Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, may I ask what the unanimous consent request was? I couldn't hear.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me just note that upon the passage of this supplemental appropriations bill, Congress will have provided over $318 billion for the war in Iraq--almost all of it through emergency supplemental appropriations. Now, again, we must support our troops. They have no control over how their operations and equipment are funded. So we want to support them. But I have grave concerns about the way the Bush administration has gone about funding the war--only through emergency supplemental appropriations. The war in Iraq has gone on for 3 years now. There have been eight separate emergency supplemental appropriations measures to fund our operations in Iraq. This is how an emergency is defined by our own budget rules: ``Suddenly, quickly coming into being . . . not building over time . . . an urgent, pressing and compelling need requiring immediate action . . . unforeseen, unpredictable and unanticipated and not permanent.'' That is how our budget rules define ``emergency appropriations.'' Three years? War in Iraq? It is unforeseen, unpredictable, unanticipated, sudden? Wait a minute, this does not meet the definition of ``emergency.'' It is not unforeseen. Why isn't the President sending us, then, a regular budget at the beginning of the year to fund the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because they do not want to admit how much money they are spending there. They want to mask it. I am going to support this bill. I will vote for it because it has some things in it and because I want to make sure our troops have the equipment. But I want to go on record as saying I also have a resolution that I introduced in the Senate that says three things. It says: No. 1, we will not establish permanent bases in Iraq; No. 2, we will not seek to control the oil in Iraq; and, No. 3, that we ought to begin redeploying our troops out of Iraq by the end of this year. So this may be the last time I will vote for any appropriations for the Iraq war, because I believe we should start withdrawing and redeploying our troops by the end of this year. I want to give them everything they need for their safety and their well-being, but enough is enough. And I also want to make it clear that this may be the last time I will ever vote for an emergency supplemental appropriation for the war in Iraq. If it comes to the regular appropriations process, we will have our hearings. We will see what is happening. But under an emergency, we don't do that. The war in Iraq, we were told by Mr. Wolfowitz before it started, would be paid for by oil; the cost to the American people would be minimal. That is what Secretary Rumsfeld told us. We are up to $318 billion and counting. It is time that Secretary Rumsfeld and this administration start making some tough decisions about what they can cut out of the Pentagon's bloated annual budget in order to fund the war in Iraq. Quite frankly, we know there is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse going on in Iraq. It has to end. As long as we keep having emergency supplemental appropriations, we will never eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse. We all strongly support our troops. I will vote for this bill because it contains funding for the troops, for avian flu, and other items, but it is time that the war in Iraq only comes through the regular appropriations process. It is time for us to start getting our troops out of there by the end of this year.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Mr. President, first of all, I want to say I have a great friendship with, a liking of, and respect for the chairman of our committee, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. It is always a tough job when you are bringing an appropriations bill out on the floor, especially a supplemental. And I respect the effort that has gone into this. However, I must say that there are a lot of things that I find very, very problematic about this appropriations bill. Again, there are some critical provisions included in this bill. There is funding for our Nation to prepare for a possible avian flu pandemic. Obviously, there is funding for our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we want to support them in every way, with the equipment they need to maximize their safety. There is also funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace democracy-building activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. So there are things in here that are very necessary that we must provide. On the other hand, however, there are some very disturbing and I think sort of ominous precedent-setting things that are in this bill that could lead to some real problems down the road. I am extremely disappointed this bill includes a deeming resolution for the budget. First of all, it should not be in here. Now, I tried to explain a deeming resolution to one of my constituents the other day. Try to explain it to someone. Try to explain it to someone who is not sort of in this body--a ``deeming'' resolution. You see, we pass a budget, but then the budget cannot get passed by the House, so, therefore, we then are going to pass a deeming resolution to deem something that we cannot pass as passed because we deem it passed. Now, just try explaining that to the average citizen of this country. They would think we have lost all our marbles in trying to do something like this. I am hopeful we will reach some point in the Senate and the House where this is absolutely forbidden in the future: putting something like a deeming resolution on an emergency supplemental. Now, we want to pass an emergency supplemental for the reasons I just mentioned, but then to have to swallow something which makes no sense whatsoever and which, quite frankly, is harmful and which the Senate rejected before flies in the face of what I think is legitimate legislative activity. So the Senate voted 2 months ago overwhelmingly in favor of an amendment that Senator Specter and I offered--bipartisan--to add $7 billion to the President's budget. The Senate voted 73 to 27. That is a pretty overwhelming vote around here: 73 to 27. The aim was clear: to allow Congress to fund our education, health, human services, and labor bill. And it was not an increase but just to fund it at the same level as in fiscal year 2005, 2 years ago. It was not radical. We were not asking for a lot, not asking for the keys to the Treasury. We said: Let's just spend the same amount of money we did 2 years ago, not even accounting for inflation. The Senate said: Let's stop cutting the programs that support working families, people with disabilities, and students who cannot afford college. Let's end the cuts to research on cancer and other diseases. Seventy-three Senators agreed. They voted that way. Then the Senate reconfirmed its position in conference. When this deeming resolution was proposed, Senator Byrd offered an amendment that proposed the same thing as what we passed in the Senate--the Specter-Harkin amendment. Again, a majority of the Senate conferees voted to add the $7 billion. Two times the Senate demanded this additional funding for health, education, and labor programs, and human services. Now, where is the $7 billion? Where did it go? It just vanished-- vanished. It is gone. The deeming resolution--again, try explaining that to someone, to the average person. The deeming resolution that is in this bill is at exactly the same level as the President's budget, which we rejected in the Senate 2 months ago. So what happened? The conferees from the majority party went behind closed doors and stripped out the $7 billion. It is as if the 73-to-27 vote in the Senate never even happened. So what does this mean? What is the impact? Well, let's look at what happens. Under this now, the President's budget will cut funding for cancer research by $40 