Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sara Crouse and Lauren Gannon from my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak in opposition to an amendment offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, who singles out two instances of congressionally directed funding that were included in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill under my name. The Senator has claimed that these earmarks are inappropriate or wasteful and should be removed from the bill. One provides $5.7 million for competitive school modernization grants in my State of Iowa. The other provides $1.8 million for national research into swine odor and manure management at the Soil Tilth Laboratory in Ames, Iowa. At the outset, as a constitutional matter, I first take issue with the premise underlying the amendment of the Senator, the idea that Congress has no business directing the expenditure of Federal moneys through congressionally directed funding; that somehow there is something inherently wrong or evil in this practice and that only the executive branch should determine the details of where moneys are to be spent. This stands the Constitution on its head. Article I, section 9, expressly gives Congress the power of the purse, both to collect moneys--levy taxes--and to direct where that money is to go. I would say that the Executive, the President of the United States, does not have the constitutional authority to spend one single dime of our taxpayers' money. That authority has been given to the President, the executive branch, over the last 200 years by the Congress, but there is no constitutional basis for the President spending any money. So, therefore, that is inherently a constitutional function of the Congress. At any moment, at any time, if we want to, we can pass legislation taking all that money back here and saying the President cannot spend a dime unless we say so. We do not want to do that, obviously. But we could. We would be in our constitutional right to do so. So there is not something inherently wrong with Congress directing funding. In fact, I would say it is more appropriate for Congress to do that than for the President. It is an odd practice--if the President requests it in the budget, it is not an earmark, but if we put it in, it is an earmark. Someone please tell me the logic of that. So, again, I basically disagree with sort of the underlying premise that somehow executive branch employees, all those bureaucrats, have a much better understanding of where and how Federal funds should be spent most effectively in our States and in our districts. Now, again, over the years we have permitted that to happen, but we, through our oversight functions, can look at how that money is being spent, and through our congressionally directed funding can decide how some of that is spent. So it is not a constitutional issue. It is not a constitutional issue, at least as far as Congress goes, as far as directing where spending should be made. But I want to talk about these two earmarks mentioned, both of which address significant needs both nationally and in my State of Iowa. I will talk about the second earmark, funding research into swine odor and manure management later in my remarks. I want to say at the outset, I am proud of both of those earmarks or congressionally directed spending, and I stand behind them. I believe the Senator from Oklahoma's attempt to strike them from the bill is extremely shortsighted and misguided, quite frankly. So let me spend a few minutes discussing why I included these items in the bill. Let me start first with the $5.7 million for competitive school modernization grants. For years I have argued that the genius of our education system in America is its diversity; local school districts deciding what is taught, what books to buy, what teachers to hire, how to run their schools. We do not have, as some other countries have, a top-down structure where the central government decides exactly what is to be taught, how it is to be taught, and everybody gets the same thing. I have been to those countries. A lot of them tout their educational system. But, quite frankly, it does not have the kind of creativity and diversity and spontaneity that our diversified education has in this country. So that is the genius of the American system of education. The failure of the American education system is how we pay for it. I wish someone would show me somewhere in the Constitution where it says that elementary and secondary education in America is to be paid for by property taxes. You will look and you will not find it anywhere in the Constitution. So why do we do it that way? Well, I delved into the history of this, and it kind of goes like this: In the early days of the founding of our country, before we were a nation, in the Colonies, people wanted to have a free public education. Well, it was free for white males at that time, but, nonetheless, free. But since we had no taxing system other than tariffs and property taxes, that was the only way they could pay for it. So tariffs and property taxes became the support mechanism for local schools in the Colonies, and that kind of continued on. It continued on. The tariffs went by the wayside, so then it became a property tax- based function for paying for elementary and secondary schools in America. The first time the Federal Government ever got involved in education in any way whatsoever was in 1864 with Morrill, the bill that Lincoln signed for setting up land grant colleges and universities. That was the first time, and that was only higher education. That was higher education. The next time the Federal Government got involved in education was almost 100 years later. It was after World War II when we set up the GI bill to pay for our young veterans to go to college, and then that was higher education. Then we had the Eisenhower program, the National Defense Student Loan Program in the 1950s. Again, higher education. The first time the Federal Government ever got involved in elementary and secondary education was title I, providing some Federal help to low-income schools to try to help right this imbalance out there. Then we had the Education of the Handicapped Children's Act, which later became IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. So the Federal Government has not been involved--well, unless you want to take the School Lunch Program. The School Lunch Program and breakfast came along later, but the School Lunch Program, which came in after World War II as a feeding program, not as an educational program. I forgot to mention that. So the Federal Government's involvement in elementary and secondary education has been as of late and very small, only title I, and basically IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Jonathan Kozol wrote a book in the eighties called ``Savage Inequality,'' and this was the savage inequality: What he talked about is how he traveled around America and how he found there were some great schools and great facilities in one place, and very bad schools with bad facilities in another place. He asked the question why. Why is this? Well, it was because if you happened to be born and raised in Fairfax County, for example, where there is a high income level and very high property taxes, you get great schools. If you are born and raised in Bedford-Stuyvesant, or in inner city south Los Angeles, or in some rural areas of Iowa or Missouri or Oklahoma, Kansas, chances are you got very low property taxes and you got poor schools. So he asked the question, and then I asked the question: Why should where you are born, the circumstances of your birth and where you are raised, why should that be determinative of the quality of the physical school you have? Why should that determine it? That is the savage inequality of our educational system. Well, I began thinking about this some years ago on how we would kind of right this system, how we would tend to solve this imbalance, on the one hand by not interfering with the genius of the American school system, which is, who is hired and who is fired, who teaches, what they teach, the textbooks, all that, how do we not interfere with that, but at the same time try to balance these savage inequalities. Then one day it occurred to me. I was walking out of my office one day. This is many years ago, back in the late eighties. And I have on my wall, right by the door that goes out of my office, a framed piece of paper. It is a little orange card. It has always been there. I have