. It is about standing up for American citizens, civilians, and others who may be caught up in some foreign land with false charges filed against them, and yet not even being able to contact our embassy. It is about protecting Americans. And it is about changing course and beginning to wage an effective war against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001. It is time to quit being strong and wrong, and it is time to start being strong and smart. Being strong and wrong has been a disaster. It has bogged us down in a civil war in Iraq. It has turbocharged the terrorists. It has made America less safe. So it is time to be strong and smart. It is time to be true to who we are as Americans. It is time to say no to indefinite--indefinite--incarceration. It is time to say no to taking away the right of someone put away to at least have the charges pressed against them. It is time to say no to torture in all its forms now and at any time in the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for time off of Senator Inouye's time.