million. Eighteen of the 19 National Institutes of Health will face reductions. This deeming resolution will now cut Social Services Block Grants by $500 million. It completely eliminates the Community Services Block Grant program. These are the two biggest discretionary programs for the poor. They are kind of the glue that holds the human services delivery system together. The number of children served by Head Start will be reduced. The Meals on Wheels Program will be cut. In education, this deeming resolution, now following the President's budget, will have the largest cut to Federal education in 26 years. The No Child Left Behind Act will be underfunded by $15.4 billion. Title I, serving our most needy children in school, will be frozen at last year's level. I could go on and on, but this is what we mean by passing a deeming resolution on the supplemental. At a time when Congress has just passed an additional $70 billion in tax cuts, mostly for the wealthiest in our country--and we had an effort a week ago to eliminate estate taxes, but, fortunately, we stopped it. But I hear it may come back, another tax cut that will benefit only 3 families out of every 1,000 families in America. We are going to have another attempt, and that will cost us, I understand, a half trillion dollars over 10 years. And it will go only to the wealthiest in our society. Yet we are going to cut Meals on Wheels, Head Start, cut education, title I, eliminate Community Services Block Grants, cut funding for the National Institutes of Health. What is going on here? Have we taken leave of our senses? This deeming resolution, as I said, was not in the House bill, and it was not in the Senate bill. There is a rule. We are supposed to live by rules in our society. We have laws. People obey laws. We have rules to live by so we know what the game is, so we know what we are expected to do. We have a rule that says anything that is added in conference that was not in either bill is subject to a point of order. A point of order now lies on this floor against this bill. Now, why isn't anyone raising the point of order? Well, I am told that the point of order will not be raised because the Chair, you see, will have to agree with the point of order that this violates rule XXVIII; therefore, the whole bill then falls. What does that mean? Why, it means they would have to go back to conference and strip out the deeming resolution. That might take a couple of hours. Then it would come back, and then we would have a supplemental appropriations without this ``deeming resolution.'' So why isn't rule XXVIII being invoked? Why aren't we raising the point of order? I understand that what would happen is the Chair would uphold the point of order, the majority party would move to override the ruling of the Chair--and that takes 51 votes--and I am told the majority party would have the 51 votes to override the ruling of the Chair, and that would do away, basically, with rule XXVIII. Well, what is so wrong with that? What is the good of having a rule if you do not abide by the rules? I am reminded of one of my favorite lines from ``Finnegan's Rainbow.'' It is a play. It goes like this: For life is like cricket. We play by the rules. But the secret which few people know that keeps men of class far apart from the fools is to make up the rules as you go. That is what we are doing around here. We are making up the rules as we go. You never know from one year to the next what the rules are going to be. The rules are only what the majority party deems the rules ought to be at any given point in time. That is no way to run a democracy. It is no way to run a legislative chamber. It is no way to run the Congress. So we have this threat: If you raise a point of order--which should be raised--that whole rule falls. I question whether the rule is even worth having any longer. A couple of other notes. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Mr. HARKIN. Fifteen minutes?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we under an order right now with a time limit? I have the floor, but I would like to know how much time I am allotted.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ipar Demir be granted floor privileges during the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, yesterday was the annual commemoration of the International Labor Organization's, ILO, World Day Against Child Labor, the day we set aside to speak out against the fact that millions of children around the globe continue to be trapped in forced and abusive labor, often in extremely hazardous conditions. The good news, this year, is that child labor is in decline across the globe. According to the recent ILO report, ``The End of Child Labor: Within Reach,'' released on May 4 of this year, between the years 2000 and 2004, the number of child laborers worldwide fell by 11 percent, from 246 million to 218 million. Even better, the number of children and youths aged 5-17 trapped in hazardous work decreased by 26 percent, declining from 171 million in 2000 to 126 million in 2004. Among younger child laborers, the drop was even sharper at 33 percent. This is remarkable progress in just 4 years' time. And looking to the future, the ILO report cautiously predicts that, ``if the current pace of decline is maintained, and if global efforts to stop child labor continue.'' We have a real opportunity to eliminate child labor in its worst forms within 10 years' time. However, difficult challenges lie ahead, especially in agriculture, where 7 out of 10 child laborers work. I know this firsthand from my work trying to end child labor in the cocoa industry. Child labor is deeply entrenched in cocoa plantations in Ivory Coast and elsewhere. But, with the cooperation of the chocolate industry, we are making progress in fighting it. Likewise, in the broader fight against child labor, the ILO report verifies that we are on the right track to eliminating abusive and exploitative child labor. The great work of the ILO's International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor, IPEC, really vindicates the confidence I placed in this program early on. I secured the first Federal appropriation for the IPEC program back in 1996, and over the last decade, I have secured a total of more than $323 million for the program. Clearly, that money has made a real difference in the lives of children. It has given them an opportunity to get an education and to break the cycle of poverty. In August 2005, I visited Pakistan and spent time at an IPEC program funded by the U.S. Department of Labor to combat child labor in the Pakistani carpet industry. I was able to sit down and talk with young adults who had been laborers in the carpet industry as children but had been removed and given the opportunity to go to school. In Pakistan, the Department of Labor's international child labor program has helped to ensure that 20,000 children between the ages of 10-18 have been removed from hazardous work conditions and provided with either nonformal education or vocational training. I have also visited child labor rehabilitation programs in Brazil, Nepal, and Bangladesh. These visits have showed me the incredibly beneficial impacts that governments can make, but I also realize that industry partnerships are essential to the real eradication of child labor. Although there has been a tremendous amount of progress in ending child labor, now is not the time to become complacent. Unfortunately, hundreds of millions of children are still forced to work illegally for little or no pay. Economic development alone is not enough, and we must focus on human rights and educational opportunities for those in poverty. Social change must go hand in hand with economic development, which requires workers' and employers' organizations. Our keys to success will be mainstreaming child labor efforts with other human rights and development goals, as well as getting national governments, NGOs, and international organizations all working cooperatively to end child poverty. We should not think about these children only on June 12 each year. We should think about this last vestige of slavery 365 days a year. I have remained steadfast in my commitment to eliminating abusive and exploitative child labor. It was in 1992 that I first introduced a bill to ban all products made by abusive and exploitative child labor from entering the United States. In my view, we can make significant progress to eliminate this scourge if we all do our part and redouble our efforts. This means that governments must not merely pass laws but enforce them, while also striving to provide quality, free education. Businesses must take responsibility, as well, by not hiring children, and by paying adults livable wages so they can provide for their families. Multilateral institutions must also play a robust role. Together, we can eliminate the worst forms of child labor by 2016.