Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Today, I am introducing, along with Senators Lugar, Johnson, Dorgan and Biden, tax legislation that is designed to complement the Biofuels Security Act of 2006, also being introduced today. I will walk through these provisions very briefly. The legislation amends the existing tax credit for installing alternative fueling infrastructure, such as E85 fueling pumps and tanks which was enacted as part of last year's energy bill. That existing provision allows a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of installation, with a maximum credit of $30,000. Our bill modifies this credit in three ways. First, we would eliminate availability of the credit for the large oil companies that would be required to install such E85 pumps under the companion Biofuels Security Act. These companies have the financial wherewithal to install these pumps without the need for a tax credit. Second, for retailers who would not be required to install E85 pumps and tanks under our proposed legislation, our bill would enhance the tax credit to 50 percent of the cost of installation, with a maximum credit of $30,000. Third, for small retailers, that is, those with 5 or fewer stations, our bill would increase the credit to 75 percent of the cost of installation, up to a maximum credit of $45,000. This tax legislation would also create a new consumer tax credit for the purchase of flexfuel vehicles if the vehicles have no fuel efficiency loss from the use of E85 as compared to regular gasoline. Current flex-fuel models do have some mileage loss. We understand that there is technology available--for example, a Saab ``biofuel'' flex- fuel E-85 vehicle on the market in parts of Europe--allowing vehicles to have no fuel efficiency loss when burning E85 in comparison to gasoline, and perhaps even some mileage gain. The tax incentive we propose here will help foster further development of biofuels-related technology and promote better fuel efficiency as well. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, high prices for gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum-based energy continue to cause pain for millions of people, in Iowa and all across the country. Our dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our national security. If we are serious about national security, we need a bold national commitment to renewable energy--a commitment on par with the Apollo moon-shot program in the 1960s. Today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar in proposing a major component of such a program--the Biofuels Security Act--a comprehensive plan to ramp-up ethanol and biodiesel production, and to make it available and usable at the pump in every State in America. Perhaps Senator Lugar said it best earlier this year when he commented that energy is the albatross around the neck of U.S. national security. The distinguished senior Senator from Indiana has been a thoughtful, prescient thinker about the national security implications of our addiction to foreign oil, and I am delighted to be joining with him, today. Senators Johnson, Dorgan and Biden are also original cosponsors of this legislation, for which I am grateful. The Senators have been outspoken champions of biofuels for many years now, and strong advocates for their home States. The goal of this legislation is to help restore America's energy security--which, in this day and age, is synonymous with national security. Transportation fuels, accounting for two-thirds of our oil imports, are the place to start this transition. Our plan has three key components. First, we are proposing a substantially higher, but achievable, renewable fuels standard or RFS, requiring that our Nation blend into the gasoline supply 10 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by the year 2010, 30 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by the year 2020 and 60 billion gallons annually in the year 2030. The current RFS is 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2012. At the time we enacted the present RFS in last year's energy bill, many of us believed this was a reasonably ambitious schedule. However, it is now evident that biofuels growth will outpace this figure within the next couple of years--well in advance of the 2012 target date. This is very good news. Second, our plan would make E85--the blend of gasoline and 85 percent ethanol--available at gas stations all across America. Major oil companies would be required to increase the number of E85 pumps at their stations by 5 percentage points annually. Within a decade, approximately 25 percent of gas stations nationwide would be required to have E85 pumps. The major oil companies have the financial wherewithal--and the ability--to provide E85 infrastructure at a growing percentage of gasoline stations over the next decade. This is a reasonable, responsible reinvestment of a fraction of their recent earnings in the many billions of dollars. The bottom line is that our domestic oil companies have a shared responsibility to help enhance our energy security, and this is one excellent way for them to contribute. Third, our plan would make flex-fuel vehicles nearly universal in the United States. Automakers would be required to increase the production of flex-fuel vehicles--capable of using both gasoline and 85 percent ethanol blends--by 10 percentage points annually, until nearly all new vehicles sold in the U.S. are flex-fuel within a decade. Our legislation calls for all of the auto manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of FFVs, rising to 100 percent of vehicles 10,000 pounds or less over the next decade. This is eminently achievable, and probably easy enough to do much sooner than that. Recent estimates for the extra cost of manufacturing an FFV are as low as $30. It is a matter of modifying the engine, fuel line and adding a fuel sensor, which most vehicles have anyway. That is less expensive than many other federal requirements for the auto industry. Air bags are more expensive, for instance. And the bottom line is FFVs are being sold for the same price as regular cars. America's dependence on foreign oil is the source of so many of our problems, today. We are transferring vast amounts of wealth to regimes that are not friendly to our interests. We are vulnerable to price hikes and embargoes. Millions of petrodollars are finding their way into the hands of terrorists and other extremists. And we are accelerating the pace of global warming. Substituting biofuels for oil in the transportation sector won't solve these problems overnight, but it will make a difference, and a potentially dramatic one in the longer run. Let me mention a few eye-opening facts and figures to illustrate these points. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population, but we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. If crude oil prices remain above $60 a barrel this year, we will spend well over $300 billion on oil imports. Projections indicate that, over the next 25 years, world demand for energy will grow by 50 percent. All of this growth in energy use, of course, contributes to dangerously rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The reality is that gasoline is much more costly than most Americans realize, even at $3 a gallon. According to a recent study entitled the ``The Hidden Cost of Oil,'' gas really costs more than $10 a gallon. This is because of all the costs we don't factor into its price at the pump, including wars, other military expenses, subsidies, and so on. There is no question that the ambitious goals set forth in this bill are achievable. Several decades ago, Brazil committed itself to a similar course. Renewable fuels have played a big part in Brazil's achieving energy independence. Currently, ethanol production in the U.S. is increasing by 25 percent annually. If we sustain that rate of increase, we will be able to reach the aggressive renewable fuels standard in the Harkin-Lugar plan. In fact, we will be able to beat it. For example, Brazil, years ago directed that all gasoline stations carry ethanol as an alternative fuel. Our legislation would require the major oil companies to do their share by installing E85 pumps over the next decade. This should