Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. As I understand it now, Mr. President, the farm bill is before us. There are no pending amendments, also, whatsoever?

Mr. HARKIN. That is what I mean. The substitute is there, but there are no other pending amendments to it.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I see our distinguished leader here, Senator Durbin, but I know Senator Klobuchar has been waiting to offer her amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me thank my friend and colleague and ranking member, Senator Chambliss, first for starting the process. It was under his leadership on the Agriculture Committee that a lot of field hearings were held across the country in preparation for this farm bill. Then, by dint of the elections last year, I then took over as chairman this year, and we worked very closely to continue the great progress Senator Chambliss had made moving the ball forward. We had some bumps along the way, obviously. I shared the frustration of my friend over the last few weeks. But we came out of the committee with a good bill, a good bipartisan bill. It is a bill that really responded to agricultural needs around the Nation and also responded to nutrition needs. A large part of this bill, over 50 percent of this bill goes for nutrition, food stamps, things like that. We took some great strides in the committee to make sure we updated some of the exemptions, things like that, so people who are on food stamps, people who need that kind of help are not hurt by inflation over the past number of years and that sort of thing. There are good provisions in this bill on energy, on conservation. I think there is a good, strong safety net for all of our agricultural producers across the country. Obviously, there is a lot in here for specialty crops, kind of a new part of our bill this year, reaching out to get more people involved in our process here--specialty crops all across the country. There is a lot of good in this farm bill for everyone in this country. I never like to dwell on the past. We have had some problems over the last few weeks, but we are through that. I thank Senator Chambliss and his staff for working with us to get to this point. I think we have a manageable bill now, with 20 amendments on either side. I am hopeful that as we get amendments we will be able to get some reasonable time agreements. I have already spoken to some people about that. Most of the people with amendments are agreeable to certain time limits on their amendments. That, hopefully, will expedite matters also. We are here, and I hope we are going to start moving the bill. As we know, there are no more votes today, but amendments can be offered and laid down and debated today, and, of course, they will be in the queue for voting when we get back here next Tuesday. If anyone has any amendment, I suggest now might be the time to come forward, on either side, and talk either to Senator Chambliss or to me about getting in the queue to offer those amendment also. We have a very important bill. Hopefully, we can get it done. I remain hopeful that before the end of next week--I don't know, maybe that is a little optimistic, but I believe in optimism--perhaps by the end of next week we might actually bring this to a close and get to conference. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, after consultation with the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, and because of the structure of this before, it was assumed that the Dorgan-Grassley or Grassley-Dorgan amendment would be the first amendment. I am going to call up that amendment, but then, under the agreement we have, we will be setting it aside for any other amendments that come up. Amendment No. 3695 to Amendment No. 3500 (Purpose: To strengthen payment limitations and direct the savings to increased funding for certain programs)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3695 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HARKIN. Therefore, the pending amendment would be the Grassley- Dorgan amendment, and I ask unanimous consent to set that aside.

