Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, the Senate considered nominations for two very important positions that will affect how our country moves forward in Iraq and the Middle East. While I highly respect the service that these men have provided to their country, I do not believe that either General Petraeus or Lieutenant General Odierno will take the United States in the direction that we need, particularly in Iraq where we need a timetable for redeployment of United States forces so that our country can begin to more effectively address the very real threat posed by terrorists in other areas, such as Afghanistan, as well as around the globe. I believe that General Petraeus has been an unapologetic supporter of this misguided war in Iraq, continually toeing the administration's party line and failing to acknowledge many of the grave failings that have occurred. The military alone will not be able to stabilize Iraq, we must understand the political and diplomatic situation at hand, and I do not believe that under General Petraeus' leadership, the necessary reconciliation to allow the Iraqi Government to take control has occurred. General Petraeus has shown no willingness to take us in this new direction, and it is for this reason that cannot support his nomination. With respect to Lieutenant General Odierno, I believe that his past command of the 4th Infantry Division demonstrated what I consider to be serious flaws in judgment. General Odierno refused to characterize the insurgency that began after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime as anything that was serious and worthy of U.S. strategy shift. As we know, the failure to correctly assess the nature of the insurgency helped fuel years of violence in Iraq. We are long overdue for a new course in Iraq. The tragically overwhelming costs of this war in both lives and resources have distracted us from the initial task of fighting al-Qaida. It is time that we have leaders who will be able to independently assess our military mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East rather than unquestionably support the failed policies of this administration.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I want to thank my distinguished colleague for raising this issue, which is also a great concern of mine. I am also pleased to support the legislation pending before the Senate today, which will ensure that Iowa's seniors continue to have access to their health care professionals. Iowa, like New Mexico, is a rural State where approximately 1,300 nurse practitioners provide critical access to care in Iowa's underserved areas. As you know, rural America has a higher proportion of elderly Americans than nonrural areas. In addition, Medicare providers face several unique challenges in rural America that make ensuring access to health care even more difficult. As part of our expansion of the Secretary's authority, I would encourage the Secretary to allow nurse practitioners to fully participate and lead medical home demonstrations. Approximately 90 percent of nurse practitioners in rural areas do primary care. Approximately one-third of nurse practitioners have practices where more than 50 percent of patients would be classified as ``vulnerable populations''. This year, Iowa's State legislature passed legislation to use the medical home model to reduce disparities in health care access, delivery and health care outcomes and, ultimately, allow each Iowan to have access to health care. This legislation includes nurse practitioners as medical home leaders who are responsible for providing for appropriate patient care, coordinating specialty care and guaranteeing a quality of care based in evidence, and fully coordinated with patient and family.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in early July, when nearly 9,000 educators are in Washington for the National Education Association's annual Representative Assembly, they will posthumously honor one of Iowa's most dedicated and respected teachers, Paul Mann. Lola Mann, Paul's wife of 38 years, will accept the Applegate-Dorros Award on behalf of her late husband at NEA's annual Human and Civil Rights Awards Dinner on July 2. The Applegate-Dorros Award is given each year to an individual who has made lasting contributions to the cause of international understanding, and who has encouraged young people to study the world and work for world peace. Over a long and distinguished career spanning nearly four decades as a teacher with the Des Moines public school system, Paul both lived and taught those ideals. He shaped the thinking of generations of students, and he was active on the national stage as a long-time leader of NEA's Midwest Peace and Justice Caucus. I do not believe that democracy is a spectator sport, and neither did Paul. As his wife Lola said, ``he felt strongly that he was placed on this earth for a purpose . . . that he was here to help make the world a better place.'' He challenged his colleagues and students alike to get involved in campaigns and in the broader political process. His own passion for politics and engagement was infectious. Paul stood up for social justice and the peaceful resolution of conflict. Just as Gandhi counseled that ``You must be the change you wish to see in the world,'' Paul lived a life that embodied the progressive ideals that he advocated. Paul Mann was born in Onawa, IA on March 12, 1947, graduated from Central Missouri State University in 1969, and earned a master's in public administration from Drake University in 1981. He began teaching in Des Moines in 1969 and was an energetic, beloved teacher right up until his sudden passing in September of 2006. At the time of his death, he was a teacher of world civilization and government at Central Academy, the magnet school for Des Moines' gifted and talented middle- and high-school students. As a teacher, Paul was a consummate professional who had a deep personal commitment to ensuring that every child receives a high- quality public education. This commitment led to his activism and leadership within the Des Moines Education Association, including 8 years as president. He served in a various leadership positions at the local, State and national levels within the National Education Association. He was also active in local and State politics. I have always appreciated what Lee Iacocca said about teachers. ``In a completely rational society,'' he said, ``the best of us would be teachers, and the rest of us would have to settle for something else.'' Fortunately, in Iowa, so many of our best and brightest do go into teaching. And Paul Mann was one of the very finest. To honor his activism in the cause of world peace and understanding, the Paul Mann Memorial School has been established in Chiapas, Mexico. In addition, he has another living legacy: countless former students who are living the noble ideals that he taught in his classroom and embodied in his life. Paul Mann lived a life of constant activism and thoughtful action both in and out of the classroom. His life is one worthy of recognition and I commend his family and all of his former colleagues for doing their part in honoring him with the Applegate-Dorros Award.