Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Specter-Harkin amendment would add back $7 billion to the President's proposed budget, allowing us to fund the 2007 Labor, HHS appropriations bill at the level of 2005. I am proud to join my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania in offering this amendment. I thank Senator Specter for his great leadership in all the areas of health, education, human services, medical research. He has been a tireless leader in all these areas. Once again, he has stepped to the forefront to basically say that we are not going to keep cutting back to the bone and the marrow, which he said earlier today. This is not a radical proposal. In fact, it is almost an embarrassingly modest proposal. But it is important. It is an important first step. At least we are saying it is enough, no more; it is time to reorder our priorities. Year after year we have been cutting the programs that support working families, people with disabilities, students struggling to afford college, elderly trying to heat their homes, put food on the table, people with cancer and other diseases desperate for a cure. As my friend, Senator Specter, said this morning we are beyond cutting the fat and beyond cutting bone. We are now into the marrow. I add, when you start cutting into the marrow, you are endangering the very lifeblood of an organism--in this case, our American society. Something is seriously wrong in terms of our priorities and our values when we are presented with a budget that slashes funding for the National Cancer Institute, jeopardizing critical lifesaving research. That is just one of the many critical program areas threatened by the proposed budget. President Bush, in his budget, proposed to slash the Labor-Health-Education budget by $4.2 billion for this year. Meanwhile, in Iraq, he is spending nearly $5 billion a month. These are not the priorities of the American people. I believe this amendment is the single most important amendment that we will consider on this budget resolution. I want to emphasize to my colleagues, this is very likely our last, best chance to restore funding for critical health, education, and social services programs. Last year, we saw what happens when Congress passes a bad budget resolution. The reason why we had a bad Labor-HHS bill last year and could not get it done is because we were boxed in by the budget resolution. Exactly the same thing will happen this year. It will be worse. It will be worse since it is an election year, unless we pass the Specter amendment, which he just offered, putting back this $7 billion. So I say to my colleagues, this is the decisive vote. This is sort of the showdown. This is our best, maybe last real opportunity to change our budget priorities. If we fail to act, then we will indeed be cutting into the bone and marrow of our most important programs. Let me be somewhat specific. This budget would cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control, despite the fact we are facing the twin threats of bioterrorism and a possible avian flu pandemic. This budget would cut funding for 18 of the 19 institutes at NIH. It would cut the Social Services block grant by $500 million, completely eliminate the Community Services block grant--two of the biggest discretionary programs for the poor. The number of children served by Head Start would be reduced. Even Meals on Wheels would be cut. At the Labor Department, the Disability Employment Office would be cut by 26 percent, on top of a 41-percent cut last year. Funding for the Workforce Investment Act would be cut. Even the program we have had for several years now to combat child labor and child slavery would be cut. In education, the President's budget proposes the largest cut to Federal education funding in the 26-year history of the Department of Education. And I speak to the occupant of the Chair, who is a distinguished former Secretary of Education, and who has a deep and abiding interest and support for education. The No Child Left Behind Act would be underfunded by a whopping $15.4 billion from what we were planning to spend when we passed it. Title I would be frozen. Twenty-nine States would get less title I funding next year. How are we ever going to expect poor kids to meet the demands of No Child Left Behind if we are cutting title I funding, which President Bush himself said was the cornerstone of No Child Left Behind? In special education--this is something the chairman of the Budget Committee has talked about and has been supportive of for a long time-- we are going backwards. We promised years ago--30 years ago--that the Federal Government would pick up 40 percent of the additional costs of funding for special education. Two years ago, which was a high watermark, we were at 19 percent. Last year, we went to 18 percent. This budget will take us to 17 percent. We are supposed to be at 40 percent. So we are going in the wrong direction. What that translates into is more property taxes for our beleaguered property tax owners in our school districts. And need I talk about Pell grants? They are frozen at $4,050 for the fifth year in a row. I asked Secretary Spellings, when she was before our committee, name me one college in the country where tuition is the same today as it was 5 years ago. Meanwhile, the Perkins Loan Program would be completely eliminated. And the two TRIO programs--Upward Bound and Educational Talent Search--were eliminated in the President's budget. So again, I think these are misplaced priorities. That is why we are offering this amendment. That is why Senator Specter and I have worked together to try to get us at least back on the road. As I said, this is a modest proposal. It only takes us back to 2005. The amendment offered, I repeat, by the Senator from Pennsylvania simply takes us back to where we were before all of the cuts and the across-the-board cut of 2006. It puts us right back where we were in 2005. I do not think that is radical. I think it is very modest. Again, I say to my friends, fellow Senators, I believe this is the decisive vote on priorities on this budget, and I urge my colleagues to support Senator Specter's amendment. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for giving me the time.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that.

Mr. HARKIN. So did this Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. I don't seem to understand why this situation has developed where the Senator from Iowa has 45 seconds.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Yes. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I awakened this morning to some very, very sad news: the death of Dana Reeve last night at the age of 44. With her death, I lost a dear friend and our American family lost a very, very special member of our family. The world will remember Dana in many ways--as a fine actress, as a tireless advocate for spinal cord and embryonic stem cell research, and as the wife who stood by her husband through incredible adversity. I will remember her as a person of extraordinary grace and decency, always thinking of others, passionately committed to making a difference in the world. Over the years, I was privileged to get to know and to work with both Dana and Christopher Reeve. Whoever coined the phrase that ``life is unfair'' must have had the Reeve family in mind. But these two people faced adversity with unflinching courage. They taught us the most valuable of lessons. Christopher taught us how to transcend suffering and to live life to its fullest and to make every moment count. Dana taught us about the true meaning of love and commitment and loyalty. Together, Dana and Christopher Reeve expanded access to new treatments and therapies for countless thousands of paralyzed Americans. Through their Christopher Reeve Foundation, they were tireless advocates for medical research. Dana Reeve was also a superb politician, and I mean that in the best sense of the word. She knew exactly which committees to target, which levers to pull, which elected officials to cultivate and pressure and plead with. She also knew how to go over the heads of certain political leaders who got in her way, by taking her case directly to the American people. That is how Dana--and Chris, too--did so much to put embryonic stem cell research front and center on the national agenda. That is how she rallied support for spinal cord research. But Dana spoke up passionately for all people living with disabilities. She spoke up for Parkinson's and ALS research. She advocated for more generous funding for the National Institutes of Health. Of course, she wanted a cure for her husband, but she fought for a cure for others as well, including all those children whom she and Chris met with spinal cord injuries. And, my friends, so must we. We must fight also. Dana continued full speed ahead because of her drive and determination, because of the incredible work of all the dedicated people at the Christopher Reeve Foundation. And now Dana's work must continue full speed ahead because of our commitment and determination. We must continue because we have an unfinished agenda. As long as misguided leaders deny our best scientists access to embryonic stem cells, we have an unfinished agenda. As long as people with disabilities are forced to live in nursing homes because Medicaid will not cover home care, we have an unfinished agenda. As long as there is hope for a cure to spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, ALS, and other diseases, we have an unfinished agenda. If we have just half of the commitment and tenacity and courage that Dana Reeve and her husband had, then we will complete this agenda. Helen Keller, who knew plenty about adversity and disability, said something that applies very much to Dana Reeve in her last months. ``Life,'' said Helen Keller, ``is either a daring adventure, or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable.'' That is the Dana Reeve I will always remember and cherish. Even when her husband was gravely injured and then taken from her, even a few months after that when she was cruelly stricken with lung cancer--a person who had never smoked in her entire life--she never gave up her fight for a better world and a better future for other people, especially those struggling with disabilities. Dana Reeve was an extraordinary person, a passionate advocate, a wonderful mother, a loyal, committed, loving wife. As I said, she has taught us a lot about what commitment really means. We are grateful to God for the many gifts she shared with the world. We are grateful for all she has done to enrich our lives and to instruct us in how to live. Today, we grieve her passing. May she rest in peace, and may her work continue. Just on behalf of the Harkin family, Ruth and I and our children send our condolences to Will and to all the other members of the Reeve family. May they know we are going to continue the work. Through the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, we will find a cure for paralysis and spinal cord injuries. We cannot afford to give up. Dana Reeve never gave up. We cannot afford to either.