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

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am a longtime supporter of policies designed to open foreign markets to our Nation's exports through trade agreements. I have fought to break down barriers that many other countries have erected to block our exports and to create unfair advantages. The fact is that mutually beneficial trade agreements serve to improve farm income and create jobs here at home, and American consumers receive benefits as well, including lower prices and a greater variety of goods. I supported the fast track procedure in the 1988 Trade Act. I voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Uruguay Round GATT Agreement. However, trade agreements are not only about commercial transactions. Trade agreements also have major environmental impacts, and they have major implications for the legal rights and working conditions of laborers. All of these factors must be carefully considered in determining whether to support a given trade agreement. Certainly, there are modest positives in this Peru Free Trade Agreement. The American Farm Bureau Federation has estimated that the agreement would generate a net increase in U.S. agricultural exports of more than $700 million annually once the agreement is fully implemented in 2025. I note, however, that, in today's dollars, that would represent only roughly one-half of 1 percent of current U.S. agricultural exports. In addition, this agreement would level the playing field for the United States vis-a-vis other major agricultural exporters in South America. Both Brazil and Argentina enjoy preferential access into Peru's markets because of Peru's associate membership in Mercosur, and this FTA would make it easier for our products to compete with exports from Brazil and Argentina. However, I have always considered these country-by-country trade deals to be far less than ideal. It would be far better to negotiate a successful global trade agreement under the auspices of the World Trade Organization. Despite these modest benefits, I believe that, on balance, the Peru Free Trade Agreement falls short. I am particularly concerned about the agreement's deficiencies with regard to fighting child labor. As many of our colleagues know, I have been working to reduce abusive and exploitative child labor around the world for a decade and a half. I first introduced a bill on this issue in 1992. Over the years, I have worked hard to improve the labor provisions in various trade measures, concentrating particularly on abusive and exploitative child labor. I believe strongly that trade agreements should support and reinforce existing international child-labor standards, not undercut them. On this criterion, the Peru FTA falls short. According to the best estimates by the International Labor Organization, ILO, there are at least 218 million child laborers between the ages of 5 and 17 in today's global economy. Of these 218 million child laborers, more than 100 million have never seen the inside of a classroom. An estimated 126 million children are working under the most hazardous circumstances in mines, in fishing operations and on plantations. These children are being robbed of their childhoods. Many are being denied an education. They are deprived of any hope for a brighter future. In the years ahead, they will grow up illiterate and exploited, and this will create a wellspring of future social conflict and strife, and even terrorism. We have made progress in recent years by increasing funds for programs to rehabilitate child laborers through our contribution to the ILO's International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor. In 2000, I successfully amended the Trade and Development Act with a provision directing that no trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences, GSP, will be granted to any country that does not live up to its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor. I required that the President submit a yearly report to Congress on the steps being taken by each GSP beneficiary country to carry out its commitments to end abusive and exploitative child labor. I want to explain clearly to my colleagues what I mean when I refer to abusive and exploitative child labor. I am not talking about children who work part time after school or on weekends. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. What I am referring to is the definition set out by ILO Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. This is not just a Western or a developed-world standard; it is a global standard that has been ratified by 163 countries. It was ratified by Peru in 1999. The United States was the third country in the world to ratify this convention. It is true that we have made some modest progress in including labor protections in this Peru Free Trade Agreement. But we all know that labor protections in trade agreements mean nothing in the absence of political will to enforce them. I am also concerned that, on the very same day that the deal to include new labor provisions in the Peru FTA was announced, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said, ``We are encouraged by assurances that the labor provisions cannot be read to require compliance with ILO Conventions.'' Clearly, this statement sends a powerful message that the labor provisions in the Peru FTA should be ignored. Under the Peru deal, the only party that can seek enforcement of labor violations in Peru is the U.S. administration. There is no mechanism for an outside party, such as a nongovernmental organization, to bring a complaint, as exists under the GSP. This would actually take us, and the world, a step backward when it comes to protecting children. That is right. This free-trade agreement with Peru, which replaces GSP provisions in governing trade between our two countries, will take us backward with respect to combating abusive and exploitative child labor. Under the current U.S. GSP provisions, the President now must report to Congress annually regarding Peru's child labor practices. Under GSP, if Peru is not meeting the obligations that it undertook as a signatory to the ILO Convention 182, if it is not acting to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, then trade sanctions are imposed immediately to require enforcement in Peru of internationally recognized standards. This protects children. It also ensures that our workers will not be subjected to unfair competition from abusive and exploitative labor abroad. Unfortunately, under the Peru Free Trade Agreement, trade sanctions are not automatic. I remind our colleagues that we voted 96 to 0 to include those protections, which I offered to GSP. It was a Harkin-Helms amendment, and it received unanimous, bipartisan support. None of us wanted to have those child labor protections undercut by our trade negotiators in an