[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 85 (Thursday, June 7, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3803-S3835]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                                Resumed

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 415, S. 
3240.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 415, S. 3240, a bill to 
     reauthorize the agricultural programs through 2017, and for 
     other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are now on the motion to proceed to the 
farm bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the time until 10:30 a.m. will be equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees. At 10:30 a.m. there 
will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the farm bill. We 
hope we can reach agreements on the amendments today.
  The hour following the cloture vote will be equally divided, with the 
Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the 
final half.
  Mr. President, here we are again on these endless, wasted weeks 
because the Republicans are preventing us from going to legislation. We 
should have been legislating on this bill. This is a bipartisan bill. 
It is managed by two very good Senators. One is a Democrat, Debbie 
Stabenow, chairman of that committee, and Pat Roberts from Kansas, who 
in the past has been chairman of the committee and is ranking member of 
the committee today. They have come up with a very good bill. It saves 
the country $23 billion. It gets rid of a lot of wasted subsidies. It 
is a fine piece of legislation.
  We hear the hue and cry constantly from our Republican friends to do 
something about the debt. This bill does it. It saves the country $23 
billion. We are going to have a cloture vote on the ability for us to 
proceed to the bill, and on the ability for us to start legislating.
  I don't need to give a lecture to the Presiding Officer about how 
vexatious this is, that we have to do this every time. The Presiding 
Officer wanted to do something to change this process at the beginning 
of this Congress. I will bet, Mr. President, if we maintain our 
majority--and I feel quite confident we can do that and the President 
is reelected--there are going to be some changes. We can no longer go 
through this on every bill. There are filibusters on bills they agree 
with. It is a waste of time to prevent us from getting things done. So 
enough on that. It is such a terrible waste of our time.


          Measures Placed on the Calendar--S. 3268 and S. 3269

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are two bills at the desk due for a 
second reading.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The leader is correct. The clerk 
will read the titles of the bills for the second time.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3268) to amend title 49, United States Code, to 
     provide rights for pilots, and other purposes.
       A bill (S. 3269) to provide that no United States 
     assistance may be provided to Pakistan until Dr. Shakil 
     Afridi is freed.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would object to any further proceedings 
with respect to these bills, en bloc.

[[Page S3804]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection having been heard, the 
bills will be placed on the calendar under rule XIV.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the Chair announce the business of the 
day.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time 
is reserved. Under the previous order, the time until 10:30 a.m. will 
be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair start 
calling the roll, with the time equally divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been a week now since the 
Republican leadership in the Senate and the House sent several good-
faith, bipartisan proposals to the White House in an effort to resolve 
the student loan issue. And what has the White House done? Absolutely 
nothing. The President has not yet responded. One can only surmise he 
is delaying a solution so he can fit in a few more campaign rallies 
with college students while pretending someone other than himself is 
actually delaying action.
  Today the President is taking time out of his busy fundraising 
schedule to hold an event at UNLV, where, once again, he will use 
students as props in yet another speech calling on Congress to act. 
What the President won't tell these students is that the House has 
already acted and that Republicans in both Chambers are ready to work 
on solutions as soon as the President can take the time. All the 
President has to do is to pick up his mail, choose one of the 
bipartisan proposals we laid out in a letter to him last week--
proposals he has already shown he supports, with pay-fors he has 
recommended--and then announce to the students that the problem has 
been solved.
  Unfortunately, the President is apparently more interested in 
campaigning for the students at UNLV than actually working with 
Congress to find a solution.
  Mr. President, I would suggest you open your mail. Just open your 
mail, and you will find a letter there from the Speaker and from the 
majority leader in the House and from Senator Kyl and myself laying out 
a way to pay for the extension of the current tax rates for student 
loans for another year that you yourself previously recommended. The 
only people dragging their feet on the issue are over at the White 
House itself--dragging their feet to fit in yet another college visit.
  Republicans here in Congress have been crystal clear on this issue 
for weeks. We are ready to resolve the issue. It is time the President 
showed some leadership and worked with Congress to provide the 
certainty young people and their parents need. I encourage the 
President, if he really wants to do something to help students, to join 
us in working to find a solution. This is really pretty easy. We all 
agree that we ought to extend the current student loan rates for a 
year.
  We have recommended to you, Mr. President, the way to pay for it that 
you have already adopted. This isn't hard.
  Every day he is silent on solutions is another day closer to the 
rapidly approaching deadline here at the end of the month.


