Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tess Mullen of my staff be granted floor privileges 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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. I think, then, we get to the crux of this issue. What the amendment of the Senator does is it has the Federal Government telling a local entity, a local government or a State government what it can and cannot do within its own jurisdiction. This is a very powerful Federal Government, a heavy hand coming in telling people that we know better than they what they should be doing.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Idaho that all of the things he mentioned--the Clean Water Act and all that kind of stuff--we can get into that, but, yes, if a local entity violates that, they are subject to certain sanctions, usually fines.

Mr. HARKIN. They are not subject to losing all their Federal money for education, for health, for transportation, for everything else-- nothing like that. I know of no instance like that in any Federal legislation. If the Senator can find one for me I would appreciate it. I can't.

Mr. HARKIN. But it seems to me, I say to my friend, those are the governments that are closest to the people, rather than some distant government in Washington telling them what they can and cannot do. Plus, I say to my friend from Idaho, with all due respect, this did not grow out of the Kelo decision. Local governments have had the power of eminent domain probably going back to the founding of our Republic. I was trying to find out exactly when, but probably the early 1800s, maybe the 1700s.

Mr. HARKIN. But I say to my friend, defined public good has been parks and recreation areas and things like that.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Idaho I am sure he has visited Gettysburg. Gettysburg National Park would not be a national park were it not for the power of the State of Pennsylvania to have the right of eminent domain because that is what they used. They had to use it in order to get that land together for Gettysburg Park. I say to my friend, with all due respect, it is a national historical monument. But that is what they had to use to do it. Should Washington have been able to tell them no, you can't do that?

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, again, the amendment doesn't even go to Kelo because my friend admitted a local government could condemn, eminent domain, take private farmland for a private developer. Under his amendment they can still do that.

Mr. HARKIN. It has been that way, as I say, going back to Gettysburg. They did use eminent domain in Gettysburg.

Mr. HARKIN. They carved out some sections where they didn't think they needed them, but they did on some other sections. So it has been that way forever. Kelo didn't open floodgates. What it did was open floodgates for private, and that I find anathema; that you could use eminent domain for some private purpose. But for a public purpose such as parks and recreation and things like that, it has been this way since the founding of our Republic, I say to my friend. My friend, I know is a conservative. It seems to me conservatives are always looking askance at the Federal Government coming in, heavyhanded, and telling local jurisdictions what they can and cannot do. This, it seems to me, would be the heaviest hand that I have seen in my years here. My friend is right. We, a lot of times, do pass laws, Clean Air Acts, things like that that he mentioned, and we impose fines if they don't do something. But we don't say if you violate it, we are taking away your education money, your health money, your transportation money, and everything else. I just know of no other case like that in Federal law.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I just have a few minutes. I know we want to get to the Brown amendment. The Senator from Ohio has been very patient, waiting a couple of days to get to his amendment. I appreciate that. I have just a couple of things I wanted to respond to. First, regarding the Craig amendment, I have here a letter dated December 11 from the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Council of State Governments, all writing in opposition to the Craig amendment. It says--I just want to read what they said in this letter: This amendment is not only ill-advised, but it is also unconstitutional. Amendment No. 3640 would preempt state and local land use laws by prohibiting any federal funding that goes to state and local governments from being used for acquiring ``farmland or gracing land for the purpose of a park, recreation, open space, conservation, preservation view, scenic vista, or similar purpose.'' This would severely chill state and local historical preservation, community service, and environmental efforts. Under this amendment, if a state or locality were to use the power of eminent domain for virtually any public purpose, even if such action was completely in accordance with its own statues and land use development ordinances and regulations, the state or locality could lose all applicable federal funding. The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution expressly permits the taking of private property for public use provided just compensation is provided to the owner of the property. The power of eminent domain has always been, and should remain, a state and local power. The state power to use eminent domain for public purposes is fundamental to a state's and locality's ability to provide for the community needs of its citizens, to protect unique and scenic areas of a state by creating parks, and to preserve wildlife and topography of a significant nature. Again, we urge you to reject the Craig Amendment No. 3640 because it preempts state and local law and thwarts valid state and local efforts to preserve their natural resources for the use and enjoyment of all citizens. I ask unanimous consent the letter representing the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Council of State Governments be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I think the Craig amendment, about which I just engaged in a colloquy with my friend from Idaho, the Craig amendment really is the heaviest of heavy hands I have ever seen proposed for the Federal Government. First, I do believe also, as I just stated, it does violate the fifth amendment to the Constitution. Also, it doesn't even get to the Kelo decision. As the Senator himself admitted, even under his own amendment we would have the oddest of all situations. It would then be permissible for a local entity to condemn private land for private use, but it would not be permissible for a local entity to condemn private land for public use. That is the oddest of all circumstances. Again, to say to a local entity that you cannot use the power of eminent domain, granted to you by the Constitution of the United States, for a park or recreation area or whatever it is, a public use for future generations to enjoy--to me, that is an interference in local government and local government decisions. My friend talked about, yes, somebody may want to pass farmland on to future generations and things like that. I am very sensitive to that. Yes, they should be able to. But shouldn't also a local entity or a State devise parks and recreation areas, also for future generations? There seems to be some thought if a State uses its power of eminent domain, they can just take the land away. The fifth amendment of the Constitution says, no, you have to have just compensation. That is where you get into courts a lot of times. We have seen eminent domain used for power lines, for example, to go across the State. Again, the amendment of the Senator, I don't know if it would reach the power lines.