agreement with Peru or any other country but that is exactly what has happened. Now, because of fast-track rules which don't allow us to amend this legislation, we won't even be able to vote to restore the GSP protections in this agreement. If we vote for this trade agreement, we are voting to remove the protections that all of us who were here in 2000 voted to put in place. On the matter of child labor, this Peru Free Trade Agreement takes us in the wrong direction. Abusive and exploitative child labor is wrong as a matter of principle. And it is also wrong as a practical matter. Our workers and our small businesses should not have to compete with abused and exploited child laborers abroad. I am sorry to say that this is not an academic or rhetorical issue in the case of labor practices in Peru. Peru is far from the worst Government, even in our hemisphere, when it comes to meeting its international obligations to protect children from abusive and exploitative labor. I don't mean to single out Peru. But there is broad agreement among international observers--including our own Department of Labor, the Department of State, UNICEF and the International Labor Organization--that the problem of abusive child labor persists in that country. As many as 1.9 million Peruvian children between the ages of 6 and 17 are working rather than attending schools as they should. There are an estimated 150,000 child laborers in the capital city of Lima alone. The Government of Peru may be seeking to reduce the problem, as it should, but we should not be weakening our sole existing trade mechanism that allows us to monitor its progress. That is not the way forward for free and fair trade. And it is certainly not the way to lift up the Peruvian economy. Abusive child labor perpetuates the cycle of poverty across generations. No country has achieved broad-based economic prosperity on the backs of working and exploited children. Mr. President, I appreciate that improvements were made to this agreement thanks to my Democratic colleagues in the House. But this remains a flawed agreement, one that we are not allowed to correct through amendments. I was eager to support an agreement promoting freer trade with Peru, but I cannot support a flawed agreement that takes a step backward from current law.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in a few days Stan Garnett will retire from the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, after 35 years of tremendous service to people in our Nation and elsewhere in the world. Stan's experience and dedication to fighting hunger and malnutrition extends beyond his 35 years with the Department of Agriculture. Following his graduation from college, Stan answered President Kennedy's call to service abroad and spent 2 years in the Peace Corps in the Philippines. Thereafter, he joined Catholic Relief Services and spent 6 years administering food assistance programs in Southeast Asia and in Africa under tremendously difficult circumstances. He often traveled by helicopter in battle zones in Vietnam to deliver food assistance to war refugees, and he also provided food aid in Nigeria during the tragic Biafran conflict. Following his work overseas, Stan returned to the United States and joined the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1971. Over the years, Stan held many different positions within the Food and Nutrition Service, the majority of them pertaining to legislative and regulatory policy in Federal child nutrition programs. Throughout his career, Stan served with accomplishment and, not surprisingly, continued a steady ascent in the ranks at the Food and Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture, eventually serving as the Director of Supplemental Food Programs and Director of the Child Nutrition Division. Stan fulfilled those positions with great competence, but with integrity and humility as well. In 9 cases out of 10, Stan knows more about the issue at hand than anyone else in the room, but he never acts as if this is the case. Stan treats everyone equally--Members of Congress, members of his own staff, and the many people across the country who for so long have relied on Stan's expertise to help them operate child nutrition programs in their own communities. Stan is known by all who come in contact with him as a generous and caring administrator who is trusted by all. After 35 years of Federal service, there is no question that Stan has certainly earned a much-deserved retirement. His absence will certainly be acutely felt, both within the Department of Agriculture and here in Congress. However, I have no doubt that one of Stan's biggest contributions is to leave child nutrition programs in the hands of capable colleagues who have benefited, as I have over the years, from his tremendous expertise, and who will ensure a smooth transition as new leadership assumes his responsibilities. In so many respects, the Stan Garnett who will retire this year is strikingly similar to the Stan Garnett who took up President Kennedy's call to service by entering the Peace Corps as a young man. His commitment to ending hunger and to promoting the economic security and nutrition of low-income families is as strong today as it was as a bright-eyed college graduate. Just as important, he has imparted this same idealism and commitment to numerous young people who have had the privilege to work with him over the years. To those who question what a career in public service can accomplish, I ask only that they look to Stan's career. What they will see in him is not just 40 years of service, but a call to action. I have no doubt that, because of his incredible commitment, Stan is a remarkable inspiration and example of heeding this call to action and public service.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let me first respond to my friend from Georgia and for the benefit of all Senators make it quite clear that if we have cloture on the farm bill this morning, we will still be allowed to have up to 3 days, 3 full days of debate, 30 hours, and untold numbers of amendments. Every amendment that is relevant and germane to agriculture in the farm bill will be allowed to be offered and voted on. I wish to make that very clear. Now, if a Senator wants votes on immigration, well then put it on some other bill. If he wants to vote on taxes, put it on some other bill. If they want to vote on whatever else they might want to bring up that is important, put it on another bill. Let's do what is needed for our farmers and ranchers and rural America and get the farm bill passed. That is what this cloture vote will do this morning. Now, you know, we have a good, strong bipartisan bill. We came out of committee on a voice vote without one dissenting vote voiced--without one. We spent a day and a half--a record short time to my knowledge--in getting a farm bill through the committee.