                           Tax Rate Extension

  Mr. President, I stood with the Speaker of the House yesterday and 
his conference leadership and called for at least a 1-year extension of 
current tax rates to provide certainty to families and job creators 
around the country that their taxes will not be going up on January 1.
  In the Obama economy, we are facing a looming fiscal crisis that some 
have called the most predictable in history. Millions are unemployed, 
millions more are underemployed, and the country is facing the largest 
tax hike in history at the end of this year.
  This tax hike the President wants would hit hundreds of thousands of 
small businesses. To put that in perspective, this tax hike would hit 
job creators who employ up to 25 percent of our workforce, and we 
really can't allow that to happen. I think we all know we cannot allow 
that to happen. The economy is far too fragile right now.
  Former President Bill Clinton said we are in an economic recession, 
and earlier this week, before the Obama campaign got to him, he was for 
temporarily extending current tax rates. Yesterday the Democratic 
Senate Budget Committee chairman came out and said he was for 
temporarily extending current tax rates. And I would remind everyone 
that it was the President himself in December of 2010 who said that you 
don't raise taxes in a down economy. Well, the economy is slower now 
than it was when he last agreed with us to extend current tax law back 
in December of 2010. In fact, the rate of growth in our economy is 
slower now than it was in December 2010 when the President agreed with 
us that at that point we ought to do a 2-year extension of the current 
tax rates. We are experiencing slower growth now than then. The same 
arguments apply now.
  This is the time to prevent this uncertainty and the largest tax 
increase in American history--right in the middle of a very fragile 
economy. It really doesn't make any sense to do otherwise. Let's extend 
all the current tax relief right now--before the election. Let's show 
the American people we are actually listening to them. Let's send a 
message that in these challenging economic times, taxes won't be going 
up for anyone at the end of this year. And let's not stop there. Let's 
tackle fundamental, progrowth tax reform. This is something upon which 
there is bipartisan agreement. I think we all agree it has been over 25 
years since we did comprehensive tax reform in this country. It is time 
to do that again. We all agree on that. The President thinks that and 
Republicans and Democrats in the Congress think that. The time to act 
is now. If the President is serious about turning the economy around, 
preventing taxes from going up at the end of the year is one bipartisan 
step he could take right now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote to move 
forward on the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act, also known as 
the farm bill. I hope my colleagues will vote to join us and begin the 
debate officially on this important jobs bill because it is so 
important to 16 million people who get their jobs from agriculture.
  Our economy has seen some tough times, as we all know. Certainly we 
know that in Michigan. But agriculture has been one of the really 
bright spots. It is an underpinning of our economic recovery, and we 
want to keep it that way. If we fail to pass a new farm bill before the 
current one expires in September, it would cause widespread uncertainty 
and result in job losses in a very important part of our economy that 
is critical to keeping our recovery going.
  Agriculture is one of the only parts of the economy, if not the only 
part, that has a trade surplus--$42.5 billion in 2011--the highest 
annual surplus on record. We know that for every $1 billion in exports, 
8,400 people are working. So this is a jobs bill.
  Thanks to the farm bill, tonight American families will sit down 
around the kitchen table and enjoy the bounty of the world's safest, 
most abundant, and most affordable food supply. I think it is too easy 
for all of us to take that for granted. The men and women who work hard 
from sunrise to sunset every day to put that food on our tables deserve 
the economic certainty this bill provides.
  The farm bill before us today makes major reforms. We are cutting 
subsidies. We are ending direct payments. We cut the deficit by over 
$23 billion. As my friend and ranking member has said, this is 
voluntary. This is a real cut, as my budget chairman would say, and it 
is more than double what was

[[Page S3805]]

recommended in the Simpson-Bowles Commission. So this is serious. This 
is real. And we in agriculture--the first authorizing committee to 
recommend real deficit reduction cuts--are serious about making sure we 
are doing our part and that the families and ranchers and people 
involved in agriculture are doing their part as well. They are willing 
to do that. We have to have economic certainty because we are talking 
about creating jobs all across America, in rural areas and in urban 
areas.