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the great achievement of the Pension Rights Center as it celebrates its 30-year anniversary. Since its founding on February 17, 1976, the center has championed the pension rights of working Americans and their families. The center is one of the country's foremost leaders on pension issues from a consumer perspective and has made an enormous difference in the lives of millions of workers, retirees and their families. Over the years, the center has played a key role in identifying pension inequities and promoting reasonable solutions. They have played an instrumental role in shaping and ultimately helping to secure Federal laws and regulations that have expanded pension rights for widows, divorced spouses, and working people. The center is also the most trusted resource for pension information for policymakers, researchers, and the media on the highly complex pension issues translated from a consumer perspective. The center has led the way in helping individuals with their pension problems and in helping develop and coordinate the country's first nationwide pension information and assistance services for older Americans. The center provides backup legal training and technical assistance for the U.S. Administration on Aging's Pensions Counseling and Information Program. There are now currently six regional counseling projects that provide free assistance to thousands of individuals in 17 States. The center also has spearheaded the Conversation on Coverage, an innovative public policy initiative that has brought together a wide range of experts--including businesses, unions, financial institutions, and national retiree, women's, and consumer organizations--to find common ground approaches to increasing pension coverage. The Conversation on Coverage's three working groups are in the process of finalizing recommendations to expand pensions and savings for millions of Americans. The center's work is needed now more than ever. As baby boomers get closer to retirement, it is becoming clearer and clearer that they likely will not enjoy the retirement security that their parents have enjoyed. Younger workers are even more at risk. Many employers are backing away from their longstanding commitment to providing for their workers' retirement security. Thousands of pension plans have been terminated or frozen and thousands more are considering additional pension cutbacks. The center has always been at the forefront of protecting workers' pensions and in proposing innovative and workable solutions, and their efforts will be all the more critical in the days and years ahead. I wish the Pension Rights Center, its founder, Karen Ferguson, and the dedicated staff a very healthy 30th anniversary.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I, along with Mr. Enzi and Mr. Thomas are introducing the ``Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets Act of 2006.'' This legislation seeks to even the playing field for agricultural producers by strengthening and clarifying the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 and requiring better enforcement of both laws by USDA. A quick lesson in agricultural history makes clear that producers are no stranger to a marketplace often tilted against them. Roughly 100 years ago, rapid consolidation and collusive practices by meatpacking and railroad and other companies prompted Congress to eventually pass several new laws designed to ensure a competitive and fair marketplace for agricultural producers. Because earlier legislation was seen as lacking to protect livestock and poultry producers. Congress passed the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921 to prohibit packers and processors from engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices. Consolidation is happening in all sectors of agriculture and having a negative effect on producers and consumers across the Nation. Consolidation in itself is not a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, but when some entities become larger and more powerful that makes enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act absolutely critical for independent livestock and poultry producers. The statistics speak for themselves. Today, only four firms control 84 percent of the procurement of cattle and 64 percent of the procurement of hogs. Economists have stated that when four firms control over 40 percent of the industry, marketplace competitiveness begins to decline. Taken together with fewer buyers of livestock, highly integrated firms can exert tremendous power over the industry. The dramatic changes in the marketplace are alarming, and I have expressed my concerns to USDA on several occasions--but they showed hardly any concern and even less action. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) at USDA has the responsibility to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. For years, I have had doubts whether GIPSA was effectively enforcing this important law. Concerned by the lack of action by GIPSA, I asked USDA's Inspector General to investigate this matter. Recently, the Inspector General issued a report on GIPSA that confirmed these concerns. The report described widespread inaction, agency management actively blocking employees from conducting investigations into anti-competitive behavior and a scheme to cover up the lack of enforcement by inflating the reported number of investigations conducted. The Inspector General's troubling findings reveal gross mismanagement by GIPSA. This failure is not just at GIPSA but includes high-level officials at USDA who did nothing to identify and correct problems within GIPSA. Today, the legislation I introduce will reorganize the structure in how USDA enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act. This legislation will create an office of special counsel for competition matters at USDA. This office will oversee more effective enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and other laws and focus attention on competition issues at USDA by removing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. The new special counsel on competition would be appointed by the President with advice and consent from the U.S. Senate. Some would argue that this reorganization is not needed, especially given that USDA has agreed to make the necessary changes recommended by the recent Inspector General's report. However, what is important to remember here is that USDA has a long history of agreeing to making changes and then never following through with them. The Inspector General made recommendations to improve competition investigations in 1997 and the Government Accountability Office made similar recommendations again in 2000. It is 2006, yet those recommendations were never implemented and GIPSA is in complete disarray. In addition, no one above the level of deputy administrator at GIPSA seemed to have any idea that any problems were going on, despite the fact I was sending letters to the Secretary of Agriculture pointing out that USDA was failing to enforce the law. A change is needed. In addition to the creation of a special counsel, this legislation also makes many important clarifications to the Packers and Stockyards Act so that producers need not prove an impact on competition in the market in order to prevail in cases involving unfair or deceptive practices. Court rulings have created many hoops for producers to go through in order to succeed in cases where they were treated unfairly. For example, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a poultry grower operation failed to prove how its case involving an unfair termination of its contract adversely affected competition. The court indicated that the grower had to prove that their unfair treatment affected competition in the relevant market. That is very difficult to prove and was never the intent of the Packers and Stockyards Act. This legislation also makes modifications to the Packers and Stockyards Act so that poultry growers have the same enforcement protections by USDA as livestock. Currently, it is unlawful for a livestock packer or live poultry dealer to engage in any unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice, but USDA does not have the authority to enforce and correct such problems because the enforcement section of the law is absent of any reference to poultry. This important statutory change is long overdue. In addition, to better reflect the integrated nature of the poultry industry, this legislation also ensures that protections under the law extend to all poultry growers, such as breeder hen and pullet operations, not just those who raise broilers. The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 was passed by Congress to ensure that producers are allowed to join together as an association to strengthen their position in the marketplace without being discriminated against by handlers. Unfortunately, this Act was passed with a clause that essentially abolishes the actual intent of the law. The Act states that ``nothing in this Act shall prevent handlers and producers from selecting their customers'' and it also states that it does not ``require a handler to deal with an association of producers.'' This clause in effect allows handlers to think of any reason possible under the sun not to do business with certain producers, as long as the stated reason is not because they belong to an association. Currently, the Agricultural Fair Practices Act focuses on the right of producers to join together without discrimination for having done so. I propose to expand the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to provide new needed protections for agricultural contracts. As I have mentioned earlier, consolidation in all sectors of agriculture is reducing the number of buyers of commodities and for the very few who are left, many require contracts to conduct business. Some producers have little or no choice but to contract with a firm with questionable practices or face leaving the industry they have known for their whole lives. This amendment to the Agricultural Fair Practices Act requires that contracts be spelled out in clear language what is required by the producer. This legislation prohibits confidentiality clauses by giving producers the ability to share it with family members or a lawyer to help them make an informed decision on whether or not to sign it. It prevents companies from prematurely terminating contracts without notice when producers have made large capital investments as a condition of signing the contract. And it only allows mandatory arbitration after a dispute arises and both parties agree to it in writing. Producers should not be forced to sign contracts with arbitration clauses thereby preventing them from seeking legal remedy in the courts. History is repeating itself--in fact consolidation in the industry is even worse today. Producers deserve to have a fair and evenhanded market in which to conduct business. They should not be at the mercy of unfair and heavily consolidated markets that spurred Congress to enact legislative reforms, such as the Packers and Stockyards Act, years ago. This legislation won't be able to turn back the clock, but it will strengthen laws and enforcement of them so that markets operate more fairly.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill of modest scope but of great importance. The legislation would modify the existing Federal biodiesel tax credit in two ways--to make clear that only biodiesel produced from feedstocks listed, such as soy oil, are eligible and also to ensure the credit is available only for fuel of the highest quality. Biodiesel is a home-grown renewable fuel that helps wean our country off of its oil addiction, creates economic growth and jobs in rural areas while enhancing our environment and public health. In my State of Iowa, which leads the Nation in biodiesel production, there are three plants in operation and several more coming on-line. Each plant bolsters farm income, provides good jobs to surrounding communities and additional tax revenues to municipalities. The biodiesel tax credit was enacted into law just a few years ago. It was extended through 2008 in the energy bill. I have been a leading proponent of the tax credit since day one. However, the tax credit has recently subsidized biodiesel production from outside the U.S. While I am certainly not averse to trade, and generally believe that it is a good thing for renewable energy to supplant fossil fuels wherever it comes from, the practice does not enhance domestic energy security, a goal which the President endorsed in his recent State of the Union address. It would be terribly unfortunate if the Federal Government, which has sought to bolster our domestic energy security and environmental quality through the development of renewable fuels, suddenly found itself unintentionally undermining that goal. Congress intended the biodiesel tax credit to go to support production from a finite set of feedstocks. We are now off-track given how the Internal Revenue Service has been interpreting the law. The agency has improperly determined that biodiesel produced from a variety of feedstocks, even those not listed in statute, are eligible for the credit. So I have put together a bill, as I said, that is modest in scope. The bill fixes the tax credit language by making biodiesel made from any source not listed in the statute ineligible for the tax credit. In addition, I have added a performance standard to help ensure that only high-quality biodiesel may receive tax benefits. There have been reports of late that some biodiesel doesn't perform as well as it should in certain situations, and this provision should help address that problem. The performance standard set forth in the bill specifies that only fuel listed with a cloud point of 45 degrees or less is eligible for the credit. Cloud point measures the point at which a fuel such as biodiesel will cloud or gel due to cold temperatures. My understanding is that cloud point is generally recognized as the best quality indicator for satisfactory performance. The bill as crafted should not interfere in any way with our international trade obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules since it does not differentiate between oilseeds of U.S. and foreign origin. This view is shared by several trade experts consulted by my staff. I stand ready to work with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, which has direct jurisdiction over this issue, to move this legislation forward. In sum, I think this legislation is necessary to promote domestic energy security, ensure appropriate performance, and do so in a way that is compliant with our international trading obligations.