Mr. HARKIN. Without losing my right to the floor, of course.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask that the preceding few minutes not come from my time.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the farm bill before us was laid down 10 days ago. Yet during that time we have been blocked from voting on any amendments--not one amendment in 10 days. So the majority leader has correctly filed a cloture motion in an effort to allow this body to offer, debate and vote on amendments and pass this vital legislation without further unreasonable delay. The cloture vote, I say to all, is pivotal, crucial as to whether we will have a new farm bill this year. Everyone knows it. Let me remind my colleagues of what is at stake, why it is so critically important that we put an end to the delay and move ahead. The pending legislation stays within strict pay-go budget limits. Yet we provide good farm income protection; we promote new economic opportunities for farm and ranch families, especially in the area of energy production; and we help dairy farmers and especially the specialty crop producers all across America. There is more in this bill for specialty crops than any farm bill ever passed in the history of this country. The bill boosts economic growth, jobs, and quality of life in rural America with rural development money in the bill. It makes major new investments in conservation of our natural resources, to save soil, increase water quality, restore wetlands and wildlife habitat. A big part of this farm bill will allow low-income Americans to put a little more food on the family table and to improve the diets not only of our families but of our kids in school. We also have very strong provisions in this bill to help restore our national energy security by promoting biofuels, other renewable energy sources and rural energy initiatives. These are just some of the highlights that are in this bill. There is much more in the farm bill to benefit rural America and all of our Nation. We have come too far with this bill, we have accomplished too much to let this vitally important bill languish and stall. In fact, at this point, the fate of this bill is in jeopardy--in jeopardy. That is why this cloture vote is so critical. We are at a procedural impasse. We simply cannot obtain the necessary cooperation from the Republican leadership. They will not agree to a reasonable plan that we debate and deal with relevant, germane amendments so that we avoid having the farm bill even further sidetracked by becoming a Christmas tree of nongermane, nonrelevant amendments, far off the subject of dealing with the farm bill. I tried--I tried to obtain consent to allow the Senate to debate and vote on amendments that Republicans themselves have filed and presumably wanted to offer, debate and vote on. I asked unanimous consent to bring them up, get a time limit, and vote on them. My request was rejected out of hand. We cannot even get consent to adopt over 50 amendments that have been agreed upon on both sides for a managers' amendment--50 that have been agreed upon. We cannot even get consent to adopt those. Now that shows you how unreasonable--how unreasonable this lack of cooperation has become. I certainly hope the situation is not a deliberate and orchestrated attempt to stop the farm bill dead in its tracks, but I am beginning to wonder. There are enough rumors floating around. When rumors start coming from different sources, you know there may be something behind them. What I am hearing is that the White House has put out the word behind the scenes to stop this farm bill--stop it. Now, why is that? I began to wonder. Well, keep in mind, the White House has issued a statement of policy threatening a veto of the farm bill as passed by the House. Then the White House issued a threat to veto the farm bill reported by the Senate Agriculture Committee. So that means if we pass the bill, if we go to conference, we will probably send the White House something they said they would veto. I suspect some of the White House political people said: You cannot veto a farm bill. Do you want to lose all of rural America for the Republican Party next year? You cannot veto that farm bill. So perhaps instead it would be better if the bill never made it to the White House. Kill the bill here in the Senate. Kill it here. I see the heavy hand of the White House behind what is going on here. I have worked very