  This farm bill gives farmers new export opportunities so they can 
find new global markets for their goods and create jobs. This farm bill 
helps family farmers sell locally. We are tripling support for farmers 
markets, which are growing all over this country, and new food hubs to 
connect farms with schools and other community-based organizations.
  This farm bill provides training and mentoring and access to capital 
for new and beginning farmers to get their operations off the ground. 
The bill really is about the future of agriculture in our country. As I 
have said so many times, this is not your father's farm bill. This is 
about the future.
  We had three young farmers visiting with Senator Roberts and me 
yesterday, and I can tell my colleagues they were so impressive--I feel 
very confident about the future--but they were saying loudly and 
clearly that we need to get this done now so they can plan for 
themselves and their families.
  We are also for the first time offering new support and opportunities 
for our veterans who are coming home. The majority of those who have 
served us in such a brave and honorable way in Iraq and Afghanistan 
come from small towns all across America, and they are now coming home. 
Many of them want the opportunity to stay at home, to be able to go 
into farming, to be able to have their roots back in their communities. 
We are setting up new support in this farm bill to support our veterans 
coming home.
  The farm bill supports America's growing biomanufacturing businesses, 
where companies use agricultural products instead of petroleum to 
manufacture products for consumers. I am so excited about this because 
in my State of Michigan, we make things and grow things, and 
biomanufacturing is about bringing that together. As we move through 
this bill, I look forward to talking more about that.
  This bill moves beyond corn-based ethanol into the next generation of 
biofuels that use agricultural waste products and nonfood crops for 
energy. This bill provides a new, innovative way to support 
agricultural research--the men and women who every day fight back 
against pests and diseases that threaten our food supply--with a new 
public-private research foundation to stretch every dollar and get the 
most results.
  We extend rural development with a new priority for those proposing 
to maximize Federal, State, local, and private investment so that 
smalltown mayors--such as those who came before our committee--across 
the country can actually understand and use the programs. We are 
simplifying it. We are going from 11 different definitions of ``rural'' 
down to 1 so that it is simple and clear and so that smalltown mayors 
and local officials have better tools to use to support their 
communities.
  Finally, let me say one more time that this bill is a jobs bill. 
Sixteen million people work in this country because of agriculture. We 
are creating jobs. We are cutting subsidies. We are reducing our 
deficit by over $23 billion. I hope our colleagues will join with us 
this morning in a very strong vote to move forward on this bill.
  Can the Chair announce the time remaining on both sides?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 18 minutes on the 
Republican side and 11\1/2\ minutes on the Democratic side.
  Ms. STABENOW. Let me first yield, if I might--I know Senator Nelson 
also wishes to speak--7 minutes, if that is appropriate, to our 
distinguished budget leader.
  In introducing the Senator from North Dakota, I wish to say that we 
would not have the thoughtful approach on the alternative in the 
commodity title that we have today--we know we are going to be working 
more to strengthen that as we move through the process, but we would 
not have the strong risk-based approach we have without the senior 
Senator from North Dakota, our budget chairman. We also would not have 
the energy title we have that creates jobs without his amendment and 
his hard work. Frankly, this is somebody whom I looked to on every page 
of the farm bill because of his wonderful expertise.
  I have to say one more time that I am going to personally and, as a 
Senator and chair of the committee, greatly miss him when he leaves at 
the end of the year. I think I may be locking the door so he can't 
leave.
  So I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to say that the Senator has 
provided brilliant leadership on this legislation. I am in my 26th year 
here. I have never seen a chairwoman so personally and directly engaged 
to make legislation happen in an extraordinarily difficult and 
challenging environment.
  When the history of this legislation is written, Senator Stabenow, 
the chairwoman of our committee, will be in the front rank of those who 
made this happen. I want to express my gratitude to her on behalf of 
farm and ranch families all across America for the extraordinary 
leadership she has provided.
  Farm policy has many critics, and they perpetuate a myth about the 
farm bill: that it only benefits a handful of wealthy farm and ranch 
families. The truth is much different. The critics, who often look down 
their noses at hard-working farm families who feed this country, do not 
seem to understand the competition farmers face in the international 
arena and what an extraordinary success this farm policy has been.
  The simple fact is, our agricultural policy benefits every consumer 
in America. As a share of disposable income, Americans have the 
cheapest food in the history of the world. Americans spend less than 10 
percent of their disposable income on food, which is far less than any 
other country. As the Senator, the chairwoman of the committee, Ms. 
Stabenow, says very clearly, this is not only good for consumers, this 
is a jobs bill. Sixteen million people in this country have jobs 
because of an agricultural policy that has been a stunning success.
  It is also a bill that helps us compete around the rest of the world. 
The 2008 farm bill has been a tremendous success by any measure--record 
farm income, record exports, record job creation. That is the history 
of the 2008 bill. It has contributed to the strong economic performance 
of American agriculture. As you may recall, it passed with an 
overwhelming bipartisan majority and it was paid for. It was paid for. 
We actually reduced a little bit of the deficit with that legislation.
  That strong safety net created by the 2008 bill has enabled American 
farmers to continue to produce food for our Nation, even while facing 
tremendous market and weather risks.
  Critics of farm policy also imply that the farm bill is busting the 
budget. That is simply false. Farm bill spending is only a tiny sliver 
of the overall Federal budget. Total outlays for the new farm bill are 
about 2 percent of total Federal spending; and of the farm bill 
spending, only about 14 percent--14 percent--goes to commodity and crop 
insurance programs. The vast majority of the spending in this bill goes 
for nutrition. Mr. President, 79 percent of the spending in this bill 
goes for nutrition programs. Only 14 percent goes for what could 
traditionally be considered farm programs. The farm provisions 
constitute less than one-third of 1 percent of total Federal spending. 
That is a bargain for American consumers and taxpayers.
  The truth is, our producers face stiff international competition. In 
2010, our major competitors--the Europeans--outspent us almost 4 to 1 
in providing support for their farmers and ranchers. And the EU is not 
the only culprit. Brazil, Argentina, China, and others are gaining 
unfair market advantages through hidden subsidies such as currency 
manipulation, market access restrictions, and input subsidies that the 
WTO is incapable of disciplining.
  The reality is that farming is a risky business. Not only do farmers 
and ranchers have to deal with unfair global competition, they also 
have to face