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Amanda Bowman and Jasmine Narcisse of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I will not take much time. We are here again for another vote on whether to override the President's veto of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, which we otherwise know as the farm bill. The veto message before the Senate is to accompany H.R. 6124, which is the bill passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives to enact the full conference report on the new farm bill in the exact form it was agreed to and intended by the conferees and approved by both bodies overwhelmingly last month. That conference report, on the bill H.R. 2419, was approved by the House on May 14 by a vote of 318 to 106, and by the Senate on May 15 by a vote of 81 to 15. That measure was vetoed by the President, but after the veto it was discovered that one title of the bill--Title III, covering food aid and agricultural trade--had been inadvertently omitted during the enrollment process. At the time of that discovery the Memorial Day recess was imminent, as was the expiration of the extension of the previous farm bill enacted in 2002. Both bodies then voted to enact H.R. 2419, as it was enrolled, notwithstanding the President's veto. The House vote was 316 to 108 and the Senate vote was 82 to 13. Thus, 14 of the 15 titles of the farm bill, H.R. 2419, were fully enacted into law as agreed to and included in the conference report. On May 22, the House with a vote of 306 to 110 passed the measure now before the Senate, H.R. 6124, which includes the entire farm bill conference report, in order to enact the Title III and, in effect, reenact the other titles that were enacted when the Senate overrode the President's veto of H.R. 2419. The Senate passed H.R. 6124 on June 5 by a vote of 77 to 15. The President vetoed the bill today, and earlier this afternoon the House voted 317 to 109 to enact the legislation notwithstanding the veto. Since this legislation has been thoroughly debated previously, I don't need to take much time now. I will just sum it up by saying this is a very good bill. It continues, reforms and strengthens income protection for the benefit of farm and ranch families and the rural economy. The bill will move our Nation ahead in maintaining our preeminent position in the world in agriculture production. The nutrition title very significantly improves and strengthens food assistance. As we have pointed out, nearly 70 percent of the funding provided in this bill goes for nutrition and food assistance for Americans. The energy provisions will help unleash the potential of agriculture and rural communities to supply energy to our nation. And farmers and ranchers will receive significantly more help through funds and technical assistance to conserve and protect soil, improve water quality, and boost wildlife on their land. Regarding Title III of this legislation, the majority of it involves the operation of our international food aid programs, in particular, the Title II Food for Peace program run by the Agency for International Development; the Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole Food for Education programs, both run by the Department of Agriculture; and the program for holding food stocks for emergency purposes under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. These authorities are vital to our Nation's efforts to alleviate hunger and poverty, and to foster development around the globe. So it is essential that we reinstate these authorities by enacting the legislation before us. We have included in this bill important reforms of the food aid programs, aimed at improving their operations and making them more responsive to humanitarian needs. All in all, the provisions of Title III of this bill are non-controversial and are definitely needed to ensure the continuity of U.S. food aid, as well as our very important agricultural trade promotion programs at the Department of Agriculture. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the ranking member, who started this farm bill process when he was chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Chambliss of Georgia, and so many others who helped. I see my good friend, Senator Kent Conrad, chairman of the Budget Committee, who kept us on track through all these many days and nights of getting this bill put together. I want to thank them both for all their help in finally getting us to this point. Let me also thank my colleagues for their patience and understanding in dealing with the unusual procedural history we have experienced in the course of enacting this bill. I am grateful for the overwhelming support for the legislation and for our work in completing it. Because of the unusual procedural history of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, I want to note that the full legislative history for H.R. 2419, including the conference report statement of managers, committee reports, and statements in the Congressional Record are to be considered as legislative history for the provisions of H.R. 6124. Mr. President, I yield the floor

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, perhaps I could say the farm bill is so good we would like to have senators put their stamp of approval on it repeatedly.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota whatever time he requires.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I see the hour is just about upon us to start our vote. Again, I also want to thank our staffs, our great staffs who have worked so hard on this legislation for so many months: Martha Scott Poindexter and Vernie Hubert, I see over here, and Mark Halverson, and all the rest of the staff who are here in the chamber. I mentioned them by name before, and I can't thank them enough for all their hard work. It has been a long endeavor, and they have worked so hard, I hope they will be able to take a vacation. Again, to Senator Chambliss, I cannot thank him enough for a great working relationship and helping to pull this bill through. Now we look ahead to next year and the child nutrition bill, as well as to other matters before us. I also thank Senator Chambliss for his care and his concern, discussing with me--not only today but other times--the serious situation in the State of Iowa. We are hurting bad. It is hard to describe it, what is happening in Iowa. This farm bill will put some new policies in place, including the new permanent disaster program we have included, and others in agriculture, such as for conservation of our soil and water, so we will be able to get through this terrible crisis we are facing in the State of Iowa right now, to recover, to rebuild, and to come back even stronger and prepared for the future. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first let me thank my senior colleague Senator Grassley for his many kindnesses and for working and coordinating this as we did the other day. Our staffs are working very closely together to do everything we can to ensure that the recovery we have to do now is swift and thorough and that we do everything we can to assist the many volunteers in Iowa who have come forward to help. We toured a lot together late last week. I am sure we will be doing more this week to make sure that we are up to speed, that we know what is happening, that we have a firm grip on the different agencies that have to come to Iowa for this tremendous cleanup effort. I wanted to join with my colleague Senator Grassley in giving a little bit of a report on the events unfolding in my State of Iowa. Senator Grassley has covered them, but I might add of couple of things. As he said, last week we toured a number of cities: Waterloo and Cedar Falls and Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Des Moines, Mason City, Charles City, Nashua, Waverly--all places hard hit by this flood. I need not tell Senators--I know you have all watched it unfold on television, on CNN and everything else--as to the devastation in our State. Every newspaper is covering it on the front pages, whether it is the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune or Atlanta or wherever you are. Iowa is experiencing flooding of almost Biblical proportions. Nine rivers are at flood stage, 83 of our 99 counties have been declared disaster areas by Governor Culver, and 54 roads and highways have been closed. Interstate 80, the major east-west thoroughfare of our Nation, is closed and has been since--well, I think since Friday, either Thursday or Friday. In Iowa, Interstate 80 is closed. Interstate 380, north-south, is closed, not to mention a lot of our smaller roads and highways in Iowa, making it very difficult for people to even get around. As Senator Grassley said, last Friday we were accompanied by FEMA Administrator Paulison and Governor Culver, OMB Director Nussle, a former Iowan. Mr. Paulison said the flooding was some of the worst to hit the United States since Hurricane Katrina slammed into the gulf coast. I would simply add that the cresting Cedar River raging through downtown Cedar Rapids is as bad as what Americans saw in Katrina in New Orleans in 2005. You have to witness it with your own eyes to appreciate the breadth and the intensity of this devastation. It is very humbling when you meet with so many people who have been so affected by this, lost their homes, several lives lost. Thank God we kept it to a minimum--but losing all of their homes, things they have built all their life. Do you know what is really sad? Homes can be repaired. You can rebuild a house, you can do things again. It is so many of the personal effects people lost. Because they had to leave in such a hurry because of the rising waters, they were not able to take a lot of their personal effects: mementos, pictures, albums, birth certificates--all kinds of things like these that are the summation of your life, in many cases, gone, and those are irreplaceable. It is shocking, the devastation. Tens of thousands have been displaced, 25,000 people in Cedar Rapids alone. This again, as Senator Grassley pointed to one chart, is another view of the Cedar River here, Alliant Energy here. I will show you another picture shortly. The downtown area is over here. This is city hall. As you can see, it is totally inundated. Of course, power is off and everything. This is sort of the downtown area. Then I think that I have one here--yes. This is a picture I took myself. I took this with a digital camera flying over it on Friday. That was city hall you saw in the previous picture. But you get some idea of the devastation of downtown. For example, the picture Senator Grassley showed is right down here. My Senate office is in this building here; of course, totally inaccessible, everything is shut down. So you can begin to get an idea of the magnitude of it. Right over here is the Quaker Oats plant. I am sorry, I cut it off. This is the Quaker Oats plant. This is the largest grain milling facility in the world, and it is shut down, underwater. Now you begin to see some of the other neighborhoods here and how they are impacted also. I wanted to see how many blocks it was. This is a typical part of Cedar Rapids that is flooded. You can see what a block would be like. You know, I cannot even tell the streets here, but I assume this would be a street, this would be a street, and this would be a street, so that would be a block. So you have about--maybe you have six or eight blocks here. There are 400 blocks like this that are underwater in Cedar Rapids--400. I did not have a camera big enough, did not have a lens big enough to cover it all, but 400 city blocks are inundated like that. In Iowa City, much of the University of Iowa has been inundated. Students, faculty, staff--we were there watching them sandbag. Students were working, moving books from the library, artwork from the university's gallery. Also, it is not just our largest cities. We talk about Cedar Rapids, Waterloo, Des Moines, and Iowa City, but there are other smaller towns and communities we visited. Senator Grassley and I were in Charles City and Waverly. Each have more than 500 homes inundated with floodwaters. We were told on Saturday one in every four residents of Waverly--one in every four residents--is affected by this situation, and their houses are flooded. We went through the downtown area of Waverly on Saturday--not a business was open. Now, thankfully, the waters have receded because it is up north and the water is headed south. The waters have receded, but they do not have power yet. They have all the mud and the dirt and the debris to clean up. Elkader had 60 homes and 30 businesses destroyed when the Turkey River went over the levee. The Anamosa sewage treatment plant failed at two different points because the levee broke. The list goes on and on. I had to duck out for a minute when my colleague was talking, but Senator Grassley's hometown of New Hartford--you feel so sorry for them. They were hit by this tornado a couple weeks ago, and a couple people lost their lives. It did not hit the town squarely, but it nicked it and took some houses out on the north side of town. But then New