Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, laws are only as effective as their implementation and enforcement. That is why today I am introducing the Fair International Standards in Trade and Investment Act of 2001 along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Senator Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. This legislation will provide much-needed policy direction to the U.S. Labor Department DOL, and enhance the standing and capacity of the International Labor Affairs Bureau, ILAB, within that Department in the formulation and conduct of our nation's international economic policies. With these tools, ILAB can better inform and equip U.S. policy-makers in all three branches of our Federal Government to assist and induce our foreign trading partners to enforce their own national laws against abusive child labor and to comply with thirteen U.S. laws that have been enacted since 1983 which link U.S. trade, investment, and aid policies to the elimination of abusive child labor and growing international respect for the other internationally-recognized worker rights and core labor standards. Currently, ILAB does not have any underlying, permanent statutory authority for any of its international activities. It simply operates as an adjunct to the personal office of the Secretary of Labor. Practically speaking, this gives ILAB very little clout in inter-agency policy-making and no real voice to insist on better enforcement of the child labor provisions and other worker rights provisions in U.S. law, international law, or any of the bilateral trade and investment agreements that America has with more than 150 foreign countries. The time has come for better equipping our government and the rest of the world with urgently-needed tools to constructively link compliance with child labor laws and other basic worker rights to the conduct of continued trade and investment liberalization. We need new thinking and new resolve to crackdown on abusive child labor throughout the global economy and to beef up protection of internationally-recognized worker rights and core labor standards. If enacted, this legislation will lay a solid statutory foundation underneath ILAB. It will empower ILAB to help ensure that as our Nation enters into additional trade and investmennt agreements, that those new agreements as well as all of our pre-existing agreements serve to raise the living standards and protect the rights of working people as well as corporate managers and investors. I have spent more than a decade in this Senate leading the charge against the commercial exploitation of children in the workplace at home and abroad. Just last year, the Congress enacted provisions I authored in the Trade and Development Act of 2000 which prohibit trade preferences and duty-free access to the U.S. marketplace for any trading nation that is not meeting its international legal obligations to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. Now we have to make certain that these new provisions and our other trade-linked worker rights laws are practically enforced and that means improving ILAB's capacity to meet this increasingly-immportant responsibility. In the final analysis, increased trade and investment are not ends in themselves. They are means for achieving more broad-based, sustainable development and greater economic and social justice in the global economy. Our real choice is not between free trade or protectionism. Our policy challenge is to identify new and constructive ways in which the power of government can be used to manage globalization in ways that curb abusive child labor and protect worker rights as much as property rights. A well-grounded and enhanced ILAB within the one Cabinet department in our government that was created to advance the needs and protect the fundamental rights of working people everywhere can help us meet this challenge for the 21st century and beyond.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. What is medium-sized? Does the Senator have a definition for what a medium-sized farm might be, or ranch?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, laws are only as effective as their implementation and enforcement. That is why today I am introducing the Fair International Standards in Trade and Investment Act of 2001 along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Senator Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. This legislation will provide much-needed policy direction to the U.S. Labor Department DOL, and enhance the standing and capacity of the International Labor Affairs Bureau, ILAB, within that Department in the formulation and conduct of our nation's international economic policies. With these tools, ILAB can better inform and equip U.S. policy-makers in all three branches of our Federal Government to assist and induce our foreign trading partners to enforce their own national laws against abusive child labor and to comply with thirteen U.S. laws that have been enacted since 1983 which link U.S. trade, investment, and aid policies to the elimination of abusive child labor and growing international respect for the other internationally-recognized worker rights and core labor standards. Currently, ILAB does not have any underlying, permanent statutory authority for any of its international activities. It simply operates as an adjunct to the personal office of the Secretary of Labor. Practically speaking, this gives ILAB very little clout in inter-agency policy-making and no real voice to insist on better enforcement of the child labor provisions and other worker rights provisions in U.S. law, international law, or any of the bilateral trade and investment agreements that America has with more than 150 foreign countries. The time has come for better equipping our government and