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill of modest scope but of great importance. The legislation would modify the existing Federal biodiesel tax credit in two ways--to make clear that only biodiesel produced from feedstocks listed, such as soy oil, are eligible and also to ensure the credit is available only for fuel of the highest quality. Biodiesel is a home-grown renewable fuel that helps wean our country off of its oil addiction, creates economic growth and jobs in rural areas while enhancing our environment and public health. In my State of Iowa, which leads the Nation in biodiesel production, there are three plants in operation and several more coming on-line. Each plant bolsters farm income, provides good jobs to surrounding communities and additional tax revenues to municipalities. The biodiesel tax credit was enacted into law just a few years ago. It was extended through 2008 in the energy bill. I have been a leading proponent of the tax credit since day one. However, the tax credit has recently subsidized biodiesel production from outside the U.S. While I am certainly not averse to trade, and generally believe that it is a good thing for renewable energy to supplant fossil fuels wherever it comes from, the practice does not enhance domestic energy security, a goal which the President endorsed in his recent State of the Union address. It would be terribly unfortunate if the Federal Government, which has sought to bolster our domestic energy security and environmental quality through the development of renewable fuels, suddenly found itself unintentionally undermining that goal. Congress intended the biodiesel tax credit to go to support production from a finite set of feedstocks. We are now off-track given how the Internal Revenue Service has been interpreting the law. The agency has improperly determined that biodiesel produced from a variety of feedstocks, even those not listed in statute, are eligible for the credit. So I have put together a bill, as I said, that is modest in scope. The bill fixes the tax credit language by making biodiesel made from any source not listed in the statute ineligible for the tax credit. In addition, I have added a performance standard to help ensure that only high-quality biodiesel may receive tax benefits. There have been reports of late that some biodiesel doesn't perform as well as it should in certain situations, and this provision should help address that problem. The performance standard set forth in the bill specifies that only fuel listed with a cloud point of 45 degrees or less is eligible for the credit. Cloud point measures the point at which a fuel such as biodiesel will cloud or gel due to cold temperatures. My understanding is that cloud point is generally recognized as the best quality indicator for satisfactory performance. The bill as crafted should not interfere in any way with our international trade obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules since it does not differentiate between oilseeds of U.S. and foreign origin. This view is shared by several trade experts consulted by my staff. I stand ready to work with my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee, which has direct jurisdiction over this issue, to move this legislation forward. In sum, I think this legislation is necessary to promote domestic energy security, ensure appropriate performance, and do so in a way that is compliant with our international trading obligations.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I, along with Mr. Enzi and Mr. Thomas are introducing the ``Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets Act of 2006.'' This legislation seeks to even the playing field for agricultural producers by strengthening and clarifying the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 and requiring better enforcement of both laws by USDA. A quick lesson in agricultural history makes clear that producers are no stranger to a marketplace often tilted against them. Roughly 100 years ago, rapid consolidation and collusive practices by meatpacking and railroad and other companies prompted Congress to eventually pass several new laws designed to ensure a competitive and fair marketplace for agricultural producers. Because earlier legislation was seen as lacking to protect livestock and poultry producers. Congress passed the Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921 to prohibit packers and processors from engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practices. Consolidation is happening in all sectors of agriculture and having a negative effect on producers and consumers across the Nation. Consolidation in itself is not a violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act, but when some entities become larger and more powerful that makes enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act absolutely critical for independent livestock and poultry producers. The statistics speak for themselves. Today, only four firms control 84 percent of the procurement of cattle and 64 percent of the procurement of hogs. Economists have stated that when four firms control over 40 percent of the industry, marketplace competitiveness begins to decline. Taken together with fewer buyers of livestock, highly integrated firms can exert tremendous power over the industry. The dramatic changes in the marketplace are alarming, and I have expressed my concerns to USDA on several occasions--but they showed hardly any concern and even less action. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) at USDA has the responsibility to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. For years, I have had doubts whether GIPSA was effectively enforcing this important law. Concerned by the lack of action by GIPSA, I asked USDA's Inspector General to investigate this matter. Recently, the Inspector General issued a report on GIPSA that confirmed these concerns. The report described widespread inaction, agency management actively blocking employees from conducting investigations into anti-competitive behavior and a scheme to cover up the lack of enforcement by inflating the reported number of investigations conducted. The Inspector General's troubling findings reveal gross mismanagement by GIPSA. This failure is not just at GIPSA but includes high-level officials at USDA who did nothing to identify and correct problems within GIPSA. Today, the legislation I introduce will reorganize the structure in how USDA enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act. This legislation will create an office of special counsel for competition matters at USDA. This office will oversee more effective enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and other laws and focus attention on competition issues at USDA by removing unnecessary layers of bureaucracy. The new special counsel on competition would be appointed by the President with advice and consent from the U.S. Senate. Some would argue that this reorganization is not needed, especially given that USDA has agreed to make the necessary changes recommended by the recent Inspector General's report. However, what is important to remember here is that USDA has a long history of agreeing to making changes and then never following through with them. The Inspector General made recommendations to improve competition investigations in 1997 and the Government Accountability Office made similar recommendations again in 2000. It is 2006, yet those recommendations were never implemented and GIPSA is in complete disarray. In addition, no one above the level of deputy administrator at GIPSA seemed to have any idea that any problems were going on, despite the fact I was sending letters to the Secretary of Agriculture pointing out that USDA was failing to enforce the law. A change is needed. In addition to the creation of a special counsel, this legislation also makes many important clarifications to the Packers and Stockyards Act so that producers need not prove an impact on competition in the market in order to prevail in cases involving unfair or deceptive practices. Court rulings have created many hoops for producers to go through in order to succeed in cases where they were treated unfairly. For example, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a poultry grower operation failed to prove how its case involving an unfair termination of its contract adversely affected competition. The court indicated that the grower had to prove that their unfair treatment affected competition in the relevant market. That is very difficult to prove and was never the intent of the Packers and Stockyards Act. This legislation also makes modifications to the Packers and Stockyards Act so that poultry growers have the same enforcement protections by USDA as livestock. Currently, it is unlawful for a livestock packer or live poultry dealer to engage in any unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice, but USDA does not have the authority to enforce and correct such problems because the enforcement section of the law is absent of any reference to poultry. This important statutory change is long overdue. In addition, to better reflect the integrated nature of the poultry industry, this legislation also ensures that protections under the law extend to all poultry growers, such as breeder hen and pullet operations, not just those who raise broilers. The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 was passed by Congress to ensure that producers are allowed to join together as an association to strengthen their position in the marketplace without being discriminated against by handlers. Unfortunately, this Act was passed with a clause that essentially abolishes the actual intent of the law. The Act states that ``nothing in this Act shall prevent handlers and producers from selecting their customers'' and it also states that it does not ``require a handler to deal with an association of producers.'' This clause in effect allows handlers to think of any reason possible under the sun not to do business with certain producers, as long as the stated reason is not because they belong to an association. Currently, the Agricultural Fair Practices Act focuses on the right of producers to join together without discrimination for having done so. I propose to expand the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to provide new needed protections for agricultural contracts. As I have mentioned earlier, consolidation in all sectors of agriculture is reducing the number of buyers of commodities and for the very few who are left, many require contracts to conduct business. Some producers have little or no choice but to contract with a firm with questionable practices or face leaving the industry they have known for their whole lives. This amendment to the Agricultural Fair Practices Act requires that contracts be spelled out in clear language what is required by the producer. This legislation prohibits confidentiality clauses by giving producers the ability to share it with family members or a lawyer to help them make an informed decision on whether or not to sign it. It prevents companies from prematurely terminating contracts without notice when producers have made large capital investments as a condition of signing the contract. And it only allows mandatory arbitration after a dispute arises and both parties agree to it in writing. Producers should not be forced to sign contracts with arbitration clauses thereby preventing them from seeking legal remedy in the courts. History is repeating itself--in fact consolidation in the industry is even worse today. Producers deserve to have a fair and evenhanded market in which to conduct business. They should not be at the mercy of unfair and heavily consolidated markets that spurred Congress to enact legislative reforms, such as the Packers and Stockyards Act, years ago. This legislation won't be able to turn back the clock, but it will strengthen laws and enforcement of them so that markets operate more fairly.