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, well, I say to my friend, one of the historic uses of eminent domain has been for parks. When was Central Park in New York set aside? The power of eminent domain was for Central Park in New York. I think that has been over a hundred years.

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, I do not have a catalog----

Mr. HARKIN. But my point----

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Idaho, that is the point I was trying to make, that you could still have condemnation purposes for a private power line. Maybe a farmer does not want that power line going over his land; he does not like those big cables going over his land. The State can come in and say: Here is your compensation. I do not like it. OK. We use power of eminent domain. We will go to court, and they will build that power line right across your land. The amendment of the Senator from Idaho would still permit that to happen, would still permit that to go on, still permit that to happen, but it would not permit a local entity to say: We have a lot of land; we want to preserve a park for future generations. We have some of this land here that is in there, and we need that for the park, and it is generally accepted by the public. You may have one person reticent to do that. So they say: OK, we use the power of eminent domain to do that. But that does not mean they get the land; that means they have to go to court to decide what is just compensation under the fifth amendment. I say to my friend from Idaho, if he really wants to pursue this, he ought to introduce an amendment to overturn the fifth amendment of the Constitution. Let's have a constitutional amendment. Who knows what it might be next. You think of this as a precedent. What is next? What is next that we might not agree with? Maybe we do not agree with speed limits. I say to my friend from Idaho, maybe we do not agree with what a State's speed limits are, so if you do not adhere to Federal standards on speed limits, we are going to take away all of your education and transportation and health money. How about education policy? Let's say we do not agree with the local school board. We do not agree with the local school board as to what its education policy is. It has to be what the Federal Government says, and if you do not adhere to it, we are going to take away your education money, your health money, your transportation money, and your community development money. We will take it away just because you do not agree with the Federal Government's policy on education. Zoning and other areas like that--think of what kind of a path we are going down if we adopt this amendment. Again, I say this amendment would again intrude the Federal Government into the local and State jurisdictions that have been preserved by the Constitution of the United States. We ought not to go there. Madam President, I hope now we are ready to turn to the Brown amendment. I thank the Senator for his patience.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains?