[[Page S3806]]

natural disasters and unpredictable price fluctuations.
  The Senate Agriculture Committee, working together in a bipartisan 
way, will contribute over $23 billion to deficit reduction. That is 
twice as much as the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission recommended--
twice the savings that the Simpson-Bowles commission recommended. In so 
doing, the committee has provided more than its fair share of fixing 
this country's deficit and debt problems. If the rest of the committees 
of Congress did what this committee has done under the leadership of 
Senator Stabenow, there would be no deficit and debt problem. That is a 
fact.
  This is also a reform bill. This is the strongest reform bill that 
has gone through a committee of Congress in the history of farm 
legislation, and the chairwoman and ranking member can be incredibly 
proud of the leadership they have provided.
  This legislation streamlines conservation programs, reducing the 
number of programs, and making them simpler to understand and 
administer. It reauthorizes important nutrition programs for 5 years, 
helping millions of Americans.
  I also want to thank Senator Lugar and Senator Harkin and the eight 
other sponsors on the Ag Committee for joining me in an amendment to 
continue funding for key rural energy programs. We are spending almost 
$1 billion a day importing foreign energy. How much better off would we 
be as a Nation if that money stayed here in the United States, instead 
of looking to the Middle East, if we could look to the Midwest for our 
energy supplies? This legislation will help move us in that direction.
  In addition, I want to thank Senator Baucus and Senator Hoeven for 
working with me to pass an amendment that will improve the bill for 
farmers in our part of the country. I am also pleased the new farm bill 
will continue the livestock disaster programs that are so important to 
our ranchers when feed losses or livestock deaths occur due to 
disaster-related conditions.
  This legislation is the product of countless hours of deliberation, 
and to reach this point was no easy task. However, I still have some 
concerns about this legislation.
  I am concerned that the new Agriculture Risk Coverage, or ARC, 
program will not do enough if agriculture prices collapse again, as 
they have done so many times in the past.
  For those of you who do not believe that crop prices can fall again, 
I will tell you that I have heard that argument before. In 1996, many 
said that we had reached a new plateau of high prices, so Congress put 
in place the freedom to farm legislation that removed price supports. 
Two years later, Congress had to pass the largest farm disaster program 
in history because prices had crashed and farmers were going under. I 
will continue to work to ensure that we improve these provisions before 
the final passage of this bill so that we do not find ourselves in that 
situation again.
  It is vital that we pass a farm bill, and it is just as vital that we 
make sure these programs continue to work for American producers and 
consumers.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chairwoman and I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do we have on the 
Republican side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Eighteen?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the cloture 
vote on the motion to proceed to the farm bill. Let me point out what 
the distinguished chairwoman and the distinguished Senator who has just 
spoken have already pointed out--and it bears repeating; I know it is 
somewhat repetitive if people have been paying attention to the remarks 
we have had here prior to this vote--but this is a reform bill at a 
time in which reforms are demanded. It saves $23.6 billion in mandatory 
spending. They are real cuts. They are real deficit savings. It 
accomplishes this by reforming, reducing, and streamlining programs.
  We eliminate four commodity programs. These programs are very 
difficult to go through at the FSA office, the Farm Service Agency we 
have. So when farmers have come in to try to wade through the four 
commodity programs, they have always been terribly difficult and 
complex.
  We streamline the 23 conservation programs into 13 and eliminate 
duplication. We tighten a major loophole in nutrition programs. We cut 
16 rural development authorizations. We cut over 60 authorizations in 
the research title and streamline programs.
  In whole, we cut and/or streamline over 100 programs. Show me another 
committee that has done that on a voluntary basis. There is not any in 
the House or the Senate.
  We have had speech after speech after speech after speech--heartfelt 
speeches--why can't you work together back there in Washington and do 
what is right for the American people and quit spending money we do not 
have? We had a supercommittee that worked on this for a considerable 
amount of time. I do not question anybody's intent who had that tough 
job. At that time, we offered to the supercommittee a package that 
could have been done at that particular time. But we did it--``we'' 
meaning the chairwoman and myself and members of the committee, and 
staff as well, who worked extremely hard.
  So there has not been anybody else who has come forward and said: 
Here is real deficit reduction. That is why we should support the 
motion to proceed. We have made the tough decisions because that is 
what you do in rural America--whether it is in Michigan, Kansas, the 
Dakotas, or Nebraska. Because that is what you do when budgets are 
tight and you need to get things done.
  Those in rural America are also why we need to get this bill done. 
The current law expires September 30. How many things around here are 
in purgatory? Tax extenders, the tax bill, what we call the tax cliff 
that we are looking at over here if we do not get things done, the 
specter of a lameduck Congress--in 3 weeks trying to get things done 
like that. And you put folks in purgatory where they cannot make any 
decisions.
  Well, it would be a disaster in rural America if we do not pass this 
law before we revert back to the permanent 1949 law. That law in no way 
reflects current production or domestic and international markets. And 
I would say, even if we extend the current law, it does not reflect 
what we need as of today. That law goes back to base acres of 25 years 
ago. We are talking about planted acres as of today. So basically it 
would be government-controlled agriculture on steroids, and it would 
also mean that virtually all programs in the current law would expire.
  We cannot let that happen. We need certainty. Farmers need certainty. 
Ranchers need certainty. Bankers need certainty. Everybody up and down 
every Main Street in rural America needs certainty. Agribusiness needs 
certainty. We need it because our farmers and ranchers and their 
bankers need to know what the farm bill and the programs are going to 
look like.
  In farming, you have to go to your banker every year to get an 
operating loan for the coming year. We raise winter wheat in Kansas. We 
are known for that. Kansas is known as the ``wheat State.'' It will be 
planted in September. That means farmers will be going to their bankers 
as early as late July--next month--or early August to get their 
operating notes for the coming year. Without certainty in the farm 
bill, it is more difficult to make any economic projection, and it is 
more difficult for farmers to obtain loans and for bankers and farm 
credit to provide that credit. That is why we need to get it done now 
in their behalf. Rural America needs to know the rules of the game.
  Just as importantly, American taxpayers are demanding government 
reforms and reduced deficit spending. This bill delivers on both 
fronts. It is true reform.