the rest of the world with urgently-needed tools to constructively link compliance with child labor laws and other basic worker rights to the conduct of continued trade and investment liberalization. We need new thinking and new resolve to crackdown on abusive child labor throughout the global economy and to beef up protection of internationally-recognized worker rights and core labor standards. If enacted, this legislation will lay a solid statutory foundation underneath ILAB. It will empower ILAB to help ensure that as our Nation enters into additional trade and investmennt agreements, that those new agreements as well as all of our pre-existing agreements serve to raise the living standards and protect the rights of working people as well as corporate managers and investors. I have spent more than a decade in this Senate leading the charge against the commercial exploitation of children in the workplace at home and abroad. Just last year, the Congress enacted provisions I authored in the Trade and Development Act of 2000 which prohibit trade preferences and duty-free access to the U.S. marketplace for any trading nation that is not meeting its international legal obligations to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. Now we have to make certain that these new provisions and our other trade-linked worker rights laws are practically enforced and that means improving ILAB's capacity to meet this increasingly-immportant responsibility. In the final analysis, increased trade and investment are not ends in themselves. They are means for achieving more broad-based, sustainable development and greater economic and social justice in the global economy. Our real choice is not between free trade or protectionism. Our policy challenge is to identify new and constructive ways in which the power of government can be used to manage globalization in ways that curb abusive child labor and protect worker rights as much as property rights. A well-grounded and enhanced ILAB within the one Cabinet department in our government that was created to advance the needs and protect the fundamental rights of working people everywhere can help us meet this challenge for the 21st century and beyond.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as I understand, again, for the benefit of all Senators, we are under an hour of debate evenly divided on the Lugar amendment regarding nutrition with a vote to occur at 10:30; is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN. I understand I must have about 25 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. Madam President, now that we have had some opportunity over the evening to look at Senator Lugar's proposed nutrition title, I would like to discuss a little bit of the difference between his approach and the approach we came out of the committee with, again, keeping in mind that our nutrition title did come out of committee, if I am not mistaken, on a unanimous vote on that title. Again, like so many other things that have come through any legislative process here, but especially on agriculture, I am sure there were things we might have wanted to do differently in one way or the other. Would we like to put more money in nutrition? Yes. But then we have to balance it with everything else we have. So we tried to come out with a balanced bill, as I said yesterday. I really believe my colleague's amendment would upset that balance greatly. And even though we might want to do more for nutrition, I believe we have met our responsibilities for nutrition in this bill to meet the nutritional needs of our people. I will go through that shortly. I did want to correct one thing. I believe my colleague and friend said that on nutrition our spending over 5 years is $1.6 billion. Our data shows that our outlays for 5 years are $2.2 billion. I just wanted to make that correction. I think his is $3.7 billion and we are at $2.2 billion. I do know his outlays are more than ours; at least I believe his budget authority is $3.7 billion. I do not know what the outlays are for 5 years, and perhaps Senator Lugar could enlighten us on that. But I just want to talk about some of the differences and some of the potential problem areas I see in the title proposed by Senator Lugar. I think we have all agreed that the outreach for the Food Stamp Program is vitally important to make sure that eligible people understand they can participate and to get them to participate. In the past, this has really been a problem. So we put provisions in our bill that would provide for more outreach to go out and make people understand they are eligible for food stamps. That, I believe, is lacking in the Lugar proposal. Again, this is one area where, if you look at the amount of money we have for nutrition, you have to understand that food stamps are an entitlement; that if the economy goes down, if people are out of work, if they qualify, they get food stamps. That is not included in our bill. That is just an entitlement. What is important is whether or not people know they can get food stamps, whether or not they know they are eligible, and the outreach programs that will bring people into the Food Stamp Program. That is where I believe we have met that obligation. The Lugar proposal does not. It is important to go out and get people to understand they are eligible for the Food Stamp Program. So we included a number of provisions to make sure that information about the Food Stamp Program and the applications are made available to eligible people who are not now participating in the program. We also include pilot programs, testing different ways to go out and reach people. Those pilot programs are not in the Lugar proposal. The committee bill also includes provisions that will help able- bodied adults without dependents--subject to time limits under the