always kept it there to remind me of something. It is my father's WPA card, when he worked on the WPA in the 1930s. It occurred to me that when I was a teenager, my father took me to visit Lake Ahquabi, which is a lake south of Des Moines, which is now still being used as a recreational lake. They built that; still being used today. He took me to visit a high school, Cornerstone, WPA, 1940, that he had worked on; still being used today. I dare say there are schools all over America that are still being used, built by the WPA. Finally it occurred to me that perhaps one role the Federal Government could take in helping to balance these savage inequalities of rich areas versus poor areas in terms of the quality of the school facilities is to be involved in modernizing and building new schools and getting the technology into these schools. That way you do not interfere with who is hired, who is fired, what is taught, what textbooks to buy. You are only helping to build new schools. We did that in the 1930s and we have been using a lot of these schools ever since. So I might add, as an aside, that when I sought the nomination of my party for President in 1991 and 1992, this was one of my platforms. I talked about the need to invest in the infrastructure. I called it the blueprint for America. On my document I had a picture of a blueprint. Part of it was building and remodernizing schools through the Federal taxing system, rather than relying on property taxes. Well, I didn't win the Presidency, obviously, but I continued in that endeavor. I could not quite get it through, although we did have 1 year finally we got it through. In 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, we got $1 billion for a national program of modernizing and helping to modernize schools. That was reduced down to about $800 million. It went out 1 year. The next year President Bush came in and the program got ended. So we did have 1 year of it and, quite frankly, that 1 year, that money went out quite well and did a lot of innovative, good things with schools all over America. Since I could not get the Federal Government to do this in the broader basis, I decided to see what would happen in my State of Iowa if we started doing this, what would happen, how would this work. So since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure funding for my State's schools in this regard. The actual allocations are funds are not made by me, they are made by the Iowa Department of Education, which undertakes a grant competition to select the most worthy and needy school districts that receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair efforts. There are kinds of pots. One pot is for fire and safety, which requires no match. The other is for building and renovation which does require a local match. Now, I might say that since 1998 this Federal funding has leveraged public and private funding so the dollars that have gone out there have multiplied tremendously. I think my colleague called the funding unfair and wrong. He believes it is unfair that Iowa's schools receive funding while children elsewhere in the United States are forced to learn in antiquated, crumbling school buildings. Well, I agree with my friend from Oklahoma. He is correct in one respect. There is indeed a persistent and unfair disparity in the quality of schools across the country, the savage inequalities, I just mentioned. Jonathan Kozol wrote the book about it in the 1980s. In fact, for the last several years, local spending on school facilities in affluent communities is almost twice as high as in our poorest communities. So I ask the question again, why should the circumstances of your birth, where you are born and where you are raised, determine the quality of the school you go to? Why should it? So we tried to alleviate this imbalance. Sure, you want every State in the Nation to have this. As I said to my friend from Oklahoma, he may not have heard this, in this year 2000, we did get it through for every State. But that was only 1 year, and then in 2001 the Bush administration came in and stopped it. But in that 1 year, it did go out. Now, again, and most recently in the stimulus bill, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we did in the Senate put in $16 billion for school construction and renovation to go out all over America. I was happy about that. I thought this was something that would put people to work, stimulate the economy and build schools for our kids, get new technology into our schools. Well, because of opposition on that side, that was stricken from the bill. In the conference it was stricken. So, again, I do not mean to have this only for Iowa, I would love to do this for the entire United States. So again, if I could not do it there, at least I wanted to see what would happen in the State of Iowa. And I can tell you that over the years, each Federal dollar that has gone into my State for this has leveraged an additional $5-plus additional from public and private sources. How does that happen? Well, a lot of times school districts would try to pass a bond issue. They could not pass it to renovate or something, because they are poor people, you know, and this means raising property taxes. We have a lot of elderly in Iowa. Raising property taxes is hard when they are on a fixed income. So they don't vote for the bond issues. All of a sudden they applied for one of these competitive grants to the Department of Education in the State of Iowa. The State of Iowa gave them a grant, but they had to match. Guess what happened. They passed the bond issue and built new schools. It has leveraged private involvement, people with businesses, endowments, and even individuals who have come forward to put money into local schools because they had this grant. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record some letters I received. One is from Paula Vincent, superintendent of the Clear Creek Amana School District. She points out that receipt of a school construction grant was instrumental in her district passing a $2.5 million bond referendum to build two new schools. Prior to receiving the grant, her district did not have a history of passing bond referendums for school improvement. Not only did this bond referendum pass on the first vote, but it broke records for voter turnout and has led to additional support for school infrastructure from surrounding communities. She estimates that an initial $100,000 grant led to an additional $28 million in local funding to improve school buildings. That is way over 5 to 1. That may be an anomaly, but that is what she says happened in their area. I have other letters from individuals on these grants and what it has done.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I appreciate the engagement by my friend from Oklahoma on this issue. But I will point out, first of all, one little mistake I think the Senator might have made. The research for the ARS for the swine research is well within the authorization the Agriculture Committee provided in the farm bill. It is well within their purview. So it is not outside their purview whatsoever. Again, I say the reason we put it in there: It has been administratively asked for before, but the Bush administration in the last year did not include it because they wanted to cut down their request, knowing full well we would probably fund it, which we have done here. But I just wanted to point that out. Interestingly, the Senator mentioned article I, section 8, of the Constitution. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, I would point out, is very clear: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Defense and general Welfare of the United States. . .; To borrow money on the credit of the United States;. . . . Et cetera, et cetera. Well, Congress--Congress, it says--has the power and authority to provide for the general welfare and to borrow money. I do not like to borrow money more than anyone else. But the Senator from Oklahoma said something about: Well, the money we are using to build these schools is borrowing from our grandchildren. I cannot think of a better thing to borrow from our grandchildren than to build better schools. As I pointed out, my father worked on WPA. I have his WPA card hanging on the wall of my office. They built schools all over America, schools which we are still using today. In fact, one of the Iowa Department of Education grants went to a middle school--it used to be a high school-- it is a middle school that was built by WPA and had been in such disrepair, but the building itself was sound. They just had an old heating plant. Kids were getting sick. It was cold and drafty in the wintertime. They got a grant. They came in. They put in a new geothermal heating system. They put in double-paned windows. Here is a school built by WPA in 1939 and, with just a little bit more money, today is going to be used for another 50 more years for kids. So I say, if we are going to borrow from our grandchildren, let's build them better schools so the kids today will be better educated and will make more money and so our grandchildren will be better off. Lastly, my friend from Oklahoma says that better buildings do not lead to better schools. He said: You could learn in Quonset huts, you could have a better education in a Quonset hut, I guess, than in some of our better schools. Well, I do not know how to respond to that. If you have a Quonset hut, are you going to have the up-to-date, latest technology in terms of the Internet? Probably not. Are you going to have up-to-date technology in terms of a science lab? Probably not. Physics lab? Probably not. Biology lab? Probably not. So what kind of education are you going to get in that Quonset hut? If we are sending our kids to school in Quonset huts, what are we telling them about how we value education? I daresay the nicest things that our kids should see in their daily lives ought to be where they go to school. They ought to be the brightest, the best lit, the best built, with the latest technology, with the best teachers and the best material. Then we are saying to our kids: Here is what we value. So I could not disagree more with my friend from Oklahoma that kids will learn as well in a Quonset hut as they can in a nice building. All you have to do is look at the test scores of kids from schools that are in areas where they have high property taxes, a lot of wealth. Just look at those test scores and look at the scores of the kids who come from your poverty areas and rural areas. I do not mean just inner city but rural poverty areas. Look at their test scores. That will tell you something right there. Why? They cannot afford to hire the best teachers. They cannot afford to pay more for their teachers. They cannot afford to have the best laboratory and equipment and Internet technology for our kids. So I could not disagree more with my friend from Oklahoma. I believe one of the most important things we can do in the Federal Government is to provide funds for the building and rebuilding and modernization of our schools all over America. As I said, I am sorry we are not doing it nationwide. We tried, and we will try again. But it is the one way we can help our local property taxpayers, help our kids--not interfere with what they are taught or how they are taught or what teachers they hire or what books they use. Let's take a page from what we did in the 1930s. Let's do it again. Let's build more schools all over America and make them modern and up to date for our kids so our grandkids will have a better life. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Rather than trying to deprive the schoolchildren in Iowa of this funding, I encourage the Senator from Oklahoma to extend this program to his own State and to all other States and the District of Columbia. In the coming weeks, I will reintroduce the Public School Repair and Renovation Act, which I have been introducing for some time, which would create a competitive grant program for schools across America to receive funds to repair and renovate school facilities based upon the successful program we have had in Iowa. Were some mistakes made in the beginning? Yes. But the Department of Education, over the last 10 years, has figured out how to do this, how to separate the two pots--one for fire and safety with no match requirements, one for buildings and innovation requiring a match--and then taking in the proposals on a competitive basis and deciding where the money should go. I encourage the Senator from Oklahoma to support this bill. I ask him to be an original cosponsor to get this out to schools all over the country. Now let me also talk about the $1.8 million I secured in this bill for research into swine odor and manure management. That always brings a smile to everyone's face. David Letterman will be talking about it and Jay Leno will be talking about it, $1.8 million to study why pigs smell. I suppose that is the way they will couch it. We all know how the game is played. Critics will take something such as this with a funny sounding name or purpose, hold it up for ridicule. For some reason, especially outside rural America, the very word ``manure'' seems to be cause for laughter and levity and jokes. In farm country, manure and odor management are profoundly serious challenges that can be mitigated through scientific research. I urge the Senator to visit farms in his own State. Ask his own farmers and neighbors about whether it is worthwhile to conduct research into animal odor and manure management. If I am not mistaken--and I may be--I believe the attorney general of Oklahoma, a few years ago, brought an action against the neighboring State of Arkansas in terms of some of the effluent coming into Oklahoma and this raised questions of manure management and how it is put on the land and such. That is what this research is about. Some people living in rural America are concerned about livestock agriculture and its environmental impacts. So it makes good sense to fund research that addresses how rural communities and livestock agriculture can coexist. I wish to point out this item did not originate as a congressionally directed earmark. This research unit of the Agriculture Research Service originated administratively within the U.S. Department of Agriculture to conduct scientific research to address significant challenges facing livestock agriculture. This item is only included as an earmark now because the last Bush budget proposed to terminate a number of ongoing agricultural research projects in order to come in at a lower funding level, knowing full well this needed research would likely be restored by Congress, which is what we are doing. But it didn't originate here in Congress. It originated administratively. Let me also point out to the Senator from Oklahoma, this is not a project for the State of Iowa. It provides funding for the Agricultural Research Service which is the main in-house research arm of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The mission of ARS is ``to find solutions to agricultural problems that affect Americans every day from field to table.'' One might say the money is going out to ARS in Iowa. That is because that is where they do the research. If ARS was doing research on peanuts, they would probably be doing it at an ARS research facility in Georgia. If they were doing it on cotton, they would be doing it in Mississippi or someplace not in Iowa. So why are they doing it in Iowa? Because one-fourth of all the hogs in America are produced in my State. We are the No. 1 producer of pork, and we are very proud of it. The pork industry is critical to our State's economy. But as the demand has grown for pork and as we produce more pork, one can understand that the management problems of what to do with the waste has become very serious, not only for the odor problems but for the waste itself. At any given day, we have 20 million hogs living in Iowa. Think about it, 20 million. A lot of farmers use the the manure from hogs as fertilizer. The Department of Agriculture, soil scientists, and others have encouraged that. But there can be odor problems and other environmental impacts. So that is what this research seeks to resolve. It looks at improving nutrient or feed efficiency in swine. This research would help the livestock industry make better use of co- products from the production of biofuels, which is a growing industry in our State and the Nation. Quite frankly, we can't feed the byproducts to swine like we can cows. They are not a ruminant animal. But this research is looking at how to improve those byproducts for swine--everything from the feed to the byproducts and odor--to improve the quality of life for those who live in rural areas. We have had swine odor and manure management challenges in my State. And not only in Iowa; as chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I have visited North Carolina and have witnessed the same issues there too. So how do we alleviate this? How do we make it possible for a very good industry, the