Hartford got flooded, and they had to evacuate the town because of the flood. If you fly over Iowa--and, of course, being chairman of the Agriculture Committee and being associated with agriculture all my life, I wanted to look and see--and you look over the countryside of Iowa, I do not know that I saw one field that was not affected with ponding and water. Because the corn had only come up maybe a couple of inches, the water has covered it and it is dead. It is gone. So we do not know the extent of this damage, but the Iowa Farm Bureau estimates that as much as 16 percent of Iowa's 25 million acres are currently under water. Now, I have to tell you, just from my own eyeball, looking at it while flying over it over 2 days, I think it is higher than that. Again I say, we see nature at its worst, but we see people at their best. With the sheer number of volunteers filling sandbags and helping out in other ways, thousands have participated. We were in Iowa City, and they were sandbagging up the library. You had little kids--9-, 10- year-old kids, maybe some younger--holding these plastic funnels so they could get the right amount of sand into the sandbags. Then they had these lines set up with students and everything. I saw the same thing in Des Moines: sandbaggers sandbagging 24 hours a day. More people showed up than they could actually use to work. There is no doubt, I am told by the mayor of Cedar Falls, Mayor Crews, that the effort of volunteers at Cedar Falls--that is right across the river from Waterloo--that the thousands of sandbags--tens of thousands--that were filled and reinforced the levee saved the downtown area of Cedar Falls. So everywhere Senator Grassley and I went last week, we witnessed Iowans giving their all to help their neighbors. I would be remiss if I did not mention the Iowa National Guard. Thank God for the Iowa National Guard. I am glad they are here. They have been deployed a lot in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is nice to know they are home now. They were there to help. Over 2,500 members were mobilized. General Dardis, the head of our Iowa National Guard, has done a superb job. Everywhere you go you see these National Guard people out there working. They are working, they are organizing, they are taking leadership positions. They are doing everything from filling sandbags to working the levees, helping people out of their homes, doing a magnificent job. Again, I see these National Guard kids out there. I don't know when they ever sleep. It is like 24 hours a day they just keep going. Well, I guess if there is any good news, it is that in Iowa City the water crested yesterday. But, again, when I talk about ``over flood stage,'' usually when you talk about something being over flood stage, you are talking about it being a few inches over. Get this: In Cedar Rapids the old record was 20 feet set in 1929. On Friday, the river crested at 32 feet--almost 12 feet higher than any time ever. We never had this level of flooding. This level of flooding has never happened in Cedar Rapids. Across eastern Iowa, flooding rivers have washed out railroad lines. Mississippi barge traffic has come to a halt. It closed major roadways. As I said, Interstate 80 is still closed. Thousands of Iowa businesses, large and small, have been impacted. John Deere had to evacuate two of its plants in Waterloo. I mentioned the Quaker Oats plant, as shown here on the map, in Cedar Rapids. It is the largest grain processing plant in the world. It was flooded and left idle. In Cedar Rapids, 400 city blocks are submerged, as shown right there on the map. That is valued at close to $750 million. Early estimates of damage to Iowa's agricultural economy, I can tell you right now, will exceed over $1 billion. That is just agriculture. Well, Iowans are a resilient and resourceful people. But, as with the gulf coast in the wake of Katrina, we are going to need generous Federal assistance to help us get back on our feet. The destruction is so vast that it is simply beyond the capacity of local governments and the Iowa State government to handle it by themselves. Now, keep in mind, when we talk about the big cities, there are so many small towns and communities out there that have been hit hard that need help and jobs that need to be rebuilt. It is not just Iowa. We have Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Kansas, and Minnesota. They have all been hard hit by flooding and tornadoes. I believe the hardest hit States will need to have the local matching funds for FEMA assistance, which is normally 25 percent, they are going to have to be reduced as much as possible. I hope we can work with the administrator and with President Bush to get that down as much as possible. The Iowa delegation--on a bipartisan, bicameral basis--is preparing a letter right now asking the President for this relief. There is no conceivable way that a State with the devastation on the scale that Senator Grassley and I witnessed this weekend can come up with a 25- percent match in order to trigger the customary FEMA assistance. Now, beyond that, we are going to need to move quickly in addressing weaknesses in our flood control systems and some other mitigation needs so businesses and homes can be safely repaired. The full 15 percent in FEMA disaster mitigation assistance, as authorized back in 1993, should be provided. It may very well make more sense for the State to buy homes that have been flooded so we can avoid having them flooded again in the future, with those repairs again paid for with Federal flood insurance and other Federal assistance. Such homes can be purchased and then permanently converted to parkland or other uses that will not need very costly repairs after future floods. I might add, we had devastating floods in Iowa in 1993. We did some of this mitigation. Because some of those homes were removed--in fact, I think there is one town where basically the whole town was moved to higher ground. And guess what. They did not get flooded this time. A lot of times it makes good sense to do that. We are going to need flexible community development block grant funding for infrastructure repair and home assistance. Economic Development Administration funds for infrastructure will be needed for businesses and jobs. Corps of Engineers funding will be needed for the repair and improvement of levees. We will also need Department of Agriculture support for a whole variety of agricultural things--from repairing conservation structures to meeting new soil conservation problems and cleaning up debris. Every culvert going under these roads, all over the State of Iowa, has been plugged up with some kind of debris. Bridges--all this stuff--need to be taken out and taken out in a hurry. So we are going to need the help of the Department