not pose too much of a challenge or burden. Another key to Brazil's success is the fact that, in just 3 years' time, nearly 70 percent of new vehicles sold there are flex-fuel vehicles. We are asking the auto companies to accomplish a similar goal of nearly universal production, only we are giving them a decade to phase in the production and sale of flex-fuel vehicles. Most of the companies that sell vehicles in the United States also sell them in Brazil. If they can produce flex-fuel vehicles for Brazil, they can also produce them for the United States. Let me explain in more detail why what Senator Lugar and I are proposing can be accomplished. The 10 billion gallon goal can certainly be met by 2010. The ethanol industry will produce more than 4.5 billion gallons this year. There are 97 ethanol plants in operation, with 35 more coming on-line in the near future. Biodiesel production is growing remarkably, as well, at more than 60 plants nationwide. The 30-billion-gallon and 60-billion-gallon targets are attainable, as well. A joint study by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy found that biofuels could supply 60 billion gallons of renewable fuels a year--30 percent of current U.S. gasoline consumption--on existing lands without any disruption to our food or feed supply. The key to ramping-up production will be commercializing ethanol made from feedstocks in addition to corn and other grains, including corn stover, straw from wheat and other crops, switchgrass or even trees. There are a host of provisions that I and others authored in the energy bill-- ranging from loan guarantees to increased biomass research and development--to make cellulosic ethanol production a reality. Currently, at least three companies are planning commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants. They could be operating within the next 2 to 3 years. One company, Iogen, has the backing of Shell Oil. Just 2 weeks ago, according to reports, Iogen received a cash infusion from Goldman Sachs. By setting an ambitious new RFS, with a sufficient lead time, I believe the 60-billion-gallon threshold is not only attainable, but beatable. In any case, should something unexpected happen to interfere with reaching these benchmarks, the Environmental Protection Agency has, within the existing RFS, authority to waive the requirement in whole or in part based on a finding of insufficient supply. If we take bold actions to guarantee the fuel supply, if we increase the number of flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on E85, and if we increase the infrastructure ofE85 pumps, we will be poised to usher in a new era of energy security much sooner than previously imagined. That is the foundation we lay in this legislation. This bill would also require that 100 percent of new vehicles purchased for federal fleets be alternative-fueled vehicles, which could include flex-fuel vehicles. The current requirement is 75 percent. I do not see why we shouldn't expect the federal government to be as aggressive as possible in this area. Last year's energy bill closed a loophole in the purchasing requirement that had allowed agencies to buy alternative-fuel vehicles but not use alternative fuels such as E85. That was a step forward. Requiring all the federal fleet to be alternative fueled is yet another step forward in having the Federal Government lead by example when it comes to alternative fuels. We also update the Gasohol Competition Act of 1980, legislation designed many years ago to ensure the reasonable availability of ethanol at the pump, so it applies to high blends such as E85 and so that oil companies cannot prevent a franchisee from installing E85 pumps. The concern back then, and still today, is that petroleum companies were unreasonably preventing or prohibiting ethanol-blended fuels from being offered at gasoline stations. The Gasohol Competition Act did two things. First, it made it unlawful to charge additional credit card fees for gasohol. Second, it prohibited unreasonable discrimination against the sale of gasohol. Our legislation would update the Gasohol Competition Act to prohibit discrimination against E85. We are also proposing several relatively modest tax components designed to bolster this legislation which will be introduced as stand- alone legislation. The oil-producing countries think they have us over a barrel, but they will soon get the message: We have had enough. And we are dead serious about determining our own energy future. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, high prices for gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum-based energy continue to cause pain for millions of people, in Iowa and all across the country. Our dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our national security. If we are serious about national security, we need a bold national commitment to renewable energy--a commitment on par with the Apollo moon-shot program in the 1960s. Today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar in proposing a major component of such a program--the Biofuels Security Act--a comprehensive plan to ramp-up ethanol and biodiesel production, and to make it available and usable at the pump in every State in America. Perhaps Senator Lugar said it best earlier this year when he commented that energy is the albatross around the neck of U.S. national security. The distinguished senior Senator from Indiana has been a thoughtful, prescient thinker about the national security implications of our addiction to foreign oil, and I am delighted to be joining with him, today. Senators Johnson, Dorgan and Biden are also original cosponsors of this legislation, for which I am grateful. The Senators have been outspoken champions of biofuels for many years now, and strong advocates for their home States. The goal of this legislation is to help restore America's energy security--which, in this day and age, is synonymous with national security. Transportation fuels, accounting for two-thirds of our oil imports, are the place to start this transition. Our plan has three key components. First, we are proposing a substantially higher, but achievable, renewable fuels standard or RFS, requiring that our Nation blend into the gasoline supply 10 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by the year 2010, 30 billion gallons of renewable fuel annually by the year 2020 and 60 billion gallons annually in the year 2030. The current RFS is 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels in 2012. At the time we enacted the present RFS in last year's energy bill, many of us believed this was a reasonably ambitious schedule. However, it is now evident that biofuels growth will outpace this figure within the next couple of years--well in advance of the 2012 target date. This is very good news. Second, our plan would make E85--the blend of gasoline and 85 percent ethanol--available at gas stations all across America. Major oil companies would be required to increase the number of E85 pumps at their stations by 5 percentage points annually. Within a decade, approximately 25 percent of gas stations nationwide would be required to have E85 pumps. The major oil companies have the financial wherewithal--and the ability--to provide E85 infrastructure at a growing percentage of gasoline stations over the next decade. This is a reasonable, responsible reinvestment of a fraction of their recent earnings in the many billions of dollars. The bottom line is that our domestic oil companies have a shared responsibility to help enhance our energy security, and this is one excellent way for them to contribute. Third, our plan would make flex-fuel vehicles nearly universal in the United States. Automakers would be required to increase the production of flex-fuel vehicles--capable of using both gasoline and 85 percent ethanol blends--by 10 percentage points annually, until nearly all new vehicles sold in the U.S. are flex-fuel within a decade. Our legislation calls for all of the auto manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of FFVs, rising to 100 percent of vehicles 10,000 pounds or less over the next decade. This is eminently achievable, and probably easy enough to do much sooner than that. Recent estimates for the extra cost of manufacturing an FFV are as low as $30. It is a matter of modifying the engine, fuel line and adding a fuel sensor, which most vehicles have anyway. That is less expensive than many other federal requirements for the auto industry. Air bags are more expensive, for instance. And the bottom line is FFVs are being sold for the same price as regular cars. America's dependence on foreign oil is the source of so many of our problems, today. We are transferring vast amounts of wealth to regimes that are not friendly to our interests. We are vulnerable to price hikes and embargoes. Millions of petrodollars are finding their way into the hands of terrorists and other extremists. And we are accelerating the pace of global warming. Substituting biofuels for oil in the transportation sector won't solve these problems overnight, but it will make a difference, and a potentially dramatic one in the longer run. Let me mention a few eye-opening facts and figures to illustrate these points. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population, but we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. If crude oil prices remain above $60 a barrel this year, we will spend well over $300 billion on oil imports. Projections indicate that, over the next 25 years, world demand for energy will grow by 50 percent. All of this growth in energy use, of course, contributes to dangerously rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The reality is that gasoline is much more costly than most Americans realize, even at $3 a gallon. According to a recent study entitled the ``The Hidden Cost of Oil,'' gas really costs more than $10 a gallon. This is because of all the costs we don't factor into its price at the pump, including wars, other military expenses, subsidies, and so on. There is no question that the ambitious goals set forth in this bill are achievable. Several decades ago, Brazil committed itself to a similar course. Renewable fuels have played a big part in Brazil's achieving energy independence. Currently, ethanol production in the U.S. is increasing by 25 percent annually. If we sustain that rate of increase, we will be able to reach the aggressive renewable fuels standard in the Harkin-Lugar plan. In fact, we will be able to beat it. For example, Brazil, years ago directed that all gasoline stations carry ethanol as an alternative fuel. Our legislation would require the major oil companies to do their share by installing E85 pumps over the next decade. This should not pose too much of a challenge or burden. Another key to Brazil's success is the fact that, in just 3 years' time, nearly 70 percent of new vehicles sold there are flex-fuel vehicles. We are asking the auto companies to accomplish a similar goal of nearly universal production, only we are giving them a decade to phase in the production and sale of flex-fuel vehicles. Most of the companies that sell vehicles in the United States also sell them in Brazil. If they can produce flex-fuel vehicles for Brazil, they can also produce them for the United States. Let me explain in more detail why what Senator Lugar and I are proposing can be accomplished. The 10 billion gallon goal can certainly be met by 2010. The ethanol industry will produce more than 4.5 billion gallons this year. There are 97 ethanol plants in operation, with 35 more coming on-line in the near future. Biodiesel production is growing remarkably, as well, at more than 60 plants nationwide. The 30-billion-gallon and 60-billion-gallon targets are attainable, as well. A joint study by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy found that biofuels could supply 60 billion gallons of renewable fuels a year--30 percent of current U.S. gasoline consumption--on existing lands without any disruption to our food or feed supply. The key to ramping-up production will be commercializing ethanol made from feedstocks in addition to corn and other grains, including corn stover, straw from wheat and other crops, switchgrass or even trees. There are a host of provisions that I and others authored in the energy bill-- ranging from loan guarantees to increased biomass research and development--to make cellulosic ethanol production a reality. Currently, at least three companies are planning commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants. They could be operating within the next 2 to 3 years. One company, Iogen, has the backing of Shell Oil. Just 2 weeks ago, according to reports, Iogen received a cash infusion from Goldman Sachs. By setting an ambitious new RFS, with a sufficient lead time, I believe the 60-billion-gallon threshold is not only attainable, but beatable. In any case, should something unexpected happen to interfere with reaching these benchmarks, the Environmental Protection Agency has, within the existing RFS, authority to waive the requirement in whole or in part based on a finding of insufficient supply. If we take bold actions to guarantee the fuel supply, if we increase the number of flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on E85, and if we increase the infrastructure ofE85 pumps, we will be poised to usher in a new era of energy security much sooner than previously imagined. That is the foundation we lay in this legislation. This bill would also require that 100 percent of new vehicles purchased for federal fleets be alternative-fueled vehicles, which could include flex-fuel vehicles. The current requirement is 75 percent. I do not see why we shouldn't expect the federal government to be as aggressive as possible in this area. Last year's energy bill closed a loophole in the purchasing requirement that had allowed agencies to buy alternative-fuel vehicles but not use alternative fuels such as E85. That was a step forward. Requiring all the federal fleet to be alternative fueled is yet another step forward in having the Federal Government lead by example when it comes to alternative fuels. We also update the Gasohol Competition Act of 1980, legislation designed many years ago to ensure the reasonable availability of ethanol at the pump, so it applies to high blends such as E85 and so that oil companies cannot prevent a franchisee from installing E85 pumps. The concern back then, and still today, is that petroleum companies were unreasonably preventing or prohibiting ethanol-blended fuels from being offered at gasoline stations. The Gasohol Competition Act did two things. First, it made it unlawful to charge additional credit card fees for gasohol. Second, it prohibited unreasonable discrimination against the sale of gasohol. Our legislation would update the Gasohol Competition Act to prohibit discrimination against E85. We are also proposing several relatively modest tax components designed to bolster this legislation which will be introduced as stand- alone legislation. The oil-producing countries think they have us over a barrel, but they will soon get the message: We have had enough. And we are dead serious about determining our own energy future. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. HARKIN. Today, I am introducing, along with Senators Lugar, Johnson, Dorgan and Biden, tax legislation that is designed to complement the Biofuels Security Act of 2006, also being introduced today. I will walk through these provisions very briefly. The legislation amends the existing tax credit for installing alternative fueling infrastructure, such as E85 fueling pumps and tanks which was enacted as part of last year's energy bill. That existing provision allows a tax credit of 30 percent of the cost of installation, with a maximum credit of $30,000. Our bill modifies this credit in three ways. First, we would eliminate availability of the credit for the large oil companies that would be required to install such E85 pumps under the companion Biofuels Security Act. These companies have the financial wherewithal to install these pumps without the need for a tax credit. Second, for retailers who would not be required to install E85 pumps and tanks under our proposed legislation, our bill would enhance the tax credit to 50 percent of the cost of installation, with a maximum credit of $30,000. Third, for small retailers, that is, those with 5 or fewer stations, our bill would increase the credit to 75 percent of the cost of installation, up to a maximum credit of $45,000. This tax legislation would also create a new consumer tax credit for the purchase of flexfuel vehicles if the vehicles have no fuel efficiency loss from the use of E85 as compared to regular gasoline. Current flex-fuel models do have some mileage loss. We understand that there is technology available--for example, a Saab ``biofuel'' flex- fuel E-85 vehicle on the market in parts of Europe--allowing vehicles to have no fuel efficiency loss when burning E85 in comparison to gasoline, and perhaps even some mileage gain. The tax incentive we propose here will help foster further development of biofuels-related technology and promote better fuel efficiency as well. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to salute the achievement of four Des Moines police officers who received richly earned recognition from the National Association of Police Organizations last week at the TOP COPS Awards here in Washington. Every year for the past 13 years, the National Association of Police Organizations has presented awards to outstanding law enforcement officers across the country for their actions above and beyond the call of duty. This year, Captain Kelly Willis, Sergeant Jeff Edwards, and Officers Chris Hardy and Robert Clark, all of the Des Moines Police Department, were recognized for their professionalism and valor in saving the life of a teenage robbery suspect. Last winter, when officers attempted to stop a stolen vehicle being driven, the suspect, a teenager from Nebraska, abandoned the vehicle and attempted to swim across the icy waters of the Des Moines River. Sergeant Edwards and Officer Hardy realized the teen was in trouble when the suspect grew tired and his head went under water. They understood the risks of entering the frigid river; nonetheless, they jumped in after the teen and attempted to pull him ashore. Captain Willis and Officer Clark also entered the river to assist with the rescue. After pulling the teenager to shore, Officer Clark performed CPR on the unconscious teen, who was taken to the hospital in critical condition but eventually recovered. I congratulate these four public servants for their courageous actions last winter. Law enforcement officers are often required to make life-or-death decisions in a split second. This requires superb training and excellent judgment, which these four officers clearly possess in abundance. The people of Des Moines are very fortunate to be served by such outstanding professionals. I thank these four officers for their service, and I congratulate them on their well-deserved recognition by their peers at the TOP COP Awards program last week.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if you want to know why this Republican- controlled Congress's approval rating has plunged to 22 percent and why President Bush's approval rating is an equally dismal 31 percent, exhibit A is this reckless, irresponsible tax reconciliation bill. Let's consider the context in which the Republicans are pushing this latest giveaway of $70 billion, all of which will be added to the deficit and national debt: The Republicans are ramming through these new tax breaks despite the fact that they we are facing a deficit, this year, in excess of $300 billion a year despite the fact that they have run up $2 trillion in new debt since President Bush took office, despite the fact that they are trying to raise the debt limit to an astonishing $10 trillion, despite the fact that we are spending $10 billion a month on their endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and despite the fact that they have increased spending by 25 percent in just 5 years' time. The level of irresponsibility here is just breathtaking. There is nothing conservative about handing out $2 trillion in tax breaks over 5 years and passing the bill to our children and grandchildren. Rather than providing for our children's education, health, and well-being, this bill will provide them with another huge dose of our debt. That is plain, old-fashioned recklessness and irresponsibility. It is simply shameful. In his State of the Union speech 3 years ago, President Bush made this statement: We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. But that is exactly what this new tax-break bill will do. It will add to the $2 trillion in new debt that President Bush is passing on to other generations. It will deliberately create a fiscal time bomb set to detonate on January 1, 2011, which a future President and future Congress will somehow have to defuse. And it will result in higher interest rates in the years ahead--indeed, interest rates are already rising rapidly. This morning's New York Times runs two editorials that are dead on. One editorial is titled, The Republican Agenda for 2006: Tax Cuts for a Favored Few. The second editorial is titled, The Republican Agenda for 2006: Tax Increases for Everyone Else. This bill is one of the most cynical giveaways to the wealthy we have seen. If this bill were entirely in effect this year, taxpayers making more than $1 million a year would be getting an average tax cut of more than $40,000 this year, enough to buy a new Mercedes. Taxpayers with middle incomes will get an average tax cut that may pay for a tank of gas or tow, for many it will be less than that. According to the Brookings Tax Policy Center, assuming that all of major tax provisions were put into place this year, taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year will get seven-eights of the benefits in this reconciliation bill. Taxpayers in the lower 60 percent of the income scale--average working Americans--will get only 1 percent of the benefits in this bill--1 percent. This is simply outrageous. But the cynicism does not stop there. The Republican tax conferees glued this package together with the worst kind of gimmickry. In order to stuff more tax breaks into this bill, they deliberately designed it in such a way as keep the revenues just within the $70 billion limit over 5 years. But they did it in a way that will drain countless billions of dollars from the Treasury in the decades beyond the budget window. How did they do this? They put in provisions to encourage the wealthy to convert their 401(k) plans and regular IRAs into Roth IRAs, which, itself, will be a bonanza for the rich. As one newspaper put it, this morning: This is what passes for fairness in Washington these days: a big windfall for the wealthy to ``pay for'' another tax cut for the wealthy. The core of this bill is an extension of the 15 percent tax on capital gains from 2008 to 2010. To make this possible, the tax-writers jettisoned two very useful provisions that help ordinary Americans. They did not extend the work opportunity tax credit, which creates incentives to provide job training for the more difficult to employ in our society, and they did not extend the research and development tax credit, which promotes improvements in our efficiency and the development of new products. Those provisions have already expired. Because this bill costs more than the $70 billion allowed, offsets were needed. Did the tax writers cut the billions in excessive tax breaks going to the oil companies--provisions such as the last in first out rule on their overseas operations? Even the oil company executives have said they don't need this. After all, Exxon made $36 billion last year. Exxon payed its CEO more than $140,000 a day. But the tax-writers didn't touch this tax break for the oil companies which had been in the Senate bill. Republicans claim that their endless tax cuts have created a strong economy, and that the tax cuts will almost pay for themselves by creating new revenue. This is the old supply-side economic theory--you know, the idea that the best way to feed the sparrows is to give an extra big bag of oats to the horse. The first President Bush got it right; he called it ``voodoo economics.'' The truth is that current economic growth and job creation during this recovery are well below normal, and they are well below the levels we saw when President Clinton was doing what was necessary to balance the budget. Let's look at this economy. Business investment always recovers after a recession. But, by historical standards, we have