[[Page S3807]]

  Let's get this bill done. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion 
to proceed.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before turning to the distinguished 
Senator from Nebraska, I want, one more time, to say what a pleasure it 
has been--and continues to be--to work with the senior Senator from 
Kansas. This has been a partnership effort. It has been a strong 
bipartisan effort. And I look forward to continuing to have that be the 
case as we move to get this bill done.
  Now I wish to yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska. And 
I thank Senator Nelson for his strong advocacy for rural development, 
for helping us make these true reforms. He has been a strong advocate 
for the reforms in the commodity title, moving us to a risk-based 
system. He has been a strong advocate for crop insurance and for 
conservation, EQIP--things that are important, I know, to Nebraska.
  This is also someone whom we are going to dearly miss on the 
committee and in the Senate at the end of the year. I think I may put 
the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from North Dakota in a room 
together, lock the door, and not let them leave, because they are both 
so invaluable.
  I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I thank the Senator for her strong efforts in 
bringing together this very important reform bill. We are moving in the 
right direction now with farm policy, moving away from protectionism, 
moving away from outmoded programs to something that certainly is, in 
today's world, important; that is, a safety net but a safety net that 
involves risk management as opposed to direct farm payments.
  This is particularly important to the State of Nebraska and all our 
producers. We are No. 1 in production of many commodities, from red 
meat to great northern beans; second in the Nation in the production of 
ethanol, pumping more than 2 billion gallons of this homegrown fuel 
into our energy supply every year.
  Our productive farmers and ranchers in Nebraska make us fifth in the 
Nation in agricultural receipts. While nearly one-third of all Nebraska 
jobs are related to agriculture, it is our No. 1 industry. Given that 
importance to my State, I truly appreciate the work that has been done 
and the strong bipartisan support of 16 to 5 to get this bill out from 
the committee to the floor.
  Truly it is about reform. It creates a market-oriented safety net. It 
eliminates direct farm subsidy payments. It streamlines and simplifies 
and consolidates programs and at the same time creates jobs, helping 
our economy grow.
  I would like to emphasize one point again. This major reform moves us 
away from government controls on production and moves us toward the 
private market to help sustain American agriculture, going in the right 
direction. It does all that while also making, as it has been noted, a 
substantial contribution, more than $23 billion, to deficit reduction. 
That sets the example of how Washington can begin to get our fiscal 
house in order. Our bipartisan work in the agriculture bill is 
important. It demonstrates that we can work together, particularly when 
it comes to deficit reduction and finding new ways to do things in a 
different way.
  Turning to the reforms, by ending duplication and consolidating 
programs, the bill eliminates more than 100 programs or authorizations. 
It contains strong payment limitation language. Funding programs for 
those who do not need them is nothing short of agricultural welfare. 
Producers in my State understand we cannot keep funding programs for 
those who do not need them, nor should we.
  They understand we do need to fund programs for those who are in 
need, particularly given our national fiscal problems. We need to 
prioritize better. So the bill ends those outdated subsidies, ensuring 
that farmers will not be paid for crops they are not growing on land 
they are not planting, and ends direct farm payments, saving taxpayers 
$15 billion on that program alone. That is a lot of money, even in 
Washington terms.
  As we end those subsidies, the farm bill establishes that crop 
insurance will be the focal point of risk management, as it should, by 
strengthening crop insurance and expanding access so farmers are not 
wiped out by a few days of bad weather. This allows farmers and 
ranchers on their own to select the best risk management for their 
production needs, rather than having to rely on the sometimes good will 
of the government to bail them out in periods of volatility.
  At the same time, one of the greatest challenges farmers face is the 
risk that prices will decline or collapse over several years. When 
things are good, people never expect them to go bad. When they are bad, 
they are worried they will never go good. Insurance will not cover 
multiyear price plunges. This leaves farmers exposed to high costs and 
low prices, and that can put them out of business.
  In the Agriculture Committee, we worked to address this risk by 
creating the Agricultural Risk Coverage Program, a program that 
provides producers with a very simple choice to determine how best to 
manage their operation's risk. It seeks to strike a better balance with 
this market-oriented approach. We want farmers to stay in farming, but 
we do not want them to farm Federal programs.
  To conclude, this is a solid reform-minded start. In my mind, it 
strikes the right balance between the need to cut spending while 
maintaining a strong safety net to ensure a stable supply of food, 
feed, fuel, and fiber. It is my hope that we will act on this bill soon 
and that the House will follow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only the Republicans have time remaining.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the 
distinguished chairwoman and thank her so much for this team effort 
that has brought this excellent farm bill to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as we bring this time to a close, I just 
once again wished to thank my ranking member and friend Senator 
Roberts. I wish to thank all the members of the committee. We had some 
tough negotiations. We had a strong bipartisan vote. As with any farm 
bill, there are still improvements we can make, and we are committed to 
doing that as we move forward.
  But, overall, what we see before us is a true reform bill, cutting 
over $23 billion from the deficit, the first authorizing committee to 
do that, cutting or consolidating about 100 different authorizations or 
programs. That, frankly, is unheard of. We have done that while 
strengthening the farm safety net, moving to a risk-based system, 
strengthening conservation. I am very proud that we have 643 different 
conservation groups supporting this bill. All together, we are moving 
forward on a strong agriculture, reform, food and jobs bill.
  I hope colleagues will join us in a very strong vote to proceed to 
this bill.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The cloture motion 
having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to 
read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 415, S. 3240, a bill to reauthorize 
     agricultural programs through 2017, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, Carl Levin, Kent Conrad, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Herb Kohl, Patrick J. Leahy, Michael F. 
           Bennet, Christopher A. Coons, Al