closely with Senator Chambliss. We have worked very hard to get to this point. We have worked very hard to get a bipartisan coalition together. But I detect something else interfering here: I detect the White House's heavy hand coming in, telling people what to do and what not to do. The majority leader has done the appropriate thing by filing cloture. Now, let me again repeat, cloture does not cut off debate, and it does not cut off any relevant, germane amendment to the farm bill. As I said, if we vote for cloture this morning, we can have 3 days of debate, 10 hours a day. We can have 20 amendments or more debated and voted on, plus the 50 we have already agreed upon and others. Plus, every amendment that is relevant and germane is guaranteed an up-or- down vote at the end of cloture. No one will be denied a vote on an amendment to the farm bill as long as it is relevant and germane. If someone wants to add a Christmas tree ornament dealing with immigration or foreign relations or the war in Iraq or something, yes, that amendment is out after cloture. They will not be able to offer that amendment. But that comes down to the question, do you want a farm bill or not? Do you want a farm bill or not? It is too important to allow a small minority or the White House--maybe people here are bowing to pressure from the White House--to hold it up indefinitely. We are falling behind. If we get cloture, we can move ahead aggressively. We can come back after the Thanksgiving recess, spend about 2 or 3 days, 3 days on the farm bill, and it would pass the Senate. We can go to conference, work out our differences, and send the bill to the White House. That will not happen if we do not get cloture. If we do not get cloture, my friends, there may well not be any farm bill. Now, who has a stake in this? I have a good number of letters here with many signatures. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HARKIN. Here is a letter with 11 groups telling us to move forward without further delay, everything from the American Farmland Trust and Audubon, to the National Wildlife Federation and the Izaak Walton League of America. Here is another letter with 185 signatures urging the Senate to vote for cloture. Many of those signing the letter are antihunger and nutrition groups ranging from the America's Second Harvest to the Atlanta Community Food Bank, the Food Bank of North Alabama, the Food Bank of the Albemarle in North Carolina--food banks and others who fight hunger all over the country realize they need this farm bill. The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National Farmers Union, National Milk Producers Federation and many others-- again, 185 groups on this letter asking us to vote for cloture this morning. Here is another letter--61 groups who wrote in late September calling for expedited action on the new farm bill. Well, that is what cloture is--expedited action. This letter is signed by groups from the American Farm Bureau Federation, to the American Soybean Association, to the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council, Pheasants Forever, and the School Nutrition Association, to name just a few. They want expedited action.

Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have?

Mr. HARKIN. I urge all Senators to vote for cloture and let us get this critical farm bill passed, go to conference, send it to the White House, and get it signed before Christmas. Exhibit 1 November 15, 2007. Dear Senator: The undersigned conservation organizations urge the Senate to move forward with consideration of the farm bill without further delay but with full and fair consideration of relevant amendments. We need a new and improved conservation title, and extension of the 2002 Farm Bill is not, in our view, an acceptable alternative. We believe the bill reported by the Agriculture Committee makes very important strides in addressing key conservation issues and programs, but we also are united in the view that important improvements to both policy and funding need to be made on the floor. Therefore, we urge you to move as quickly as possible to considering, amending, and passing a new farm bill. Sincerely, American Farmland Trust, Audubon, Center for Native Ecosystems, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Coevolution Institute, Defenders of Wildlife, Izaak Walton League of America, National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield back our time.