swine industry, to meet the demand and at the same time be good neighbors and do it in an environmentally sound way? That is what this money is for. The research doesn't only help Iowa it helps all across the country because it is research conducted by the Agricultural Research Service. They are doing it in Iowa because that is where most of the hogs are. Congress didn't originate it here. It originated with the administration. A lot of States share the same problem we do with odor and waste problems. I suppose we will hear a lot of jokes on David Letterman and Jay Leno. A lot of other people will be making jokes about this money for manure. Keep in mind, this is not wasteful or unnecessary or frivolous. This is very important to the daily lives of the people of my State and every other place where we raise swine. I appreciate this opportunity to share with my colleagues my reasons for including these two items in the Omnibus appropriations bill. I stand here and say, unequivocally, I am proud of both of them. I believe the effort to remove them from the bill is misguided. I urge colleagues to vote against the Coburn amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have spoken many times in this Chamber about the promise of stem cell research. For more than a decade, ever since scientists first succeeded in deriving human embryonic stem cells, I have done my utmost to promote this exciting field, which offers so much hope for so many people. President Obama has promised to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research that were put in place by President Bush, and I hope and expect that he will do so soon. But we have to make sure that the freedom to pursue this research is also protected by Federal law, not merely by an executive order that can be reversed during a future administration. That is why Senator Specter and I, along with Senators Kennedy, Hatch, and Feinstein, are introducing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2009. This is the exact same bipartisan bill that both houses of Congress approved in 2007, but was vetoed by President Bush. I urge Congress to pass this law again, and for President Obama to sign it, so our scientists can move forward with this research posthaste, without fear of further political interference. Let me spend just a moment reviewing what this bill will accomplish. More than 7 years ago, the President announced that federally funded scientists could conduct research on embryonic stem cells only if the cells had been derived before August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m. I never understood that. Why 9 p.m.? Why not 9:30? If stem cell research is morally acceptable at 8:59 p.m., why isn't it OK at 9:01? It's totally arbitrary. When the President announced his policy, he said that 78 stem cell lines were eligible for federally funded research. But, today, only 21 of those 78 lines are eligible--not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity of this Nation. Many of those 21 lines are showing their age, and all were grown with mouse feeder cells, an outdated method that raises concerns about contamination. Meanwhile, hundreds of new stem cell lines have been derived since the President's arbitrary deadline. Many of those lines are uncontaminated and healthy. But they're totally off-limits to federally funded scientists. That is a shame. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research--about helping people with Parkinson's, cancer, juvenile diabetes, and so many other diseases--our scientists need access to the best stem cell lines available. We need a stem cell policy that offers credible, meaningful hope. And that's what this bill would provide. Under this bill, Federally funded researchers could study any stem cell line, regardless of the date that it was derived, as long as strict ethical guidelines are met. Most importantly, the only way a stem cell line could be eligible for federally funded research is if it were derived from an embryo that was otherwise going to be discarded. There are more than 400,000 embryos in the United States that are left over from fertility treatments and are currently sitting frozen in storage. Most of those embryos will eventually be thrown away. All we are saying is, instead of discarding all 400,000 of those leftover embryos, let's allow couples to donate a few of them, if they wish, to create stem cell lines that could cure diseases and save lives. Mr. President, it is time to lift the restrictions that have handcuffed stem cell research for more than 7 years. I urge the Senate to pass this bill as soon as possible and send it to the President for his signature. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have spoken many times in this Chamber about the promise of stem cell research. For more than a decade, ever since scientists first succeeded in deriving human embryonic stem cells, I have done my utmost to promote this exciting field, which offers so much hope for so many people. President Obama has promised to lift the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research that were put in place by President Bush, and I hope and expect that he will do so soon. But we have to make sure that the freedom to pursue this research is also protected by Federal law, not merely by an executive order that can be reversed during a future administration. That is why Senator Specter and I, along with Senators Kennedy, Hatch, and Feinstein, are introducing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2009. This is the exact same bipartisan bill that both houses of Congress approved in 2007, but was vetoed by President Bush. I urge Congress to pass this law again, and for President Obama to sign it, so our scientists can move forward with this research posthaste, without fear of further political interference. Let me spend just a moment reviewing what this bill will accomplish. More than 7 years ago, the President announced that federally funded scientists could conduct research on embryonic stem cells only if the cells had been derived before August 9, 2001, at 9 p.m. I never understood that. Why 9 p.m.? Why not 9:30? If stem cell research is morally acceptable at 8:59 p.m., why isn't it OK at 9:01? It's totally arbitrary. When the President announced his policy, he said that 78 stem cell lines were eligible for federally funded research. But, today, only 21 of those 78 lines are eligible--not nearly enough to reflect the genetic diversity of this Nation. Many of those 21 lines are showing their age, and all were grown with mouse feeder cells, an outdated method that raises concerns about contamination. Meanwhile, hundreds of new stem cell lines have been derived since the President's arbitrary deadline. Many of those lines are uncontaminated and healthy. But they're totally off-limits to federally funded scientists. That is a shame. If we are serious about realizing the promise of stem cell research--about helping people with Parkinson's, cancer, juvenile diabetes, and so many other diseases--our scientists need access to the best stem cell lines available. We need a stem cell policy that offers credible, meaningful hope. And that's what this bill would provide. Under this bill, Federally funded researchers could study any stem cell line, regardless of the date that it was derived, as long as strict ethical guidelines are met. Most importantly, the only way a stem cell line could be eligible for federally funded research is if it were derived from an embryo that was otherwise going to be discarded. There are more than 400,000 embryos in the United States that are left over from fertility treatments and are currently sitting frozen in storage. Most of those embryos will eventually be thrown away. All we are saying is, instead of discarding all 400,000 of those leftover embryos, let's allow couples to donate a few of them, if they wish, to create stem cell lines that could cure diseases and save lives. Mr. President, it is time to lift the restrictions that have handcuffed stem cell research for more than 7 years. I urge the Senate to pass this bill as soon as possible and send it to the President for his signature. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 111th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Chambliss, I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the committee rules printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I agree with my colleague from Pennsylvania that our Nation faces this growing threat and that we must respond accordingly.