[[Page S3808]]

           Franken, Max Baucus, Barbara A. Mikulski, Ben Nelson, 
           Amy Klobuchar, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 3240, an original bill to reauthorize 
agricultural programs through 2017, and for other purposes, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 117 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kirk
     Vitter
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 90; the nays are 8. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, there will be an hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with 
the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling 
the final half.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                           Health Care Ruling

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, political leaders on the Democratic side 
of the aisle are now preemptively charging the Supreme Court with 
judicial activism if that Court would strike down President Obama's 
health care law as unconstitutional. I cannot remember when such a 
significant threat to judicial independence was made in attempting to 
affect the outcome of a pending case. It is an outrageous attack on the 
separation of powers.
  Democrats claim unless the Court rules in accordance with the policy 
preferences of a particular speaker, the Court's decision would be 
illegitimate. This is dangerous and this is wrong.
  President Obama wrongly argued it would be unprecedented for the 
Supreme Court to strike down a law that a large congressional majority 
passed. He was wrong on the size of the majority, and he was wrong 
about the Supreme Court's history in striking down laws they consider 
unconstitutional. The President of the United States knows better 
because he is a former constitutional law lecturer. He should know the 
Supreme Court has done just that on many occasions over more than two 
centuries, and it is just not the case, as Democrats claim, that the 
Supreme Court can strike down ObamaCare only by failing to follow 
established commerce clause jurisprudence.
  When the Judiciary Committee held a hearing last year on the 
constitutionality of the law, I asked whether the Supreme Court would 
need to overturn any of its precedents to strike down the individual 
mandate part of the health care reform. None of the witnesses--and most 
of those witnesses were selected by the majority Democrats--could 
identify a single precedent that would have to be struck down. No 
matter how many times liberals repeat the statement, it is just not 
so--the Supreme Court would not be an activist court if it struck down 
health care reform.
  What is unprecedented is health care reform's infringement on 
personal liberty. The Constitution establishes a very limited Federal 
Government. But when the Supreme Court asked him the obvious question 
of what limit to Federal power would exist if the individual mandate 
were upheld, the Solicitor General, arguing for the government and in 
support of the constitutionality, could not and did not provide an 
answer.
  So the Obama administration believes the Federal Government can force 
Americans to purchase broccoli or gym memberships, and don't believe 
anyone who says otherwise once we start down that road of unprecedented 
power of the Federal Government under the commerce clause.
  Critics contend that the whole body of law allowing Federal 
regulation of the economy would be threatened if the Supreme Court 
struck down the health care reform bill. They even say that such a 
ruling would harm the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. That is just 
plain nonsense. The Supreme Court has never addressed a law like this. 
Striking down ObamaCare would have no effect on any other existing law.
  The real change in the law--and to the country as a whole--would be 
if the health care reform bill were upheld as constitutional. People 
understand this instinctively. A recent Gallup poll found that 72 
percent of Americans--including even 56 percent of people who call 
themselves Democrats--believe the individual mandate is 
unconstitutional. So they clearly would accept the legitimacy of a 
ruling striking down the individual mandate.
  There is a constitutional law professor I am familiar with who leans 
on the conservative side. He rarely discusses his work with his young 
children. But the health care case has generated such attention that 
his 8-year-old son asked him about it. The father explained that the 
case involved whether the government could make people buy health 
