Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the Tester amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on or in relation to the Tester amendment occur at a time to be determined later.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. I have read the Senator's amendment. I have sat and read the whole thing.

Mr. HARKIN. It is quite simple. It doesn't take a lot of time to read it. Then I listened to the Senator talk about the Kelo decision. I am not a fan of the Kelo decision either, but it seems to me the way the amendment is written--and I ask the Senator this--if someone, if a private farmer had farmland, and a private developer came in and got the local jurisdiction to condemn that farmland and take it for private development, that would be allowed under your amendment?

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the question, though.

Mr. HARKIN. That is what I wanted to make clear; that the Kelo decision----

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding and engaging in this colloquy. I was listening to the Senator talk about the Kelo decision, but the Senator's amendment doesn't reach the Kelo decision.

Mr. HARKIN. Well, if you allow----

Mr. HARKIN. I will have more to say about that later, but let me ask another question. Under the Senator's amendment--I wish to make sure I read it correctly--if a local jurisdiction--planning and zoning--decided to condemn some land or to take land for a park, if the amendment were adopted and put into law, that would mean that jurisdiction, whatever that jurisdiction is--it could be a county or a State--couldn't even get any money for education. No title I money for education. They could not get special education money. Let's say, money for special education, they wouldn't be able to get that either; is that a correct reading? For 5 years, they couldn't get that?

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. I have a letter of December 11 from a number of environmental and wildlife groups: National Audubon Society, Defenders of Wildlife, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the World Wildlife Fund and others, in opposition to the Craig amendment. I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. How much time does the Senator have remaining?

Mr. HARKIN. Can I ask the Senator to yield me time?

Mr. HARKIN. How about 3. Madam President, I am very proud of our bill. We worked very hard to craft a bill. But, you know, any bill needs to be improved when it comes to the floor. I think this is one item where we need to fix it. The bill that came out of committee, we did not do our job in this respect. I wish to echo what the Senator from Illinois said. I think of it this way. If you are a bona fide farmer, more than two-thirds of your income, it could be 70 percent of your income comes from farming, you have no limits. There are no limits. You could have an adjusted gross income of $10 million and you will still get Government benefits. There are zero limits. Now, again, if your income from farming is less than that, less than two-thirds, then you have an income limit of $1 million, then it goes down to $750,000 in 2010. The Senator from Minnesota is on the right track. There is absolutely no reason why someone whose bottom-line adjusted gross income, bottom line after they have taken all their depreciation, all their expenses and everything else, bottom line of $750,000, they do not need free Government money. But I can understand why they are fighting this amendment. Who wants to give up free money? This is free money. Well, if you are going to give free money, then how about giving it to people who deserve it? That is what the Klobuchar amendment does. It takes this savings of $355 million and puts it into the Beginning Farmer Development Program, the Individual Development Accounts Pilot Program for beginning farmers, rural broadband grants, organic agriculture research and extension, Grasslands Reserve Program, community food projects, things that go to help rural America and help our legitimate small family farmers. So that is why I feel this is one amendment I wish to speak out on as chairman of this committee. As I said, I am proud of this bill. We have put a good bill together. But there is one hole in it we need to patch up, and we need to have at least this amount of reform in this bill, or else people will continue to say: Well, there they go again. They are taking care of the richest and the biggest, the richest and the biggest. Do you know what is happening now with farm programs? It is similar to a black hole. Do you know what black holes are in astronomy? Those are the things in space where there is so much gravity that nothing escapes, not even light. If anything gets near it, it sucks it in and nothing gets out. Well, this is akin to what is happening in our farm programs now with this kind of a situation. The bigger you are, the more you get. That is what is happening here. The bigger you are, the more you get from the Government. Now the more you get from the Government, the better able you are to bid up the price of land around you and buy it. Therefore, you get bigger. Now that you are bigger, you get more Government money, and you can buy up more land, and you get more Government money. That is why it is similar to a black hole. We have to stop this. This is not in the best interests of rural America. What is in the best interest is the Klobuchar amendment. I mean $750,000, quite frankly, personally I think it ought to be lower. I think if you had an adjusted gross income over $500,000 or $300,000, you ought not be able to get Government programs. But at least $750,000 is a lot better than what is in the bill. Because the bill says there are no limits, none, $10 million, you still get Government payments, if two-thirds of your income is from farming. That is why the Klobuchar amendment ought to be adopted.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I agree with the assessment of the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. HARKIN. Again, I concur with the Senator from New Mexico. Nothing in this amendment would erode either Commission's authorities under the statutes that you have cited.

Mr. HARKIN. No, this amendment would not infringe on FERC's current ability to gain information from market participants.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 1396 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 391, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2339, and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 522, S. 1858.