of Agriculture on that. So it will be several weeks, at least, before we can have an accurate measure of the total economic losses and physical destruction. Probably more time than that for areas south of the water. The water is all moving south, so I hate to say this, but I think northern Missouri is about to get hit pretty hard. And as to the absolute southeast of Iowa, we have not seen it hit the absolute southeast of Iowa yet. So, again, we are going to have to get a pretty good handle on this, but this is a national disaster. It requires a national response. So, Mr. President, I am sure Senator Grassley and I will have more to report in the days ahead. But our thoughts and prayers are with the good people of Iowa and neighboring States who are still struggling with floodwaters or still picking up the pieces from devastating tornadoes. Again, I want to join with Senator Grassley in thanking so many church groups in Iowa. We saw them. Every place we went, we saw church groups getting together. Protestant, Catholic, evangelical--no matter who--they were all getting together and setting up response teams, doing an outstanding job. It was so wonderful to see these people come together and organize in that fashion. Then, of course, in Cedar Rapids, some of the churches are underwater. I may not have one here on this map, but I had a picture earlier. I had some pictures of churches that were underwater too. But the church groups, religious groups in Iowa, have been wonderful. On a really somber and sad note, I would, again, express my condolences to the families of the Boy Scouts who were killed at Little Sioux--a terrible tragedy--and to the families where some of the kids were hurt pretty badly. Some of them are still in critical condition. So we are praying for their recovery, their full recovery. But you listen to the stories that came out of that Boy Scout camp, and you see what a good thing Boy Scouts is and the leadership they provided and how they pulled together and helped one another. There is a lot of strong leadership in these Boy Scouts. So we hope their families will take some condolence in the fact that these kids responded in a great leadership fashion. These young kids responded as adults after that tornado hit that Boy Scout camp. Lastly, Mr. President, I deeply appreciate the many expressions of concern and caring expressed by our Senate colleagues. I have gotten a lot of phone calls and messages, and I thank all my colleagues for their expressions of concern and caring. We will get through it. Obviously, we will get through it. I think Iowa will be a stronger State. We will have some tough times. I have no doubt about it. A lot of people out there do not have much money. A lot of times it is the lowest income people along the rivers and stuff because, well, the spacing--that is where the cheapest land is, isn't it? That is where the lowest cost houses are, for the most part. I am not saying all, but for the most part. I have seen some pretty beautiful homes inundated by water too, I might add, but a lot of these people are low-income people. They are elderly. They have nowhere to turn. As a caring nation, we have to help them put their lives together again. So we will be on this every day. I am pleased to hear that President Bush--I just found this out a few minutes ago--will be coming to Iowa on Thursday. That will be good. I hope he can see this firsthand and then help us with getting those FEMA matching funds down as much as possible. With that, again, I will be reporting more in the days ahead. But we are starting the clean-up process now from the most devastating flood I have ever seen in all my years in the State of Iowa. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Rodney Brown and Caitlin Staebell of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I would like to take this time to recognize Arthur J. Schut, a fellow Iowan who has dedicated more than 30 years of his life to serving the disfranchised in Iowa communities with his care, counsel and work to help individuals struggling with substance abuse. Arthur Schut, or Art as many people know him, has gone above and beyond the call of duty, devoting his life to substance abuse treatment in Iowa. And I would like to wish him all the best in his future endeavors as he moves on from Iowa to continue his efforts in other parts of the country. Art has worked tirelessly to provide substance abuse care and council throughout the State of Iowa. He has fought to minimize the negative stigma surrounding those struggling to overcome their substance abuse by educating families, lawmakers, and the public. He has worked with great effort towards securing funding and resources for those with addiction and mental health issues. His deep passion for his vocation has led him to travel all across our great State and Nation for his cause, fighting on a local, State, and national level. Art earned his psychology degree from Central College in Pella, IA, and obtained his master's in clinical psychology from the State University of New York at Albany. After obtaining his degrees, he devoted all his time to administering substance abuse care throughout Iowa. He has held positions as treatment director, clinical director, child psychologist, and community programming director in substance abuse agencies. He served as adjunct faculty at the University of Iowa, where he gave guest lectures and taught substance abuse courses. He administers agency operations and programs in three regions of Iowa including outpatient offices in 16 Iowa counties, a prevention unit, an employee assistance program, residential treatment programs and a detoxification unit. In addition, Art has been the president and chief executive officer of the Mid-Eastern Council on Chemical Abuse, MECCA, in Iowa City and Des Moines for the past 16 years. It is clear that Art Schut has a deep passion for treating and supporting those who struggle with substance abuse and deserves our recognition. His dedication and perseverance to his cause deserve immense respect and honor. Art will be deeply missed. He is an amazing role model, not only for his humanitarian efforts, but for his passion and zeal that can be seen in his devotion to his work. Iowa is losing a great leader, but we can rest assured that Art's commitment to his cause will never waver and he will continue to make leaps and bounds to provide substance abuse care and treatment no matter what obstacles may stand in his way.