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Menu Education and Labeling Act of 2006, along with my colleague, Senator Cantwell of Washington. Our bill would extend the successful nutrition labeling that has been on packaged foods since the mid nineties to include foods at chain restaurants with 20 or more outlets and food sold in vending machines. The aim of this bill is to help Americans to take better charge of their health by giving them the tools that they need to make sound nutrition choices for themselves and their children. It is no secret that poor health and the resulting health costs are major problems in the United States. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total health care spending in the United States in 2004 was $1.8 trillion, and is expected to double by approximately 2014. Furthermore, chronic diseases, which are, in many cases preventable, account for approximately 75 percent of health care costs annually. Poor nutrition, diet-related chronic diseases, overweight, and obesity are public health threats of the first order. Heart disease and stroke are the first and third leading causes of death in the United States and together, they account for about 40 percent of annual deaths in the United States. In addition, nearly two-thirds of adults are either overweight or obese. But it is not just adults who are affected by poor diets. Kids are increasingly at risk as well. According to the National Academy of Sciences, over the last three decades, the obesity rate has doubled among preschoolers and adolescents, and tripled for kids between ages 6 and 11. For children born today, it is estimated that 30 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls will develop diabetes. Some scientists are predicting that the current generation of children may well be the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents, largely because of poor diets and diet-related chronic disease. The issues are economic as well. The economic impact of chronic disease can be seen in the annual costs associated with various conditions. Cardiovascular disease and stroke are estimated to cost $352 billion annually. The yearly economic impacts of obesity, cancer, and diabetes are estimated at $117 billion, $172 billion, and $132 billion, respectively. So we need to promote common-sense steps to prevent these conditions. Increasing consumer knowledge is one of them. This bill will give consumers a much-needed tool to make wiser choices and achieve healthier lifestyles. Will individual steps like this, by themselves, be enough to turn the tide of chronic disease and poor health? Of course not. But we must look for opportunities to give consumers information they can use to take better control of their health. In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, NLEA, requiring food manufacturers to provide nutrition information on nearly all packaged foods. The impact has been extremely positive. Not only do nearly three-quarters of adults read and use the food labels on packaged foods, but studies indicate that consumers who read labels have healthier diets. It's time to extend this same opportunity to consumers who want to make smart nutrition choices in restaurants and at vending machines. More and more of Americans' food dollars are spent in restaurants. Restaurants play an increasingly important role in Americans' diet and health. But restaurants were excluded from the NLEA. Today, American adults and children consume a third of their calories at restaurants. Nutrition and health experts say that rising caloric consumption and growing portion sizes are causes of overweight and obesity. We also know that when children eat in restaurants, they consume twice as many calories as when they eat at home. Consumers say that they would like nutrition information provided when they order their food at restaurants. However, while they are fully informed about the nutrition content of food available in supermarkets, consumers at restaurants are almost totally in the dark, left to guess about what is in the foods they are ordering. This legislation seeks to remedy this so that consumers can make the same informed choices in a restaurant that they are currently able to make in the grocery store. This legislation requires restaurants to convey only minimal but essential information, including calories, grams of fat and trans fat, and milligrams of sodium for each serving. In addition, it recognizes there may be inadvertent human errors that affect things such as variations in serving sizes and food preparation, so the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in promulgating regulations, to allow for some reasonable leeway. And finally, it recognizes that menus change from time to time, so the labeling requirements would not apply to daily specials or to temporary menu items. In short, we are not trying to require information for every individual thing that is made available at restaurants, but we are asking restaurants to provide clear and consistent information on those menu items that are broadly and consistently available. There are some who will say this is impractical and an extraordinary burden on restaurants. I disagree. I have been through this debate before, when Congress was considering the NLEA. We heard the same parade of arguments and horror stories. But the law was passed anyway and, lo and behold, the sky did not fall. To the contrary, businesses made simple adjustments. Americans got access to the necessary information. It had positive health benefits. And at the end of the day, things worked out just fine. In fact, you can even look at the Senate to see the potential success of this law. A couple of years ago, I wrote to the administrator of the Senate cafeteria, to which I often send out for lunch. I simply requested that the cafeteria, if possible, provide nutrition information on standard menu items. Not more than a couple of months later, printed handouts were available in the cafeteria with detailed nutrition information on the daily menu. This is not McDonald's, Burger King or Arby's. This is the Senate cafeteria. And by gosh, if the Senate cafeteria can do this without an undue burden, then surely so can the largest restaurant chains in the country. I believe that most Americans want to take more charge of their health. They want to make the best decisions for both themselves and for their children. But it is hard to do so without nutrition information upon which they can base their informed decisions. This legislation seeks to give Americans the information they want and need. This will be a simple but very important step in the right direction, helping ourselves and our children to live healthier, happier, and more productive lives. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Menu Education and Labeling Act of 2006.