seen a sluggish recovery in business investment. In the past 5 years, business investment has grown 65 percent more slowly than the average for all recoveries since World War II. In the early 1990s, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton signed significant tax increases into law in order to balance the budget. But business investment was far greater during that period. In addition, job creation during this recovery has been anemic, at best. Last Friday, the administration ballyhooed the fact that 138,000 jobs were created in April. The cheerleaders didn't mention that 138,000 new jobs is not even enough to keep pace with population growth. And it is less than half of the job creation we experienced, month after month, under President Clinton. Remember, he dared to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to balance the budget, and the resulting economic boom created more millionaires than any recovery in history. When President Bush passed his third round of tax breaks in 2003, he claimed that it would create 5.5 million new jobs by the end of 2004. That was when Congress cut the tax rate on dividends and capital gains, which the current bill would extend. That bill did not create the promised 5.5 million new jobs. Job growth was only 2.4 million, less then the norm without tax cuts. Over the past 19 quarters since the recession, the growth in employment has been consistently below normal. Meanwhile, incomes of workers have not kept up with inflation. We have seen the same disappointing results in terms of gross domestic product. Since the end of the last recession, GDP growth has been less then the average GDP growth following recessions since World War II. And what about the Republicans' argument that tax cuts largely pay for themselves? Are they kidding? They have passed $2 trillion in tax cuts over the last 5 years. And, over that same period of time, the national debt has increased by--you guessed it--$2 trillion. Yes, we are seeing an increase in revenues at the moment, as one would expect during a recovery. But our revenue estimates are actually below the levels predicted by the Congressional Budget Office in early 2003, before we passed the capital gains and dividend tax breaks we are rushing to extend today. And let me make one more point about these tax breaks on capital gains and dividends. Over and over again, our friends on the other side of the aisle claim that middle-income families are big beneficiaries of these breaks. Yes, but the typical middle-income taxpayer gains a $20 cut here and a $100 cut there. But the lion's share of the benefits go to you know who. Half of the benefits go to those making more than $200,000 a year. When we just look at the cut in the capital gains and dividends rate: over half of those benefits go to those making over a million a year and over 93 percent of those benefits go to those making over $100,000 a year, according to a table just released by the Joint Tax Committee. This reconciliation bill gives $70 billion that we do not have, overwhelmingly to people who don't need it; and it passes the resulting debt to people who haven't even been born yet. This bill is reckless. It is irresponsible. And it is shameful. I urge my colleagues to defeat this conference report so we can substitute a responsible bill--a bill that is progressively paid for, that prevents the alternative minimum tax from penalizing middle-income taxpayers, and that extends job training and the R&D tax credit.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, something is wrong when 45 million Americans, 8 out of 10 of them in working families, cannot afford access to quality health insurance. This past weekend I met a woman in Des Moines who has been without health insurance for herself and her daughter since her husband died several years ago. She works hard as an administrative assistant in a small law office. She lives, like many Iowans, from paycheck to paycheck. She cannot afford private health insurance and she makes too much money to qualify for the State's Children's Health Insurance Program or Medicaid. This has consequences. She has not had any screenings or preventive care in years. Her daughter does not go to the doctor regularly, despite the fact that their family has a long history of diabetes and cancer. She knows she is at risk but cannot do anything about it. What happens to her if she gets sick? Many people believe the United States has the best health care system in the world--the best treatments, the best medical technology, the best pharmaceuticals. But this is a cruel joke to the uninsured, including more than 8 million children, because they are forced to make do with substandard care or none at all. The result is a paradox. The United States has a world-class health care system, but we fall behind most industrialized countries when our general health outcomes are measured. In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked our health care system 37th in outcomes that our health system provides. Just this week, CNN reported a new study which found that the U.S. ranked next to last in infant mortality among industrialized countries. Bear in mind again that health insurance is not just about seeing a doctor when you are sick; it is about prevention as well. If you have insurance, you are more likely to have a relationship with a doctor or health care specialist who knows you and your health history. You are more likely to have access to preventive care so that chronic disease can be prevented in the first place. Without health care coverage, minor illnesses turn into major ones and small incidents turn into chronic conditions. Once this happens, it becomes almost impossible to afford quality health insurance without restrictions on benefits. That is why this debate is so important. This week we are considering a major overhaul of the insurance system in an effort to help provide health care coverage to small business owners and their employees. I applaud the goal, but this particular legislation before us now is sorely lacking and will not provide access to quality health care at affordable prices. I oppose the bill before us for the following reasons: First, the bill eliminates consumer protections found in current State regulations, including in Iowa. In Iowa, under the bill, 840,000 consumers would lose coverage for diabetes testing supplies and education, emergency services, mammography screenings, State mental health parity, and well child care. They would also lose guaranteed access to dentists, nurses, nurse practitioners, and other providers. Iowa does not have a laundry list of coverage services. Iowa State regulations guarantee quality insurance. But S. 1955 would do away with the compromises that were worked out at the State level to guarantee quality. Secondly, the supporters of this bill argue that the bill would lower insurance premiums for small businesses. What they don't tell you is that it comes at a cost. Many people, especially those who are older and sicker, would see their insurance premiums increase under the legislation, even with the changes found in the managers' amendment. CBO found that insurers will charge significantly higher premiums to those who are sicker, older, and otherwise less favorable to insurance companies. They will do this in order to reduce health insurance premiums for small firms with workers who have relatively low expected costs for health care. Imagine the shock of business owners all across America, including many I have met with recently in Iowa, when they are billed for the first insurance premiums under the new bill. So keep in mind, of course, you can always get cheaper insurance, but what does it cover, at what cost, and what are the premiums going to be for the person who is covered? Third, and importantly, this bill would undermine State efforts to guarantee coverage for preventive services. As I have often said many times, we don't have a health care system in America, we have a sick care system. If you are sick, you get care. But we spend precious little money and we have very few incentives for keeping people out of the hospital, keeping them out of the doctors' offices, and keeping them healthy in the first place. This bill would make it worse. In short order, insurers would offer stripped-down policies that do not cover preventive services. The result would be the elimination, as I said, of cancer screenings, well child care, mental health services, access to certain physicians or nurses or other providers such as chiropractors, for example, who might give you good care and keep you from getting a chronic condition, something that might cause you to have an operation in the first place. So importantly, this would mean elimination of benefits for everyone, not just small business. Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care coverage. Coverage that is stripped down is not sufficient, and we shouldn't settle for it. People's lives, their livelihoods, their ability to contribute to society will all be undermined if they are not healthy. I met with small business leaders in Iowa. Of course they want relief from high insurance premiums or from not even being able to get policies at all for their workers. We all do. Small business is the backbone of my State. And they need--they need--to have some kind of insurance coverage for their workers. With regard to this bill, what I have said to them is, don't think it is this bill or nothing. I also ask them: Are you willing to lose access to quality health insurance? Just check with the American Cancer Society. We have cancer societies in our small towns and communities all over America. People who run small businesses contribute heavily to our local cancer societies. But here is what the American Cancer Society said: In one stroke, this bill would erase all that state legislatures have done to prevent and more effectively treat cancer by ensuring access to life-saving screenings for breast, colon, and prostate cancer, cancer specialists coverage for evidence based off label drug use, clinical trials, and proven smoking cessation services. That is from the American Cancer Society about this bill. I ask all my friends; I ask anyone who has had a history of cancer in their families: Would you want insurance that doesn't cover screenings for breast cancer or colon cancer or prostate cancer? How about the American Diabetes Association. We know that diabetes is hitting people younger and younger all the time. We have to do something to prevent diabetes. But here is what the American Diabetes Association said about this bill: We must ask ourselves how people with diabetes will be able to pay for a disease that costs an average of $13,243 per person to manage. Unfortunately, it will be our emergency rooms and Medicaid system that are forced to pay. I ask my friends who are diabetic or who have family members with diabetes: Would you want insurance that doesn't cover diabetes-related services? Those are just two examples, but there are many others. So, again, it is not this bill or nothing. There is a better option out there that will guarantee coverage for these services and at the same time provide small business access to quality insurance. One realistic solution that I support would be to give small businesses the option of joining a program modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. That is the program that covers us here and we love it, believe me. All Senators, all Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, all our Post Office people--anybody who has anything to do with the Federal Government belongs to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. It is great coverage. Why shouldn't small businesses have access to the same kind of program we have? That is why I have joined with Senators Durbin and Lincoln to introduce S. 2510, the Small Business Health Benefits Plan. Here is why this bill is superior to the bill we have before us: First, it would create a larger purchasing pool, a nationwide pool, rather than the fragmented pools that will be created under S. 1955. A national pool would reduce insurance rates for everyone. A few years ago, before I came to this place, I sold insurance. There is a principle in insurance that we all know: The more people in the pool, the cheaper it is for everybody. It is one of the fundamental principles of insurance. The more people in the pool, cheaper it is for everyone. So you want a big pool when you are dealing with health care. S. 1955, the bill before us, sets up thousands and thousands of small pools. But the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan is one big pool. So if you have that national pool, insurers will be able to offer a range of plans such as we have now. Every year we have open season and I can choose from--I don't know, I didn't count last time--maybe about 18 different plans. But the Office of Personnel Management would negotiate the rates and benefits offered under the plans. Should they do that? OPM has been negotiating with private plans for decades. They have consistently negotiated better rates for Federal employees than have been achieved in the non-Federal market. All the Senators here, all those who love the free market system--you will hear speech after speech praising the free market system, but everyone here belongs to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, and OPM is the one that manages the rates and negotiates the rates in these plans. As I said, they are better than anything that has ever been achieved in the non-Federal market. Second, our bill offers a tax credit to small employers that would help offset the cost of premiums for employees if they make $25,000 a year or less. S. 1955 doesn't do this. There are no tax breaks for small businesses in S. 1955. There are more than 26 million Americans making $25,000 or less working in small businesses. Of those, 12 million, or 40 percent, are totally uninsured. That is what we want to get at. I will be glad to go to any small business with those who are advocating S. 1955. We will take S. 2510 and we will take S. 1955, we will lay it out there and let the small business owner decide which one they would want to have. I would love to see that happen. I tell you I know what would happen: They would pick S. 2510, the one I am talking about, the one that would give them a tax break for covering and would provide quality insurance. Third, our bill does not preempt State consumer protection laws. S. 1955, the bill before us, would do away with the guarantees I discussed, the guarantees of preventive services such as breast cancer screening, mammography, cancer, prostate screening, things such as that. By contrast, our bill would keep State insurance laws where they are. The insurance would cover mammograms, cervical cancer screening, diabetes testing supplies, immunizations, and on and on. If you are a small businessperson and you happen to be watching this session and you are listening to my remarks, you are probably saying: Senator Harkin, that all sounds good. Why don't you get S. 2510, the bill you are talking about, up for a vote? Welcome to the unreal world of the Senate, when we are not allowed to do things such as that. We have S. 1955. The majority leader has, if you will pardon the expression, filled the tree. That is sort of gobbledygook around this place which means they have blocked us from offering any amendments, and then we are supposed to vote on cloture on the bill, which means debate comes to an end on the bill and you can't file anything that is not germane. Tomorrow night we are going to be asked to vote for cloture on it? I am not going to vote for cloture on that. If you want to have an open Health Week here and you want to bring out S. 1955, leave it wide open so we can offer S. 2510 and we can have a debate on it and have up-or- down votes. I am all for that. I think the small business community in America ought to know that we are not being allowed to bring up our bill for amendment and discussion. I think our bill would pass. I think the small business community would support it. But as I have understood, being out in Iowa last weekend and as I talked with small business owners, they have sort of been led to believe it is S. 1955 or nothing. And of course they will take S. 1955. If I thought that was all there was, I would probably take it, too. But that is not the option before us. We have better options than S. 1955. We have the option of S. 2510, the