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened by the death of Carl Kulczyk last week. I knew Carl the way many other Iowans did--through his passionate commitment to the work of bringing hope and health care to underserved communities in our State. When Carl began his work with the Iowa Department of Public Health 14 years ago, there were just four community health centers in Iowa; today there are three times as many health centers, a migrant program, and yet another community health center well on its way to getting permanent funding. Carl never cut a ribbon or spoke at a groundbreaking, but let me say this: The expansion of affordable, accessible health care services across Iowa would not have happened without Carl's hard work. But that is not all. Carl worked to support Critical Access Hospitals. He brought physicians from overseas to care for Iowa's sick and elderly. He nurtured the psychiatric physician assistant training program. And, in his final days, he was working to get Iowans better access to dental care. There is an old expression that we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. By that measure, Carl lived a very good life, indeed. He gave his time and talents to securing quality health care for tens of thousands of Iowans, most of them children--people who otherwise would have gone without any health care. And though he was dedicated to his work, his first priority was always his family. In my book, the highest praise for Carl--for any person--is that he was a good and decent man. He dedicated himself to serving others. He had a mighty heart and was beloved by those of us who had the honor of calling him friend, colleague, husband, father, brother, or uncle. Carl had a very special blend of passion, humor, determination, high intelligence, and a sense of adventure. He worked miracles for people who so desperately needed a miracle. He took care of the least among us, while never neglecting his family. I, for one, will always be in his debt and grateful for his service to the people of Iowa. I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Pam, to his children, Caleb and Ezra, and to his entire family.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am sorry we have to be back on the floor again with the farm bill. I was hoping we might have a voice vote, since we have all voted on this twice before; I am sure no votes would change. But I did wish to at least explain for the Record and for Senators why we are here. Now, the Senator from South Carolina talked about the missing title, and how it rendered the veto override process unconstitutional. Well, I am as upset about it as anyone else. I know Senator Chambliss is too. We are all upset about this. But let me try to put it in perspective as to what happened. The House passed a bill, we passed a bill. We got to conference. We worked it all out. It went to the enrolling clerk in the House. How this happened I don't know. But somehow the enrolling clerk, in enrolling it, dropped title III. There are 15 titles to this bill. One title was left out. For some reason no one caught it. So the bill was held by the enrolling clerk for 3 or 4 days. The President was overseas. He came back on Monday night, on May 19th I believe, and the enrolling clerk then sent the bill down to the White House the next day. The White House didn't catch it either. The President vetoed the bill, sent it back down to the Hill. It was only then, before it came up for a veto override in the House, that it was realized that one title was missing. I don't believe there was any maliciousness to this. Nothing was materially changed. When the Senator from South Carolina spoke about this problem, it sounded as if there was some underhanded effort to materially change the bill. That was not the case. It was simply a mistake the enrolling clerk made. Again, why that happened and how, there has been a lot of talk about that. I don't know. I am fairly convinced that it was an inadvertent clerical error. Secondly, I want to correct one other misstatement by the Senator from South Carolina. When we overrode the President's veto on 14 of the 15 titles, the Parliamentarian basically told us that those titles did become law. They are the law of the land. So 14 of the 15 titles are law. What is not law is title III that was left out. It was decided that rather than only taking up title III and passing it, we would take the whole bill back, include title III in it, as it was before, and send it back to the President. That is what we have before us. We have before us basically exactly what we voted on before, no changes. It is exactly what we voted on before in the conference report on May 15. I wanted to make that clear, that nothing has been changed. It is the same exact bill on which we had 81 votes in the Senate; 81 Members voted for the conference report that is exactly what we have before us today. I wanted to take a couple minutes to underscore the critical importance of doing this and enacting the missing title. The other titles are law. It is critical that we enact title III which covers trade and international food aid programs. These provisions not only reauthorize but they reform a lot of our programs. As we speak, an emergency summit on the consequences of high food prices organized by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations is wrapping up in Rome. The specific food aid programs authorized in this title are the title II Food for Peace program; the Food for Progress program; the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program; and the holding of food stocks for emergency purposes under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. Although authority for most of these programs expired on May 23, a short-term lapse, as I have talked with the U.S. Agency for International Development, does not cause serious problems. A longer lapse, however, would impede our ability to provide food aid. The new trade title needs to be enacted for these programs to be operational again. Right now, according to the USAID administrator, we cannot enter into any new agreements for assistance under the title II program. USAID has identified need for emergency assistance in Ethiopia and Somalia, and recently finalized a deal with North Korea for proper oversight of food aid provided to that country. None of these activities can move forward until we enact the trade title into law. USAID wants to provide additional food aid under title II to the people of Burma in the aftermath of the cyclone, but they can't do that until we enact this title. Were an event, God forbid, of the magnitude of the 2004 East Asian tsunami to occur or an earthquake or some other natural disaster, the United States Government would not be able to respond immediately with food aid unless we pass this title. That is why it is so important that we do this. I might also add that the Government Accountability Office had given us numerous recommendations for reforming our food aid programs. I won't go through all of those, but there were three basic recommendations needing statutory changes. All three of those