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am dumbfounded that the Senate is debating yet another gigantic tax break for the wealthiest people in our society. The Republicans are pushing this latest giveaway despite the fact that we are facing a deficit, this year, in excess of $300 billion a year, despite the fact that they have run up $2 trillion in new debt since President Bush took office, despite the fact that they have increased spending by 25 percent in just 5 years' time, and despite the fact that we are spending $10 billion a month on seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The level of irresponsibility is just breathtaking. This is a tax break we cannot afford, benefitting people who don't need it. Currently, the estate tax impacts far less than 1 percent of the wealthiest families in America. And you can be sure that these are not families facing economic hardship or struggling to make ends meet. Repeal of the estate tax would not create a single new job. It would do nothing to increase productivity or competitiveness. It would do nothing to improve the education of our children or the general well- being of the American people. No, this is a pure and simple giveaway--a bonanza for those who have already received the lion's share of the tax breaks passed over the last 5 years. And let's be clear: There is nothing conservative about handing out tax breaks costing nearly $1 trillion, including interest, over 10 years and passing the bill to our children and grandchildren. In his State of the Union speech 3 years ago, President Bush made this statement: ``We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations.'' But that is exactly what repeal of the estate tax would do. It would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the already- massive debt that President Bush is passing on to ``other generations.'' This is not only irresponsible and reckless; it is just plain shameful. Average family farmers are being told that they need repeal of the estate tax to save them from a large burden, perhaps losing their farm to pay the tax. But this is pure propaganda. It is simply not true. The Congressional Budget Office analysis of estate tax returns from the year 2000 showed a very different picture. It showed that if we provide a $2 million exemption, $4 million for a married couple, which is the law for this year, only 123 farm-dominated estates would have had to pay any estate tax. That is a mere 123 farm-dominated estates in the entire United States. The details of the study note that, of those farm-dominated estates, only 15--15 in the entire United States--would not have sufficient liquidity to pay the tax. Only those 15 might have to sell land--though I doubt it. Large farm operations have a range of financial options to fall back on. Moreover, as a Washington Post editorial pointed out yesterday, family farm and business estate ``heirs can spread estate tax payments over 14 years, so even those without liquid assets have plenty of time to take over the farm or firm, manage it productively, and thus generate the cash to pay the tax.'' Neal Harl, one of the Nation's most respected lawyers and agricultural economists, knows of no instance where a farm has had to be sold because of the estate tax. Iowa Farm groups supporting estate tax repeal have not been able to identify even one instance, so far as I am aware. There are, indeed, some family-business-dominated estates that would have to pay some estate tax. According to the Congressional Budget Office, at the current level of exemption, there are 135 estates. Only 135 estates in the entire Nation. So why is the Senate wasting precious legislative days addressing an issue affecting only 135 estates? There is little question that the great majority of Senators-- including myself and many other Democrats--would be in favor of passing a reasonable compromise, for example a permanent exemption of at least a $2 million for an individual, $4 million for a couple that is the current exemption. Of course, I don't want to minimize or dismiss those few instances where real farmers and small business people might have difficulty paying the tax. I do believe that it should be possible to pass family farms and family businesses from one generation to the next. Bear in mind, however, that we have had substantial estate taxes for a long time. And, the reality is that many of those who face the current tax had parents who passed on those same businesses with higher rates than they face today. There is little question that the great majority of Senators-- including myself and many other Democrats--would be in favor of passing a reasonable compromise, for example a permanent exemption of at least a $2 million for an individual, $4 million for a couple. But I challenge my Republican colleagues to tell us how they intend to make up for the revenue that would be lost if a full repeal of the estate tax is passed. The difference between a $2 million exemption and full repeal is about a half trillion in the decade after 2011. How do the Republicans propose to offset that lost revenue? What do they propose to cut? Social Security? Medicare? Education? National defense? What other taxes would they increase? Or do they intend to simply pass on another half trillion in debt to our children and grandchildren? Based on the record of the last 5 years, the most likely option is that the debt would simply be passed on to future generations. Since President Bush took office, we have already piled up nearly $2 trillion in new debt. It is hard to believe, but just 6 years ago, before President Bush took office, we were running huge budget surpluses. We faced the very real prospect of completely eliminating the national debt within the decade. But those bright prospects have been squandered in reckless tax cuts and out-of-control spending. We are now running record deficits. The debt tax will rise from about $600 for every man, woman, and child in America in recent years to more than $1,000 per person in 2010 according to the President's most recent budget submission. How in the world can any responsible person who cares about the fiscal health of our Nation allow this to happen? How can anyone who believes in maintaining a ladder of economic opportunity for future generations--how can we instead saddle those future generations with a debt burden of this magnitude? As President Kennedy said, ``to govern is to choose.'' If you vote to support this estate tax repeal, who exactly are you choosing to help? Well, according to Congress Watch, and United for a Fair Economy, just 18 families are in the forefront of those demanding this repeal. Those 18 families, with over $180 billion in accumulated wealth, stand to gain more than $70 billion in reduced taxes in the coming years if the estate tax is repealed. They have been spending huge sums for lobbyists and media campaigns. And if they succeed in avoiding paying $70 billion in taxes, then who will get stuck with the bill? Of those 18 families, the biggest single beneficiary of full repeal would be the Walton family, which owns a lion's share of Wal-Mart. That one family may save as much as $30 billion. I reject that choice. I reject giving away another half trillion dollars in tax breaks to those who have already been showered with fabulous wealth and good fortune. If we are going to pass new tax breaks, let's focus on working Americans who actually need them, beginning with working parents struggling to raise their children and pay college tuition. Last month, I met with Warren Buffet, a multibillionaire and a very savvy judge of the economy and business. He said that he is working to shift some of his investments away from the dollar. He believes that the estate tax is good public policy, and he believes that a Nation that recklessly cuts taxes while racking up huge budget and trade deficits is heading for big, big trouble. We need to come to our senses. Let's freeze the tax where it is, or let's consider a somewhat higher exemption, perhaps $4 million per couple. But let's reject the notion that huge estates should be passed on at a tax rate lower than what hard-working people pay on their earned income. In any case, it is unacceptable that we on the minority side of the aisle are being denied an opportunity to propose reasonable compromise alternatives. We should not move to consider this bill until we have an agreement that Senators can have an open debate, with amendments offered and voted on by each side. And if we cannot receive such a guarantee, we should vote to reject cloture. Madam President, this bill to repeal the estate tax would give away a half trillion dollars, as compared to the law for this year. It would give away money we don't have, overwhelmingly to people who don't need it, and it would pass the resulting debt to people who haven't even been born yet. This bill, in its current form, is reckless and irresponsible. I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture. This bill certainly shouldn't go forward until we have a fair, balanced proposal allowing amendments to the bill.