insurance. This is what his 8-year-old son said: ``They can't do that. 
This is a free country.'' So even 8-year-olds understand the overreach 
of health care reform.
  Unlike the supporters of ObamaCare, who really never bothered to 
think through the law's constitutionality before passing it, most 
Americans understand that this law threatens our freedom unlike any 
previous law. And I expect that the Supreme Court will agree. They 
understand that the law is not compatible with the Constitution and 
must be struck down.
  It is ridiculous to claim that striking down this law would be 
judicial activism. A ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional would 
recognize that the law departed from the text of the Constitution, the 
very structure of our federalism, and even against the history of our 
country.
  As former Judge McConnell has written, judicial activism cannot be 
defined one way when the meaning of actual constitutional text is at 
issue and another way when the words of the Constitution are silent on 
questions such as same-sex marriage and abortion. This is what Judge 
McConnell wrote:

       [T]here cannot be one set of rules for liberal justices and 
     another set for conservatives.

  By threatening the Court in advance, the critics are showing that 
they now have real doubts that the health care reform bill is 
constitutional. Whether addressed to an individual Justice or to the 
Court as a whole, claims that only one possible result can be reached 
or the Court's ruling would be illegitimate are shockingly improper 
attempts to influence a pending case.
  But all the Justices seem to have agreed to combat what they see as 
any threat to their judicial independence. I suspect that inappropriate 
attempts to influence the Court's decisions on pending cases will 
backfire. They will make the Justices more determined than ever to show 
that they are adhering to their oath to defend the Constitution without 
regard to popular opinion. They will never want their rulings to appear 
to have been the result of political browbeating. So let the

[[Page S3809]]

Justices undertake their proper responsibility in deciding the 
constitutionality of health care reform. Let them do it without 
threatening to pillory them in advance if we do not like the outcome. 
There is always time for reasoned criticism after any ruling and 
particularly this ruling.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The Senator from Utah is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand today to respond to what I believe 
are irresponsible and dangerous attacks on the legitimacy of the 
Supreme Court of the United States.
  Over a 3-day period, beginning on March 26 of this year, the Supreme 
Court held more than 6 hours of oral argument to address the 
constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. I was privileged to 
attend each of those sessions, and I can say that as a lifelong student 
of the Constitution and as one who served as a law clerk at the Supreme 
Court of the United States, I was very interested to not only watch the 
arguments but also to read many of the briefs and follow each of the 
proceedings very closely.
  Like so many others who watched or read those proceedings, I was most 
impressed by the quality of the questions, the quality of the advocacy, 
and the overall discussion that took place in the Supreme Court. 
Through their questions, the Justices showed keen interest in the 
nature of the arguments made in support of ObamaCare. For example, 
Justice Kennedy asked whether, under the administration's theory of the 
commerce clause, there could be any meaningful limitation on the 
Federal Government's power under the commerce clause. He asked 
specifically, ``Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?'' Such 
questions and hypotheticals are common and they are a useful way by 
which lawyers and judges tend to test the basic principled limits 
enshrined in our Constitution.
  If the Federal Government may compel commerce so that it may regulate 
the resulting commercial activity, there would arguably be little, if 
any, limit to the scope of Federal power. There would be no aspect of 
our individual lives that the Federal Government could not dictate and 
control. Such an all-powerful authority is, of course, flatly 
inconsistent with the Constitution's doctrine of enumerated powers--
this principle that is perhaps more well-settled than any other 
principle within our almost 225-year-old founding era document.