are addressed in the trade title. All in all, the provisions of this title are noncontroversial and needed to ensure the continuity of U.S. food aid and trade promotion programs. I hope we can complete this debate and get this title enacted into law as soon as possible. I thank so much my colleague and friend from Georgia, Senator Chambliss, for all his hard work on this bill. It has been a long grind, but we have a good bill. We have a farm bill that is supported by every major farm organization in the country, a bill that is supported by emergency food groups, the food banks, the religious groups. This was a broadly supported bill. It is a good bill. It is good for our States. It is good for our farmers and ranchers. It is good for the people of America. I thank Senator Chambliss for all his hard work in bringing this bill to fruition. To all Senators, I apologize that we have to be back here again. As I said, this was a mistake made by the clerk in the House, not by the Senate. Therefore, we have to be here again. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Butler and Raj Borsellino of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry: I understand under the agreement, we each have 7\1/2\ minutes; that Senator Gregg has 15 minutes; and the two leaders have reserved 15 minutes each?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again for Senators and those staff who are watching, now we are on the override of the veto of the farm bill conference report we passed here last week. To remind everyone, that bill, as you know, passed here overwhelmingly 81 to 15, a remarkable margin for a farm bill. It was widely supported on both sides of the aisle and by regions of the country, so we were very pleased with that outcome and that vote. Of course it had passed the House with 318 votes; so again a very strong vote on the bill. It went to the President. We were hoping that maybe he would not veto it, but the President did exercise his constitutional right and he vetoed the bill. The farm bill came back to the House yesterday and the House overrode the veto 316 to 108. So basically what we have before us is exactly what we voted on last week and approved with 81 votes but for one thing: The farm bill is missing a title. Let me try to be as succinct as I can in this. What happened is when the enrolling clerk on the House side enrolled the bill and sent it to the President, the clerk did not put in title III, which includes the several Department of Agriculture trade programs and food assistance programs for foreign countries, mainly the P.L. 480, Food for Peace Program, the delivery of which goes through USAID, and other programs. So the President vetoed the enrolled bill which is missing that title. Well, I know Senator Chambliss and I and others have had numerous phone calls and conversations with Parliamentarians and others to figure this out. The enrolled bill is properly attested to and fully effective and valid as to all of the provisions it contains. We will have to enact title III in another legislative measure. Again, I remind everyone, its omission was inadvertent. It was an innocent mistake; maybe inexcusable, but nevertheless an innocent mistake that title III was dropped out. But for that title III, everything else in this bill is exactly what we approved with 81 votes. So I am here to ask Members to vote to override the President's veto and to make this bill the law of the land in accordance with the overwhelming wishes of both the Senate and the House. This bill is a good bill, as I said earlier. It responds to needs all over this country, from farmers and small towns and rural areas to Americans in urban areas. The largest part of the bill is nutrition and food assistance. Over two-thirds of the total spending in this bill goes to nutrition. This bill does more to strengthen Federal food assistance than any bill we have passed since George Herbert Walker Bush was the President. This bill does a lot for food assistance for low-income people. Basically all the added money above the budget baseline that we put into this bill goes for nutrition. We increase the food supplies to food banks. Our Nation's food banks are getting hit pretty hard. We put $1.2 billion into supplying them with more food. I might add, one of the reasons we must enact this bill in a hurry is because food banks are hurting. As soon as this bill becomes law with this override, $50 million will get out immediately to our food pantries and food banks across the country. We also in this bill, as you know, provided more money to help growers of specialty crops, fruits and vegetables, than we ever have before. We include in this legislation a higher level of funding than in any previous farm bill for helping farmers and ranchers in conserving our natural resources, saving soil, cleaning up our water and our streams, protecting wildlife habitat. Look at it this way: Of the combined total spending in this bill on commodity and conservation programs, 41 percent of that total is devoted to conservation. That is slightly more than double the highest percentage share for conservation in any previous farm bill. The rural development title helps rural communities through a number of new initiatives, including a stronger broadband program, and by devoting mandatory funding for water and wastewater systems to fund some of the tremendous backlog of qualified applications that are on hold. We have in this bill several important initiatives and improvements in programs to help beginning farmers. We improve the farm income protection system in various ways, including for dairy farmers, yet attain budget savings in the title of the bill covering commodity programs. We have a new option in here, a new reform, called the Average Crop Revenue Election, or ACRE, Program. This is going to be very significant for farmers to be able to choose whether to stay under the current farm program or do they go to the new program of income protection based on revenue. I read the editorial in the Washington Post this morning and, of course, they have never editorially, as far as I know, ever supported a farm bill, at least in my time here. I have to take exception to one thing they said in the editorial this morning. They are talking about the ACRE Program, claiming how it will be some kind of boondoggle for farmers. They say here: [It] means farmers would get paid if prices fall back to the historical and, for farmers, perfectly profitable norms. If the prices that our Nation's farmers receive for their grain and other commodities fall back to what the Washington Post calls ``historical norms,'' we will have tremendous economic hardship in the countryside. Here is why I say that: What the Post is missing is that from 2002 to 2009, the production costs for farmers have skyrocketed. The gasoline prices we are paying at the pump, farmers have got to pay even more for the diesel fuel for their tractors, for their combines. For example, fertilizer costs for producing corn are up 141 percent in 7 years. From 2002 to 2009, the cost of production for corn is up 22 percent; soybeans up 28 percent; wheat up 28 percent. Now, if prices, God forbid, should fall to the levels they were before 2002, farmers will be wiped out all over this country. We will have bankruptcies and families forced out of farming on a huge scale. That is why we have the ACRE Program to reflect the new realities, the new realities of what farmers have to pay for their fertilizer, their fuel, their equipment, their land. All of these expenses have gone up tremendously. We need a program that helps farmers deal with those higher costs and potential volatility in market prices for commodities, and that is why we put this new program in. It is a reform. It is one of the features of this bill that I believe will help family farms survive in America. So, again, this is a good, solid bill, the same bill we voted on last week minus title III, which we will enact later. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand the leader on this side has 15 minutes reserved; is that correct?

Mr. HARKIN. I yield whatever time the Senator from North Dakota desires from the leader's time.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. HARKIN. Eleven minutes. Mr. President, I understand that, obviously, in a quorum call the time is taken evenly off of both sides. Since we have 11 minutes left, I yield myself 4 minutes of that time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, would the Chair please remind this Senator when his 4 minutes have elapsed?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to respond to a couple things my friend from New Hampshire said. He talked about the sugar provisions in the bill and the support price of sugar, that it is over world prices. I always point out to people that when you go in a restaurant, or anywhere you go to eat, the sugar is free. You get these little packs of sugar wherever you go. You go to Starbucks, you get free sugar. You go to the airport, and you go down and get a cup of coffee, or something like that, there is free sugar. It cannot get much cheaper than that. Does anyone believe if we were to drop these sugar support prices down about 50 percent--which is what would happen with what the Senator from New Hampshire wishes to have happen--do you believe candy prices are going to go down? Do you believe food prices are going to go down? Come on. It just means that the manufacturers, the processors will just make more profits, that is all, and our nation's sugar farmers won't. So you can't get much cheaper than free when it comes to sugar when you go into your restaurants and coffee shops and places such as that. The next thing the Senator talked about is the $16 billion that the Washington Post keeps talking about in new spending because of this new program, this new option we have, this new reform program. That is a doom's day scenario. Sure, if the bottom falls, if commodity prices fall 40 percent, yes, we could see significant expenditures. But even the Department of Agriculture in this administration has said they don't expect prices to decline much if at all over the next 12 to 18 months. As pointed out earlier, because of the increased prices of fertilizer, fuel, equipment--all of the input costs of agriculture--if these prices drop to where they were 8 years ago, Lord help us. We would have real economic hardship in rural America. So we have this new program in the bill to help farmers deal with the new economic realities in agriculture. So, yes, you can take a doom's day scenario, but we don't plan our lives around the fact that we have perhaps a 1 in 40 million chance of getting hit by an asteroid. We don't plan our daily excursions by the fact that we face on the order of a 1 in 50,000 chance that we could get hit by a tornado or struck by lightning. Of course you can always have doom's day scenarios. That is not how we crafted this new program nor is it a reasonable way to judge it. We planned it in relation to what is really happening in agriculture. The last thing the Senator said was something about logrolling, where some members will help other commodities or regions and then in return members who have been helped will support policy for other commodities in a different area. That is a total distortion of how this process works. The fact is, in my area in Iowa, we don't grow cotton and peanuts, let's face it. We just don't. I don't have much expertise in that area, to be honest about it, so I rely upon Senator Chambliss or Senator Cochran or those Members from other parts of the country who know their agriculture. They know those commodities. So we rely upon their expertise. You bet we do. I hope they rely a little bit on our expertise when it comes to crops such as wheat and corn and soybeans and other crops. The same goes for ranches. The distinguished Presiding Officer comes from an area of the country where they have ranches. We don't have ranches in Iowa, so I rely upon the Presiding Officer, who is on the Agriculture Committee and who knows a lot about ranching and what it means in his part of the country and what it means to have livestock and livestock producers who run ranches. The Presiding Officer also knows what it means for this nation to shift to new and renewable forms of energy, including cellulosic energy, which he has been a leader on. So we rely upon each other for this kind of expertise. That is not logrolling; that is just recognizing that different Senators who come from different parts of the country have different expertise, and they can bring that expertise to the Agriculture Committee. That is exactly how we develop these farm bills. It is not logrolling, it is simply recognizing that we want this legislation to work effectively everywhere across the nation, regardless of the commodities grown or region involved, and to cover the whole broad range of issues and challenges encompassed in this bill. That is why I think we have a very good bill here. As my friend Senator Chambliss said, of course we don't agree with every single thing in it, but that is the art of legislation, which is to compromise and to work things out so that we can get good bipartisan support and multiregional support. We did that in this farm bill. You can't get much more bipartisan than 81 votes in the Senate or 318 votes in the House. When you have that kind of overwhelming support, then you know you probably have a good bill. So, again, I urge Senators to vote to override the President's veto. Mr. President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.