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the work done by Senator Collins, Chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, by the ranking member Senator Lieberman, and also by Senator Carper. It has literally taken years to move this important postal reform legislation. As my colleagues are aware, the Postal Service faces multiple challenges in our changing economy. One of these challenges is how it should manage its network of processing and logistics facilities. In order to remain competitive and maintain universal service, the Postal Service is currently studying how best to streamline its processing and logistics network and remove excess capacity. The decisions it will make as part of this process will have a long term impact on many of the communities and businesses that it serves. Sadly, the process that the Postal Service has developed to date to study facility closures and consolidations fails to adequately allow stakeholders, key customers, postal employees or community leaders necessary input. The current process also fails to provide an open and transparent explanation to affected communities for what may be quite compelling reasons underlying the decisions to close or consolidate a facility. I learned how completely lacking in public participation and transparency this process is from my constituents in Sioux City, IA. Until I convened a meeting with postal officials in my office last week, the Sioux City community had been unable to get any information from the Postal Service about the timing or reasons for the proposed consolidation of a mail processing and distribution center there with a similar facility in another state. Senators Collins, Lieberman, and Carper have agreed to include language in S. 662 that would ensure that this does not happen. This language does not stop the Postal Service from studying consolidation options for its processing operations. What it does do is require that the Postal Service revise the area mail processing study process by which it analyzes which of its processing facilities should be closed or consolidated. While the language does not prevent the Postal Service from proceeding with ongoing area mail processing studies on consolidation of specific facilities, it does provide that no facility closing or consolidation may actually be implemented until the Postal Service has met the requirements of public notice, transparency and public input specified in new section 302(c)(3)(D)(i-iv) . The new language requires that the Postal Service's decisionmaking process be transparent, with any analyses made available to the community upon request. It will also require that the businesses and communities affected by proposed consolidations of Postal Service facilities have the opportunity to provide input and guarantees that their concerns and advice are taken fully into account by the Postal Service before the Postal Service issues a decision on a closure or consolidation. The first section of the amendment provides that the Postal Service notify an affected community about the potential of a facility being closed or consolidated in their district; such notification will be provided at the beginning stage of the matter or as soon as the Postal Service makes a decision to begin reviewing the matter. The Postal Service should do their best to ensure that this notification reaches all of businesses, residents, employees, government entities, and other organizations that depend on the facility. The second section will require the Postal Service to make available to the community, upon request, any data, analyses, or other information that is being considered by the Postal Service as part of its decisionmaking process. This will ensure that the Postal Service's decisionmaking analysis on this matter is transparent. The third section will allow the affected members of the community ample opportunity to provide input on the proposed decision. This will ensure that the community has the chance to provide valuable input into the decisionmaking process. The fourth section requires the Postal Service to take community input into account prior to making a final decision at the district level. Once the district level decision on consolidation is made, which includes taking the community input into account, the district level recommendation can then be forwarded to the next decisionmaking step at the regional level. It is worth noting that the community served by a postal facility can be a valuable information resource and that it should benefit the Postal Service to listen to the community's suggestions as they seek to arrive at a result that works for them, their customers and those they serve.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, once the Senate amendment is laid down, I intend to offer an amendment for myself and Senators Kennedy, Kohl, and Levin that will eliminate a very expensive pair of provisions contained in the 2001 tax bill, most of the benefits of which go to those individuals in America making over $1 million a year in income. The amendment I intend to offer would take that money and increase the benefits going to working-class families trying to cover the costs of daycare for their children or elder care for their parents. And the rest of the money would go for deficit reduction. The bill we will have before us, as soon as the Republican leader lays down the Senate amendment, will sharply increase the deficit in future years by as much as $70 billion. Again, most of the benefits, as usual, go to taxpayers making high incomes. Indeed, the House bill is even worse, with 40 percent of the benefits going to those making over $1 million per year. Forty percent of the benefits in the House-passed tax bill go to those individuals making over $1 million a year. Now, the chairman of the Finance Committee in the Senate discussed how this measure contains a 1-year extension of relief from the AMT, the alternative minimum tax. He correctly noted there are millions of people who would face a tax increase if the 1-year fix in the Senate bill is not passed. Well, it should be passed. But I believe it ought to be fully paid for. Fixing the AMT problem in the long term is likely to cost about $860 billion from 2007 to 2017--$860 billion. So it is a big problem. Well, why do we have this big alternative minimum tax problem that the chairman of the Finance Committee was talking about? In large part, it is because of the way the 2001 tax bill was put together and pushed through by the Republican majority. That measure, very much on purpose, doubled the number of people who would be affected by the AMT in the long term, while only fixing the problem for the first couple of years. Now, I have here a chart prepared by the Joint Tax Committee, which was prepared when we were considering the 2001 tax bill. People knew about it. What is important to note is, this chart was prepared in 2001 by the Joint Tax Committee. We had this data before us before the Republican majority pushed through the 2001 tax bill. We had it before us. Prior to the 2001 tax bill being passed, we could see that in 2006 the estimate was that about 8.7 million taxpayers would be affected by the alternative minimum tax. Going out to 2010, there would be 17.5 million. They passed the 2001 tax bill. Look what the Joint Tax Committee said would happened if the bill became law. By 2006, the amount of taxpayers affected by the alternative minimum tax, an estimated 19.6 million--over double what it would have been had we not had the 2001 tax bill passed. In the first years, they are all about the same amount of taxpayers because they included a short-term fix to the problem. It explodes in 2005 and 2006, and it explodes in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. So for the chairman to say that we have this big problem and we have to do something about it--well, yes, but why do we have this problem? We have the problem to a significant degree because of what they did in the 2001 tax bill. You can actually say that if we hadn't had the 2001 tax bill, about 8.7 million taxpayers would still affected by the alternative minimum tax. Now, if the estimate held, it is 19.6. So you could say over half of those with the alternative minimum tax have it because of what the tax committees did in 2001 and what the Senate did and the House did and what the President signed into law. I find it of more than passing interest that people now come in and say: My gosh, we have this terrible problem, we have to fix it. I am sorry. You created a large part of the problem. By not fully addressing the AMT timebomb, the 2001 bill was able to encompass a range of additional tax cuts. These other tax cuts were designed in such a way that their costs would explode later on. That is why the President, in his State of the Union Message, said: We have to make the tax cuts permanent. But, it is going to explode. That is setting the groundwork for my amendment because my amendment seeks to do something about a pair of the provisions which were included in the 2001 tax bill that is grossly unfair. It is a provision in the 2001 tax bill that I defy any Senator--I ask if there is any Senator who has correspondence from individuals saying that they want these two provisions repealed. I would like to see it. These two provisions called PEP and Pease. Rather than get into the ways to describe it--it is a little convoluted. It has to do with deductions and how you figure deductions on upper income people and exemptions. That is basically it. What happened in 2001 in the tax bill is they said: Beginning this year, in 2006, we will phase out provisions of the tax laws that were put in in 1990. The first year to go into effect may have been either 1990 or 1991. It was put in by President George Herbert Walker Bush. Why? To reduce the deficit. So we lived with these provisions from 1990 until 2006--16 years. What my amendment does is three things. It stops the phaseout of these PEP and Pease provisions, which, as I pointed out, helps mostly those making over $1 million a year. And it will cost the Treasury $29 billion between now and 2010--$29 billion that we will be collecting taxes from high-income people which will go into the Treasury between now and 2010 will not be collected. And in the decade after that, the cost of this phaseout is $146 billion. My amendment stops this phaseout. It reallocates the savings in the coming 5 years to reducing the deficit and a portion of the savings to helping child and dependent care. Again, the need for this is overwhelming and obvious. This fiscal year alone, in order to pay for the Iraq war and hurricane damages, the deficit is expected to climb back toward $360 billion, close to an all-time record. Yet, today on the Senate floor, the majority party is using reconciliation not to reduce the deficit, which is what reconciliation was supposed to be for when we passed it in the 1970s--reconciliation was in order to hold down the deficit. Here we have a reconciliation tax bill before us that doesn't reduce the deficit but increases the deficit even further by passing another $70 billion in tax cuts. It actually increases the deficit. This is reckless. It is unconscionable. Our first priority must be to use the savings from my amendment. It will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion in the long term. My amendment also updates the child and dependent care tax credit. This credit is provided to working families who have children in daycare who need to pay for the care or who need to pay for the care of elderly parents. If taxpayers aren't working, they don't get the credit. This goes to working families. Right now, the maximum amount that can be taken is $3,000 for child or dependent care or up to $6,000 for two or more. That was set some years ago. Clearly, dependent costs have been rising. My amendment would increase the amount of dependent care costs that can be taken against the tax credit to $6,000 