bill I spoke about, introduced by Senator Durbin and Senator Lincoln. Again, it is unfortunate--not for us. It is not unfortunate for us. We have great health care coverage. We have great health care coverage. It is not unfortunate for us but unfortunate for the small business owners and the 25 million Americans who work for small businesses--12 million who do not have any insurance at all. This is what is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that this bill has been brought up in a way that makes it impossible for our side to amend it. Besides getting a vote on our bill, I was prepared to offer a series of amendments that focused on preventive care. I think if we are going to have a Health Week and we are going to have a bill, I want to start focusing on preventive care. We know it saves money. But we can't do that, either. Count me as one who will not vote for cloture on this bill tomorrow, but count me as one who wants to have an open debate and amendment on a health insurance program that will be beneficial to our small businesses. I am sorry we are not going to be able to do it now. Again, we are supposed to have a Health Week. Yet tomorrow I guess we will take all day tomorrow talking about the tax reconciliation bill, and then we are not going to be here Friday. What kind of Health Week is this? What kind of Health Week is it when we are not allowed to offer amendments and debate preventive health care, offer a different bill for the one before us? I think the small business owners of America now know what is going on. I have heard from some who basically have been supportive of S. 1955 and they are backing off of it. They are saying no, we would rather have your bill, we would rather have the one that provides us with some tax credits so we can go out and join a bigger pool like the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program; so we can join a big pool and we can have preventive services; we can have the State mandates that are there now that cover quality. They would rather have that bill. But I am sorry we probably will not be able to get it done this year and I think, as I said, that is not just unfortunate for us--heck, we have the best health care coverage. We have great health care coverage. The health coverage we have ought to be available to every American out there. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Inform me.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, I think if agreements were made with this side and the other side, we could agree on time limits and structures without having this on us. I also say to my friend, I think we should take 3 weeks to debate health care. We have been wasting so much time around here doing nothing. Now tomorrow we have tax reconciliation. So my friend from Wyoming is getting a day cut out of his deal. I think we ought to take 3 weeks to debate health care around here. It wouldn't bother me any.

Mr. HARKIN. That is the problem with this whole cloture process. Why didn't we try to reach a time agreement and an agreement on how many amendments would be offered? As I understand it, our side was willing to do that. Then we would not have this problem of cloture where we are precluded then from offering amendments. As the Senator pointed out, if S. 2510 is offered, I don't know what would happen after that. The Senator said it wouldn't be offered. This whole thing with the cloture has screwed up everything.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. HARKIN. Then there was no problem with that.

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. That is a shame.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Talent and I, along with a group of our colleagues, are introducing the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Act of 2006. In the 2002 farm bill, a research, education and economics task force within the Department of Agriculture, USDA, was established to evaluate agricultural research. A key recommendation of this task force was to create a National Institute for Food and Agriculture, NIFA, within USDA in order to support fundamental agricultural research to ensure that American agriculture remains competitive now and in the future. This bill does exactly that. The NIFA would be a grant-making agency that funds food and agricultural research through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. These funds would be in addition to, not as a substitute for, current research programs at USDA's Agricultural Research Service, ARS, and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, CSREES. American agriculture must ensure that our Nation continues to produce safe and nutritious food for an increasing population. Other challenges in the areas of food and agriculture are problems we are facing right now: renewable energy, rural development, overweight and obesity, and environmental challenges. Investment in fundamental research remains our best hope to finding solutions to problems confronting American farmers and consumers of food and agriculture products now and in the future. Our Nation's investment in research has produced remarkable tangible results in the medical field, but food and agricultural research lags far behind. USDA's task force noted that the amount of funding designated for competitively awarded, peer-reviewed agricultural research grants is outpaced 100 to 1 by the National Institutes of Health. Our entire Nation is reaping the benefits of past agricultural research, but more can be done, and research will become much more important in the future as we face increased globalization and competition from foreign markets. Increasing our investment in food and agriculture research is a necessity for the future of America's food and agriculture industry and consumers alike. And that is why I support the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Act of 2006. I encourage my colleagues to do so too.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, Senator Talent and I, along with a group of our colleagues, are introducing the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Act of 2006. In the 2002 farm bill, a research, education and economics task force within the Department of Agriculture, USDA, was established to evaluate agricultural research. A key recommendation of this task force was to create a National Institute for Food and Agriculture, NIFA, within USDA in order to support fundamental agricultural research to ensure that American agriculture remains competitive now and in the future. This bill does exactly that. The NIFA would be a grant-making agency that funds food and agricultural research through a competitive, peer-reviewed process. These funds would be in addition to, not as a substitute for, current research programs at USDA's Agricultural Research Service, ARS, and Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, CSREES. American agriculture must ensure that our Nation continues to produce safe and nutritious food for an increasing population. Other challenges in the areas of food and agriculture are problems we are facing right now: renewable energy, rural development, overweight and obesity, and environmental challenges. Investment in fundamental research remains our best hope to finding solutions to problems confronting American farmers and consumers of food and agriculture products now and in the future. Our Nation's investment in research has produced remarkable tangible results in the medical field, but food and agricultural research lags far behind. USDA's task force noted that the amount of funding designated for competitively awarded, peer-reviewed agricultural research grants is outpaced 100 to 1 by the National Institutes of Health. Our entire Nation is reaping the benefits of past agricultural research, but more can be done, and research will become much more important in the future as we face increased globalization and competition from foreign markets. Increasing our investment in food and agriculture research is a necessity for the future of America's food and agriculture industry and consumers alike. And that is why I support the National Institute of Food and Agriculture Act of 2006. I encourage my colleagues to do so too.