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I take a back seat to no one in my support for the crop insurance industry. I was here, as Senator Grassley said, on the House Agriculture Committee when we set up this system. I was on the Conservation and Credit Subcommittee. I remember why we did this. We had a bad system before, with the Government putting these policies out, relying upon ad hoc disaster payments. Eventually, we went to all crop insurance delivered through the private sector. I was one of the initial supporters of that. I fought very hard for the private sector to get this business, for obvious reasons. No. 1, we had our private companies out there already insuring houses, cars, and different things, such as equipment, for farmers. Why should they not also provide crop insurance? It made logical sense. I think the years have proven us right. The private crop insurance industry in America has worked well. It has done an outstanding job. It has met all of the things we expected them to do when we created this program in 1982. So I have followed this all these years, and I have supported this industry and what they have been doing all these years. I still do. I take a back seat to no one. I will be frank; when the Senator from Ohio first came up with his proposal on crop insurance in my discussions with him, I thought this was too big of a cut. I thought it was a little bit too heavy. I thought they were too harsh. But I do think that over the weeks, in working with Senator Brown and in moderating the size of the cuts and to shape the message about what needs to be done to reform the financial incentives provided to crop insurance companies, I think he is on the right path. I think the Senator from Ohio makes valid points about the problems with the current mechanism for reimbursing private crop insurance companies for the expenses they incur in delivering the Federal crop insurance program for farmers. No one who is knowledgeable about how the program works--and I believe I am very knowledgeable about it--can deny that the significant increase in total premiums over the last few years has been driven by the increase in commodity prices, especially corn, wheat, and soybeans, which has resulted in an increase in A&O reimbursement per policy. That surge generated higher revenues for the companies that have not necessarily had an increase in expenses over the same period. So we have had a system whereby the reimbursements are tied to commodity prices. Well, we have seen this huge increase in commodity prices in the last few years. In fact, I penciled out here that we went from about $3.5 billion to more than $5 billion in just a few years. The insurance companies get, as we know, 21 percent of that amount. That is the reimbursement rate, 21 percent. That is a huge increase. The Senator from Ohio pointed out on his chart the increases in those years. What the Senator is proposing is that we take the average of, I believe, it is 2004, 2005, and 2006, and we cap it at that level. It does not apply to the crop-year of 2007, and it would not apply to 2008, if I am not mistaken. I think it starts in 2009. It does not apply to 2007 or 2008. It does not start until 2009. I have told some of my friends in this industry that I think this approach may be better for them in the long run to base it on those levels rather than to roll the dice. We have seen crop prices go up, and we have seen them go down. Obviously, I would like to see them stay up. But that is ignoring history. I said to my friends in the industry: Look, this is not a bad deal. We cap the highest levels we have seen, except for this year, obviously, for 2007, and that is the reimbursement rate. I think it might in the long run be better for them. I don't see this as onerous on crop insurance. Some say there is going to be this big cut, but that does not apply to 2007 and 2008. By the time we get to 2009, there may not be any cuts at all, as a matter of fact, depending upon what happens with prices. In fact, it may be better. It actually may be better. In exchange, what we do get is some more money for conservation, for EQIP. We need more money in the EQIP program, the Grasslands Reserve Program, the Farmland Protection Program, as well as the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program. I think it is a pretty fair tradeoff. If I thought for 1 minute this was going to devastate, destroy, unduly harm the crop insurance industry, I could not support it. But I believe it is a fair and equitable approach and, quite frankly, I think the methodology is much better in the long term. ``Long term,'' what do I mean? Five years? Probably 5, 7, 8 years. It may be better for the crop insurance industry than hooking onto commodity prices. Quite frankly, thinking back over the years, I find it hard to argue why it should be connected to commodity prices. What does that have to do with reimbursement? What does that have to do with policy numbers? We should have something that will protect our insurance people from undue happenings and events such as that, and I think that is what this methodology does. We took the average of those 3 years and capped it at that. In conference, we can look at putting in an inflation factor. It seems to me that makes much more sense for the future of the program. As I said, for that we get more money for the conservation programs, the McGovern-Dole International School Lunch Program, and it also lifts the sunset provision on our nutrition program. Right now the increases we put in the Food Stamp Program with the standard deduction and minimum benefit sunset in 5 years. Someone in the Democratic Caucus said recently to me: Why are we sun- setting in 5 years the programs that go to the poorest people in our country, yet we don't sunset the programs that go to some of the wealthiest people in our country? Fair question. So in order to lift this sunset, we need additional money, and the money we would save would go to lift the sunset provisions on both the standard deduction and the minimum benefit. For those reasons, I support the amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to conclude the debate with respect to the Klobuchar amendment No. 3810, and that the previous order with respect to the vote threshold remain in effect; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Klobuchar amendment; that upon disposition of that amendment, the Senate then vote in the relation to the amendments listed below in the order listed; that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled prior to each vote; that after the first vote, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes; with no second-degree amendment in order to any of the amendments covered under this amendment, prior to the vote; that the amendments covered here be subject to a 60-vote threshold; that if any of these amendments achieve an affirmative 60 votes, it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that if it does not achieve that threshold, it be withdrawn: Coburn amendment No. 3530; Tester amendment No. 3666; Brown amendment No. 3819, and that the managers' package of cleared amendments be considered and agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I guess we are going to be in recess for an hour, from 2 to 3 p.m. We will come back at 3 p.m. and finish debate on the Klobuchar amendment. We will have that vote, and at the conclusion of that time, we will have three other votes. There should be four votes in sequence at that time.

Mr. HARKIN

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

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, again, trying to work this through and get our amendments lined up, I have a unanimous consent request, and then we will be on our way to four votes in a row. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn amendment No. 3530 be modified with the changes at the desk, and that the amendment then be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that upon disposition of the Brown amendment, the Senate then return to the Craig amendment No. 3640, and that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote, with the time divided between Senators Craig and Leahy, and that the Craig amendment be subject to the same 60-vote threshold as is provided for in the previous order.