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Menu Education and Labeling Act of 2006, along with my colleague, Senator Cantwell of Washington. Our bill would extend the successful nutrition labeling that has been on packaged foods since the mid nineties to include foods at chain restaurants with 20 or more outlets and food sold in vending machines. The aim of this bill is to help Americans to take better charge of their health by giving them the tools that they need to make sound nutrition choices for themselves and their children. It is no secret that poor health and the resulting health costs are major problems in the United States. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, total health care spending in the United States in 2004 was $1.8 trillion, and is expected to double by approximately 2014. Furthermore, chronic diseases, which are, in many cases preventable, account for approximately 75 percent of health care costs annually. Poor nutrition, diet-related chronic diseases, overweight, and obesity are public health threats of the first order. Heart disease and stroke are the first and third leading causes of death in the United States and together, they account for about 40 percent of annual deaths in the United States. In addition, nearly two-thirds of adults are either overweight or obese. But it is not just adults who are affected by poor diets. Kids are increasingly at risk as well. According to the National Academy of Sciences, over the last three decades, the obesity rate has doubled among preschoolers and adolescents, and tripled for kids between ages 6 and 11. For children born today, it is estimated that 30 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls will develop diabetes. Some scientists are predicting that the current generation of children may well be the first in American history to live shorter lives than their parents, largely because of poor diets and diet-related chronic disease. The issues are economic as well. The economic impact of chronic disease can be seen in the annual costs associated with various conditions. Cardiovascular disease and stroke are estimated to cost $352 billion annually. The yearly economic impacts of obesity, cancer, and diabetes are estimated at $117 billion, $172 billion, and $132 billion, respectively. So we need to promote common-sense steps to prevent these conditions. Increasing consumer knowledge is one of them. This bill will give consumers a much-needed tool to make wiser choices and achieve healthier lifestyles. Will individual steps like this, by themselves, be enough to turn the tide of chronic disease and poor health? Of course not. But we must look for opportunities to give consumers information they can use to take better control of their health. In 1990, Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, NLEA, requiring food manufacturers to provide nutrition information on nearly all packaged foods. The impact has been extremely positive. Not only do nearly three-quarters of adults read and use the food labels on packaged foods, but studies indicate that consumers who read labels have healthier diets. It's time to extend this same opportunity to consumers who want to make smart nutrition choices in restaurants and at vending machines. More and more of Americans' food dollars are spent in restaurants. Restaurants play an increasingly important role in Americans' diet and health. But restaurants were excluded from the NLEA. Today, American adults and children consume a third of their calories at restaurants. Nutrition and health experts say that rising caloric consumption and growing portion sizes are causes of overweight and obesity. We also know that when children eat in restaurants, they consume twice as many calories as when they eat at home. Consumers say that they would like nutrition information provided when they order their food at restaurants. However, while they are fully informed about the nutrition content of food available in supermarkets, consumers at restaurants are almost totally in the dark, left to guess about what is in the foods they are ordering. This legislation seeks to remedy this so that consumers can make the same informed choices in a restaurant that they are currently able to make in the grocery store. This legislation requires restaurants to convey only minimal but essential information, including calories, grams of fat and trans fat, and milligrams of sodium for each serving. In addition, it recognizes there may be inadvertent human errors that affect things such as variations in serving sizes and food preparation, so the bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in promulgating regulations, to allow for some reasonable leeway. And finally, it recognizes that menus change from time to time, so the labeling requirements would not apply to daily specials or to temporary menu items. In short, we are not trying to require information for every individual thing that is made available at restaurants, but we are asking restaurants to provide clear and consistent information on those menu items that are broadly and consistently available. There are some who will say this is impractical and an extraordinary burden on restaurants. I disagree. I have been through this debate before, when Congress was considering the NLEA. We heard the same parade of arguments and horror stories. But the law was passed anyway and, lo and behold, the sky did not fall. To the contrary, businesses made simple adjustments. Americans got access to the necessary information. It had positive health benefits. And at the end of the day, things worked out just fine. In fact, you can even look at the Senate to see the potential success of this law. A couple of years ago, I wrote to the administrator of the Senate cafeteria, to which I often send out for lunch. I simply requested that the cafeteria, if possible, provide nutrition information on standard menu items. Not more than a couple of months later, printed handouts were available in the cafeteria with detailed nutrition information on the daily menu. This is not McDonald's, Burger King or Arby's. This is the Senate cafeteria. And by gosh, if the Senate cafeteria can do this without an undue burden, then surely so can the largest restaurant chains in the country. I believe that most Americans want to take more charge of their health. They want to make the best decisions for both themselves and for their children. But it is hard to do so without nutrition information upon which they can base their informed decisions. This legislation seeks to give Americans the information they want and need. This will be a simple but very important step in the right direction, helping ourselves and our children to live healthier, happier, and more productive lives. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting the Menu Education and Labeling Act of 2006.