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, here we are on day 2 of Health Week, and there are still no plans to bring up H.R. 810, the stem cell research bill. This bill was passed by the House of Representatives 351 days ago-- almost a year ago now--with still no action here in the Senate. Yet the majority of Senators are for it. I do not understand how in the world we can have a Health Week in the Senate and not vote on the American public's No. 1 health research priority: lifting the President's restriction on embryonic stem cell research. That seems to be what we are doing. We are wasting our time on bills that everyone knows are not going to pass. We are passing up a golden opportunity to promote one of the most promising areas of research in our lifetimes. Most people by now have heard of the enormous potential of embryonic stem cells. These cells have the remarkable ability to turn into every other type of cell in the human body--brain cells that could replace those lost in Parkinson's disease, islet cells to replace those lost in type 1 diabetes, and on and on. Adult stem cells don't have that power, only embryonic stem cells. That is why the world's best scientists think embryonic stem cell research has so much promise to save lives and ease human suffering. It is also why they are so frustrated by the President's arbitrary restrictions on stem cell research. Under the President's guidelines, Federal funding can be used for research only on those stem cell lines that were created before August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m. Where did that date come from? Out of thin air? If the stem cell lines were created at 8:30 p.m., they are fine, they are moral, they are OK. If they were created at 9:30 p.m., all of a sudden they missed the cutoff. It is totally arbitrary. Shortly after the President announced his policy, he said 78 stem cell lines were eligible under his guidelines. It turns out that only 22 are. In fact, it is even worse. Only a handful of those are even healthy enough and readily available. More importantly, all of the 22 lines that are available have been contaminated by mouse cells. They have been grown in a mouse feeder cell environment. It is unlikely they will ever be used for any kind of human intervention, which is supposed to be the whole point of the research anyway. Dozens more stem cell lines have been created since August 9, 2001. They are healthier. Many have never been contaminated with mouse cells. But thanks to President Bush, they are off limits to our best scientists. Yet opponents of H.R. 810 sometimes argue that embryonic stem cell research has no potential. Last week, Senator Brownback presented a list of diseases that are being treated with adult stem cells and asked why that hasn't happened yet with embryonic stem cells. Let me address that directly. Scientists have been doing research on adult stem cells for over 30 years. There are no arbitrary restrictions on research with adult stem cells. Scientists and private companies don't have to be skittish about doing this research. They don't have to worry that all of a sudden the Federal Government is going to ban it or limit it. Let's compare that situation with human embryonic stem cells. Scientists didn't even know how to derive them until 1998. The first Federal grant for these stem cells wasn't awarded until 2002. Even now, only a tiny fraction of the total Federal budget for stem cell research is used for embryonic stem cells. The vast majority goes for adult stem cell research, and every scientist who enters this field is taking a risk that Congress will pass a law to shut down the lab. They also risk that they won't get any 1 of the 22 lines contaminated by mouse feeder cells which they will then not be able to use for human therapy. So it is no wonder that more diseases are being treated today with adult stem cells. Adult stem cell research had a 30-year head start. Meanwhile, scientists have been studying embryonic stem cells for just 5 years with one arm tied behind their back. The fact is, it doesn't matter what I think about the potential of embryonic stem cell research. It doesn't matter what Senator Brownback thinks either. What matters is what the scientists think. And I defy anyone to find a single reputable biomedical scientist whose doesn't believe we should pursue embryonic stem cell research. I have a letter from Dr. J. Michael Bishop who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1989. He writes: The vast majority of the biomedical research community believes that human embryonic stem cells are likely to be the source of key discoveries related to many debilitating diseases. . . . In fact, some of the strongest advocates for human embryonic stem cell research are those scientists who have devoted their careers to the study of adult stem cells. A letter from Dr. Alfred G. Gilman, who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1994: It has become obvious, however, that the number of stem cell lines actually available under current policy is too small and is controlled by a limited monopoly, which has made it significantly more difficult and expensive for research to be conducted. These limits have hindered the important search for new understanding and treatment of devastating diseases. I have similar letters from Dr. Ferid Murad, who won the Nobel Prize for medicine in 1998; Dr. Arthur Kornberg, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine in 1959; and dozens more of our Nation's top researchers--all of whom believe in the potential of embryonic stem cell research. I ask my friend from Kansas, in response to his speech of late last week: Are there any Nobel Prize winners in medicine who oppose embryonic stem cell research? Name one. In fact, I challenge him further: Are there any reputable biomedical researchers at all who think we should be studying adult stem cells only and not embryonic stem cells? Name one. I don't think he will find one. Every scientist I have spoken to says stem cell research should not be an either/or endeavor. We should not be talking about stem cell research or embryonic stem cell research. We should study both. We should open all doors in the pursuit of therapies that can save lives and ease human suffering. The breakthroughs are coming, but they take time. To clamp down on embryonic stem cell research before it even has a chance to start shows a total lack of understanding about how science works. More importantly, it denies hope to millions of Americans who suffer from Parkinson's, ALS, juvenile diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and dozens of other terrible diseases and conditions. We are rapidly approaching the 1-year anniversary of the vote in the House on H.R. 810. It has been 351 days since the House passed it on a strong bipartisan vote. If the Senate were allowed to vote on H.R. 810, we would win here, too. We have the votes. We would pass this bill and send it on to the President. Regrettably, however, the Republican leadership has not let that happen. So here we are, we are going through this farce--it is farcical--comedy, gimmickry of a so-called Health Week without taking up the American public's No. 1 health research priority. It is Tuesday. Health Week lasts for 3 more days. We could pass H.R. 810 in a matter of hours. I urge the majority leader, take up the bill. Let the Senate have a quantified amount of time to debate it. We will pass it, and we will give millions of Americans who are suffering from diseases the hope they deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator from California, it is not just amazing, it is shameful. It is shameful what is happening now with the lack of support for biomedical research, especially embryonic stem cell research. As I said, every Nobel Prize winner in medicine, all the reputable scientists say we should be on it and we should be on it strongly. Yet the President, through this arbitrary cutoff, is denying this for scientists, denying it to people who are suffering. I say to my friend from California, God bless California. They took the lead out there. Her State has taken the lead. They are forging ahead. Other States are following their lead. If only we could get the Federal Government to follow their lead.

Mr. HARKIN. Juvenile diabetes.