for a single child or any other dependent or $10,000 for two or more. The amendment also increases the percentage of the credit that can be taken. Right now, a taxpayer with $50,000 of income gets a 20-percent credit. Under my amendment, that would increase to 30 percent, and then, as income increases, it would phase out and go down to 20 percent. So for a person making $50,000 a year, this could increase the size of the tax credit from $1,200 a year to $3,000 a year. That is meaningful. That would help working families with their childcare or dependent care costs. The cost of improving this credit would be about $2 billion, while eliminating PEP and Pease would save about $23 billion through 2010. So the rest of that would be used for deficit reduction. But the big gains would occur in the long term, since the full savings are expected to be over $140 billion in the decade after 2010. Again, the repeal of these PEP and Pease provisions, which overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans, was included in the 2001 tax bill. But the effective date was delayed until 2006 which took a far smaller share of what could be spent in the first 10 years. But like other provisions in the 2001 tax bill, it created a bow wave of debt beyond. We simply cannot afford it. Five years after the passage of the 2001 tax bill, the chickens are now coming home to roost. We now know the true cost of those 2001 tax cuts. They have created a string of record budget deficits, and the deficits are only going to get bigger in the years to come. It is time to restore some measure of order and sanity to the Federal budget. But the majority party, the Republicans, are not saying ``enough.'' Despite record deficits, despite a war in Iraq that has now cost us over $250 billion and rising, despite the unpaid bills for two devastating hurricanes, they are demanding more tax cuts, more tax cuts overwhelmingly for the wealthiest in our country. They are using this reconciliation process not to cut the deficit but to ram through another $70 billion in tax cuts rather than find offsets, increasing the deficit. To make matters worse, they are insisting that the PEP and Pease tax reductions go forward, adding another $146 billion to the deficit over the next decade. Why? Again, to give more tax breaks to those who least need it. According to CBO, more than half of the benefits of repealing PEP and Pease would go to taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year. Ninety-seven percent of all the benefits of repealing this tax measure would go to those earning more than $200,000 a year, 97 percent, half of it to those making over $1 million a year. Again, when I raised this issue several months ago and I did, and we had a vote on it during the so-called vote-arama last summer--the chairman of the Finance Committee came to the floor and said that my amendment, which would retain the PEP and Pease provisions which had been in the law since 2000, would effectively be a tax rate increase. I am sorry. That is not right. All I am saying is, don't lower the effective rates on people making more than $1 million and those making over $200,000 a year with these two provisions. That is what the law was. If the provisions were in the law, my amendment would keep those rates the same. What the majority party did in the 2001 tax bill is, they took the effective tax rates and further lowered them. So it is wrong to say that my amendment will increase rates. My amendment would just keep the rates the same as they have been for 15 years. So there is no effective rate increase with my amendment. All I am doing is saying: Don't cut it out. Keep it in the law. I wanted to clear up that point. Let me state the obvious. The rich don't need PEP and Pease taken out of the law. I have not heard from any rich people in America saying: Oh, I have to get rid of this PEP and Pease that has been in the law. They hardly notice it. Yet we are just going to give them some more money. We are going to take money from hard-working Americans who have to pay their taxes, and we are going to give it to the wealthy. That is all they are doing by doing away with PEP and Pease. It is income transfer from working families to the wealthy. I am going to offer this amendment to keep PEP and Pease in. And to use the money to offset the deficit and to help pay for the increased cost of childcare and dependent care. Again, I believe that by voting for this amendment, Senators have an opportunity to join with the American people to say: Enough of this giveaway to the wealthy. Enough of putting the burden on our grandkids to pay these huge bills. Enough of exploding the deficit. Enough of going to China with hat in hand and asking them if they will just please buy some more of our bonds, which they are doing. That is another issue we have to address--the amount of our debt being purchased by foreign countries, especially by China. Now, you may say that is not a problem right now. Well, China already finances our debt to the tune of more than $800 billion. That gives them leverage in trade disputes and in diplomatic negotiations. It put our whole economy at the mercy of decisions made by the Chinese Government regarding our bonds they own, which at last look was not a democratically elected government, by the way. They may choose to dump their dollars and hurt our currency and throw us into a recession. We are increasing our deficits and giving more tax giveaways to the wealthy. I urge my colleagues to vote yes to reduce the deficit, yes for shared sacrifice, and yes to help working class families with their childcare and dependent care. When the Senate lays down its amendment, I will be offering this amendment. I assume it will be some time tomorrow. I hope to have a few more minutes to expound on it tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, on Wednesday, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education will present its Best Practice for Collaboration with a Community College Award to the University of Northern Iowa. This award recognizes outstanding collaboration between a university teacher education program and a community college--in this case, Des Moines Area Community College. This partnership is a wonderful example of two fine educational institutions working together to meet the needs of schools in rural Iowa, and I congratulate them for this accomplishment. Eleven years ago, UNI joined forces with the DMACC campus in Carroll to develop a new approach to address the unique needs of rural school districts. The idea was simple--locate a teacher preparation program where you have the need. Instead of training teachers 160 miles away on its campus in Cedar Falls, UNI established a joint program with DMACC in the heart of rural western Iowa. Rural communities face many unique challenges, including the need to recruit highly qualified teachers. At the same time, many rural residents have a need to upgrade their skills, but are unable to move to a larger community to attend college. The 2+2 program is a perfect solution. This homegrown approach allows individuals to obtain the training they need to fill the jobs that are literally in their own backyards. Since 1995, UNI has awarded baccalaureate degrees to nearly 100 teachers at the Carroll campus. It is very important to point out that nearly all of these individuals continue to live in western Iowa, and are working for school districts in the surrounding area. This program has been an enormous success and I am very proud to have secured Federal funding from the U.S. Department of Education to support this innovative program. UNI is building on this experience and will be expanding the 2+2 model to other fields of study, including technology management, general business and criminology. The University will also expand the partnership to include Western Iowa Tech Community College in Sioux City, Northeast Iowa Community College in Peosta and Calmar, Eastern Iowa Community College in Davenport, and Iowa Western Community College in Council Bluffs. The success of this project is due to the creative energy and hard work of many individuals from UNI, DMACC and the community of Carroll including: Dr. Constantine Curris, former President of UNI; Dr. Joe Borgen, former President of DMACC; Dr. Robert Koob, President of UNI; Dr. Robert Denson, President of DMACC; Dr. Richard Hawkes, Professor of Teaching at UNI; Dr. Roger Kueter, Director of Community College Projects at UNI; Dr. Jim Knott, Provost of the DMACC Carroll campus; Steve Schultz, coordinator of the 2+2 program for DMACC; Art Neu, former mayor of Carroll and former Lieutenant Governor of the State of Iowa; and Jim Wilson, publisher of the Carroll Daily Times Herald. I extend my congratulations to all of them on this outstanding achievement.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, soon the Senate will vote on the nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Justice O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court. Of all of the issues we consider in the Senate, perhaps no issue raises such deep and fundamental questions as the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. The issues that come before the Supreme Court are not abstract legal concepts; rather, they involve the very values that define who we are as a nation. They ask us to think about what kind of society we want to be. I believe strongly that we want to be a society which strives for justice, protects the powerless, provides meaningful protections to workers, and allows those who have suffered discrimination to seek recourse and affirm their rights in Federal court. I believe that a nominee to the Supreme Court needs more than just excellent legal qualifications. He or she must possess a true passion for justice, an understanding that the law cannot be viewed with cool, analytical dispassion, but with the acknowledgement of its role in molding a fairer and more just society. He or she must understand and believe in the critical role the Federal courts play in protecting the civil rights of all Americans, including the 54 million Americans who live every day with a disability. A thorough review of Judge Alito's record and of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing has convinced me that he falls far short of that measure and, as a result, I oppose his nomination. One of the things I found most troubling about Judge Alito was his statement that one of the factors that motivated him to study constitutional law was his disagreements with the Warren Court decisions in the areas of criminal procedures and voting rights. Frankly, I find this to be a stunning admission. I know there are many who often decry the decisions of the Warren Court as inappropriate liberal judicial activism. I strongly disagree with that characterization. So many of the decisions of the Warren Court, beginning with the 1954 unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education--that decision that separate is not equal--are not just liberal values, they are American values-- American values that each person's vote should have the same weight; that legislative districts should contain equal population; that the freedom to marry a person of another race is a fundamental civil right; the decision that broadcasters are required to provide programming that serves the public interest and to provide for a diversity of viewpoints; the decision that illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a trial; the decision that poor people are entitled to have lawyers in criminal cases; the decision that the wearing of symbols of protest is protected speech; the decision that suspects have the right to remain silent; the decision that you have a right to an attorney; the decision that you have the right to be informed of these protections and the charges against you. These were all Warren Court decisions, and these decisions, far from evidencing an extreme view of the Constitution, are decisions that the vast majority in this country believe are fair and correct and give meaning to our Constitution's promise of individual liberty and dignity. Yet Judge Alito chose to cite his disagreement with these very decisions as his motivation for studying law. He chose to cite his disagreements with these decisions as his reason for working to narrow or overturn the rulings in the Reagan Justice Department. I find this very troubling. I cannot help but wonder what other laws Justice Alito might seek to narrow if he is granted lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court. Another law that gives meaning to our Constitution's promise of liberty and dignity is the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fifteen years ago--now approaching 16--I championed the ADA, as it is now known, because I had seen discrimination against the disabled firsthand, growing up with my brother Frank who was deaf. Throughout his life, Frank experienced active discrimination at the hands of both private individuals and the government, and this served to limit the choices before him. Frank's experience was by no means unusual, as Congress documented extensively prior to enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act. As part of the writing of that bill, we gathered a massive record of blatant discrimination against those with disabilities. We had 25 years of testimony and reports on disability discrimination. Fourteen congressional hearings and 63 field hearings by a special congressional task force were held in the 3 years prior to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We received boxes loaded with thousands of letters and pieces of testimony gathered in hearings and townhall meetings across the country from people whose lives had been damaged or destroyed by discrimination against people with disabilities. We had markups in five different committees. We had over 300 examples of discrimination by States--by States--against people with disabilities. I know this. I was there. I was the chairman of the Disability Policy Subcommittee and the lead sponsor of the bill. Yet since enactment of the ADA, the Court has repeatedly questioned-- or I should say a minority of the Court has repeatedly questioned-- whether Congress had the authority to require States to comply with the ADA and, amazingly, whether Congress adequately documented discrimination. For example, in 2001, the Court narrowly held that an experienced nurse at a university hospital, who was demoted after being diagnosed with breast cancer because her supervisor did not like being around sick people, was not covered by the ADA because she had the misfortune to work for a State hospital. If she had worked for a private hospital, she would have been covered, according to the Supreme Court. In contrast, in 2004, again by a narrow margin, 5 to 4, with Justice O'Connor in the majority, the Court held that Congress did have the authority to require States to make courthouses accessible. Over the next few years, the Court will likely look at whether other State and locally owned facilities are required to be accessible. And in case anyone doubts that accessibility is still a day-to-day issue for the disabled in this country, I want to point out two stories recently in the Des Moines Register in the last week. First, the fire alarm went off in the State capitol, and there was no way for people in wheelchairs, including a State legislator who was recently injured in a farming accident, to exit the building. Another example is before that, a woman in a wheelchair had no way to get onto the stage to speak at a Martin Luther King, Jr., Day tribute. But there is no guarantee that the Court will continue to require that facilities be made accessible. Instead, we could end up with a crazy patchwork where courthouses are accessible but maybe libraries are not; prisons are accessible but maybe employment offices are not. When we passed the ADA, we in Congress did not forbid employment discrimination against the disabled unless they work for the State. We didn't say some services must be accessible. But that is what the Court has been saying. Talk about judicial activism. To put a fine point on it, the ADA is at the mercy of the Supreme Court and of the nominee who assumes this seat. Based on his record, I am gravely concerned that Judge Alito does not believe that Congress has the authority to protect the fundamental rights of all Americans. Instead, his record is one that values the rights of the State over the rights of people. In the two instances where Judge Alito has been required to interpret recent Supreme Court cases limiting the power of Congress to pass national legislation under the 14th amendment or under the commerce clause, he has gone further than the Court itself. First, consider a case involving the Family and Medical Leave Act, the law that allows Americans to take unpaid leave from work to care for a newborn child, a sick child, or an ailing parent. Over 50 million Americans have taken unpaid family and medical leave since its passage, including 5 million State workers. Yet confronted with a case challenging whether State and local employers were required to grant unpaid family and medical leave, Judge Alito held in Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development that Congress lacked the authority to order State and local employers to abide by the law. Imagine that, Judge Alito on the Third Circuit said that we didn't have the authority to pass the family and medical leave bill. He was opposed to it. Fortunately, that holding was affirmatively rejected by the Supreme Court in 2004 when the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of the FMLA. Chief Justice Rehnquist was the author of that opinion. He was joined by Justice O'Connor. Think about this. Would that case have been decided the same way if Chief Justice Roberts had been there in place of Chief Justice Rehnquist? And if Justice Alito had been there instead of Justice O'Connor? I am afraid it would not. Secondly, again in 2004, the Supreme Court issued a 5-to-4 decision that held similarly that Congress could order State courthouses to abide by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Justice O'Connor was in the majority, a 5-to-4 decision, Lane v. Tennessee. This is where a person with a disability had been cited for speeding and was given a ticket. He used a wheelchair. He showed up at the courthouse, and guess what. The court was on the second floor. There was no elevator. So they said: OK, we will carry you up. The first time he appeared in court they carried him up into the courtroom. Then the case was put over to another day. The second time Lane showed up, they said: We will carry you up again. He said: I'm not going to be carried up. I have too much dignity for that. They said: OK, you are going to have to crawl. Get out of your wheelchair and crawl up the steps or, of course, the court will fine you because you did not appear in the courtroom. This is a real case. This really happened. It went to the Supreme Court. A 5-to-4 decision held that courthouses must be accessible under the ADA. If Justice Alito had been there instead of Justice O'Connor, given his limited view of congressional authority, it would be foolish to think that we would have had the same outcome, and Mr. Lane would, indeed, have to crawl up the steps of the courthouse or be carried up. I want to digress here a moment. There may be those who say maybe it was an old courthouse and they couldn't put in an elevator. The ADA does not require that. It says that services must be accessible. The judge can hold court wherever he wants. The judge could have gotten out of that second floor room and gone down to a room on the first floor and held court there, and Mr. Lane could have wheeled his wheelchair into that room. Services must be accessible, and that is what we said in the ADA. But Mr. Alito does not see it that way. His failure to recognize the role of the Federal courts in protecting victims of discrimination can be seen even more directly. In 1995, the Third Circuit, on which Mr. Alito sat, ruled that people with disabilities should be allowed to live in the community, not warehoused in institutions, whenever it was possible. The Third Circuit's opinion was consistent with Justice Thurgood Marshall's opinion in the Cleburne case. Justice Marshall wrote that persons with disabilities, and I quote Justice Thurgood Marshall: . . . have been subject to a ``lengthy and tragic history'' of segregation and discrimination that can only be called grotesque. [In the early 20th Century] a regime of state- mandated segregation and degradation emerged that in its virulence and bigotry rivaled, and indeed paralleled, the worst excesses of Jim Crow. . . .[L]engthy and continuing isolation of the retarded has perpetuated the ignorance, irrational fears, and stereotyping that long have plagued them. The Third Circuit agreed that people should not be warehoused. They should be allowed to live in the community whenever possible. Yet after three judges on the circuit court ruled that such institutionalization was a form of discrimination under the ADA, Judge Alito argued that the Third Circuit should reconsider the opinion. When asked about this issue at his Judiciary Committee hearing, Judge Alito suggested that his desire to rehear the case did not suggest he had a disagreement with the outcome. Frankly, I find this response difficult to believe. I think most lawyers would agree that judges do not vote to rehear cases unless they disagree with the outcome or unless other factors, factors that were not present here, require such a rehearing. Fortunately, Judge Alito's desire to reconsider the Helen L. case was denied. The Supreme Court shortly after that held, in the landmark Olmstead decision, that unnecessary institutionalization is, in fact, a form of discrimination. Once again, Justice O'Connor sided with the majority in the Olmstead decision. Given Judge Alito's judicial record, we can safely assume that he would have come down on the opposite side of this landmark ruling and might even have steered the Court in a different direction, and years of progress toward equal rights for the disabled might have been erased. In case after case on the Third Circuit, Judge Alito seems to have been immune to the real-life struggles of the people in the cases before him. It is like: This is the legal theory. Don't bother me with the facts. Don't bother me with what is actually happening. There is some legal theory out there that I believe in, and somehow this legal theory trumps, overcomes the real-life travails of ordinary people. As I said--immune to the real-life struggles. The fact that the police strip-searched a 10-year-old girl, the fact that a mentally disabled worker was sexually assaulted, the fact that a farm family was threatened at gunpoint by U.S. Marshals without any resistance during an eviction process--all of this failed to sway him that these ordinary Americans even deserve to be able to present their cases against the Government. It failed to persuade the judge that they should even be allowed to present their cases against the Government. This is real life, real people, and real situations. But, no, Judge Alito had some other philosophy, some other theory that overcame this. In the past few days, I have heard a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle express alarm or dismay that so many Democratic Senators have expressed their opposition to this nominee. In light of the record that I just outlined, I find it alarming that more Senators on the Republican side have not expressed their opposition to this nominee. I thought it was my friends on the other side who so loudly proclaimed individual liberty, individual dignity of the person. Yet Judge Alito dismisses this under some rubric of a judicial philosophy or some theory that he has. I must say, my alarm becomes more pronounced when I consider Judge Alito's record on Executive power. At a time when the President of the United States is illegally spying on American citizens, at a time when the President believes that he can ignore the clear intent of Congress--including a vote of 90 Senators--and continue the use of torture in the interrogation of criminal suspects, at a time when the President believes he can indefinitely detain American suspects without charges and without access to a lawyer, it is more important than ever that Justices on the Supreme Court recognize the need to protect and preserve the balance of power envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Judge Alito is not that Justice. He is, instead, an adherent of a legal theory that Presidential powers should be wholly unchecked. In fact, he is the author of the very strategy used by President Bush earlier this month when he essentially said to 90 Senators: I signed the amendment that says no torture but I hereby declare that I can ignore it if I feel like