Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Virginia, he is a very thoughtful individual. I know he is fair and always has been fair. To air commentary of the nature I discussed earlier--that which Mr. Limbaugh made about Abu Ghraib--with absolutely no counterbalance or rebuttal, sends entirely the wrong message to our troops. Last year when we had the sense-of-the-Senate resolution--this was posted on CNN.com; they carried an article on it--Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Allison Barber said: It's not about conservative or liberal, it is about the full selection of radio programming based on popularity---- Here in the States. That is ratings. Still, Howard Stern has millions of fans, and his show is not sent to the troops. Barber explains: His issue is one of content that is not appropriate. They say it is popularity, but then they decide whether it is appropriate. Are we to believe that the Abu Ghraib comments by Mr. Limbaugh are excusable because of the high ratings his show receives? I partially agree with the Deputy Assistant Secretary's statement. It appears that content is sometimes a factor in deciding which commentaries to run on American Forces Radio. At the same time, I also agree with the directive DoD already has in place. There should be fairness and balance in political programming on American Forces Radio. To use commercial market share ratings as an excuse not to offer fair and balanced programming will no longer suffice. When there are 33 stations around the globe, and they do not even carry 1 minute of an alternative to Rush Limbaugh, that has to say something. That it is not just ratings. Something else is going on there. One would think that at least they would carry the 15 percent that is offered. They do not even carry that, if the Senator knows what I mean. The 33 stations around the world were offered 15 percent progressive talk radio a week. They are offered it, but they do not carry any of it. So something is going on out there. I do not know what it is, but something is.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. I yielded the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, my amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the Senate go on record opposing the House's $9 billion cut to child support enforcement programs. It is not reasonable to cut a program that last year served 17,300,000 children. This is money that goes out to States for child support enforcement to go after deadbeat dads to get them to pay the money for child support. As a matter of fact, this is one of the best things that has happened out of welfare reform. For every $1 we spend, we are getting back $4.38, not to the Government but to the families and the kids who need it. This is just a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that says we do not agree with the House 40-percent cut in this program and we won't hold up to it when it goes to the conference. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The bill approved by Ways and Means would slash funding for child support enforcement efforts by 40 percent over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, as a result of these cuts, more than $24 billion in delinquent payments will go uncollected. And the biggest negative impacts will be felt by children living in poverty and children in low-income households. And let's be clear: Why is the House doing this? Why is it cutting this essential program that benefits some of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged, neglected children in our society? They are doing this in order to make room for another $70 billion in tax cuts--tax cuts overwhelmingly benefiting our wealthiest citizens. Indeed, that is what this entire reconciliation process is all about. For 25 years, the budget reconciliation process was used to reduce the deficit. But, today, the majority party has a different idea. They are using reconciliation to increase the deficit. They are cutting child support enforcement, food assistance for the poor, foster care benefits, Medicaid, and other programs for the most disadvantaged Americans. At the same time they are ramming through another $70 billion in tax cuts for the most privileged. There is no other word for it: This is simply immoral. Last year, more than 17 million children received financial support through the Child Enforcement System, including nearly two-thirds of all children in single-parent households with incomes below twice the poverty line. Child support helped to lift more than 1 million Americans out of poverty in 2002. As a result of cuts passed by the House, many of those people--mostly children--would be plunged back into poverty. Not only is this cruel, it is also counterproductive. It is penny wise and pound foolish, because those families that are shoved into poverty by the House's action will end up on food stamps, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and other forms of public assistance. This chart shows the State-by-State impact of the cut in child support collection. In my State of Iowa, alone, children would lose some $239 million over the next 10 years. This is a proven program, an effective program. It reduces poverty. It gets resources to children who desperately need them. It is cost effective. Research has shown that the decline in families relying on TANF in recent years is directly linked to improvements in the Child Support Enforcement Program. For all these reasons, this program has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. In the past, President Bush himself has praised this program, calling it one of our highest performing social services programs. And he is right because for every Government dollar spent, $4.38 is recovered for families in child support payments. With good reason. Reforms over the last decade have made this program even more effective. Since 1996, there has been an 82-percent increase in collections, from $12 billion to $22 billion. Child Support Enforcement is essential to helping families to achieve self-sufficiency. For families in poverty who receive child support, those payments account for an average of 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. If we were smart, if we were compassionate, if we were looking at ways to get maximum bang for the buck, we would be increasing funding for this essential program. But the action of the other body, slashing Child Support Enforcement by 40 percent to make way for more tax cuts, is just unconscionable. It is bad public policy, bad values, and bad priorities. A strong bipartisan vote for this resolution will send a strong message to the House conferees that this cut is unacceptable to the Senate and that this body will not accept a slash-and-burn attack on a program that lifts more than 1 million people out of poverty every year. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to cosponsor this amendment offered by Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan. Again, let's be clear why we are here debating this amendment. It is because the President's budget proposal called for taking away substantial funding that had previously been dedicated to agriculture and nutrition assistance. Accordingly, the congressional budget resolution requires cutting $3 billion out of programs in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry over the next 5 years. These cuts could come from farm income assistance, conservation, Federal nutrition assistance, or several other mandatory programs. Fortunately--and I commend the chairman of our committee, Senator Chambliss, for this--his mark did not cut Federal nutrition assistance, and neither does the committee-reported measure, although such cuts are probably almost certain after we go to conference with the House. Along with many of my colleagues, I opposed the cuts to agriculture from the time President Bush proposed them because I do not think they are justified. Three years ago we crafted a new, bipartisan farm bill, which the President praised and signed into law. We were given a budget allocation to deal with it. We stayed within it. The farm bill has in general been working as intended. In fact, in for fiscal 2002 through 2005, since the bill was signed, our Federal commodity programs are estimated to have saved the taxpayers of this country $14 billion compared to the cost estimates right after the bill was enacted. We have spent $14 billion less in those 4 years than we were entitled to spend in the farm bill. So now we have the budget reconciliation bill before us. I don't believe there is any justification for cutting any funds out of agriculture, but the fact is, the budget resolution requires it. Congress is going to cut funds. The question is, how are we going to do it? How are we going to do it? Well, I am supporting the Grassley- Dorgan amendment because it contains a much more equitable and sound way to achieve the $3 billion in cuts over the next 5 years. Basically, the amendment says there will be a more reasonable set of limits on the amount of Federal farm program payments that any one individual is able to draw from the Federal Treasury. By obtaining the savings in this way, the burden of budget cuts on the vast majority of America's farmers and ranchers will be lessened. Now, my colleagues--Senator Grassley, Senator Dorgan, and others-- have described very well how farm commodity program payments are heavily concentrated on a relatively small percentage of Americans who control our Nation's largest farm operations. They have described how these operations can be reorganized, manipulated, using various partnerships, corporations, and entities, to skirt the payment limitations that are supposedly in the law now. Again, let me remind my colleagues, the Grassley-Dorgan amendment we have before us is basically what the Senate adopted in the debate on the 2002 farm bill, by a vote of 66 to 31. This amendment was adopted in the farm bill. Of course, it was rejected in conference, because of strong opposition from the House don't you know, but we adopted it here. The Grassley-Dorgan amendment tracks the proposal in the President's budget. Again, this amendment Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan have offered is not onerous. It provides for a basic overall payment limit on all benefits of $125,000 an individual. If you have a spouse, that could be $250,000 for the couple. That is a pretty generous amount of money from the Federal Government to support a farming operation in anybody's book. So this is a modest proposal. The other thing this amendment does is it cuts through all the confusion and murkiness about the ``three-entity rule.'' This amendment would track payments through to the actual individuals who receive the benefits, and then apply the payment limitations directly and straightforwardly. Now we will know exactly who is getting what. This amendment will establish a stronger requirement of active personal management of a farm or ranch before an individual is eligible to receive farm program payments. The reasonable payment limitations in the Grassley-Dorgan amendment are a better, fairer way to obtain the budget savings. Those savings are then applied in this amendment to mitigate the most damaging aspects of the measure reported by the committee and which is in the bill before us. The Grassley-Dorgan amendment delays for 1 year the 2.5 percent across-the-board reduction in commodity program payments and benefits which applies to all recipients. One other thing this amendment does is it lets us go back and lessen the cuts to the farm bill's conservation title. What it does is it restores conservation funds that the bill before us would take out of the Conservation Reserve Program. It gets us back up to 38.45 million acres, close to the farm bill's 39.2 million acres. So this amendment supports conservation. It also puts money back into the Conservation Security Program, which was cut by some 30 percent in the measure reported by the committee. That is on top of cuts already imposed on the Conservation Security Program in previous legislation. So again, the Grassley-Dorgan amendment is fairer--more fair--than the bill before us. It is straightforward, and it responds to the real needs we have in rural America today. I commend Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan for their amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to be clear about how much time I have.