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to add my voice to the rising chorus of people both here in the Senate and back in my home State of Iowa who are fed up with the misplaced priorities of the Republican leadership in this Congress. Our country faces mounting challenges: High energy prices, skyrocketing health care costs, tens of millions of Americans without health insurance, the cost of college tuition going through the roof, individuals with minimum wage jobs going nearly a decade without a raise. So how does the leadership here respond to these challenges? By squandering a week of the Senate's time debating a constitutional marriage amendment that has already been soundly rejected by the Senate and by debating repeal of the estate tax which would benefit only about 3 out of every 1,000 people in America at the most and would add $1 trillion to the deficit in the coming years, so that the superrich can get yet another tax break, a tax break that won't build one additional school, would not provide one new additional job, while working families get absolutely nothing. Again, the great majority of American people are getting madder and madder about this. All you have to do is look at the polls of Congress. The only thing lower than President Bush's polls is the standing of Congress. You wonder why? Look at what we are debating while all of these issues go by the wayside. What about the real needs and concerns of working Americans and their families. Let me give one case in point. The majority leader cannot find time to bring H.R. 810 to the floor. It is pending at the desk. It was passed by a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives--a bill to lift restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. Evidently, we don't have time. No time? Well, the majority party found plenty of time this week for these two dubious, devisive measures. But when it comes to the No. 1 research priority of the American people--embryonic stem cell research--the majority leader refuses to bring it to the floor; we don't have the time. This is outrageous. No wonder the American people say Congress is not doing anything. We are not doing anything to address the real needs of our people. Two weeks ago, on May 24, we reached the 1-year anniversary of the House passage of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. This bill is supported by the majority of Senators on a bipartisan basis. It enjoys the support of large majorities in every public opinion poll. Yet we cannot bring it up. Removing the straitjacket on embryonic stem cell research is a matter of life and death for millions of Americans. As the Senate squanders yet another week, people we love are dying from Parkinson's and Lou Gehrig's disease and juvenile diabetes. People are unable to walk due to spinal cord injuries. These Americans are desperate for progress on embryonic stem cell research, which is being blocked by the majority leader's failure to allow H.R. 810 to come to the floor for debate and a vote. No time. Yet we have time to debate this constitutional amendment on marriage, which has been soundly rejected already by the Senate, and which everybody knows will be soundly rejected again, or we will have time to bring up for a vote the repeal of the estate tax, benefiting only the richest of the rich in our country. We have time for that, but we don't have time to bring up a bill to open the doors of medical research that hold such promise for people with incurable diseases. There are also other urgent priorities being sidetracked. Forty-five million Americans have no health insurance. The majority leader says there is no time to debate this. There is no time to consider a measure that would make it possible for small companies to offer employees a health care plan similar to the one we have in Congress. Indeed, we Democrats were prevented from getting an up-or-down vote on this during the so-called Health Care Week last month. In the Midwest, we have a bill that is very important not only for the Midwest but for the rest of the country, which is the Water Resources Development Act. We have 81 signatures on a letter, Republicans and Democrats, to the majority leader supporting this bill, asking that it be brought up. That is not only more than it takes to break a filibuster, if this was one--and I don't think there is one pending on it or to override a veto--that is more than two-thirds. Yet no action on it. I guess we don't have time. The majority leader says we have time this week to consider a mammoth tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, but we don't have any time to consider a bill to raise the minimum wage for Americans at the bottom. The minimum wage has been stuck at the low level of $5.15 for more than 9 years. During those 9 years, Members of this Senate have voted seven times to raise their salaries. Yet for those at the bottom, we don't have the time to bring a minimum wage increase bill to the floor of the Senate. If we can keep this up, the approval of Congress will go into the negatives. At least it is in the positives now. It is maybe 10 or 12 percent. If that happens, it will be the first time in history that it will be in the negatives. I don't blame the American people for having that opinion of Congress. Last month, we learned that some 26 million Americans--most veterans--had personal information stolen, including names, birth dates, Social Security numbers. This puts every one of these veterans in jeopardy of identity theft and fraud. Why are we not this week bringing to the floor the urgently needed Veterans Identity Protection Act? This bill would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide 1 year of credit monitoring to each affected person and one additional free credit report each year for the following 2 years. This bill would make a real difference for millions of veterans. Why is it being ignored? It seems to have bipartisan support. Why is it not being hotlined, as they say around here, for immediate consideration on the floor? We should bring it up this week. We should be debating that today. I guess we don't have time for that. One other matter. I don't think we have a higher priority right now in terms of our national economy and our national well-being than ending our addiction to foreign oil. Senator Lugar, a Republican, and I have a bill that would dramatically ramp up ethanol and biodiesel production. It would make these home-grown fuels available and usable at the pump and in communities all across the United States. Our national security is at stake. Why isn't this bill being brought to the floor on an expedited basis this week? The answer, Mr. President, is that we are not addressing the real concerns and priorities of the American people because the majority leader--and I assume his party--are putting their own narrow special interest priorities first. Apparently, it is more important to cater to a narrow vocal base of the Republican Party than to listen to the broad majority of the American people. It boggles the mind that the Republicans have once again brought the so-called Federal marriage amendment to the floor. It will fail this week for the same reason it failed the last time. It is because deep down inside we all know it is wrong. It is just basically wrong. Yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, said this amendment is ``a solution in search of a problem.'' He is exactly right. For more than two centuries, our States have done an excellent job of making their own laws governing marriage without Federal interference. The last time the Senate debated this amendment, the cloture vote on the motion to proceed garnered only 48 votes--12 votes short of the 60 needed to invoke cloture, and far short of the 67 votes needed to pass a constitutional amendment. You have to have 67 votes. There isn't one person here who thinks they are even close to that. They cannot even get a majority. It is not surprising. The amendment tramples on the authority of each State to regulate the civil laws of marriage within its borders--authority, by the way, I point out, that the Congress strengthened by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents any State from being forced or required to recognize a same-sex marriage in another State. Wait a minute. The Congress passed a law saying that we, the Federal Government, cannot require a State to recognize a contractual agreement in another State dealing with same-sex marriage. Well, guess what. No State has been forced to recognize a same-sex marriage or civil union joined in another State. Yet now the Republicans would have us force upon each State a constitutional amendment that would take away the right of those States to enact their own contractual laws. It seems to me that what is happening is we are going down a road rapidly of more and more power to the President of the United States, less and less power to the Congress and the courts, more and more power to the Federal Government under a President. The last time I looked, that could have been called something like a monarchy. Come to think of it, that is what we overthrew a couple hundred years ago. Most people tend to forget that when we declared our independence from Great Britain and fought the Revolutionary War and established our Constitution, England had a Parliament. But guess what. The King reigned supreme. It was King George at that time. So we recognized that. We recognized the inherent inability of the Parliament in England to go up against the King. So when we devised our Constitution, that is why we had the separation of powers--the courts, the Congress, and the President, all separate and equal. Then we reserved to the States certain powers not enumerated in the Constitution. One of the powers is the right to set contractual laws. Now this Republican Congress wants to take that away. It is almost like we are going full circle back to the monarchy of Great Britain--a Congress that lays prone before the President--a President that is able to tap your phones, read your e-mails under some guise of a power that, since we are at war, he can do whatever he wants, taking away our civil rights and liberties. What does Congress do? Nothing. We sit back and let it go on. Now we are going to take another step to take away power from the States. Well, again, this is something that is inherently wrong. It is wrong to take away this power from the States, take away the authority to set up their own contractual framework. As Senator Kennedy said, I think eloquently, a few moments ago, it should be the right of every religion, under the freedom of religion, to decide the sacramental laws of marriage as defined by that religion. But when it comes to the contractual right, the civil right, that is determined by the State. That is why when you go to get married, you do two things--find a minister, a rabbi, a priest, whatever, but then you have to go to the courthouse of your State and get a license. Why? Because you are entering a contractual relationship. That is what this amendment would take away. Again, I would defend to the death the right of a religion to determine its own sacramental laws of what it determines a marriage to be, but also defend the right of a State to set up its own contractual laws within and under the umbrella of equal rights for all and nondiscrimination under the Constitution of the United States. Senator Kennedy referred to it, and I will refer to it again. It wasn't too long ago where people of different races could not get married in this country. States had laws that said a Black person could not marry a White American, or an Oriental could not marry a Black or a White. You could not marry someone of another race. It is not too long ago in my own lifetime, but that was true. Discrimination is what it was. The courts struck it down. Would these same Republicans who keep coming here saying the courts should not be interfering in this say the courts should not have interfered there, too; that we should have left those discriminatory laws intact under the Constitution of the United States? I keep hearing all this stuff about protecting the American family. I submit to my friends on the other side, if they really want to do that, how about raising the minimum wage? That would do more to protect the American family than anything they are talking about here. How about addressing the skyrocketing health care costs? How about the high cost of gasoline? If they want to defend the American family, how about giving access to health insurance to 45 million people a day who can't afford it? If they want to defend the American family, how about doing something about the rising cost of college tuition in this country and helping low and moderate families meet those costs of college education? In other words, if Majority Leader Frist and his party want to protect the American family, why don't they deal with the real challenges confronting families instead of wasting the Senate's time on this cynical, trumped-up issue of same-sex marriage? Why can't we make bipartisan progress on issues such as providing access to health insurance and raising the minimum wage? I close by making one point very clear: If the Democrats were in charge of the Senate, if we were setting the agenda, we would be charting a different course for our Nation. We would not be wasting the Senate's time on divisive, partisan constitutional amendments which seek to divide our people, pit families one against another, pit Americans one against another by dividing us. We would not be passing yet another mammoth tax cut for the wealthiest in our society called the estate tax, a tax we can't afford for people who don't need it. If we could set the agenda, we would have the minimum wage issue out here. We would have a health care issue out here. We would have issues out here that provide for families getting a college education for their kids. We would have bills on the floor addressing the addiction to oil and moving us to more energy independence. Every day it is becoming clearer and clearer to the American people that they face a choice: We can stay the current course--more divisiveness, more deficits, more debt, more drift--or a new direction for our country. If the majority party wants to continue to squander our time and taxpayers' money, as they are doing this week, well, that is their choice. But the American people get to choose, too. The American people are eager to cut out this divisiveness, to move on to the real agenda that confronts our country, to move in a very different direction, and I say it is time to do that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my friend from California. Again, the orange card program will increase participation by decreasing fear. More people will come forward because fewer families will be separated. They will become full participants. It is pro- family, pro-work, pro-American, pro-national security. Let me close by saying one personal thing. My mother came to this country as an immigrant. I have the documentation when she came to this country. Was she legal? Well, I don't know. She came on a boat with a lot of other people--steerage class. They landed in Boston. They could not get into New York because of a storm. They landed in Boston. She had $7 in her pocket and a one-way train ticket to Des Moines, IA. Yet she became a fully contributing member of our American community. Later on she became a citizen. So when I see our new immigrants, and I look into their face, I see the face of my mother. Why do we have an immigration problem in America? Because people want to come here. They want to work. They love America. They love our freedoms. They love our society and the opportunities that it presents. This is not the time to go to some convoluted thing such as the Hagel-Martinez amendment, which is going to make the mess even messier. It is going to make it even worse. Let's clear it up once and for all, in a fair and equitable manner. And the only way to do that, I submit, is with the Feinstein amendment. I thank the Senator from California for coming up with this amendment. I am proud to be her cosponsor.

Mr. HARKIN. I commend and compliment my distinguished colleague from California for presenting this amendment. I wonder if I might engage in a little colloquy with the author of this amendment. I am proud to join her as a cosponsor because this is the way we have to go. I was interested in the pie chart that showed the 4.4 million, if I added it correctly, the people here less than 2 years and those here 2 years to 5 years. All of those people have to leave the country?

Mr. HARKIN. Under Hagel-Martinez?

Mr. HARKIN. Up to 10 minutes.

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. I thank my colleague from California for offering this amendment. Quite frankly, the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein is the only way I see that we can get out of the mess we are in, so to speak, with all of the undocumented people here, in a way that is pro-family, pro- worker, pro-American, pro-national security. The amendment offered by the Senator from California meets all of those requirements. It will cost a heck of a lot less, just in terms of dollars. While I respect the efforts by Senators Hagel and Martinez and others to craft some sort of compromise, the fact is the Hagel-Martinez bill will be difficult, costly to implement, will tend to separate families and will not be in the best interests of our country. Quite frankly, as the Senator from California just pointed out, we do not even know if it is workable. How are you going to find these people? As the Senator so aptly pointed out, people who have been here just shy of 2 years, by a month, aren't they going to find some documentation, forging rent receipts, and things like that, to make it seem as though they have been here at least 2 years? And those who have been here 3 to 5 years, won't the same thing happen there also? The Hagel-Martinez compromise is totally unworkable. By contrast, the approach taken by Senator Feinstein to create a new kind of an orange card--because this is a unique group of people--this orange card is realistic, and it is enforceable, and it is fair. It would require undocumented immigrants, as the Senator said, to register immediately with the Department of Homeland Security. Once they have passed a criminal and national security background check, they could apply for an orange card. As the Senator said, they would have to pay a $2,000 fine, any back taxes owed, learn English and American civics, and pass extensive criminal and security background checks. Then, after working for at least 6 years, orange card holders could apply for legal permanent residence, but, again, as the Senator pointed out, they would have to get in back of all the green card holders who are existent right now. So, again, this is a tough approach, but it is workable. It will work. It is fair. And, as I said, it will cost a lot less money and a lot less manpower to implement. I think, as the Senator from California said, we just have to deal with reality, what is real. Twelve million undocumented immigrants, many who have lived here for many years, have children, family members who are U.S. citizens. They are working. They are contributing to society. They may be undocumented. They may be living in the shadows. But, make no mistake about it, they are de facto members of the American economy and the American society. They are integrated into the fabric of our national life. They are filling jobs that in many cases would otherwise go unfilled. In essence, they are a part of our American family. And they are not going away. In fact, we would face huge problems if they did. Just last week, I say to my friend from California, a delegation from the Marshalltown, IA, Chamber of Commerce was in town. Several of them pointed out that immigrants play an indispensable role in the Marshalltown economy. As one put it: If you rounded up and kicked out all the immigrants, our city's economy would come to a screeching halt. I say to my friend from California, I was in Denison, IA, on Friday. There is a Job Corps center there. It is a small-town community in western Iowa. They have a couple meatpacking plants there. So we have a lot of Latinos who come in from Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, places like that. The mayor took me aside and he said: I want to talk to you about immigration. I didn't know which side he was coming from. He said: I just wanted to let you know how important it is to Denison that you resolve this in a fair and equitable manner. He said: We have people here who have bought homes that were abandoned. People have left town because the town was kind of dying out. They bought these homes. They fixed them up. Then he told me something very interesting. He said: A lot of Latinos have taken over small businesses on Main Street. They are operating these small businesses that were going out of business. He said: If you want an answer to Wal-Mart, here is your answer to Wal-Mart. He said: They are actually running businesses on Main Street in Denison. He said: I know for a fact that many of them are undocumented aliens. He said: We cannot afford to lose them. So it is not just in the big cities, I say to my friend--Los Angeles and San Francisco--but in the small towns and small communities of rural Iowa that would be drastically affected by the Hagel-Martinez so- called compromise. Most of these new immigrants have found work, but they have not found freedom. This spring, at United Trinity Methodist Church in Des Moines, IA, I met with a group of new immigrants, and I asked how many of them were undocumented. I looked around. They didn't know whether to raise their hand, and finally they decided, OK, they would. I would say probably a third of them were undocumented. They are living in the shadows. They live in fear. Many pay taxes. They make Social Security payments, but they receive nothing in return. They want to become loyal, contributing American citizens, to pursue the American dream. But, instead, they are living an American nightmare of anxiety and exclusion and exploitation. One young girl there was 18 years old, just graduating from high school, who wants to go on to college. They have no money. Her folks work. They have a modest income. We know what college tuitions are like. She came here as a 3-year-old when her folks fled the strife in El Salvador. She is now 18. She is undocumented. She has no papers. She cannot get any loans to go to college. She cannot get any college aid or anything else to help her through. She just wants to be a good American citizen. What about her? What are we going to do about people like that? So it is time to find a constructive and positive way to bring these people out of the shadows and into the sunshine. The Feinstein amendment does it. It establishes a legal framework, where people can learn English. They have to learn English. They have to pass security background checks, pay the fines and penalties, and can earn the right to eventually become U.S. citizens.

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

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

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