Food Stamp Program rules--to find jobs. For example, the committee bill allows a rigorous job search activity to count as a work requirement for able-bodied people without dependents. Quite frankly, if people are making an honest effort to find work, if they are in an approved job search program, why should they be penalized? They should be eligible. We have that in our bill. That is not in the Lugar proposal. In our bill we have also designated funds specifically for employment and training activities for this very group of people. While States should have flexibility to use their employment and training funding as they see fit, they should be able to draw upon a special reserve for people who are subject to a time limit. If there is a time limit, they ought to be able to have some leeway for employment and training activities. Again, we have that in our bill. That is not in the Lugar proposal. Our bill also acknowledges that people who participate in employment and training activities have certain additional expenses, such as transportation. If they are looking for a job--let's say they are in a training activity. They may have to go clear across town or across the city to this training activity. That costs money. We increase the amount of money available to States to help defray those costs. That is in our bill. That is not in the Lugar proposal. Another key difference between what is in the committee-passed bill and Senator Lugar's proposal is that we include a substantial commodity purchase of $780 million over 5 years. At least $50 million of that will go to purchase fruits and vegetables for the School Lunch Program. At least $40 million a year must be used to purchase commodities for the TEFAP Program--The Emergency Food Assistance Program. Again, Senator Lugar's proposal only provides funding for TEFAP commodities, not for the School Lunch Program. Again, if we are talking about low- income families on food stamps who need nutritional help, it is their kids who are in school who get the free meals--free or reduced-price meals; mostly free in this case. So we provide money in the bill to go out and buy apples and to buy oranges and to buy other fruits and other vegetables for the School Lunch Program to meet the free and reduced- price School Lunch Program for these needy kids. That is not in the Lugar proposal. We provide $40 million for the TEFAP Program; Senator Lugar provides $30 million, $10 million less. We also included a pilot program. This may seem insignificant, but I don't think so. We included a pilot program to test in public schools in four States to see whether or not distributing free fruits and vegetables is beneficial and whether students would take advantage of that. In other words, the idea is, if a student is in a public school, rather than going to the vending machine and putting in their 75 cents or a dollar now and getting a candy bar or something like that--usually in the vending machines there is candy, and then down at the bottom there is usually an apple at the same price--the kid is not going to buy the apple. Let's say you provided in the school lunchroom free apples, free oranges. Let's say a student has a hunger pain. They can go to that vending machine and put in their $1 or 75 cents or they can go to the lunchroom and pick up a free apple. We provide for that pilot program in four States. That is not in the Lugar proposal. This would also be a proposal beneficial to our fruit and vegetable growers. Certain vegetables we are talking about--carrots, broccoli, whatever, celery, different things such as that--that kids could get free under this pilot program, it is not included in the Lugar proposal. We also in our bill include a provision to strengthen nutrition education efforts in the Food Stamp Program. A lot of people in the Food Stamp Program use their food stamps and they buy Twinkies and potato chips and fat-filled kinds of food. It may not be very nutritious. We need more nutrition education in the Food Stamp Program. We include a provision to strengthen that. I do not believe that is in the Lugar proposal. There is one other point I want to make, and that is in terms of whether or not people who are in certain programs, who rely on certain programs for noncash assistance, such as the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families--if you are getting child care and things such as that, if you are in that category, basically we are saying you should be eligible for the Food Stamp Program. You should not have to go back and qualify for this, qualify for that, and go through all the redtape. Senator Lugar includes a provision that would have the effect of making people who rely on this noncash assistance ineligible for the Food Stamp Program. Again, a lot of times these people use the Food Stamp Program as a boost to help get back on the road to self-sufficiency. Last year we worked to give States the option of liberalizing the food stamp vehicle. A number of States have already done this. They have changed their policies on the value of a car you can have. I wonder if it is going a bit far, as Senator Lugar does, to require that all States exclude all vehicles from consideration in determining food stamp eligibility. We want to liberalize it. I think my State is way too low. When you have a State that says you can only have a car worth $3,500, these are the people who need transportation to go back and forth to work. That is the kind of car that breaks down all the time. These rules ought to be raised. Some States are much higher. I stand to be corrected, but I think Utah, for example, is several thousand--maybe more than that--higher in an automobile. It just makes sense to allow a person to have a decent car that doesn't break down all the time. Senator Lugar says we will require all the States to