Mr. HARKIN. The capability that we are discussing is vital to our Nation's defense. It would also be a critical source of innovation, developing novel countermeasures faster and cheaper. I will also work with Senators during conference.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I would like to first thank the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for working to include Farm Service Agency loan program money in this bill. In the coming months farmers will be applying for operating loans for the spring planting season. They will face tighter credit standards from lenders. Some farmers who were eligible for commercial credit last year may not be eligible this year. Access to adequate and affordable credit is vital to our Nation's farmers and ranchers--particularly now. Like many people across the Nation, farmers are feeling the impact of the economic downturn. The decline in commodity prices, high input costs, and declining exports have significantly strained producers' fiscal circumstances. It is important the money provided in this bill be used in accordance with the priorities established in the farm loan programs and focus on those eligible borrowers who are struggling to maintain their farming operations. Regarding the recent sharp decline in dairy prices, I was pleased to work my colleagues on the letter to Secretary Vilsack to help remove a surplus of dairy products from the markets which they have both mentioned. Comparative Effectiveness Research Funds

Mr. HARKIN. Absolutely, it is essential that the workforce services provided through this legislation, are delivered through the most effective means possible, ensuring that the unemployed and underemployed are provided with relevant employment and training assistance that will enable them to find good, family sustaining jobs. It is also essential that these programs provide the skills that are relevant to local and regional employers that will help to rebuild our regional and U.S. economies.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, the Senator's understanding is correct. I included a provision in this recovery bill that reinforces the requirement in the WIA to use adult State grant funding to serve certain priority populations, such as those with low incomes or on public assistance. I believe that we should target these funds on the delivery of services to those who have been adversely impacted by our recent economic crisis. I also believe local workforce boards should utilize existing authority to support needs-related payments to help engage individuals in training, if such support is appropriate and effective.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. As chairman of the Labor Appropriations subcommittee, I supported the $120 million in the recovery bill for the senior community service employment program. These funds will support employment and training opportunities for low- income, older Americans. The funds benefit both older Americans hurt by the current economic crisis and community service organizations struggling to keep up with increased demand under decreasing budgets. Individuals with multiple barriers to employment, including older workers, those with low skill levels, and individuals with disabilities, should indeed be an important focus of services for the funding provided to the Department of Labor. Offering these workers, particularly low skilled workers, the tools they need to secure good jobs in new or growing industry sectors can help them enhance their quality of life and achieve economic self-sufficiency as a member of the middle class.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator is correct. While the primary purpose of this funding is to provide meaningful paid work experiences for at risk youth, educational enrichment, necessary skills training, and support services that enable young people to participate and succeed in these and future endeavors are necessary and fully support the intent of the legislation.