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, we are back on the farm bill. To refresh memories, we have now been on the farm bill 10 days. This is our tenth day. Not one vote has occurred. We have tried time and again to bring up amendments, and they have been objected to. I will attempt to do that again this morning. I will wait until my ranking member is present. I see that Senator Salazar is here to speak on the farm bill. I wish to make it very clear, tomorrow morning we will have a vote on cloture on the farm bill. I want there to be no mistake in anyone's mind: Tomorrow morning's vote will be a vote on whether we have a farm bill this year. If we get cloture on the farm bill tomorrow, we will have a farm bill this year. We will be able to pass a bill in the Senate, we will go to conference, and we will send it to the President. If we do not get cloture tomorrow, that is like killing the farm bill. A vote against cloture will be a vote to kill the farm bill. We will run out of time. We will be out of here at Thanksgiving for 2 weeks. When we come back, we have all the appropriations bills to do, we have the Iraq funding bill to work out, and we will only have about 3 weeks before Christmas. Therefore, if we do not get cloture, that is like saying we don't want a farm bill. So I hope everyone understands what the stakes are. I also hope no one has the mistaken impression that because we invoke cloture, they cannot offer amendments. I got that question from a press person this morning. I had to inform them that, no, if we get cloture, we have 30 hours of debate and people can offer amendments during that 30 hours. I just spoke with our leader. It would be the prerogative, if we wanted to on the majority side, if we got cloture, to lay down one amendment and take all 30 hours and debate it and block everybody from offering amendments. That has happened around here before, by the way, where we get cloture and then block it and nobody gets to offer any amendments until the end. Then we get into this vote-arama where we have votes on amendments but nobody gets to talk about them. We are not going to do that. If we get cloture, I will try to reach an agreement with my ranking member, Senator Chambliss, so we can have, say, at least a half hour debate on every amendment and vote. That would give us a shot at having probably pretty close to 20 amendments that could be debated and on which we could vote. At the end of the 30 hours, of course, any amendments still pending have a right to have a vote. There would be a minute on each side to explain those amendments, and we would vote on them. I want to make it clear that voting for cloture does not cut off amendments. Yes, it may cut off nongermane amendments dealing with whether we are going to go to the Moon or Mars or whether we are going to do wacky stuff such as that. Yes, it cuts that stuff out. But any amendment that is germane to the farm bill can be offered and will be voted on even after cloture. I want to make that very clear. If we do not get cloture, that is it; that is the end of the ball game, and I don't know when we can ever come back to the farm bill after that. Certainly not this year. It is getting late. The crops are in. In most parts of the country, crops are in. And now they are beginning to think about next year. Bankers want to know, farmers need to know what the program is going to be for next year. Will it be this one or will it be what we have come up with in our farm bill and worked out with the House. So it is getting very late, and we need to get this bill done. I encourage all Senators, we are open for business now. We can take amendments now. We can debate amendments, and we can vote on amendments all day today. Shortly, I will be asking consent to bring up amendments. I am going to ask consent to bring up Republican amendments that are filed. I have a Lugar amendment. I have a Roberts amendment, an Alexander amendment, a Lott amendment, and I am going to be asking consent to bring up those amendments. If there is no objection, we will bring them up, have a debate, and we can have votes on a lot of amendments this afternoon. I want to make it very clear again: This side is not holding up the process. We want to vote; we want to debate. Just as yesterday, I wanted to bring up five amendments yesterday and have limited time and vote on them, but it was objected to. I will try that again today. Hopefully, maybe we can make some movement and we can have some votes today on some amendments. I will be doing that shortly. I see the Senator from Colorado is on the Senate floor. He has been a great member of our Agriculture Committee. No one has worked harder than Senator Salazar in getting us to the point where we have a farm bill that came out of our committee without one negative vote. I say to my friend from Colorado, someone this morning on a press call asked me: If you don't get cloture, if you don't get this bill, or if the President vetoes it and you have to go back, what are you going to do differently? I said: I don't know how much we can do differently to get more of a positive vote out of our committee than a unanimous vote. What do you do that is different from that? It is not as if we had a split vote on the committee and we still have to work it out. We didn't have one dissenting vote, so I am not certain how we get much better than that. I thank my friend from Colorado for all of his hard work on this bill. He was instrumental in a number of issues before the committee, especially on energy, on conservation. The Senator from Colorado was instrumental in working out the agreements and making sure we had a bill that got a unanimous vote out of our committee. I thank him for that. He has been a champion of ranchers and farmers, a real champion of moving us ahead in energy, in renewable energy, farm-based energy, bio- based energy, which will get us off the Mideast oil pipeline that we have been on for far too long. Again, I thank my friend from Colorado for all of his hard work. With him, I am hoping we can get cloture on this bill tomorrow and move ahead and go to conference and get a bill we can send to the President. I thank my friend from Colorado for all of his help in getting this farm bill here. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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, in light of that objection, I would inquire as to whether we can enter into an agreement on the Roberts amendment No. 3548; that there be 90 minutes for debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendment, with no second- degree amendment in order prior to the vote.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, let's see if there can be agreement to consider the Stevens amendment No. 3569; again that there be 60 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment prior to the vote, and the time be equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment.