Amy Klobuchar

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, as has been previously agreed, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. First, on behalf of the Presiding Officer, Senator Salazar, I ask unanimous consent that Ben Brown, a fellow in Senator Salazar's office, be allowed floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on the farm bill.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, if I could briefly respond to Senator Chambliss. I see my colleague from Idaho is here.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. The Senator may go forward.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3810 which is at the desk. I will set it aside after I say a few words about it.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I first wish to acknowledge the great leadership of Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss on this farm bill. I am proud to be a member of the Agriculture Committee and to be involved in this forward-looking farm bill. I also wish to thank the many authors we have on this amendment that I am going speak on today, including Senator Durbin and Senator Brown, both of whom were in here in the last few minutes. This amendment includes some reasonable income eligibility limits for subsidies under the farm bill. The focus of this amendment is to make sure the subsidy and the safety net in the farm bill go to the people whom it will most help; that is, the family farmers of this country, not to real estate developers in Florida or art collectors in San Francisco. The focus is on family farmers throughout this country. America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect struggling family farmers from the financial shock of volatile weather and equally volatile commodity prices. Almost 75 years later, the reason for maintaining that strong safety net still exists. The 2002 farm bill has spurred rural development by allowing farmers in Minnesota and across the country to take risks to expand production. Because of productivity gains and innovation, including advances in renewable energy, the farm support programs in the 2002 farm bill are projected to come in at $17 billion under budget. So as we debate this current farm bill, as we will in the coming days, it is important not to underestimate the value of a strong bill to our country, to agriculture, to the rural communities throughout the Nation. That is why, as a member of the Ag Committee, I strongly supported this farm bill and voted for it. It includes an increased focus, as the chairman mentioned, on energy, including cellulosic-based ethanol, continued support for a strong safety net, permanent disaster relief, so important to our farmers, and additional funds for conservation and nutrition. Of particular importance, the country should know we balanced our budget in this bill, with every dollar of new spending fully offset. So there is a lot of good for Minnesota and the rest of the country in this farm bill. There is, however, one critical area where I believe we can do some more reform; that is, to make sure the urban millionaires do not pocket the farm subsidies that are intended for our hard-working farmers. Here is a fact in my State. Minnesota is the sixth largest agricultural State in the Nation. Naturally, however, 60 farmers have collected more than $1 million each under the 2002 farm bill. None of those farmers are in my State. The top 20 business recipients in the country have each gotten more than $3 million under this farm bill. Yet the average income of a farmer in Minnesota, after expenses, is $54,000. But under the current system, a part-time farmer can have an income as high as $2.5 million from outside sources and still qualify for Federal farm benefits. I do not believe we should be handing out payments to multimillionaires, when these payments should be targeted to family farmers. Big payments to big-city investors threaten to undermine public support for the farm bill as a whole, even though people should know the commodity programs are projected to be just under 15 percent of the total farm budget over the next 5 years. A poster boy for what needs to be changed is Maurice Wilder, the Florida-based developer who is the Nation's top recipient of farm payments--not conservation payments but commodity payments--for properties in five States, even though his net worth is estimated to be $500 million. This man is not a farmer. He is independently wealthy. He is a real estate developer, and he should not be getting Government checks. We have examples from all over the country of people who have been getting these checks, from David Letterman to Paul Allen. But the problem doesn't stop with the extremely wealthy. Checks that are intended for farmers are being sent all over urban areas. Since enactment of the 2002 farm bill, $3.1 million in farm payments has gone to residents in the District of Columbia, $4.2 million to people living in Manhattan, and $1 million of taxpayer money under the farm bill of 2002 has gone to Beverly Hills 90210. Last time I checked there wasn't a lot of farmland in these communities. We can fix this problem and do better for our farmers by using the new farm bill to close loopholes, tighten payment limits, and enforce tougher income eligibility standards. Again, I am a strong supporter of this farm bill. I believe the 2002 farm bill did some wonderful things for our country in terms of expanding production and revitalizing rural communities. What we want to do is build on the 2002 farm bill, fix some things, and make sure we go forward with a strong rural economy. One thing was already fixed in the bill that came out of committee, and that is the three-entity rule. The current Senate and House--and this has actually gone through the House floor--proposals eliminate the three-entity rule. This will cut down abuse by applying payment limits strictly to individuals and married couples and ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple corporations so they can multiply payments. Second, as already mentioned by our chairman, the longstanding amendment proposed by Senators Dorgan and Grassley would limit annual payments under this bill. This amendment would also bring meaningful limits to the marketing loan program and close enormous loopholes that allow millions of dollars to flow to individual recipients under the current law. I support the Dorgan-Grassley amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I believe a third kind of reform is also needed. Congress should act to prevent payments that are intended for hard-working family farmers from going to urban millionaires. We can do this by placing reasonable limits on the incomes of people and businesses that participate in the commodity program. Under current law, if you are not a full-time farmer, meaning that less than 75 percent of your income comes from farming, you are eligible to get commodity payments as long as your adjusted gross income is less than $2.5 million per year. This is part- time farmers under current law. Let's figure out what that means. You can live in a city, have a job as an investment banker, make $2 million a year, and still get Government checks if you own shares in a farm. If you are a full-time farmer or farm corporation, meaning that more than 75 percent of your income comes from farming, under current law there is absolutely no limit on how much net profit you can have in a given year and still get farm payments. What we are talking about is, expenses are actually deducted for us to get to these numbers. Even with the expenses deducted, you can make, for part-time farmers, $2.5 million per year, and there is no limit for full-time farmers, and you are still eligible for these subsidies. It also means mega farms that span entire counties can bring in untold millions in revenue and still get these kinds of payments. This flies in the face of common sense. It is against the intent of Congress and, along with two other amendments I support--one that is already in the bill, the Dorgan-Grassley amendment and this one--it will allow us to address these problems that have given rise to scandals that have already provided ammunition to those who say we should not have a farm bill. I believe we must have a farm bill. I have been pushing for this. I am glad we finally reached agreement on a total number of amendments so we can actually move forward with this farm bill next week. I am offering this amendment, along with Senators Durbin, Brown, and many others, to place reasonable limits on the incomes of those who receive farm payments. Here is how the amendment works. If you are a full-time farmer, meaning that more than two-thirds of your income comes from farming, you can participate in the farm program, and you can get the subsidies, as long as your income after you deduct expenses does not exceed $750,000. If you are a part-time farmer or farm investor, and you have substantial sources of income off the farm, you can participate in farm programs if your income does not exceed $250,000. It is that simple. I will note it is somewhat similar to some of the reforms the House enacted off the floor in their bill. Their amendment puts it at $1 million for a full-time farmer and then $500,000 of income for a part- time farmer. Right now the bill that came out of the Senate committee places no limits on the income of full-time farmers, and then places a limit on a part-time farmer at $750,000. What we are doing is trying to put the limits at $750,000 for a full-time farmer and $250,000 for a part-time farmer. This is better than the original proposal by the administration which sort of lumped part-time and full-time farmers together. This makes more sense, having talked to farmers in my State and across the country. Some of my colleagues have said $750,000 is too low; that some farmers have a high cost of production and they need a higher income. Again, I remind my colleagues the income limit is applied after your farm expenses are deducted, including all your labor, your equipment, your fuel, and your fertilizer. We are talking about how much profit you have made at the end of the year. If you own a farm that has netted $1 million in a single year after all your expenses are paid, I salute you. That is wonderful. There is nothing wrong with that. I would love it if every farmer in Minnesota had $1 million in the bank at the end of the year. But if they did, this amendment says they can't get the subsidy. But if you have received $750,000 in income, if you are a full-time farmer--$250,000 if you are part time--then you would be eligible. Some of my colleagues have said the $750,000 limit on part-time farmers and nonfarmers is too low. If you live in the city and you own shares in a farm and you have a substantial source of income outside of farming that puts you over $250,000 a year, that is great for you. That is a good thing. Lots of Americans would love to be in that position and have that problem. But they do not necessarily want to provide their tax dollars to give subsidies for these people who are living in Beverly Hills 90210 or New York and simply have investments. Vast Americans don't believe that is where farm subsidies should be going. They should be going to family farmers who make their income off farming, who are facing volatile weather and volatile prices that could basically put them under. We don't want to have that happen. Not only for the economy but also for our national security, we must have farming and we must have a strong agricultural sector. In conclusion, the intent of this amendment is to strengthen the farm bill. All Americans have a vital stake in the fortunes of our farms and rural communities. Agriculture remains central to our Nation's economy, especially our prosperity in the global marketplace. That is why I support this farm bill, a basically national security bill. I intend to support it. I supported it out of committee, and I intend to support this legislation when it comes to a vote. But it is not enough to have the support of just farm State Senators. I believe it is important to have the support of the entire country. We need this kind of reform because we need to have support from the entire country if we want to pass this bill. Inertia may be the most powerful force in the political universe, but after 75 years, the best interests of America's rural economy demand that we correct the abuses of the past so we can move forward to ensure a strong safety net for our hard-working farmers. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, as Senator Chambliss said, we will be discussing this more in the week to come. I think Senator Chambliss and I agree that the last farm bill was successful for our country. People do not often realize when you read some of these reports in the paper that it came in $17 billion under budget. That money went back to the Government. Also, we had a lot of success with that bill. I do not think that success stemmed from the fact that some of the scandals were occurring, with a million dollars going to Beverly Hills 90210 and some of these other places. I appreciate the efforts we have made in the committee toward reform. As Senator Chambliss mentioned, getting rid of the three-entity rule was a very important step, also making some movement on the part-time farmers. To go to $750,000 for the income limit for part-time farmers is a very important step. What I am trying to do with this amendment, and my colleagues who support it are trying to do, is simply take a step further because we believe this money should be more targeted to family farmers. Mr. President, as you know, as we discussed, this amendment does exclude expenses. When you are looking at the number $750,000 for full- time farmers, we are talking there about profit. Even for a large farm, deducting all their expenses, $750,000 would be a very good year. So I believe if you look at this as a whole, people have to understand we are talking about profits and not expenses. The same with the part-time farmers. The definitions we use in this bill are similar to the ones that, in fact, the committee used to define expenses. So if it is good enough to define expenses for an agreed-upon committee standard at $750,000 for part-time farmers, then I believe if you look at going down to $250,000 in profits for part time, $750,000 for full time, the expense definition should be the same. I also wanted to respond to the remarks about the USDA study on the AGI limits. My colleagues should understand that was based on the administration's proposal--that study, the President's proposal--which actually put part-time and full-time farmers at the same number, which was $200,000. Clearly, we have worked with our farmers, talked to them across the country. This amendment is different. It differentiates between the part-time farmer and the full-time farmer, understanding that they are in different positions. I would also note the USDA study found no regional bias in those who would be affected by this AGI limit. So I believe as we go forward we have to keep in mind that those of us who support this amendment from States such as Minnesota and Illinois support a strong farm bill. We believe we have to have a strong safety net for our farmers, but the money shouldn't be going to Beverly Hills 90210 and it shouldn't be going to art collectors in San Francisco and it shouldn't be going to investment bankers in New York or to real estate developers in Florida. It should be targeted in a reasonable way to those who actually farm and to those part-time farmers who make a reasonable income, not to people who are making $1 million, $2 million, $3 million, $4 million a year. That is what this is about: making sure the safety net is there for those who need it. By the way, if you have a large farm that has a bad year, and your profits go down, they could well qualify for the subsidies under that scenario. That is what we are talking about. I wish to also add that the House bill that came off the House Floor does have some income limits. It has $1 million for a full-time farmer, $500,000 for a part-time farmer. We have no income limits for a full- time farmer in the existing Senate bill--no income limits at all. For a part-time farmer, our limits at $750,000 are significantly higher than the House bill. So what my colleagues and I are trying to do with this bill is to get it in line so that it shows some actual reform of income limits-- slightly lower than the House but still in the ballpark--so that we are actually doing some reform and not just giving lip service to it. I appreciate the work of Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss and the reforms we have made so far. I think we need to go a step further so we target the money on those family farmers and not urban multimillionaires. Thank you very, Mr. President. I look forward to this debate as we go forward. I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a very important constituent of mine, a 6-year-old girl named Abbey Taylor, who was severely hurt this past summer in a pool accident--something that could have been prevented if this body and the House of Representatives had acted a few years ago on a pool safety bill. We have an opportunity, before we go into recess, before the year's end, to do the right thing. But before I talk about that, I would like to make note of the President's remarks today on the subprime housing crisis that threatens our Nation's economy. While I am pleased that after months of trying to wish the problem away, the President has finally decided to come forward with a proposal for this problem. Today's announcement is only a small step toward helping homeowners faced with foreclosure. We must do more if we are truly going to address this problem. In the world of subprime lending, the chickens have finally come home to roost. Nearly 8.6 percent--or 1 in 12--of subprime mortgages in my State, the State of Minnesota, are in foreclosure. Minnesota had the fourth highest foreclosure rate in the second quarter of this year. The results of this spike in foreclosures will be devastating for our State, as it will be for other States across the country. As the number of foreclosures increase, property values are likely to drop, resulting in decreased tax revenues and increased municipal maintenance costs. Slumping housing values are also likely to result in decreased consumer spending and could jeopardize the overall economy. If we are to contain the economic spillover effect of the subprime lending disaster, we must act now. We need additional reforms to protect borrowers, such as ensuring that borrowers actually understand all the terms of their mortgage in a simple, one-page description of their terms, including their ability to repay a loan at both the teaser rate and the adjusted rate. We also need to ensure that homeowners aren't hit with a huge and unexpected tax or insurance bill at the end of the year by escrowing that amount. I am a cosponsor of the Borrower's Protection Act that would require mortgage lenders and brokers to protect consumers from predatory lending practices. Banks should simply not be allowed to offer loans-- and actually, banks today are regulated in a way that makes sure they are not allowed to offer these loans. I want to make sure other lenders, nonbank lenders, these predatory lenders are asked to follow the same rules. We need to protect the economy and take comprehensive action now before it is too late. Millions of families have been waiting for the President to take a seat at the table, and let's hope as we move forward we can enact legislation that truly addresses the needs of these families. But I come here today to discuss, as I said, a constituent of mine, a little 6-year-old girl named Abbey Taylor, a very brave little girl. I hope this story will give people a sense of urgency about moving the legislation that is currently before the Senate. I know we have big bills before us--and I come to the floor urging my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to allow these bills to proceed--bills such as the farm bill, which is so important to so many farmers in my State and to get these appropriations bills moving. The President has threatened to veto, and we have stopped the Transportation bill, despite the move of the Democrats to push and push and push the Transportation bill. There are two that have been stopped, and that includes, I will tell my colleagues, $195 million in funding that will help us to complete the work on the I-35W bridge that so tragically fell in the middle of a beautiful day in Minnesota, right in the middle of the river. It should never have happened. Sometimes the bills that we work on here can make a difference in a very small way, in a way that maybe isn't as big and you don't talk about as much on TV, but in a way that can help save lives of girls such as Abbey Taylor. This legislation has already passed the Commerce Committee unanimously, and it is awaiting our action. This legislation would help prevent serious injury or death to other children. I want to convey the sense of urgency on behalf of Abbey Taylor and her parents to each and every one of my colleagues. I want my colleagues to know that families across our country are waiting for us to finally pass this legislation. One of those families waiting is the Taylor family of Edina, MN. This summer, their daughter Abbey went swimming at a local pool. She was in a shallow wading pool when she sat over an open drain hole and had most of her intestines torn out by the drain's powerful suction. It was a miraculous gift that she lived. She actually sat up and moved away from the suction when so many other children have perished when the same thing has happened. So she somehow managed to stand up and take a few steps before collapsing along the side of the wading pool. She remained hospitalized for weeks after undergoing several surgeries. She will survive, thanks to a miracle, but doctors expect she will need a feeding tube the rest of her life. She is now on a list for transplant. What happened to this little 6-year-old girl on a summer day in Minnesota is horrific. My own daughter's name is Abigail, and hearing about this incident brings chills to any parent. When I first saw the story in our local newspaper, I had to stop reading it because the details of it were so disturbing. This is something that we can prevent, and this is something that is every parent's nightmare. You look at this first as a mother: Your daughter is enjoying a beautiful summer day having fun playing at the local pool. This is not just the deep end of the pool. This was the kiddie wading pool. But suddenly something terrible happens and your life is changed forever. That is what happened to the Taylors. When it was first reported, like everyone else, I thought it was some kind of a freak, one-of-a-kind incident. I never thought I would spend time talking about it on the Senate floor. I didn't think I would have to come to the Senate floor twice to talk about it, when, in fact, the bill that addresses this passed our committee unanimously and has already passed through the Senate years back. But then I learned this was not the first time this has happened. As it turns out, although most pools are safe and well maintained, this type of incident has happened too many times before, resulting in the death of several dozen children over the past 15 years. It even has a name. It is called pool entrapment. It occurs when a child becomes stuck on a drain and is unable to escape due to the high velocity and pressure of the water that is being sucked into the drain. Another scenario occurs when hair or jewelry gets sucked into the drain, making it difficult for a child to pull free. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the pressure on some pool drains can be as strong as 300 pounds per inch. In fact, several years ago, the Commission produced an educational video on this danger. It showed a muscle-bound man trying to pull a ball off a swimming pool drain using both arms and all of his might and he couldn't do it. The suction force was too powerful. Two years ago, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a report saying it was aware of at least 27 deaths and many more emergency room visits and hospitalizations due to this entrapment. Most of these victims were children. It is unclear how many actual entrapment incidents there have been that have not resulted in death but instead severe injury because entrapment is a little known risk, and it is possible that many swimming pool drowning deaths or other injuries have not been classified as entrapment. This legislation must pass. The legislation has several important provisions. It would take the Consumer Product Safety Commission's standards for pool drains, which are now voluntary, and make them mandatory. It would prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution of drain covers that do not meet the standards established by the Commission. Most importantly--and this was an enormous improvement over the past bill that this body passed years ago--it requires that all public pools in this country, including hotels, apartments, local municipal pools, and other pools intended for multiple users be equipped with antientrapment drain covers. These covers are something like 30 bucks apiece. This was the amendment I introduced on behalf of children such as Abbey, and I am proud it has now been included in the bill. In addition, we have an agreement on another provision that would require that all of these public pools with single-made drains incorporate an additional layer of protection to guard against suction- related drowning. Again, this is about $130 we are talking here--not about private pools but about huge public pools that are used by thousands and thousands and thousands of children. This legislation is called the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act, named in the memory of 7-year-old Virginia Graeme, who was a granddaughter of former Secretary of State James Baker. I talked to Secretary of State Baker just about a week ago, and we both concur in our frustration that while this legislation has huge bipartisan support, it is being held up by one of our colleagues, someone on the other side of the aisle, someone who I think has said he wants to work with us and wants to get this through, but we have been so far unsuccessful, despite several efforts. I talked to James Baker. But just as importantly, every other week I talk to the Taylors, and they always ask me if we have gotten this legislation passed yet. Now, what do you say when you talk, as I do, to the father of this little girl, Abbey Taylor, who continues to struggle in the months that have passed since losing her intestines? Do you tell them that, well, we passed it unanimously through the committee, but now it is stuck, that one person is able to hold up a bill that 99 other people support? These parents are so courageous that they have moved on from that, and they even want her severe injury discussed today. They wanted me to discuss this. They want the world to know what happened to her because they don't want it to happen to another little girl again. They are not afraid to have us talk about what happened to their little daughter because they want it to never happen to another child again. There is a saying that when an accident happens that could reasonably have been prevented, then it is not really accurate to call it an accident. It is actually a failure. In the case of injuries and deaths caused by pool entrapment, it is not a failure by children or their parents. They have a reasonable expectation to think their child can go into a public wading pool and not lose their intestines. It is really a failure of our country, of our product safety laws, and we all have to take responsibility for it, just as we have to take responsibility for these toxic toys that shouldn't be on our shores and in our stores, which is something else that we need to get done before we go home for the holidays. It is a failure, whether it is about the toys or whether it is about these pool drains. It is a failure that is within our power to correct, a problem that can be faced through reasonable measures and fixed by legislation. I think the fact that Senator Stevens supports this bill and has worked with us on it and the fact that we have Republican support for this bill shows this isn't some whacky legislation. We worked with people on both sides. We worked with the manufacturers. We worked with the consumer groups. We came up with a reasonable bill. So I ask my colleagues: What am I supposed to tell this dad when I talk to him tonight? Am I supposed to tell him that some rules in the Senate say that one person can hold up a bill against the will of the entire body? I don't want to tell him that. I want to tell him we were able to work this out and get this bill through and to make sure no other parents are sitting in a waiting room in a hospital for weeks while they are trying to find out if their daughter is going to live or if there is going to be a transplant for their daughter. I want to tell them this isn't going to happen again. On behalf of Abbey Taylor and the Taylor family and for the health and safety of all of our children, I urge the Senate to take quick action to pass these simple consumer measures that are before us; to pass the measure about the toys, to pass the measure about the pool drains. We are dealing with huge issues in this body: the war in Iraq, foreign intelligence, we are talking about the farm bill, and we want them to pass. But these consumer bills can actually have an impact immediately in a little child's life. So let's go back and get this done. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to speak on the farm bill once again. I have done this before, but I wish to urge my colleagues across the aisle to move on this farm bill. I think it is incredibly important for my State of Minnesota and for our country that we move forward. Minnesota is one of the largest agricultural States in the Nation. As a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, where we worked hard to reach a bipartisan compromise under the leadership of Chairman Harkin and Ranking Member Chambliss, as well as Senator Conrad and Senator Baucus--they worked hard on this--I believe we need to move forward. The bipartisan farm bill before us will invest in our farms and our rural communities so they will be a strong, growing, and innovative part of the 21st Century. I have seen firsthand in my State, where I visited all 87 counties 2 years in a row, what the 2002 farm bill meant for rural America. It revitalized our communities. It gave our farmers the chance to take a risk and expand their production. We are on the cusp of starting to move forward toward energy independence. We are on the cusp of not depending on these oil cartels in the Mideast and instead investing in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest. I do not believe we should turn away from that. I believe it is time to move forward. America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect struggling family farmers from the financial shocks of volatile prices and equally volatile weather. Almost 75 years later, the reasons for maintaining that safety net still exist. As I said, the 2002 farm bill spurred rural development by allowing farmers across Minnesota and across this country to expand production. Because of the gains in productivity and the expansion of the last farm bill, the 2002 farm bill came in, under a 10-year period, $17 billion under budget. As we continue to debate the 2007 farm bill--and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will allow us to debate this farm bill-- it is important not to underestimate the value of a strong farm bill. That is why, as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I support this bill. I do believe, as I know the Presiding Officer does, there should be more reform. I support the Dorgan-Grassley amendment to put some limits on subsidies. I also believe we should have some limits on eligibility--I suggest $750,000 for a full-time farmer, $250,000 income for a part-time farmer. I don't think there are the significant limits we need in the current farm bill. But, that said, we are not even going to be able to get to talk about those important reforms if we do not allow this bill to move forward. I think that is what our leadership is trying to do every day with this farm bill. One of the issues that most interests me about this bill is the increased focus on cellulosic-based ethanol. That is a part our office worked on. Actually, the bill we drafted is a part of this bill. The idea is to build on our corn-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel to a new generation of cellulosic ethanol. It is better for the environment. It puts carbon back in the soil and is higher in energy content. We are not going to get there unless we have the incentives in place. I know there are people who complain about ethanol, but I tell you I think of it as the computer industry in the 1970s, when the computers were in these huge rooms and they got more and more efficient and changed our country. It is the same with fuel. Right now we are at the infancy of an industry, ethanol and biomass and other kinds of farm- based fuel. We are at the beginning. If we let the oil companies have their way and tell us it is stopping them from building their refineries and allow them to get in the way and not allow us to retail the fuel as we should--there are outrageous stories of them not allowing the prices to be posted or the pumps to be put in. There are only 1,200 ethanol pumps in this country and 320 of them are in my State, but who is counting. If we are going to move forward with biomass and with our own energy, we have to allow this industry to develop. When I talk to farmers across our State, what they like most about the 2002 farm bill is the safety net and the way it worked. It worked well for the first time in a long time. What we did with this farm bill was basically allow that safety net to stay in place and also rebalance the commodity programs to be more equitable for some northern crops such as wheat, oats, barley, soybeans, and canola. I met with our wheat and barley growers a few hours ago. They are one of the many groups that care a lot about this. Again, they revitalized a lot of the areas of our State that had been troubled because of the fact that we have a thriving rural economy. Another top priority for Minnesota farmers was creating a permanent program for disaster assistance. I thank Senator Baucus and the Finance Committee for their work in this area. Farmers are tired of coming back to Congress every year with a tin cup. We have been hit by drought, flooding, and everything in between. They had to wait for 3 years for Congress to pass the ad hoc disaster relief bill, and the permanent program of disaster relief will give farmers the security they need in moving forward. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are from farm States to think about the importance of this disaster program for their States. The farm bill is not, as we know, just about the commodity programs and the safety net. It is also about energy. It is also, as I mentioned, about biofuels. I mentioned the cellulosic piece of it that is so important. It also includes bipartisan legislation Senator Crapo and I introduced to double the mandatory funding for the Biodiesel Education Program. Spreading the word about biodiesel to drivers and gas stations is very important if we are going to help that industry. Again, I urge every Senator who wants less dependence on foreign oil to look at the energy portion of this farm bill. One of the things that has plagued our rural communities in the last decade or so is the inability for younger people to get involved in farming. The committee accepted my amendment to improve the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Program. There are real opportunities today to start out in farming, especially in growing areas such as organic farming and energy production. But beginning farmers also face big obstacles, including limited access to credit and technical assistance and the high price of land. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Programs in this farm bill provide mentoring and outreach for new farmers and training in business planning and credit building--the skills they need to succeed and to stay on the land. If you are concerned because you have seen fewer and fewer young people going into farming in your State, I urge you to move this bill forward. As I said, there are a lot of good things for Minnesota and for our country in this farm bill. There is, however, one area that needs reform and that is that we need to stop urban millionaires from pocketing farm subsidies intended for hard-working farmers. Here are the facts in our State. Minnesota is the sixth largest agricultural- producing State in the Nation and, I would add, as we approach Thanksgiving, the No. 1 turkey producer in our country. I was able to judge a race recently between a Minnesota turkey and a Texas turkey at the King Turkey Days in Worthington, MN, and I would like to report that the Minnesota turkey won the race. The Texas turkey got too cold and had to be carried over the finish line. Minnesota, as I said, is the sixth largest agricultural-producing State in the Nation. Nationally, 60 farms have collected more than $1 million each under the 2002 farm bill. None of them are in our State. The average income for Minnesota farms, after expenses, is $54,000, but under the current system, a part-time farmer can have an income as high as $2.5 million from outside sources and still qualify for Federal benefits. I very strongly support this farm bill, but I also believe we need some reform in this area because it makes no sense to hand out payments to multimillionaires when this money should be targeted to family farmers and conservation and nutrition and other programs under the farm bill. Right now, nearly 600 residents of New York City, 559 residents of Washington, DC, and even 21 residents of Beverly Hills 90210 received Federal farm checks in the past 3 years. Some collected hundreds of thousands of dollars. We have the opportunity to fix this in this farm bill because the administration has not been doing its job in enforcing the rules, so I say let's use this farm bill to do it. Already in this farm bill in both the House and the Senate we have gotten rid of the ``three entity'' rule, of which there is much abuse. The House bill does contain some income eligibility limits. I believe it is $1 million for a full-time farmer, $500,000 for the part-time farmer. We, in this farm bill, have an ability to go further, as I suggested, with an amendment for $750,000 for full time and $250,000 part time. The Dorgan-Grassley amendment, which passed this Chamber in the past, would keep subsidy levels at $250,000. You put that in this farm bill. If we don't have this farm bill, if our colleagues will not allow the Senate to proceed, if we are not allowed to make this reform which the administration has not enforced on its own--I believe this is a great opportunity for us. For the reasons I laid out there for the energy title, which is forward thinking, for the conservation title, which is more funding and much more aggressive look at conservation, for the nutrition title, where we are finally promoting our fruits and vegetables and are doing new things to promote more healthy kids--these are all things that are different about this farm bill. If we rest on our laurels and don't do anything new, we are not going to be able to move in the direction we want for the energy revolution in this country. When my daughter did a project for sixth grade on biofuels last year, she actually drew a map of the State of Minnesota. She had two little dots that said ``Minneapolis'' and ``St. Paul,'' then she had a big circle that said ``Pine City, the home of farmer Tom Peterson.'' That is whom she had talked to about biofuels. I tell you this story because the future for our economy in Minnesota and across the country, when you look at energy, the rural part of our country is going to have a big piece of this. It is necessary for that development. If we do not pass this farm bill, we are not going to get there. I urge my colleagues, for that and many other reasons, to move forward with the 2007 farm bill. Unanimous-Consent Agreement--H.R. 1429 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1429, Head Start Authorization; that it be considered under the following limitations; that there be 60 minutes of debate with respect to the conference report, with the time equally divided and controlled between the chair and ranking member of the HELP Committee, or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the conference report without further intervening action or debate.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, the Senate is now considering the farm bill, and with the leadership of Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss, Senator Conrad, and a Minnesota Congressman, Colin Peterson, in the House, the bipartisan farm bill will invest in our farms and rural communities so they will be a strong, growing, and innovative part of 21st century America. America's farm safety net was created during the Great Depression as an essential reform to help support rural communities and protect struggling family farmers from the financial shocks of volatile weather and equally volatile commodity prices. Almost 75 years later, the reasons for maintaining that strong safety net still exist. The 2002 farm bill actually spurred rural development by allowing farmers in Minnesota and across the country to take risks to expand production. Because of productivity gains and innovation, including advances in renewable energy, the farm support programs in the 2002 farm bill actually came in $17 billion under budget. As the Senate debates a final 2007 farm bill this week, it is important not to underestimate the value of a strong bill for States such as my State of Minnesota, where agriculture is so vital to our economy and our way of life. That is why, as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I support the new farm bill. This includes an increased focus on cellulosic-based ethanol, continued support for a strong commodity safety net, and additional funds for conservation, nutrition, and disaster relief. Of particular importance is the fact that we have balanced the budget with every dollar of new spending fully offset. Traveling around my State during the last 2 years, I have had the opportunity to visit all 87 counties of my State twice, last year and this, and I had the opportunity to talk to many farmers about the good and the bad in the last farm bill. I can tell you this: The farm bill has worked to revitalize many of our rural communities across America. It has spurred rural development by allowing farmers in Minnesota and across the country to take risks and expand their agricultural production. Because of strong commodity prices and advances in renewable energy, the farm support programs in the 2002 farm bill are projected to come in $17 billion under budget. I am pleased this bill continues this safety net, and I appreciate the effort that has also been made to rebalance the commodity programs to be more equitable to northern crops such as wheat, oats, barley, soybeans, and canola. Another top priority for Minnesota farmers was creating a permanent program of disaster assistance. I thank Senator Baucus for the work the Finance Committee has put into this provision. Farmers have to come back to Congress each year with a tin cup in their hands when in fact we can do it differently. Our State has been hit by drought, flooding, and everything in between, and they had to wait 3 years for Congress to pass another ad hoc disaster relief bill. A permanent program of disaster relief will give farmers security moving forward. One of my major goals for this farm bill was to include a strong cellulosic ethanol program. Our corn-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel have taken off in Minnesota, and we are ready to expand to the next generation of biofuels--cellulosic ethanol, prairie grasses, biomass that yields more energy and, if done the right way, is better for our environment and conservation. I was proud to draft legislation to provide farmers with an incentive to grow cellulosic energy crops, and I thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Conrad for working with me to include this in the farm bill. The fact these crops put carbon back in the soil and take less fossil fuel to produce offers us the promise of producing a carbon-neutral motor fuel for this country. In short, the Biomass Crop Transition Program, which is what the cellulosic ethanol provision of this farm bill is, will allow us to expand on corn ethanol and soy diesel to a new generation of farm-based energy and greater freedom from imported oil. I am also pleased this farm bill includes legislation I introduced, along with Senator Bond, to provide funding for E-85 pumps. It is a chicken-and-egg problem with E-85. Less than 1 percent of our gas stations have the E-85 pumps. In the Energy bill, we have more requirements for flex-fuel vehicles, and this bill will help to get the pumps out there so we can be investing in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast. I am also pleased the committee has accepted my amendment to double the authorized funding levels for two programs that serve beginning farmers and ranchers. There are real opportunities today to start out in farming, especially in growing areas such as organic farming and energy production. But beginning farmers also face big obstacles, including limited access to credit and technical assistance, and the high price of land. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Programs in this farm bill provide mentoring and outreach for new farmers, and training in business planning and credit building--the skills they need to succeed and stay on the land. There are a lot of good things for rural America in this farm bill. There is, however, one critical area where I believe more reform is needed. We need to stop urban millionaires from pocketing farm subsidies intended for hard-working farmers. This reform is in the best interest of Minnesota farmers. Here are the facts: Nationally, 60 farms have collected more than $1 million each under the 2002 farm bill, but none of them were in our State. The average income of Minnesota farms, after expenses, is $54,000. But under the current system, a part-time farmer can have an income as high as $2.5 million from outside sources and still qualify for Federal benefits. It makes no sense to hand out payments to multimillionaires when this money should be targeted to family farmers. Big payments to big-city investors threaten to undermine the public support for every farm program, even though the commodity payments are projected to be only 15 percent of the total farm bill budget over the next 5 years. A poster boy for what needs to be changed is Maurice Wilder, a Florida-based real estate developer. From 2003 to 2005, he has collected more than $3.2 million in farm payments for properties in five States, even though his net worth is estimated at $500 million. Nearly 600 residents of New York City, 559 residents of Washington, DC, and even 21 residents of Beverly Hills 90210 received Federal farm checks in the past 3 years. Some collected hundreds of thousands of dollars. Last time I checked, there wasn't a lot of farmland in those neighborhoods. We can fix this and do better for our farmers by using the new farm bill to close loopholes, tighten payment limits, and enforce tougher income eligibility standards. First, the current Senate and House farm bill proposals eliminate the three-entity rule. This will cut down on abuse by applying payment limits strictly to individuals and married couples and ending the practice of dividing farms into multiple corporations to multiply payments. Second, a longstanding bill, which is an amendment that will be considered this week, proposed by Senators Dorgan and Grassley would limit annual payments to $250,000. I will vote in favor of this provision on the Senate floor, and the Senate should adopt it. I also believe a third kind of reform is needed. Congress should act to prevent payments that are intended for hard-working farmers from going to urban millionaires and giant agribusiness. We will be talking about these amendments in the week to come, but I wish to say as we move ahead to develop homegrown renewable sources of energy, rural America promises to be central to our Nation's future energy independence as well as the fight against global warming. This bill prepares us. This bill heads us in the right direction. Inertia may be the most powerful force in the political universe, but after 75 years, the best interests of America's rural economy demand that we correct the abuses of the past so we can move forward with this bill, with some modifications of reform, to ensure a strong safety net for our hard-working farmers. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I would like to add my voice to the growing chorus, in the Senate and across the world, supporting Senate ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. While we have made great strides towards eradicating blatant discrimination based on race or social class in our country, far too many women around the world continue to face oppression and violence simply because of their gender. While it may be easy to believe that this only is a foreign problem, one that does not exist in our homes, this is simply not the case. An estimated 30 percent of American women experience some form of assault in their lifetime. And even if women do not experience violence, discrimination can take many other forms. Hundreds of millions of women across the globe are living their lives facing oppression. Despite all the advancements towards social equality, there still exists a strong undercurrent of gender-based prejudice. Beyond simply striking it from our laws, we must also strike it from our hearts and demonstrate that ending discrimination means recognizing basic rights. All women should have access to health care. All women should have access to education. And all women should be allowed to live their lives free of fear. The United States has always represented a beacon of hope and opportunity to oppressed peoples around the world. While our Nation is among the best in ensuring equal rights and opportunities to women, we must never grow complacent in this constant struggle or believe that we have conquered sex-based discrimination. That is why I believe it is so important that the Senate ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Ratification of this Convention represents a step towards empowerment, not just of American women but women everywhere. Ratification also presents an opportunity to reassert American values to the world. At a time when our Nation's image abroad is under assault and our commitment to fundamental human rights and norms has been questioned, it is critical that we reaffirm our repudiation of discrimination in all forms. The full realization of women's rights is vital to the development and well-being of people of all nations. The United States becoming a member of this convention is an important step toward that reality. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for the prompt ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, for months, news of recalled toys has dominated our headlines. As a mom and as a former prosecutor and now as a Senator, I find it totally unacceptable that toxic toys are on our shores and in our stores. As my 12-year-old daughter said when her favorite Barbies were recalled: Mom, this is getting serious. Today, the Senate Commerce Committee on which I serve took action to stem the tide of recalls, to finally take lead out of children's products, to establish real third party verification, to simplify the recall process, to finally make it illegal to sell a recalled product, and to get the Consumer Product Safety Commission more resources. Our bill is the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act of 2007, and it is some of the most sweeping reform we have seen in years and years and years of this agency, which is really now a shadow of its former self. I would like to thank the Commerce Committee chairman, Senator Inouye, for his work on this bill, as well as Commerce Consumer Subcommittee chair, Senator Pryor, for his work, as well as Senator Durbin and Senator Bill Nelson. We all worked together to put together a very strong bill. To me, the focus is simple. We need to get these toxic toys out of our children's hands. Today's action by the Commerce Committee sends to the Senate floor our opportunity to effectively ban lead from all children's products-- not just voluntarily, not just as a guideline, but with the force of law. I think it is shocking for most parents when they realize that we never had a mandatory ban on lead in children's products. We never had that in this country. It was a voluntary guideline, and it takes a long time, and there are delays and delays and all kinds of loopholes and requirements that have led us to the situation that we are in now. As millions of toys are being pulled from store shelves for fear of lead contamination, it is time to make crystal clear that lead has no place in children's products. The need for this ban for me is crystallized from a case that happened in Minnesota. Any parent can tell you the first place a new toy goes is in a little child's mouth, but that shouldn't be our first test for lead, as you will see with what happened in this case in Minnesota. Last year, 4-year-old Jarnell Brown got a pair of tennis shoes at the store with his mom, and with that pair of tennis shoes came a free charm. His mom didn't buy that charm, he didn't buy that charm, but they brought it home, and he swallowed that charm. He didn't die from ingesting the charm. He didn't choke on it. It wasn't that his airway was blocked. He just swallowed this little charm and it went into his stomach and over a period of days, the lead in that charm went into his system, went into his bloodstream, slowly, slowly, over a period of days, and he died. When they tested him, his lead level was three times the accepted level. When they tested that charm, that charm, which was from China, was 99 percent lead. What is most tragic about this little boy's death is that it could have been prevented. He should have never been given that toy in the first place. It shouldn't take a child's death to alert us to this problem, but that is what we have seen across this country. Parents should have the right to expect that toys are tested and that problems are found before they reach a toy box. The legislation I originally introduced to address this problem, the lead ban, is what is included in this bill that we passed through the committee today. It basically says that lead in any children's product shall be treated as a hazardous substance. It sets a ceiling for trace levels of lead, and it empowers the Consumer Product Safety Commission to lower the ceiling even further through rulemaking as science and technology allow. It sets the level at .04, which is slightly below the voluntary guideline they have been using at the CPSC--.06. Several other States have levels around .06. It also sets a lower level for jewelry at .02 parts per million, which is basically the level that is taking effect in California. The reason for that is not just little kids, 4-year-olds swallowing charms like the sad, tragic case in Minnesota, but also actually junior high and high school girls chewing on jewelry. It is the most direct way to get lead into their system, and that is why we set the trace lead level lower for jewelry. That was what we proposed in my bill, and that is the standard that is now included in the Commerce bill which is headed to the floor. Just yesterday, Consumer Reports released the results of 4 months of laboratory testing for lead in children's products, and what they found was alarming: high levels of lead in items ranging from toys to jewelry to vinyl backpacks, to lunch boxes. According to a poll released by Consumer Reports, 36 percent of consumers say they will be buying fewer toys this holiday season, and 70 percent said they will be checking product labels. It is clear that consumer confidence in the safety of our toys has been shaken. For 30 years, we have been aware of the dangers posed to children by lead paint. It shouldn't have taken us this long to take lead out of their hands and out of their mouths, and it is the Consumer Product Safety Commission's job to do just that. In recent months, it has become all too obvious that this commission needs much reform and that it is long overdue. As we all know, the Consumer Product Safety Commission's last authorization expired in 1992, and its statutes have not been updated since 1990. Not surprisingly, the marketplace for consumer products has changed significantly in the last 15 years, and this summer we saw firsthand how ill-equipped the Commission is to protect our most vulnerable consumers--our children. Today, the Commission is a shadow of its former self, although the number of imports has tripled--tripled in recent years, and as my colleagues know, all of these recalls recently have been toys from China, literally millions and millions of toys. The number of the Commission's staff and inspectors has been reduced by more than half, dropping from a high in 1980 of 978 to just over 400 today. In total, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has only about 100 field investigators and compliance personnel nationwide. Even worse, we now know the Commission has only one toy inspector. His name is Bob. He worked in kind of a makeshift laboratory, and he is retiring at the end of this year. Repeatedly this year, we have seen that the Consumer Product Safety Commission's recall process can be very slow. In some cases, such as the recalls of the Simplicity cribs and the Magnetix toys, years passed between when the Consumer Product Safety Commission was first alerted to the problem and when it acted to recall the product in question--the result of an outdated provision that places the interests of manufacturers before the interests and safety of consumers. The legislation passed by our Commerce Committee today goes a long way in modernizing the Commission. This legislation more than doubles the CPSC's budget authorization by the year 2015--a dramatic change-- and it provides the Commission with the tools it needs to enforce our consumer protection laws. Today's legislation will also make it illegal to sell a recalled toy, finally taking action against those bad actors out there who are knowingly leaving recalled products on their shelves or placing them for sale online. I do at this moment thank some of the retailers that have been working with us on this bill, including Target from our State of Minnesota, as well as Toys ``R'' Us, whose CEO testified before our Appropriations Committee and was positive about moving forward and understood the need to beef up the tools for the CPSC, as well as increase resources for that agency. Finally, I was pleased to see incorporated into our bill today the idea that we need to make it easier for parents to identify the toys when a recall happens. First of all, when a recall happens, we need to make it easier to get the information. I have talked to parents who have neighbors who put an e-mail under their door, and that is how they found out about it. The other way is to make it easier. When they know there is a recall, currently, there is no requirement for a batch number or a date on these toys. When Thomas the Train Set is recalled, the parents are going through the caboose, the green car, and the yellow car, trying to figure out do they have the car that was recalled. Obviously, they don't always remember the date they bought it. This can be easily fixed by putting a batch number on the toy. Obviously, you cannot do it on things such as Pick Up Stix, on individual sticks. We are reasonable about this. The bill says ``when practicable.'' You can put it on the toy where you can read it. It also requires that the batch number be put on the package. The reason it has to be put on the package is not for the parents. Except for my mother- in-law, I think most people throw the packaging away. It needs to alert smaller retailers and people selling things on eBay. The major outlets, such as Target, are able to, once they find out what the batch number is, close down their register so those toys cannot get through. If you are selling it on eBay or if you are in a smaller store, you may have to look at the batch number to find out, such as a parent would, what is recalled. That is why our legislation asked for the batch number to be both on the toy, when practicable, and on the packaging. We have seen too many headlines this summer to sit around and think this problem is going to solve itself. As a Senator, I feel strongly that it is important to take this step to protect the safety of our children. When I think of that 4-year-old boy's parents back in Minnesota and about all these other children who have been hurt by these toys that they had no control over--they are little kids--we can do better in this country. We can beef up this agency that has been languishing for years, and we can put the rules in place that make it easier for them to do their job. We cannot sit around bemoaning the results anymore. We have to act. We have our opportunity, and I hope we do it quickly. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the scientific truth. Once again, the administration has kept all the facts from getting to the American people. On Tuesday, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Julie Gerberding, testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee on the health impacts of global warming. The purpose of this hearing was to get all the facts about the health threats global warming poses to our communities and our families. I thank Senator Boxer for her leadership of that committee, for her leadership on climate change. I am proud to be a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we are doing some very good work in the climate change area. We actually have some legislation that we are considering in the next few weeks that I believe is good legislation. I don't believe we can wait to act. I went to Greenland this summer and saw firsthand the water coming off these humongous glaciers like spigots. They have lost the size of Greenland and Arizona combined off the Greenland ice sheet. It is the canary in the coal mine for climate change. There was a hearing this week. Unfortunately, the Director's initial testimony was not the testimony that was presented to the committee because her initial testimony did present the facts. As the Centers for Disease Control Director, she appears if you look at her initial testimony, to have taken seriously the mission of Centers for Disease Control which pledges to: . . . base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived. But the testimony she gave at the committee fell short of that pledge because, as has been reported in the press, the administration eliminated much of Dr. Gerberding's draft testimony which highlighted the threats to public health posed by global warming. It is only the latest incident in what has been a pattern of this administration in attempting to suppress science. Specifically, this administration deleted her testimony on the views of the Centers for Disease Control on several health impacts of global warming, including explanations and descriptions of the links to heat stroke, weather disasters, worsening air pollution and allergies, food- and water-borne infectious diseases, mosquito- and tick-borne infectious diseases, food and water scarcity, mental health problems, and even chronic disease. The Centers for Disease Control is an important agency that the American people trust to protect their health and safety and provide reliable health information. Let me reiterate one of the central tenets of the mission of the Centers for Disease Control, to: . . . base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived. Dr. Gerberding's original testimony included the following statement: The United States is expected to see an increase in the severity, duration and frequency of extreme heat waves. This, coupled with an aging population, increases the likelihood of higher mortality as the elderly are more vulnerable to dying from exposure from excessive heat. The President's spokesman claims they edited the testimony because: there were broad characterizations about climate change science that didn't align with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report. What did the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report state about the prospects of heat waves? It is important to remember that the IPCC is a very cautious group of scientists with a very conservative process for meticulously reviewing their conclusions through consensus. Their reports are produced by some 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert reviewers and a large number of Government reviewers also participated. The IPCC stated: Severe heat waves will intensify in magnitude and duration over the portions of the U.S. where they already occur . . . and: Local factors, such as the proportion of elderly people, are important in determining the underlying temperature- mortality relationship in a population. I ask you, how does this align? How does eliminating this from the Nation's leading public health official's testimony benefit Americans? Let me cite another example that was deleted from her testimony. Dr. Gerberding's original testimony stated: The west coast of the United States is expected to experience significant strains on water supplies as regional precipitation declines and mountain snowpacks are depleted. Forest fires are expected to increase in frequency, severity, distribution and duration. So as the wildfires rage out West, the President, his administration, is censoring testimony in the East. Global warming does not cause these fires, but they certainly intensify the three main causes of wildfires: high temperature, summer dryness, and long-term drought. Southern California has experienced all three and is now suffering the consequences. Again, we go back to what the President's spokesperson said yesterday when asked about this. She said they had to look at that testimony and make sure it was consistent with what the IPCC had said. In fact, that was the reason she gave for why they had censored it. Let's see what the IPCC said about forest fires. They, the IPCC, in their fourth assessment report, found that: . . . warm spells and heat waves will very likely increase the danger of wildfire. That is what they said, the IPCC, that it would increase the danger of wildfire. Then you have the head health official for our Government, the Centers for Disease Control, in her original testimony, saying it would increase the danger of forest fires. Pretty similar. As these fires are raging in southern California and as we are seeing all across the country record high temperatures, record summer dryness, and long-term drought, the administration chose to redact, to delete portions of the testimony of their Director of Disease Control, which in fact predicted this would happen. We have not just seen large forest fires in California this year. We saw them in northern Minnesota. I was there shortly after these fires in the Ham Lake area in northern Minnesota devastated areas, burned down homes, and went way up to Canada. I was meeting up there with resort owners, with residents, and we were talking about the disaster relief, we were talking about when they are going to get their phone lines, we were talking about the effects on their business up there. Do you know what some of them wanted to talk about in the midst of all this disaster and burned trees? They wanted to talk about climate change because they had seen what was happening. There was a 30-percent reduction in profits at the ski resorts; forest fires raging--they knew something was wrong. Yet the administration is deleting the scientific prediction that is saying that exactly this will happen. This is not the time for this administration to be censoring information. It is the time, instead, to look seriously at the health and other impacts of global warming and to take the steps we need to address them. I am proud to be part of a committee, under the leadership of Senator Boxer, that is no longer talking about whether climate change exists but talking about how to solve it. We will continue to investigate the reasons this was deleted. We will continue to request information and get to the truth. But the main thing I would like to say today to my colleagues is that the American people know that something is wrong. They want us to solve it. You can't hide the facts anymore. You can't bury them as forest fires are raging and sea levels are rising and temperatures are rising. You can't bury the facts. You have to get to the solution.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to speak this morning to honor the memory of Paul and Sheila Wellstone. Today, it is exactly 5 years ago that they died in a plane crash outside Eveleth, MN, a beautiful area of our State called the Iron Range, where, in some ways, Paul Wellstone got his political start. Part of it was the farms of southern Minnesota, when he stood up for farmers when the farms were being foreclosed on. But part of it was the work he did with those iron ore miners. My grandfather was an iron ore miner who worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines of Ely, MN, about a half hour away from where Paul died. Paul Wellstone's daughter Marcia was also killed in the crash--his longtime staff members, Mary McEvoy, Tom Lapik, and Will McLaughlin, as well as the pilot and copilot of the plane. On this day, 5 years later, the people of Minnesota are remembering that crash and remembering Paul and Sheila. It is so hard to believe it has been 5 years since we have lost them. It feels both so long ago and not so long ago at all. Part of why it doesn't seem so long ago to me is because everywhere I go in this Capitol, people remind me of Paul. When I say I am a Senator from Minnesota, they remember Paul--people such as Ted Kennedy, who worked with him on mental health issues, to the tram drivers, who for years and years have driven that tram from the Capitol to the Senate office buildings. When I said I was this new Senator from Minnesota, the driver said, ``Paul Wellstone was a Senator from Minnesota.'' The cops who guard at the Capitol remember Paul. The secretaries in the offices remember Paul. That is because he treated everybody with such dignity in this Capitol and with such dignity in our State. That was Paul Wellstone. For me, as for so many other Minnesotans, it is impossible to forget the moment we first heard about the plane going down and then the wait to get the final news that there were no survivors. Paul and Sheila would be the first to tell us we should not look back on what they accomplished and stood for. They would be the first to insist our responsibility is to look ahead to the work that still must be done to carry their legacy forward. Although Paul and Sheila are no longer with us, we know their dreams and passions remain very much alive. I get my own special reminder every day, not just with the employees in the Capitol but because the flag from Paul's Senate office hangs in our Senate office. It is a powerful reminder to me of Paul and all he tried to do in Washington. During his lifetime as an educator, as an activist, and as a Senator, Paul inspired people throughout Minnesota and throughout America. Even now, his work and his spirit continue to inspire people of all ages, from all walks of life, all across our country, who remember Paul for the fundamental values he fought and struggled for. He was a voice for the voiceless. He and Sheila stood for victims of domestic violence who were afraid to talk about it, afraid to go to court. They stood for them and made this their life's passion. He brought power to the powerless--people such as the iron miners in Minnesota, people such as those farmers whose homes and farms were foreclosed on. He brought justice to those who suffered injustice. He brought opportunity to those who didn't have opportunity. When going to any small community event in our State or to events with large immigrant populations, they all remember Paul coming to their marketplaces or how he would meet with the women. Some of them--the elders--can hardly speak English, but they can say ``Wellstone.'' I know I will forever be humbled by the oath I took to be a Senator from Minnesota. I know that not I nor anyone else can truly follow in Paul's footsteps. But he is an inspiration for us all. Paul was my friend and mentor. He taught me how to campaign on a city bus. When I first ran for office, for county attorney, we would get on a city bus and work the entire bus. We would meet everybody on the bus. When we would get to the end of 8 blocks, we would say we are at our stop and get off. Then we would get back on a bus going the other way. We would go around for hours until we met everybody on those buses in Minneapolis that afternoon. He worked bus by bus, block by block, precinct by precinct to touch people in a way that made people believe, made people know that involvement in politics could make a real difference in their lives. That is what he told those new immigrants, new citizens. He told them that involvement in politics could make a difference in their lives. He did it not only by his words but by how much he went out and touched them and were a part of their life. Paul was a crusader and a man with many passions. Anyone who ever met or talked with him quickly found out he had a special passion for helping those with mental illness. That was shaped by the suffering of a member of his own family. Many of you may know Paul's story about his brother Stephen. As a young child, Paul watched his brother's traumatic descent into mental illness. When Stephen was a freshman in college, he suffered a severe mental breakdown and ended up spending the next 2 years in mental hospitals. Eventually, he recovered and graduated from college with honors. But it took his immigrant parents years to pay off the hospital bills. Writing about this, Paul recalled the years that his brother was hospitalized. ``For two years,'' he wrote, ``the house always seemed dark to me--even when the lights were on. It was such a sad home.'' Decades later, Paul knew there were still far too many sad homes in our great Nation--too many families devastated by the physical and financial consequences of mental illness. Paul knew we could and we should do better. For years, he fought to allocate funding for better care, better services, and better representation for the mentally ill. For years, he fought for mental health parity in health insurance coverage. Finally, this year, at last, it looks as if Paul's dream may finally come true. Last month, the Senate unanimously voted in support of legislation that will guarantee equity for mental health insurance coverage. This will be a victory--if we can get this passed and work with the House and get as strong a bill as possible--for millions of Americans living with these mental illnesses who have faced unfair discrimination in their access to affordable, appropriate health care and treatment. For Paul, this was always a matter of civil rights, of justice, and of basic human decency. Of course, on this issue--as every other issue--Sheila and Paul were together and they moved quickly. Paul and Sheila had so much energy, and they were always on the move. They brought such enthusiasm and joy to their work. They were animated, tireless, and persistent in their fight against injustice. Sheila Wellstone was a leader in her own right. I had the opportunity to work closely with her when I was the chief prosecutor for Hennepin County. They focused on domestic violence. She was instrumental in creating the Hennepin County Domestic Abuse Service Center, which I supervised during my 8 years as county attorney. That center is a national, an international, model for serving the victims of domestic violence by bringing together a full range of services and resources in one central, convenient location. Victims of domestic violence don't have to go through the redtape that would even be hard for a lawyer to figure out. There is a center where children can come and play, for prosecutors and police, and a shelter, all located under one roof. Sheila knew the statistics on domestic violence. She knew these kids are six times more likely to commit suicide if they grew up in a home with domestic violence. They are 24 times more likely to commit sexual assaults. They are 60 times more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior. Most chilling of all, little boys who would witness domestic violence are 100 times more likely to become abusers themselves. Sheila knew these numbers, but even more, she knew the names and the faces of the victims of domestic violence. She knew their children. It made her all the more determined to do something about it because, in America, of all places, kids should be free to grow up with safety and security and peace of mind. I remember the last time I saw Sheila and Paul. It was a few weeks before the tragic crash. Sheila and I had been asked to speak to a group of new citizens, immigrants from Russia. It was a very small group. There were about 50 people there. We talked about our own immigrant experiences. She talked about her parents and growing up in Appalachia, and I talked about my Slovenian relatives coming over and making their way, saving money in a coffee can in the basement so they could send my dad to college. We were in the middle of these stories in this very small room. All of a sudden in walked Paul. He wasn't supposed to be there. He had gotten an early flight home from Washington. He wasn't supposed to be there because he was about a month out on one of the biggest elections for the Senate in the country. He had voted, had taken a brave vote, a courageous vote against the resolution on Iraq. He knew he was up for reelection. He knew it might cost him the election, but he did the right thing. He came into that room where there was no press, no reporters, and a few weeks before this election. At the time I thought: Why did he do this when he has to be out there campaigning? I knew then that there were two reasons he did it. First is that he loved Sheila and he wanted to surprise her, and he wanted to be there by her side while she gave her speech and gave her remarks. But he was also there because he embraced the immigrant experience. He liked nothing more than talking about how you can come to this country with nothing and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. You can be a guy working 1,500 feet underground in the mines in Ely, MN, and your granddaughter can be a Senator. You can be someone with mental illness, such as Paul's brother, and grow up to get a college degree and be a teacher. You can be a victim of domestic violence and get your life back together and have a home for your kids. That is what Paul and Sheila stood for. That was their legacy. Today in our State of Minnesota and throughout this country and this Capitol, we think of them and what they stood for, and we pledge to work again to fill their legacy. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

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

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, today marks the beginning of domestic violence month, and it marks a time when we look at the progress we have made in this area and what challenges remain. As a former prosecutor, I am well aware of the tragedies we see every day in this country from domestic violence. But it is also a time in our State where we look back at the lives of Paul and Sheila Wellstone, who devoted their time, their passion, and their energy to doing something about a problem that so often is overlooked or about which people do not want to talk. This is, in fact, a few weeks on the calendar before their tragic death in a plane crash. Today we are going to welcome their son, David Wellstone, to the Capitol, and there will be a quilt displayed in the Russell rotunda, a quilt made by women and children from 13 different domestic violence centers across this country. At the event today, we are going to have in Paul and Sheila's honor-- we are not just going to look back on all they accomplished and stood for, but we are also going to look ahead to the work we all must do to carry their legacy forward, especially that commitment they had to ending domestic violence. It is hard to believe it has already been nearly 5 years since we lost Paul and Sheila. It feels both so long ago and yet not that long ago. But we know their dreams and passions remain alive in each one of us, and that is why we are gathering tonight. For me, I get my own special reminder of Paul Wellstone every day. His family gave me the flags that hung in his office. I am also reminded every day by ordinary people in the Capitol when I say I am from Minnesota--the tram drivers in the basement or the police officers or the secretaries in Senate offices who, when you say you are a Senator from Minnesota, they remember Paul, and they remember how well he treated people and the dignity with which he treated people every day. Above all, I keep in mind, in front of my mind, the fundamental values for which he fought and struggled--being a voice to the voiceless, bringing power to the powerless, bringing justice to those who suffered injustice and above all, bringing hope to all of us that we can change the world and make it a better place. There is no better way to honor Sheila's groundbreaking work in domestic violence than to mark the beginning of Domestic Violence Awareness Month with that quilt hanging in the Capitol. I had the honor and opportunity to work with Sheila on many occasions when I was Hennepin County attorney. She was instrumental in creating and funding the Hennepin County Domestic Abuse Service Center. Hennepin County has about 1.1 million people, and this center is a landmark center across the country. It is a single place where women and their children can come. There is a play area for the kids. There are prosecutors there. There are police there. It is one place where they can get through the redtape and come to get help. The center is an international model for serving victims of domestic violence. Sheila and I shared a particular concern for the fate of children who grew up in homes with domestic violence. There are deeply disturbing statistics on children who witness domestic abuse in their homes. These kids are six times more likely to commit suicide. They are 24 times more likely to commit sexual assault. They are 60 times more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior and, most chilling of all, little boys who witness domestic violence are 100 times more likely to become abusers themselves. In my job as a prosecutor, I learned very quickly that when there is domestic violence, there is always a victim, the immediate victim, but it ripples through an entire family. I remember a case we had in a suburban area where a man who had been abusing his wife killed her. There was a little girl, a little daughter who was about 4 years old. When he disposed of his wife's body, he brought the daughter with him in the back seat. A few days later, the grandparents came in from Russia. The woman was a Russian immigrant. They brought the deceased woman's twin sister, identical twin sister. This little daughter had never seen her aunt before. She ran through the airport when she saw her get off the plane and she said: Mommy, mommy, mommy. When you hear stories such as that story, you remember it is not about one victim, it is about an entire family. Sheila knew those stories, and Sheila knew those statistics. But even more, she knew the names and the faces of the real children who witnessed and experienced abuse in the home. It made her all the more determined to do something about it because in America, of all places, kids should be free to grow up with safety, security, and peace of mind. I remember the last time I saw Sheila. It was 2 weeks before that terrible plane crash. She and I had been asked to speak at a ceremony celebrating the new citizenship of Russian immigrants. It wasn't a campaign event. There were no cameras, even though it was about 3 weeks before one of the biggest elections in the country. It was just new citizens and their families. We both talked about the immigrant traditions in our own families. She talked about her family growing up in Appalachia. I talked about my family on the Iron Range with the Slovenian roots. As the event was winding down, in walked Paul. He wasn't supposed to be there. He was supposed to be in Washington. It was 3 weeks before this major election, and he was in this little room, with no reporters and no cameras, to greet these new citizens. I always knew he was there for two reasons. One, he was there because he loved his wife and he wanted to be there to surprise her and support her. But he was also there that night because he truly embraced that immigrant tradition. He embraced the idea that a person could come to this country, an incredible journey to freedom, with nothing, and they could work hard, succeed and send their kids and their grandkids to college because that had been what had happened to him and that had been what happened to Sheila. It was the same thing for Sheila and Paul with victims of domestic violence, people who had sunk to the lowest in their life, who had no home, who were out on the street, who were out hiding in a shelter. She worked tirelessly to ensure that victims and their families could begin their own journeys to freedom, that they could get a fresh start, with new opportunities, in a new and secure environment. We will always miss Paul and Sheila, but thanks to their son David, who is going to be with us here this evening, and countless volunteers and friends from all over the country, they have carried on their legacy and their work. They have carried on their legacy to change the world and make it a better and safer place for everyone. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. KLOBUCHAR

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of amendment No. 2999, as amended. This is an amendment that is very important to me, and I appreciate the leadership of my colleagues Senator McCaskill and Senator Webb, and in fact all of the freshmen Democrats who are supporting this legislation, the goal of which is to bring more public accountability to the way our Government does business. I think you and I both know, having spent the last 2 years going around our State, that people are yearning for more public accountability from our Government. They are yearning for more transparency. We heard calls for that--increased transparency. And here we have, in the area of Armed Services and the area of Government contracting, a chance to act on it. This amendment establishes an independent, bipartisan commission to strengthen Government oversight and examine the true costs of a contracting culture that the Federal Government relies upon in Iraq. This idea is not unprecedented. The legislation is inspired by the work of the Truman Commission and it is fitting Senator McCaskill is from Missouri, as was Truman. The Truman Commission, as you know, conducted hundreds of hearings and investigations into Government waste during World War II, at an estimated savings of more than $178 billion in today's dollars; $178 billion. Think of what that would mean to the American taxpayer today at a time when we are spending somewhere between $10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq. There is, unfortunately, a natural tendency in this country toward excess and corporate excess. So when people are given sort of unlimited contracts, no-bid contracts, I think you can expect excess. I come from a prosecutor background. We know that when people are given leeway, and maybe even when they have the best intentions, the people in charge, the people on the ground, it leads to fraud and the Government is the one that is on the short end of the stick. I think it is more than just a cost of doing business when we are looking at what we have been seeing in Iraq with private contractors over the last 5 years. The number of contractors in Iraq, the last estimate I had, was 180,000. It now exceeds the number of American combat troops in Iraq. We need to look at the effects these logistical and security contractors have on our military. Now, I would say this: We are not talking about creating an additional bureaucracy. We are talking about expanding an infrastructure that already exists. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, with the excellent performance that we have seen in uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq reconstruction projects, is proof of its ability to conduct more interagency examination of wartime contracts. The special inspector general has proven to be a powerful tool in investigating reconstruction contracts. In 2005 alone, he reported a loss of $9 billion tax due to a contractor's inefficiency and bad management. I can tell you this, in my job as county attorney, when we had a case in front of us, we would always say: Follow the money and you would find the bad guy. Well, we need to do more of that with Iraqi contractors. This motto could not be more true than it is today as the GAO, the Defense Contract Audit Agency, and news reports continue to expose gross mismanagement in defense contracting. That is why I am so proud to support this amendment. We have heard that of the $57 billion awarded in contracts for reconstruction in Iraq that was investigated, approximately $10 billion has been wasted; $4.9 billion was lost through contractor overpricing and waste; $5.1 billion was lost through unsupported contract charges. Of this $10 billion, more than $2.7 billion was charged by Halliburton. This means almost 1 in 6 Federal tax dollars sent to rebuild Iraq has been wasted. And while we have heard in dollars the staggering amount, this waste amount, $10 billion, the costs of mismanaged contracts extends beyond that. For instance, if you look at the electricity in Baghdad, you have seen the city only enjoying an average of 6.5 hours of electricity a day. It has actually gone down from where it was a year ago. Water. Congress has provided nearly $2 billion to provide clean drinking water and repair sewer systems. But according to the World Health Organization, 70 percent of Iraqis lack access to clean drinking water. With jobs, the Defense Department has estimated that the unemployment rate is anywhere from 13.6 percent to 60 percent. In a recent survey, only 16 percent of Iraqis said their current incomes met their basic needs. These costs in every way are unacceptable. They are unacceptable to the people of Iraq, and they are unacceptable to the taxpayers of this country. My colleagues and I--and you are one of them, Mr. President--came to Washington demanding accountability. Today I am proud to be part of a group that supports an important amendment to bring more transparency, to bring accountability to contracting in Iraq. I yield the floor.