Mr. HARKIN. My colleague is correct. This provision was included in the recovery bill to facilitate the use of funds provided to train individuals in the areas needed in their local community. It would be my expectation that a very significant portion of the funds provided would be spent quickly and effectively in training individuals in health care and other high-demand occupations, as well as emerging ``green'' industries. Investing in America's Workers

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I note the passing of a long-time friend and native Iowan, Karen Rae Ford. Karen passed away last week after a difficult battle with liver disease. I knew Karen well through her work as the executive director of the Food Bank of Iowa, a position she held for over a quarter of a century. Karen was a founding force for the creation of the food bank, where she dedicated herself to improving the lives of countless thousands of low-income families in Iowa. Let me start by expressing my deepest sympathies to Karen's family and friends. It is never easy to lose a loved one, and particularly hard when the loss is due to a medical illness that cuts that loved one's life short. In times of mourning, words fall far short of the comfort we wish we could provide, but hopefully words let those who were close to Karen know that our thoughts and prayers are with them. Karen has played a leading role in the fight against hunger in Iowa for many years. In the last several years the Food Bank of Iowa distributed nearly 5 million pounds of food a year to almost 300 partner agencies. Just think of all the hungry, low-income families that have benefited directly from Karen's work during her nearly 30 years of work at the Food Bank of Iowa the parents that were able to put food on the table for their children so that they did not have to go hungry. Though I am sure Karen would never say so, these families owe her an incalculable debt of gratitude for the hard work and devotion she has shown to the cause of improving their lives over her professional career. And her impact extended far beyond the State of Iowa. On more than one occasion Karen testified before the Congress to advocate for improvements to our food assistance laws and policies so that the programs upon which low-income families depend for a safety net in tough times are as effective as possible. That testimony was always received with the recognition and respect that it came from an advocate who was in the trenches every day fighting to provide food to hungry people. Though the Food Bank of Iowa will continue to operate, and the families that depend upon it will continue to be well served, we have all suffered a loss with Karen's passing. Her activism and leadership over a lifetime of work in the anti-hunger community is a testament to her tremendous spirit and dedication to helping those less fortunate.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I still believe we need a strong auto industry in this country. I think the best way to do that is to get people to buy cars. The best way to do that is to give low-income and moderate-income individuals and families the wherewithal to buy those cars. That is what this amendment was about. However, I must say, in the current desire to reduce the size of the bill, I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, but it will come back at some time in the future.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 338 and ask for its consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the amendment I will be calling up at some point. There is no doubt that the automobile industry is the heart and soul of America's manufacturing sector. It is absolutely critical to a healthy and diversified, vibrant U.S. economy. Right now this essential industry is on life support, hemorrhaging jobs, slashing production, closing dealerships, and, in the case of GM and Chrysler, dependent on Federal loans to avoid bankruptcy. Chrysler announced a 50-percent decline in January sales compared to a year ago. GM had a 49-percent decline in sales. Ford had a 39-percent decline. Toyota, with major plants in America, suffered a 32-percent decline in U.S. sales. These numbers are shocking, and people who think this is only an automakers' problem just don't get it. The auto industry is not just a few assembly plants in Detroit. The Big Three and foreign automakers have plants in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. There are car dealerships and auto parts manufacturers in thousands of communities all across America. Directly or indirectly, the auto industry supports one 1 of every 10 jobs in this country. So let's be very clear, we are not going to have a strong economic recovery in the United States without a strong recovery in the automobile industry. That is why it is important this economic stimulus bill provide a major boost to automakers. The real question is, What is the best way to give a boost to the automakers? Is it giving them money at the top and letting them deal with it as they will? Well, that is like old trickle-down economics; all we have to do is give it to the top and somehow it will all trickle down. Some of us have a better idea, and I think a better approach. It is to put it in at the bottom and let it percolate up. Here is what I mean by that. The auto workers want nothing more than to be back on the job producing full time, producing high-quality cars, providing for their families, paying their taxes. Now, I am offering this amendment which will give low- and modest- income consumers a $10,000 subsidy for the purchase of a new car that is assembled in America--a car or pickup truck assembled in America. Now, here are the conditions that apply to this. First of all, the car you are bringing in has to be at least 10 years old. You have to have title for the car in your own possession prior to the date of the enactment of this bill. The new car you are purchasing has to get at least 5 miles per gallon more than the car you are bringing in. The new car must have a fuel economy rating of 25 miles per gallon or better or, in the case of a pickup, 20 miles per gallon or better. And the old car you are bringing in must be relinquished to the Government and be destroyed. This offer, this $10,000 subsidy, would be available only to individuals with incomes of $50,000 a year or less or couples with an income of $75,000 or less. So let me run through that again. Here is the way it would work. If you have an income of less than $50,000--or for a couple less than $75,000--if you have a car that is at least 10 years old, and you have had title to that car since before the enactment of this bill--actually before January of this year--you could take your W-2 form to show your income, take the title of the old car to show you have owned it, show how old the car is, and you can go to any auto dealer anywhere you want and buy a new car and the subsidy will be $10,000. You will get $10,000. All you have to do is relinquish your old car, and that car has to be destroyed. Well, what would this amendment accomplish? First of all, it will bring a lot of customers back into the auto showrooms, and they will not just be looking, they will be buying. This will be a shot of adrenaline right into the bloodstream of the domestic auto industry. Secondly, it will accelerate the shift from older gas-guzzling vehicles to new high mileage cars. Third, and very important in these tough economic times, it will make it affordable for ordinary working Americans to buy a new car. Think about it. Think about people who make less than $50,000 or a couple who makes less than $75,000 a year. Chances are, they are the ones who have the old clunkers. They need it to go back and forth to work. If you live in a rural area, it is absolutely essential. These are the people who have these old cars, and they put repairs in them--a couple hundred here, a couple hundred there--because they can afford to do that, but they cannot afford to buy a new car. But it is a much different story if the Federal Government is going to give you $10,000 to buy that new car. For example, let's take this example: A basic 2009 Chevrolet Cobalt gets 34 miles per gallon on the highway. It has a manufacturer's suggested retail price starting at $16,330. After the Federal subsidy-- assuming you are under the income limits, and you have this 10-year-old car--you will be able to buy that car for $6,330. Now, what is also important is that you will be able to get financing under this program. Because the lender, with a $10,000 reduction in price, will be offering a car loan for far less than the car's worth after it leaves the lot. We had a session today, and we heard Mr. Larry Summers. We all know who he is down at the White House. He said there are a lot of willing lenders out there, but they do not have worthy borrowers. Well, now, if you are a person--a low-income, moderate-income person--and you are making $50,000 a year, and you need a new car--you have an old clunker, and you keep paying for repairs on it, but you wish to buy a new car--let's say it costs you $20,000 to buy a new car--you can go to your local bank and try to get a loan for $15,000 or $18,000 for a $20,000 car, and you will not get it. You will not get it. But if you go to that bank to try to get a loan for a $20,000 car and $10,000 of it is a subsidy from the Government, and you are only borrowing $10,000 for that car, you will get the financing. So that is another important thing this amendment will do. It will start opening channels of credit. Money will start to begin to flow through banks and other lending organizations--savings and loans, credit unions, institutions such as that--for people to buy a car. This amendment will make it affordable for a modest-income American to buy a new car. Make no mistake about it, it would stimulate a surge in auto sales--not just the automakers, but a broad swath of the economy impacted by the auto industry. Think about all of the other things that go into these cars in almost every community in America. The Federal Government has given General Motors and Chrysler a few months to come up with a plan to ensure their long-term viability as businesses while producing a greener mix of vehicles. But we have failed to address two big questions. In the midst of a severe recession, how do you boost demand for cars assembled in America? How do we get rid of that surplus we have out there? Go to any auto lot in your State. There are new cars all over the place, and there is no one buying them. So we failed to address that. How do we boost demand? Secondly, how do we give consumers compelling incentives to purchase fuel-efficient cars, especially at a time when gas prices have fallen dramatically? I was in my home State of Iowa this week, and gas is $1.77 a gallon. I have not seen it that low for a long time. So this amendment provides a realistic answer to both questions. It would boost demand incredibly. We estimate that for the $16 billion this amendment would provide, it would cover more than 1.5 million purchases of new fuel-efficient, domestically assembled cars. It would accelerate the transition of our U.S. vehicle fleet toward more fuel- efficient cars, and this would be a gain for our whole country, reducing the demand for gasoline, reducing the dependence on foreign oil, lowering the operating costs of these new cars. It will do little good to extend loans to GM and Chrysler if consumer demand for new cars remains dead. Now, we had the Mikulski amendment earlier today--today or yesterday--and that will help a little bit. But it is a tax deduction for modest-income Americans. It probably will not mean that much, maybe $1,000, $1,500. It is better than nothing. But if you want to sell those cars, give them $10,000, give $10,000 to modest- income Americans. Say: Go buy a car with these conditions. We are very good around here at passing billions of dollars. What are we up to, $900 billion now on this bill? There is a lot of good stuff in this stimulus bill, and I support it. We are good at giving a lot of money to Wall Street and banks and GM and Chrysler at the top. We seem to be very good at giving a lot of money at the top. How about giving some money down at the bottom? You want to talk about rebuilding confidence in America? Think what would happen to all these modest-income Americans who could now go out and get a new car. Think of all the old clunkers we would take off the road and destroy. That would rebuild confidence. As I mentioned, we would get our lending channels going. There would be a lot of loans made out there for these cars. With lending institutions, my gosh, loaning $6,000 on a $16,000 car, that is not everyone breaking a sweat. So it is going to do little good for us to demand that automakers shift production to fuel-efficient cars if consumers are unwilling to buy them or they cannot buy them because of the recession. This amendment is designed to address these challenges, to stimulate demand for new fuel-efficient cars, accelerate the shift toward a more fuel-efficient fleet, and help working-class Americans. As I said, you only qualify as an individual if you make $50,000 a year or less, or for a couple making $75,000 or less. Let's help working-class Americans. Now, people might say: Gee, that is a lot of money, $16 billion. But aren't we trying to stimulate the economy? Again, in closing, I say, you are not going to get economic recovery until we address the automobile sector. That is the big driver in this country, no pun intended, of course. But that is what we have to address. We are not doing it. We keep punting the ball down the field: loans to GM, loans to Chrysler; they come up with a plan. But with all those new automobiles sitting out there, no one is buying them. Well, let's give them a subsidy. Let's give a subsidy to working-class Americans for a change, and give them a little hand up--not a handout, but a hand up. I will tell you, it will reverberate all through our economy if we are to do something like this. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant parts of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. I will check on that.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, first, let me thank my friend and my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, for his continued support of basic research, biomedical research in this country. Ever since I first got on this committee back in 1988, Senator Specter, of course, was chair and I was ranking member, and later I became chair and he became ranking member, and then he became chair and I became ranking member. It has passed back and forth a lot of times since 1988. But the one person who has always been consistent in his support of biomedical research and support for the National Institutes of Health has been my friend, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. I support his amendment, I wish to say right off the bat. Everything that is in it I support. We do have to bring NIH back up to its funding level. I say to my friend, one of my proudest achievements in the Senate was working with the Senator from Pennsylvania to double the funding of NIH over a 5-year period. To show my colleagues how bipartisan it was, it started under a Democratic President and ended under a Republican President. There was one change in there for a couple years when I was chair and the Senator from Pennsylvania was ranking member and then it went back and forth, but as the Senator said, that has always been kind of seamless in terms of passing the gavel back and forth. But doubling the funding for NIH over 5 years was a Herculean task and the Senator from Pennsylvania was a leader in that effort. We worked hard on that, and we got it done. That was in 2003. Now, since 2003, we are 10 percent lower now in real funding for NIH than we were in 2003. I am sure my friend from Pennsylvania would agree that we did not work hard on both sides of the aisle and with two different administrations to get this done only to have it sort of sit there static, and then come back 10 years later or something, and then have to double it again. Our goal was to get NIH back up to a funding level so that the number of peer-reviewed grants that were funded would be closer to the 1-in-3, 1-in-2, 1-in-3 area that it had been in the earlier days of NIH. By the time we got to the point where we started the doubling--and that was in 1998, if I am not mistaken; it might have been 1999, 1998--we were down to where 1 in 10, 1 in 8 peer-reviewed grants were being funded. Sad to say, we are right back almost to that situation again. We are down to where maybe somewhere between 1 in 6 and 1 in 10 