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. HARKIN. I hope not to use all time because others want to speak, also. I want to take a few minutes to lay out my reasons for my vote on this conference report tomorrow. First of all, there are many aspects of the bill that I do support and which I believe should become law. I believe Senator Bennett and Senator Kohl worked very hard to get this bill through. I supported the bill as it was reported from committee and as it passed the Senate. I believe it was a good bill given the subcommittee's allocation when it passed the Senate, and I said so on the Senate floor. But, unfortunately, the conference process with the House was seriously flawed and resulted in a seriously flawed report as a result. In some instances, it is as if the House were negotiating with the administration rather than allowing the Senate any meaningful role. My greatest concern is the continued assault on the farm bill's mandatory conservation programs, particularly the Conservation Security Program. As passed by the Senate, this bill included no annual cap on CSP spending. That is as it is in the 6-year farm bill which was passed in 2002 and signed by the President: no annual cap on CSP funds. So the Congressional Budget Office's baseline estimate for CSP spending in fiscal 2006 was $331 million based upon the program's mandatory funding and no set annual spending cap, as was passed in the farm bill. While the other body included an extremely low cap of $245 million for CSP in 2006, traditionally, we usually attempt to kind of split the difference on matters such as this. But in this instance, rather than splitting the difference between the House and Senate--the conferees evidently chose to split the difference between the President's budget proposal to cap CSP at $274 million and the $245 million cap in the House bill for a conference level of $259 million. That is far below the $288 million that would have resulted from splitting the difference between the House and Senate figures. In effect, the will of the Senate as expressed in the bill that we passed by a vote of 97 to 2 was totally thwarted. Since the farm bill was enacted in 2002, the USDA conservation programs have taken a real beating year after year. They have been used repeatedly as a source offsets to fund other needs. Including this conference report, the annual appropriations measures from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006 have cut $1.13 billion in mandatory funds that we dedicated to conservation in the farm bill. In addition to that, last fall, a further $3 billion was taken out of the Conservation Security Program to pay for disaster assistance. And in the Senate budget reconciliation measure now pending a further $1.78 billion would be taken away from conservation over the next 10 fiscal years--over $1.2 billion of that from the Conservation Security Program alone. Again, here is a chart that illustrates what we are talking about. If you look at Agriculture appropriations, those bills have cut, from fiscal year 2003 through 2006, $1.13 billion. Here on the chart is $3 billion which was an offset taken out of the Conservation Security Program to pay for disaster assistance. Mind you, prior to the past few years, when we have had disasters in this country that require extraordinary amounts of disaster assistance we have paid for the assistance out of the general fund. When there is a tornado, a hurricane, or a flood--whatever it might be--we don't rob programs that are particularly important to one group of Americans in order to pay for the disaster assistance. We paid for the disaster assistance out of the general fund. Yet when we had a drought disaster in this country that affected many States in the West and Midwest, the money to pay for disaster assistance was taken from the Conservation Security Program to pay for it. That was strongly pushed by the administration and the House. Many times on the floor I said that was wrong. I objected to it. But that is what happened. They took the money out of agriculture conservation to pay for disaster assistance. It was wrong then; it is wrong now to do that. Then on top of those cuts, in the Senate budget reconciliation measure, another $1.78 billion would be taken out of conservation. So what we have here is cumulative, $5.9 billion taken out of conservation programs in measures before us just since fiscal year 2003. Again, I might add that conservation is part of the bill that was loudly praised by President Bush when he signed the farm bill. I was there at the signing. The President said this is a great bill, especially the conservation provisions. The Department of Agriculture put out publications on the farm bill highlighting conservation. Yet since the farm bill as passed, in measures passed or now before the Senate $5.9 billion will be taken out of conservation programs. Again, I want to emphasize this conservation funding taken away is mandatory spending in the farm bill as to which we met all of the budget requirements when we passed the farm bill. We met all of the budget requirements. It was within the budget allocation provided to us when we passed the farm bill. In earlier debate today on the reconciliation bill, I heard a lot of talk about the importance of not reopening the farm bill. That was the debate on the amendment offered by Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan on payment limitations. I heard a lot of talk about not reopening the farm bill. Sorry folks. The farm bill has already been reopened many times regarding on conservation, and other programs for that matter. To complain about an amendment limiting payments to those getting hundreds of thousands of dollars annually from farm programs, to complain that this is reopening the farm bill is a bogus argument. Where were their voices last year, the year before, and the year before when all of this money was being taken out of the farm bill, out of mandatory spending? Why didn't I hear their voices on the Senate floor saying we can't reopen the farm bill? There was not a peep from them. But now when it is proposed to limit payments to the largest farmers in America to meet some of our budget reconciliation requirements, they don't want to reopen the farm bill. We should never have reopened it to take money out of it to pay for disasters. I have a number of other concerns. I joined with those who are upset about the country-of-origin labeling provision. During the debate on the 2002 farm bill--I was chairman at the time--there was a bipartisan effort. We included country-of-origin labeling for meats, fruits, vegetables, peanuts, and fish. I supported it then, and I support it now. It makes sense. Producers in our country ought to be able to add value by differentiating the origin of their products. Consumers ought to have the power of information of choice. Unfortunately, the will of producers and consumers has been ignored, behind closed doors, without debate, without a hearing, without votes. Country-of-origin labeling for meats, fruits, vegetables, and peanuts has now been delayed until September 30, 2008, after this farm bill expires. They just want to kill country-of-origin labeling altogether, in the next farm bill--and in the meantime by rewriting the farm bill in the appropriations process. It has gotten out of hand. It is making a mockery of the both the authorization and the appropriations process. I happen to serve on both authorizing committees and the appropriations committee. They both have a legitimate role to play. To have the authorization committee usurp the power of the appropriations committee is just as wrong as to have the appropriations committee undercut and make a mockery of the authorization process. But that is what the House did. I don't mind losing if you have fair debate and if you have fair votes. If you lose, you lose. To me, that is democracy. I don't mind that. What I object to is when the House of Representatives, the chairman of the House subcommittee, bangs the gavel and says we will meet subject to the call of the Chair, and we never meet. They go behind closed doors and they do this. They take away country-of-origin labeling, they put limits on conservation, and I don't even get a chance to vote on it. No one gets a chance to vote on it. They say, take it or leave it. That is what I object to. I am also concerned that the same back-door process I am describing was used to amend the Organic Foods Production Act. Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals struck down three final rules for the National Organic Program. I urged the organic community to come together and reach a consensus on what was needed to respond to the court decision. That didn't happen. Some people were left out of the process. Last month, Senator Leahy offered an amendment to our Agriculture appropriations bill as a placeholder in the hope that the organic community would have more time to discuss these proposed changes in the law, and reach a consensus which we could then put into the conference report. Unfortunately, this conference report complicates what was already a complicated and sticky issue. Again, behind closed doors, without a single vote or debate, the Organic Foods Production Act was amended at the behest of large food processors without the benefit of the organic community reaching a compromise. To rush provisions into the law that have not been properly vetted, that fail to close loopholes, and that do not reflect a consensus undermines the integrity of the National Organic Program. The Agriculture appropriations conference report also strikes a provision adopted by the full Senate that would limit contracting out to private companies to carry out the Food Stamp Program. Again, this amendment was adopted without objection by the full Senate. It was reaffirmed by Senate conferees. We did have a vote. The Senate conferees voted to uphold the Senate side. The issue went to the House conferees, and that was the end of it. Usually you work these things out in conference. Again, the chairman gaveled the conference shut, went behind closed doors, and threw out the provision. Here is the hypocrisy of that. In the Agriculture appropriations bill, there is a limit, a prohibition against any money being used to contract out to private companies for the operation of the rural development programs or farm loan programs. So those programs can't be privatized. But already the Department of Agriculture is approving private contracting for Federal food assistance applications. Again, I guess the needs of the poor don't warrant the same kind of protection other clients of USDA receive. There are other problems with this bill. I am disappointed that the measure eliminates or reduces funding for a variety of programs in the farm bill's rural development title. For example, there is a major reduction in the value added development grants. Fortunately, the bill does call for revamping the rural broadband loan program. Clearly this is a technology that needs to be available. We need to have rural broadband access for economic development. I am thankful to the chairman and others for the inclusion of numerous projects that help promote biofuels and bioproducts, which have a lot of promise for this country. I also commend them for including funding for the national animal disease facilities at Ames, IA. One last thing I would mention is that Congress provides money in this bill for Public Law 480, the title II Food for Peace Program, the largest foreign food aid program of the U.S. government. The funding in this conference report is the same as last year, but that was not enough to meet both massive emergency food aid needs and to provide the needed funding for development assistance. Quite frankly, I am concerned that the administration in its budget proposal--which is the basis for this appropriations measure is seriously shorting the development assistance projects under Food for Peace. In many cases, investment in mitigating chronic food needs in developing countries in 1 year may avert the need for much higher emergency food aid in later years. For example, one of the countries where USAID development projects were cut back earlier in 2005 was Niger, a country which by summer was experiencing a serious shortage in food availability, which prompted a flash appeal for emergency assistance by the U.N.'s World Food Program in August. On the other hand, I am pleased that funding for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program has been boosted to $100 million for fiscal year 2006. Again, there are good things in this bill. The bill is not totally bad. But I have a lot of objections to the process on which the House proceeded and the outcomes in the conference report that resulted from the process. This is not the way to do things. This sort of sort of one-sided process, behind-closed-doors process is a sharp break from the normal practice in appropriations conference deliberations. It sets a terrible precedent. For the reasons I have outlined, especially for all of the money being taken out of conservation, for the further delay of COOL, the country-of-origin labeling, and other problems I mentioned, it pains me, and I don't like to vote against the conference report. I have great respect for the chairman and the ranking member. As I said, they did a good job. But what came back from the House is not good for our farmers or rural communities, it is not good for consumers, and it is not good for conservation. For those reasons, I will sadly have to vote against this conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this October marks the 60th anniversary of National Disability Employment Awareness Month, and gives us an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the contributions that employees with disabilities have made to the American workforce. The effort to help our fellow Americans understand these important contributions began in 1945, when Congress designated the first week in October each year as National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week. In 1962, the name was changed to include all employees with disabilities. And, in 1988, Congress expanded the designated week to a full month, and changed the name to National Disability Employment Awareness Month. National Disability Employment Awareness Month is a time to celebrate the progress we have made in opening the doors of opportunity for individuals with disabilities. People with disabilities--as all people--have unique abilities, talents, and aptitudes. And there is no question that our nation is better, fairer, and richer when we make full use of those gifts. This July, our Nation celebrated the 15th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act--the landmark civil rights law securing the rights of people with disabilities. As the chief sponsor of the ADA in Congress, I remember the day it was signed into law--June 26, 1990-- as one of the proudest in my entire legislative career. And, just as many predicted, the ADA has taken its place among the great civil rights laws in our Nation's history. Today, the impact of the ADA is all around us, in countless facets of our daily lives. Yet we still have much work to do to increase employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Long-term employment, career advancement, and equal pay continue to be challenging for many workers with disabilities. Most importantly, we need to improve the employment rate of persons with disabilities. The gap between the employment rates of working-age people with and without disabilities was more than 40 percentage points in 2004. There are many factors that contribute to this gap, including disincentives, transportation issues, and outdated stereotypes about people with disabilities. But the end result is unfortunate and unacceptable. Most people with disabilities want to work; they want to be self-supporting and independent. As a government and as a society, we need to encourage employers to hire people with disabilities. We need to support creative job accommodations so we expand employment opportunities. Misconceptions and apprehensions about hiring people with physical or mental disabilities continue to exist as a barrier to progress. We need to get out the truth, which is that most workers with disabilities require no special accommodations, while the cost for those who do is often minimal. Moreover, research amply shows that employees with disabilities have above-average records in attendance, job dependability, performance, and safety. Breaking down these persistent attitudinal barriers requires a cooperative, sustained, and consistent effort. A new generation of young people with disabilities is growing up in America today-- graduating from high school, going to college, and preparing to participate fully in the workplace. These young people have a right to make the most of their potential. Likewise, America must make the most of their intellect, talents, and abilities. So this month, as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of National Disability Employment Month, let us rededicate ourselves to breaking down the workplace barriers--physical and psychological--that continue to stand in the way of people with disabilities. Our goal must be to make the American dream accessible to all Americans.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HARKIN. Is that on amendment No. 2262?

Mr. HARKIN. I do not have any objection to this amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I believe in my conversations with both Senator Bingaman and Senator Hutchison that they agreed to a voice vote on this amendment. So I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, amendment No. 2259 is an amendment that was offered by Senator Bingaman and Senator Smith. This amendment funds money for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. It was mentioned earlier. I know that Senator Bingaman and others wanted a rollcall vote on amendment No. 2259. I believe all debate has transpired. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if my colleagues will withhold for just a second, I do not seem to have that amendment in front of me.

Mr. HARKIN. I am aware of this issue.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I also agree we need to make progress through a study on this issue. It certainly is not going away.

Mr. HARKIN. I too will work hard to make this happen since this is an issue important to the Senator and the Nation.

Mr. HARKIN. What does the Senator propose?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a modification to 2280, which I send to the desk.

Mr. HARKIN. I want to thank my friends, the distinguished Senator from Georgia and the chairman, for their words and just take a moment to add my endorsement for this important program I am very proud of the role this subcommittee has played in the reduction of the arthritic pain and suffering experienced by so many Americans.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I move to reconsider the vote.