exclude all vehicles, as I read the amendment. I could be corrected on that, but that is the way I read it. That is going a bit far. We ought to let the States rate the eligibility, but to require them to exclude all vehicles may be loosening it up too much. The restoration of the immigrant benefits provision is very controversial to some people. We tried to take a targeted approach where benefits are restored to the most needy legal immigrants; that is, children, the disabled, refugees, asylum seekers. We say the kids who are of legal immigrants should not have to wait to get food stamps. Again, this is in line with our thinking that if you are a child, you ought to get nutrition because it saves on health care. We know that children who receive nutrition learn better. They will be better students. As far as kids go, we are saying: If you are a child of a legal immigrant, you should get food stamps now. As I read the Lugar amendment, he says they have to wait 5 years--all immigrants who have been in the United States for at least 5 years. Under the committee-passed bill, we don't wait 5 years to restore benefits to children. We do it immediately, not 5 years from today. Again, there are some significant differences between what Senator Lugar is proposing and what we have done in the committee. It is true, I admit quite frankly, that Senator Lugar puts more money into nutrition than we do. That is true. But I still will say that in terms of the program that most needy people rely on to meet their nutritional needs--that is, the Food Stamp Program--the most critical part of that is outreach, information, and support to people who are not now applying but who are eligible to get into the Food Stamp Program. That is what we do. That doesn't cost a lot of money. And if it does get people into the program, and they get food stamps, that is not counted. That is not counted on our ledger sheet. I believe our bill actually will provide more nutritional support to people than the Lugar proposal, even though it doesn't show up on the balance sheet as such. The other part is simply the fact that where Senator Lugar is getting the money for this really does upset the balance we had in our commodity programs. I don't think this is the time to demolish farm commodity programs in order to adopt a wholly untested voucher system as a total replacement. That is the other side of this amendment. Farm programs are not perfect. I will be the first to admit it. But we cannot abandon the safety net at a time when it is obviously inadequate already. What this amendment does is weaken help for all program crops--dairy, sugar, peanuts, everything--and it replaces it with a voucher program whereby a farmer can go out with a voucher and get crop insurance and can get insurance, not just for destruction of crops but for lack of income. It has been untested. We don't know if it would work. This is something that probably ought to be done on a pilot program basis at some point, but not right now, a whole commodity program that we have structured. Quite frankly, I believe that on our committee we have a lot of expertise. We have Senators on both sides who have been involved in agriculture for a long time. We have former Governors on our committee. We have former Congressmen on our committee. We have people who have been on the agriculture committees of their State legislatures, of the House of Representatives, and now in the Senate. We have people with a lot of expertise in agriculture on our committee. These are not people who just sort of off the cuff decide to do something in agriculture. These are people, Senators, such as the present occupant of the Chair, who think very deeply about what is best for their people and what is best for the commodities in their State. The Senators know their commodities and the programs. So we hammered out and worked out compromises and a commodity structured program that will benefit all of agriculture in America. Again, it may not be perfect. I daresay I haven't seen a Government program yet that is perfect. But to throw it all out the window and to substitute this untested, untried voucher program when we have no basis to understand how it would ever work right now would cause chaos and disruption all over agricultural America. On the nutrition side, I believe that our approach, the committee approach we have come out with is responsible, reasonable; it gets to the kids who need nutrition; and it has a good outreach program to make sure people who are not on food stamps understand it. On the other hand, on the commodity side, I believe our commodity program is well structured, sound, responsible, evenhanded all over America, and it is built upon programs and ideas that we know work. We know direct payments work. We know loan rates work. We know that conservation payments work. These things out there have been tested and tried and they work. Now is not the time to pull the rug out from underneath our farmers for an untested program. For both of those reasons--on the commodity side and nutrition side-- I respectfully oppose the Lugar amendment and urge all Senators to support the well-thought-out, responsible nutrition title that we brought out from the committee. It is good, solid, and it is something for which I think we can be proud. With that, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I think the Senator has made a good suggestion and a good inquiry. I hope that at sometime today, with the leaders of both sides, we can have a finite list of amendments, that we can agree on those, and move ahead, because if we do not, we will just be here day after day after day after day, and, as the Senator well knows from his experience here, this could go on indefinitely. So we do need to get a finite list. I hope we can get that done, I say to my friend.

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to yield to my friend from North Dakota for a question.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are making progress on the farm bill. We have a couple of big amendments that were very thoroughly debated and voted on. We are ready to move ahead with other amendments. We are ready to move on. If other Senators have amendments, we are open for business. We hope people will come forward. We have maybe some reasonable time limits. On the Lugar amendment we had a decent time limit. We debated it thoroughly. It is vitally important that we finish this farm bill and that we do it expeditiously. I do not know exactly when we are going to go home for Christmas. This farm bill needs to be finished. We need to finish it expeditiously. The House passed their bill, and we need to pass ours and go to conference. We can finish this bill today. I see no reason we can't finish it today if we have some healthy debate on a couple more amendments. I know Senators Cochran and Roberts have an amendment they want to offer, which is a major amendment. We could debate that today and have a vote on that today. There are perhaps other amendments. I haven't seen any, but I have heard about some. I think we could move through this bill today and get it finished and go to conference. I urge all Senators who have amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I understand all time has expired. I move to table the Lugar amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Indiana just mentioned in rebuttal to my remarks about how not all farmers are getting benefits under this farm program. He is right. I believe the committee bill begins to change that somewhat. We include a conservation title in our bill that was supported unanimously by the committee that will begin to direct some funds toward those farmers who have not been included in our farm programs in the past--our vegetable farmers, organic farmers, fruits, minor crops. Now they will be able to get benefits from farm programs if they practice responsible stewardship of the land, protect the soil, and protect the water. Quite frankly, I believe this is going to be one of the best provisions for other areas of the country that have not participated before in our farm programs. That is in the committee bill. I know Senator Lugar's amendment does not touch that, but I understand there is going to be an amendment offered by Senators Cochran and Roberts that will take that away. I hope those who believe that we have to expand our reach and include more farmers in our farm programs will oppose that amendment because this is the one element that will go out to help those smaller farmers and the farmers who have not been in the major crops before. We also have an energy title. That energy title is new in this bill. Again, the Lugar amendment does not touch that. I understand that. I am not talking about that. The Cochran-Roberts amendment will basically defund all that. That is another provision that can help a lot of our smaller farmers and others who have not been included in farm programs in the past. I wanted to make the point we have taken strides to reach out in this bill to get farm program benefits to all regions of America. Senator Lugar also spoke about low prices and overproduction. The answer to low farm prices is not to idle half of America and to put all these farms out of business. That certainly should not be our answer. If you like imported oil, you will love imported food. That seems to be the answer. We will just shut down all the farms in America and buy our food from overseas. Good luck when that starts happening. We need agriculture. We need food security for our own Nation. We need to find new markets, new outlets for the great productivity, the great production capacity of American agriculture. That is what we need--new markets. Conservation is a marker. I believe energy is a new marker. Whatever we can make from a barrel of oil we can make from a bushel of soybeans or a bushel of corn or a bushel of wheat. Biomass energy, plastics, biodiesel, ethanol--think of the possibilities--pharmaceuticals. There are all kinds of items that come from our crops that we have not even tried. I believe that is what this bill also starts to do: find those new markets for the great productive capacity of America in agriculture. The answer is not just to shut down half of America. That is not the answer at all. Think what that is going to do to our small towns, our rural communities, our families if we do that. We have to keep the production going. We have to find new markets, and that is what we start to do in this bill. I believe also we have met all of the objectives of the nutrition community. We met with them. They testified before our committee on more than one occasion. Quite frankly, we met basically their objectives. I also point out when Senator Lugar says he provides more money for food--maybe yes, maybe no. Really what the Lugar amendment does is it increases the standard deduction a little bit. There are some additional provisions for able-bodied adults without dependents, but most of the money that is in the Lugar amendment is in simplifying rules, in simplifying programs. We include some of those in ours, but he goes a little bit further. I still believe the most important thing we can do is to provide the underpinning of nutrition, as we did in the committee bill, and then do more outreach to make sure people who are eligible for food stamps know they can get them and make it easier for them to apply for food stamps. We do that in our bill. That outreach, quite frankly, is not in the Lugar amendment. I think it is arguable whether the Senator provides more food than we do. I believe I can make the case we actually would provide more food because we do more outreach and get more people involved in the Food Stamp Program. We provide better commodity purchases for our school lunch programs. I believe that is a wash. Keep in mind the Lugar amendment destroys all our commodity programs, and we are not going to do that.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. Seeing the Senator from Minnesota, who wants to speak, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from North Dakota, I think it is definitely possible we can get this done. I know that Congressman Combest and Congressman Stenholm, the two leaders of the Agriculture Committee on the House side, are anxious to get to conference. They have basically looked over what we have here, and we have looked over what they have in their bill. Really, I do not think the conference would take that long. But we just have to get it out of the Senate.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, we are making headway. We are making good progress. I thank the people who are offering these amendments. We have had good debates. We are moving right along. So I hope now we can have another amendment up and we can have more votes today and get this bill completed. I understand Senator Domenici has an amendment he will be offering in a couple minutes. With that, again, I hope Senators will be ready to offer amendments. I hope we can have some time agreements and move through them. I hope we will have another vote very shortly.

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

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

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to inquire of the Senator from Missouri, as I understand it, the Senator wants an hour and a half on his amendment. Could we use some of that time tonight so that in the morning we could perhaps have some time?

Mr. HARKIN. I say to the Senator from North Dakota, I hope we have votes this evening. We have to finish this bill. We are here. Let's get the job done. I do not want to be here in the evening any more than anyone else. We have spent all day on this bill, and we have had two votes today--three votes. We need more than that. I see no reason why we cannot have a couple more votes before we go home.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN. Well, I hope by this evening, perhaps before we go out tonight. I will work with my distinguished ranking member, my good friend, Senator Lugar, to see if we can get some kind of a list. It is true, as the Senator says, that the longer you stay here, more and more--it is like that old game you play at the arcade, whack-a-mole, where they keep popping up. If we don't have a finite list, those lobbyists and everybody out there who is trying to get their year-end counts up and get that year-end bonus, all their lobbying, and they can gin up all kinds of amendments around here to show the kind of work they are doing. I am hopeful that we can get a finite list. I don't know if we can do it tonight. I hope early tomorrow we can get a finite list. I want to assure the Senator from North Dakota, and every other Senator who is listening, we will finish this farm bill before we go home. If there is anyone here who thinks that by slowing things down or something like that, that it is going to work, it is not. We are going to finish this farm bill. We should finish it this week. I believe we can finish it this week. As long as we expedite the amendments, with a reasonable time for debate, I see no reason why we can't. I have a letter sent to Senators Daschle and Lott, and they sent a copy to me, and probably to Senator Lugar, too. It is from a whole list of farm groups. I don't know how many, maybe 30 or more of them. They said: We believe it is vitally important this legislation be enacted this year to provide an important economic stimulus to rural America before Congress adjourns. This was sent on the 10th. They said: We fully understand that policy differences exist regarding this important legislation and would encourage a healthy debate on these issues. However, we are very concerned that the timeframe to pass this legislation is rapidly drawing to a close. We believe this will require the Senate to complete a thorough debate and achieve passage of the legislation by Wednesday evening, December 12. That is tonight, and we are not there yet. They say: We urge you to allow Members an opportunity to offer amendments that are relevant to the development of sound agricultural policy while opposing any amendments designed to delay passage of this important legislation by running out the clock prior to the adjournment of Congress. I can say to the signers of this letter that thus far all of the amendments have been relevant, they have been germane, they have been meaningful amendments, and we have had good debate. I hope we can continue on in that spirit and not cut off anybody, but I hope we can have reasonable limits on time. We will be here, and we will finish this bill before we leave this week. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have not had anything to say about this amendment yet. I point out sugar is so cheap in this country you cannot believe it. It is cheap for the consumers buying it in the store. It is cheap when you go out to eat. The people who benefit from the Gregg amendment would be the manufacturers. They are not going to pass this on to the consumer. No way. We want to keep our sugar farmers in business; 420,000 Americans are employed in the sugar industry. It would ruin them. It would ruin our corn sweetener market, further depressing extremely low corn prices in my part of the country. This is wrapped up in a lot more than just what the price of sugar is that Senator Gregg is trying to get at. I have always said sugar is probably one of the cheapest products anywhere for consumers. Here is a bag of sugar, Holly Sugar. I am not pushing Holly Sugar, but that is what I happen to have. They are little bags of sugar. How expensive is this sugar? Go into any restaurant and take the sugar, put it in a glass, in your coffee; you can take two bags of sugar and put it in your coffee. Do you know what the price is? Nothing. It is so cheap that the restaurants do not even charge for it. Next time you go to a restaurant, have a cup of coffee, reach over and grab the bowl of sugar and put in a couple of teaspoons. They don't even charge because it is so cheap. There has been a lot of talk in the Chamber about the sugar products. Sugar is one of the best buys for the American consumer today. A 5- pound bag of sugar at Safeway is $2. If you want to gouge the consumer and give more to the processors and the candy manufacturers and everybody else, then you want to vote for the amendment of Senator Gregg. If you want to help the sugar farmers and the 420,000 Americans who work in the sugar industry and corn farmers all over America who depend upon this, we ought to defeat the Gregg amendment. I point out on July 20, 2000, we had the same basic amendment before the Senate. It was defeated 65-32. I hope the same happens again today. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. No.