it. After reviewing Judge Alito's record, it is not difficult to wonder, if Judge Alito had been on the Supreme Court during its consideration of Marbury v. Madison, would he have voted the other way? Would we have an imperial President today and not a Court that has the role as final arbiter? That strikes at the very heart of our Democratic form of government and our checks and balances. But don't take my word for it. Consider the words of the Justice whom Judge Alito seeks to replace, Justice O'Connor, who wrote in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that it is: . . . clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. I agree with Justice O'Connor. It is clear under the Constitution of the United States that our President does not have unfettered powers. It is clear that the Supreme Court has the authority, the duty to serve as a check on that power. And it is clear to me that Judge Alito is not committed to providing that check. As recently as 2000, in a speech before the Federalist Society, Judge Alito said in his speech: . . . the President has not just some executive powers, but the executive power--the whole thing. What does that mean? . . . the President has not just some executive powers, but the executive power--the whole thing. What does Judge Alito mean by that? I find this to be a frightening theory, in someone getting life tenure on the Supreme Court. In closing, the new Supreme Court Justice will have a tremendous impact on our society. The decisions before the Court will determine whether we are true to our fundamental national values of fairness and justice and dignity for all. In Judge Alito, we have a nominee whose history, record, and testimony make clear that he holds an unduly restrictive view of the power of Congress to enact laws to protect workers, to protect public safety, to protect victims of discrimination, and that he holds a dangerous view of the Court's proper role in providing a necessary check on Executive powers. Indeed, if Judge Alito is confirmed, I fear that many of the core protections provided to people with disabilities under the Americans With Disabilities Act and other laws simply disappear. For these reasons, I strongly oppose his nomination. 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Yoni Cohen of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the ranking member was going to yield me 30 minutes of time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, last week this story, ``Prayers Made to Protest Budget Cuts,'' appeared in the Quad-City Times in my State of Iowa. Ollie Finn of Bettendorf said: We're concerned about the budget cuts and that's why we're having the prayer vigil. We wanted to bring awareness to the community about how horrible these budget cuts are. . . . The Rev. Roger Butts, pastor of the Unitarian Church of Davenport, asked people to determine whether the Fiscal Year 2006 budget serves the common good. ``I've come simply to pray with you and to stand with you for those whose voices are easy to ignore,'' he said. I ask unanimous consent that this article from the Quad-City Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know that people of faith held many events in Iowa, Washington, and many other places around the country last week on this very topic. Unfortunately, their prayers were not enough. Their prayers were not enough because yesterday we awakened to the flurry of late-night activities in the House of Representatives. House Republicans waited until the middle of the night Sunday, less than a week before Christmas, to order deep cuts to health care initiatives and farm programs and to sneak through blanket protections for the pharmaceutical industry. It is not an accident these House votes occurred in the dead of night. There are now only 5 days until Christmas. Throughout much of the world, it is the season of giving, but here in Congress, it is the season of taking away--taking away education programs, taking away job training, taking away health care from low-income families, taking away money for needed medical research, taking away from farmers and rural communities and, worst of all, taking away hope from so many. This is a cruel holiday surprise for many American families. Why are we doing this? Not for deficit reduction, but to provide tens of billions of dollars in tax giveaways for the wealthiest in our society. Forty percent of the benefits in the House tax bill go to those making more than $1 million a year. Seventy-eight percent go to those making over $100,000 a year. Only 8 percent go to those making under $50,000 a year. So, again, those in the bottom of the ladder get some crumbs from the table. So while the wealthiest in our society unwrap Christmas presents, while the wealthiest in our society are hanging their Christmas stockings and getting thousands of dollars of tax giveaways stuffed in their stockings, for the poor and low income, Congress has come with a couple of lumps of coal for their stockings. Take a look at some of the provisions I am talking about. Take the provision of the child support enforcement. This is essential to helping families achieve self-sufficiency. For families in poverty who receive child support, those payments account for an average of about 30 percent of their income. Next to a mother's earnings, child support is the largest income source for poor families receiving assistance. Child support payments are used to pay for food, child care, shelter, and the most basic essentials of life. The bill slashes funding for these child support enforcement efforts. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as a result of the cuts, more than $8.4 billion in delinquent payments will go uncollected in the coming 10 years. The biggest negative impact will be by children living in poverty and low-income households. One hundred seventy-six thousand children benefit from child support payments in my State of Iowa alone. In the past, President Bush himself praised the program, calling it one of our highest performing social services programs, and he is right. For every dollar in Government spending, $4.38 is recovered for families in child support payments. Since 1996, there has been an 82-percent increase in collections, from $12 billion to $22 billion. If we were smart, if we were compassionate, if we were looking at ways to get the most bang for the taxpayers' dollar, we would be increasing funding for the child support enforcement program. The bill before us cuts this program in order to make way for more tax cuts for the wealthiest. It is simply unconscionable. Let us take a look at Medicaid. I am very concerned about the cuts to Medicaid in this bill. I have said all along, if one wants to do something about Medicaid we ought to have a fair, honest, open debate about reforming Medicaid. We should do so in a way that does no harm to the beneficiaries because who are the beneficiaries of Medicaid? The poorest among us, poor women and children, the disabled, low-income elderly who need access to long-term care. This bill before us today makes two changes that are permanent changes. One, under this bill, States can now alter or eliminate services to individuals. They can do it on their own. Secondly, the bill allows States to charge fees--sometimes it could be exorbitant fees--on many services where there were no fees before. Again, this could limit access to care for so many. For example, States may provide any child, even those whose families have the lowest incomes, with a smaller benefit package than they have today. That means that low-income children, no matter how poor, are no longer guaranteed, as they are now, vision screening; no longer guaranteed coverage for eyeglasses; no longer guaranteed therapy services, medical equipment or any other benefit. This bill would allow States to charge up to 20 percent of the cost of each medication that an individual gets in Medicaid. For individuals who take multiple drugs, this is 20 percent for each medication, so an individual who has multiple drugs or maybe an individual who needs expensive medication, these provisions could, in effect, eliminate access to needed medicines. Keep in mind these are people who qualify for Medicaid. That means they are poor, by definition. They do not have money. So now we are going to ask them to pay more for services? Now we may ask them to pay for eyeglasses for their kids. Well, their kid needs eyeglasses, they do not have any money, they cannot pay for it, tough. That is the way it was 50 years ago in our country. I suppose they can go get charity, can they not? I forget about that. That is right. I suppose they could go to their local church or their local synagogue maybe, local mosque, and maybe they will pay for all the eyeglasses for all the poor kids in our country now. Under the bill, medical care providers can deny medical care if the patient has no ability to pay the charges at the time the care is needed. States can terminate coverage if the family cannot pay the monthly premiums. Again, these changes were made despite a large body of evidence, research, and studies that determined that such cost- sharing increases are likely to lead many low-income Medicaid patients to forgo various health care services and medications or not to enroll in Medicaid. Guess what. When they do not take their needed medications, when they forgo needed health services, when they do not sign up for Medicaid, guess where they are seen. They are in the emergency room, and we are paying three, four, five times as much to help them. So much for the health care safety net that we have worked so many years to provide for low-income Americans. Let us look at education, student loans. The reconciliation bill increases the interest rates paid by the parents of students who are taking out loans to help their kids. Merry Christmas; you are going to get higher interest payments. It also creates a potential problem for the federally operated direct loan program. This is a direct loan program utilized by many schools. The University of Iowa, UNI, Iowa State University in my State all use it. This bill before us says the accounting of the administrative costs for the direct loan program now goes to Labor and Health and Human Services rather than being automatic. That means it is subject to a cut. This year's Labor-HHS-Education bill has been cut this year. And, I expect next year could be very difficult. Let's look at agriculture and rural development, so important in my State and so many other States. I have long believed that there was really no justification for making budget cuts in the area of agriculture and rural development programs. Commodity prices are down. Prices for energy and fertilizer and other goods and services that farmers buy are sharply higher. Rural communities are struggling to hold onto jobs, to survive. Keep in mind, when we wrote the 2002 farm bill--I happened to be chairman at that time--we stayed within the budget allocation we were given. In fact, the commodity programs in that bill have cost us $14 billion less than what we were allocated. That is $14 billion that we saved the taxpayers of this country. There were commitments made in the farm bill, but this reconciliation bill reneges on those commitments. In agriculture and rural programs, again, the sacrifice is being imposed on those least able to bear it. It is hard to understand what they have in mind for our farmers or rural communities. Secretary Johanns and the President and others have been going around the country saying the future of farm policy lies in less emphasis on the traditional commodity programs and greater focus on conservation, renewable energy, agricultural development, and agricultural research. You cannot argue with that. It all sounds good. That is what we did in the 2002 farm bill because these types of assistance are all allowed under the WTO trade agreements. We put those in the farm bill. We put a tremendous focus on conservation in the farm bill. President Bush, when he signed it, touted it and said oh, this is wonderful. There is a lot of good conservation. We put in for the first time ever an energy title in the farm bill. It came out of the Senate, not the House, with an energy title to get farmers--to get us all focused on energy. Rural economic development and new rural investment-type programs for rural development, we put in money for broadband extension to small communities all over America. Guess what they are cutting