grants are being funded. Now, what does that mean? That means researchers at NIH--let me back up here. That means that researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, at the University of Iowa, at the University of California, at universities in New York State, universities in Florida, universities in Illinois, universities in Wyoming, universities in Arizona, every State in the Nation gets funding through the NIH for research. These are universities, basically. So this funding goes all over the country. So what does that mean, that we are now back at the level where 1 out of 6 to 1 out of 10 peer-reviewed grants are being funded? Well, what it means is that young researchers--and these are people who are at the top of their class; these are the brightest of the bright; these are students who have gone through either medical school or genetics or biomedicine or biology, a lot of different disciplines involved here, and they have some ideas they want to pursue, some basic research they want to pursue. They are in their twenties. They spent a lot of money going to college. They want to pursue a field of inquiry. Now they are told that the average age for getting their first grant is 42 years of age. Well, if you are a young person and you are just out of college, are you going to wait around until you are 42? No. You are probably going to go to work for the private sector, private industry some place. So what we are doing is we are losing a lot of bright young researchers. When we doubled the funding for NIH, a lot of young researchers started there, and they are there now, but we are losing a whole other generation of these young researchers. So that is the effect of what has happened at NIH. What it means also is that we are losing our preeminent role in the world as the leader in biomedical research. We have to maintain it. We have always been sort of--if you want to talk about a city on a hill, when it comes to biomedical research, we have always been that to the rest of the world. The rest of the world looks to NIH. Keep in mind it was through the NIH that we mapped and sequenced the entire human genome, mapped and sequenced the entire human gene. Guess what. It is out there for researchers all over the world. Any researcher anywhere in the world can tap into the database at NIH and find out all the information they want on the genetic structure and use that for their research. Guess what. It is free of charge. Free of charge. That was a great investment by the taxpayers of this country and already paying big dividends. So it pains me, I know as it pains my friend from Pennsylvania, to now see NIH going back down again in terms of its support. As I said, right now, NIH funding has dropped more than 10 percent in real terms since 2003. That was at the end of the doubling period. Some people might say, Well, what does this have to do with stimulus? Well, this does stimulate the economy, both in the short term and in the long term. As I have said many times about this stimulus bill, it is two things. One, it is to, yes, put people to work right away. That has to do with a lot of the construction projects that are in here. But there are a lot of other things in this bill that provide for a foundation for solid recovery down the pike--2 years, 5 years, 10 years from now. Now, every time in the short term, when we think about NIH in the short term, every time a researcher gets a grant, it supports an average of seven jobs. Let me repeat that. Every time a researcher gets a grant, on average, it supports seven jobs. So it is not just one researcher in a lab by himself or herself; it is lab technicians, postoperative fellows, research assistants, and on and on. So there is a great multiplier effect. There is also a ripple effect from this research. Keep in mind this is basic research. These are asking the most fundamental of questions. Well, maybe the grant has led to basic research that will lead to a new compound that a pharmaceutical company wants to develop into a new drug that helps save lives. Senator Specter talked about the research at NCI, National Cancer Institute, and the great strides they have made. The Senator is living proof of that. We watched the Senator go through a long hard period, and it is wonderful to see him here as healthy, vibrant, and determined as ever to make sure we fund NIH. He is living proof of the great strides we have made. So that has a ripple effect. If there is more money now in the economy, maybe an entrepreneur will use some breakthrough on research to form a spin-off company. That happens all the time, and that stimulates the economy. As I said, this money goes to researchers all over the country, not just to Bethesda, MD, where the headquarters is. Very little of it goes there. It goes to every State--to 90 percent of all congressional districts. So it helps the entire country. Now, that is in the short term. There is a longer term benefit, which is improving people's health. After all, that is the purpose of this research in the first place. It is called the National Institutes of Health, not the National Institutes of Biomedical Research. The goal is health. In the long term, it is going to be a healthier workforce, healthier people, cutting down on health care costs, making people more productive in their lives because of the research we do through NIH. We always say ``at,'' but it is ``through'' NIH. If our workers are healthier, they are going to be more productive. Again, I support this amendment almost in its entirety--except for the way we are going to fund it. My friend spoke about that, and I have a small disagreement. The Senator's amendment would take the money as an offset out of what is called the State fiscal stabilization fund. Here is the problem as I see it. The State fiscal stabilization fund provides critically needed funding for education. Just this afternoon, I had the presidents of most of the independent colleges in my State visiting me. A lot of this money will go to help them in their colleges. It will help our community colleges. A lot of money will go to community colleges to help retrain workers for the future. Our pre-K through 12th grade money comes from the stabilization fund. There is a lot of money in that stabilization fund that goes for public safety and other government services. We don't need to be laying off teachers. We need to keep our teachers hired. That is what this money would go for. So I don't think we ought to be cutting into that fund. I strongly support Senator Specter's amendment--the main purpose of it--to increase funding for NIH. Again, I just have a slight difference on how it should be funded. Let's face it, this whole bill is emergency spending. We are up to about $900 billion right now. As I have said before, a lot of economists, both liberal and conservative, have said we are not doing enough. We had Milton Friedman, President Reagan's economist, a very conservative economist, who said we may not be doing enough; Alan Blinder, Mark Zandi--a broad spectrum of economists are saying this is one time when we should err on the upside not the downside. If this whole bill is emergency spending, why, I ask, should the funding for NIH not be the same? Why would we want to take it out of education, take it out of public safety, out of other areas to pay for NIH. This whole bill is emergency spending. Quite frankly, I think it ought to be. We are in an emergency. Things are going downhill very rapidly in this country--in my State, and I know in every other State. Companies are shedding jobs every day--9,000 every day. Since the whole bill is emergency spending, I think NIH ought to be right in there with everything else. It is that important. I think it ought to be emergency funding, so I have a second degree that I will be offering to the amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania that would basically make the funding for the amendment the same as everything else in this bill. I hope we will get support for that. Why discriminate against NIH? Don't do that. Put it in with everything else. With that I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield, I thought the Senator's amendment was not yet at the desk. I am informed it is. I send my second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified with the changes I just sent to the desk.