in the reconciliation bill: conservation, renewable energy, rural economic development, agricultural research--all being cut. Conservation suffers the largest funding cuts of all, and the Conservation Security Program is hit the worst. The Conservation Security Program is a voluntary program of incentive payments for farm and ranch conservation practices, exactly the kind of program that Secretary Johannes and the administration are talking about as they go around the country. Yet the Conservation Security Program is virtually demolished in the bill before us. It is cut back so far that there will probably be few enrollments next year. The damage to the CSP is only a part of the serious cuts to a number of farm conservation programs in this bill. Some argue that in the Defense appropriations bill there will be some money to make up for cuts in conservation. Don't be misled. Defense appropriations funds are not even available until 2008, and then only if Congress doesn't take them out later on, as they have done year after year. What is going on here? Why are drastic cuts conservation being made in one bill and then we have a restoration a few years later in another bill? The DOD bill is going to come before us, and you will hear some talk about: ``There is money in there. We have some money for conservation.'' There is money in there for 2008 but, guess what, next year they may come and say we need that money, we will make up for it in 2009. They may keep doing this every year to us, the old shell game. The bill takes away rural development funding to expand high-speed broadband access in rural communities. President Bush set a goal. He set it in Des Moines, IA. We are going to have broadband in all rural communities by 2007. Yet they are cutting the funding in the reconciliation bill for that very purpose. Do I hear anything from the President about it? Not a peep. The bill takes away $20 million of $23 million for an innovative program to help farmers and rural businesses adopt renewable energy systems and energy efficiencies and improvements. When you take $20 million out of a $23 million fund, that kills it. Let's face it. I guess the $3 million they are leaving is for some bureaucrats so they can sit at their desks and twiddle their thumbs because and little else. The bill cuts $760 million, almost three-quarters of a billion dollars, out of funding that we had in the farm bill that goes to agricultural research. Again, the administration has just been in Hong Kong saying we have to push for cuts to farm income and commodity programs to make them combined with WTO. But at the same time they are in Hong Kong, they are here in the House and Senate cutting the very programs to sustain farmers, to sustain rural communities, and provide for rural economic development that will be consistent with WTO provisions. I said all along the reason they are doing this is not to cut the deficit. The deficit actually goes up under this bill. I think of the word, ``reconciliation.'' We have before us the reconciliation bill. ``Reconciliation''--nice word; to reconcile, to make things even. To reconcile things. To make them fit. When we passed the Budget Act 30 years ago we put in this reconciliation process so that the budget would come out, the Appropriations Committee would do their work, and then after they did all their work they would reconcile the spending with the budget, so as to keep the deficit under control. That is the way it is supposed to work. We had a budget. We did all of our appropriations work. We have the reconciliation bills. Does the reconciliation bills make the deficit come down? Not on your life. This reconciliation bill actually is the first in a pair of reconciliation bills that increases the deficit so it has the reverse effect of what reconciliation bills were supposed to be. They may use that word, but this is a deficit-increasing process. This is one of a pair of bills to provide tax giveaways to the wealthy and increase the deficit. It sure cannot properly be called a reconciliation bill. So they cut child support enforcement, foster care benefits, cut Medicaid, make students pay more interest on their loans for going to college. But we get to ram through $70 billion in more tax giveaways mostly for the most privileged. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, it is the wrong priorities. It is the wrong values for America. The two main tax provisions we are considering in this process are, No. 1, the extension of the dividends and capital gains cuts and No, 2, the alternative minimum tax. The extension of the dividends and capital gains tax cuts for just 2 years will cost the Treasury $50 billion. Because of it, 40 percent of the benefits of the House Reconciliation Tax bill will go to individuals making over $1 million a year. Back in 2001, when they rammed through the first year's tax giveaway bill, they purposely doubled the number of taxpayers who would pay higher taxes because of the alternative minimum tax, but then they delayed the impact for the first few years. Now we have to pay the Piper to the tune of $30 billion just to fix it for 2006. This chart is a little hard to read. It is from the official Congressional Joint Tax Committee explaining the bill written at the time. Basically, under the old law before the tax cuts of 2001, by 2010 there would be 17.5 million Americans paying the alternative minimum tax. When they passed the tax giveaway program of 2001, it doubled it to 35.5 million. Many of these are basically middle-income people. Now we all want to fix it. To fix it costs $30 billion for just 2006. Again, the Republicans will argue that everyone benefits from the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. I guess that is true. Everyone benefits. Even when you get crumbs from the table, you get food. Even when some crumbs fall off the table, you can say: Well, the people on the floor got some food. The same with tax cuts. Look at the chart. The bottom fifth of taxpayers, individuals and families making under $13,500 a year, gain an average of $23 a year. This is the bottom 20 percent. These are the one out of every five Americans. I know it is almost hard to believe that for people around here when you are making $157,000 a year, and out of 100 Senators you have some who are megamillionaires. It is hard to imagine one out of five people outside this building, outside of these hallowed halls, one out of five making less than $13,478 a year. They got 23 bucks. You can say: Well, they got a break--23 bucks. Will that buy 8 gallons of gasoline? Well, maybe--7 or 8 gallons of gasoline. It will not even fill up your tank. That is for 1 year. People in the middle 20 percent who make between $25,847 and $44,451, they got $618 a year. It is not bad. But you spread that over a year's time, that is a tax cut of about $26 a paycheck. That is why, when you ask your typical middle-income American, Did you see any gain from this tax cut, they will say, Are you kidding? They might have gotten $26 a paycheck. Guess what. It went out in higher taxes for their property taxes. Why? Because we have cut back funding for No Child Left Behind and for education and for special education which means that middle-income families have to pay more on their property taxes for education and that chewed up more than $26 a paycheck which they got back. Again, a good old Republican tax shell game. Where did the money go? The top one-tenth of 1 percent of income earners, people making over $1,589,000 a year--yes, there are people in America who make that kind of money. I don't hold that against them. That is fine. It is part of the American dream--to make money. But it is not the whole American dream. Over the last 4 years, $1.7 billion in tax cuts, 145,000 people with incomes over $1.59 million a year got $195,762 a year. I will bet they noticed that. Again, the old trickle-down capitalism. All you have to do is give more money to the top and it all kind of trickles down. The best way to help the poor at the bottom is set a lavish table with all the finest foods and let the people at top eat the best, drink the best and the crumbs will fall off and the poor will get help. Trickle-down economics, trickle-down capitalism. There is another form of capitalism. It is called percolate-up capitalism. It is where you invest in education, it is where you get people decent jobs and job training. It is where you provide decent housing and health care so people are able to work and keep their families together. It is a kind of a capitalism that understands you don't eat your seed corn. You invest in people, and these people then became better educated, healthier, more productive citizens, and they make the pot grow. Other examples of the difference between trickle-down capitalism and percolate-up capitalism. Sure. Look at the 1981 tax cut when Reagan came in, big, massive tax cuts, again, mostly for the wealthy. We lost 3.5 million jobs in the 18 months after it passed. Guess what. Later, we saw employment rise. But, that followed several tax increases. The Democratic administration came in, in 1993. Yes. We had a responsible tax increase in large part on the wealthy to help eliminate the huge deficits. Many on the other side predicted economic disaster. Look at what happened. We got 4.4 million new jobs in the following 18 months. That is percolate up. That is giving people hope, giving people jobs. Guess what. Everybody did better. The rising tide lifted all the boats. Then we come back in 2001. Again, similar to 1981, we had not learned our lesson, massive tax giveaways for the wealthiest, large increases the deficit, we lost 2.7 million jobs. We keep doing trickle-down economics. We tried it under Reagan. We tried it under Bush. The same thing happened: less new jobs. But there is something about a belief system and trickle-down economics. I will tell you what that belief is. Their wealthy friends made out like bandits. That is exactly what happened. Simply put, what we have before us is not a reconciliation bill. What we have before us is a bill that turns topsy-turvy what we are supposed to be about, in terms of providing for justice in our society, a fair shot at the American dream to ensure that people have a decent safety net when things happen beyond their control; when they become disabled, when they get sick, when families split up, and the father deserts and isn't paying child support any longer. We need to pay attention. In terms of topsy-turvy, what we are supposed to do at this time of the year--we all remember Charles Dickens' classic tale of ``A Christmas Carol,'' the story of Ebenezer Scrooge. He learns the true meaning of Christmas at the end and opens his heart to those less fortunate than he. Unfortunately, in the Congress, life does not imitate art. Less than a week before Christmas, Congress is poised to deliver a cruel blow to the most underprivileged and disadvantaged in our society. Unlike Dickens' tale, no remorse at the end, no nagging conscience, no change of heart at the end of the day. In this Congress, in this Senate, Scrooge would feel right at home. This is Scrooge's domicile. Scrooge lives in the Senate and in the House. That is why we need to reject this proposal. We need to reject it. We need to have the spirit of Christmas to understand that there are less fortunate in our society. They need hope. They need a hand up. They need the Government to make sure that their kids can get a decent education and housing and health care, that they will get their child support payment, that they will invest in medical research. That is what we ought to be doing. That is why we have to defeat this conference report under the so-called reconciliation process. We do need to extend some tax provisions, but they should be progressively paid for. Send this bill back. Let us be similar to Scrooge at the end, when we look upon the poor family and we have a change of heart and we realize that what we have done before we can't keep doing. Let us have the change of heart and defeat this so-called reconciliation bill. Let us have a continuing resolution, let us come back after the first of the year and do the right thing for the American people. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Marlene Watson and Dr. Gordon Day, fellows in the office of Senator Rockefeller, be granted the privilege of the floor during the Senate's proceedings today.

Mr. HARKIN

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