  Based on the Justices' questions and oral argument, many 
commentators--myself included--have predicted that the Supreme Court 
may well choose to invalidate the individual mandate of the Affordable 
Care Act. Apparently anticipating this possible outcome, some of my 
colleagues, as well as President Obama, have made statements suggesting 
that it would somehow be improper for the Supreme Court to invalidate 
the Affordable Care Act. They have asserted that striking down an act 
of Congress such as this one would somehow amount to judicial activism 
and that that would otherwise be wildly inappropriate. They have 
criticized some of the questions asked by individual Justices, and they 
have even gone so far as to suggest that those Justices who might vote 
to invalidate the Affordable Care Act would do so for reasons 
representing bias or partisan political motivations. This reminds me of 
the old saying that you can often tell in a particular game which team 
is losing by which side happens to be yelling at the referee.
  In response to these false and, frankly, reckless statements, I would 
like to make three points.
  First, attempts to manipulate or to bully the Supreme Court, 
especially during deliberations in a particular proceeding, are 
irresponsible, and they tend to threaten the very fabric of our 
constitutional Republic. Each Justice has sworn an oath to support, 
defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to 
discharge his or her duties faithfully and impartially.
  From time to time, politicians and others may disagree with the Court 
as to important constitutional issues or even on the merits of a 
particular case. I certainly feel that way myself from time to time. 
But it is simply inappropriate for elected representatives--who 
themselves have sworn an oath to the Constitution--in a spirit of 
partisanship, to question the honesty and impartiality of our Nation's 
highest Court in what could be perceived as part of an effort on the 
part of those elected politicians to influence a case pending before 
the Supreme Court.
  Second, criticisms of the well-established principle of judicial 
review grossly misrepresent how our constitutional Republic functions.
  President Obama and some Members of this body have suggested that the 
judiciary--which they sometimes denigrate as a group of unelected 
people--should simply defer to Congress. But, of course, each branch of 
government, including the judiciary, has an essential duty under the 
Constitution to police its own actions, to make sure that its own 
actions comply with the text, the spirit, and the letter of the 
Constitution.
  Congress and the executive branch should police themselves to make 
sure they don't transgress those limits. But when the political 
branches happen to overstep their own boundaries, their own legitimate 
limits--as I believe happened with the individual mandate--the Supreme 
Court can and indeed must enforce the Constitution.
  In a recent appearance before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Breyer 
explained, ``We are the boundary patrol.'' The Constitution sets 
boundaries, of course. That is what is at issue here. This foundational 
principle applies to popular laws just as much as it applies to 
unpopular laws.
  The vast majority of Americans--about 74 percent, according to one 
recent poll--oppose the ObamaCare individual mandate. The Supreme Court 
will not strike it down merely because it is unpopular, but the Court 
must do so if the mandate exceeds the authority granted to Congress 
under the Constitution. That is what is at issue.
  Third and finally, it simply is not the case that a court can 
properly be described as activist just because it enforces the 
Constitution's structural limits on Federal power. In this context, it 
is not altogether helpful to focus the discussion of whether the Court 
is acting properly on the contours of the words ``activist'' or 
``activism.'' We have to remember that, for the Supreme Court, not 
acting to invalidate an unconstitutional law is every bit as bad, is 
every bit as repugnant to the rule of law and to the Constitution as it 
is for the Court to act to invalidate a law that is entirely justified 
on a constitutional basis. Both represent, both are the product of a 
betrayal of the Supreme Court's duty to decide cases according to the 
laws and to the Constitution of the United States of America.
  When the Supreme Court acts to enforce the Constitution's limits on 
Federal power--as I expect it may do in the Affordable Care Act case--
it does so pursuant to specific textual provisions of the Constitution. 
Enforcing the law in this undeniably legitimate matter is not activist; 
rather, it is an essential function of the judiciary in preserving the 
liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. Among those liberties, of 
course, are those protected by perhaps the most important fundamental 
component of the Constitution, this notion that we are all protected 
when the power of Congress and the power of the Federal Government as a 
whole is restricted. This is why James Madison appropriately observed 
that it was with good reason that the Founding Fathers reserved to the 
States powers that he described as numerous and indefinite, while 
describing those powers that were vested in this body as few and 
defined. We are all safer, we are all more free, we are all more 
prosperous to the extent that we stand by this most important 
fundamental precept of the Constitution. That is what is at issue in 
this case.
  I hope and I trust that, moving forward, President Obama and my 
colleagues in this body will refrain from attempting to bully the 
Supreme Court or seeking to misrepresent the Court's important work in 
fulfilling its constitutional duties. Let's stop yelling at the 
referees and let the Supreme Court do its job while we do ours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to speak to this same question. As 
everyone knows, a ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare is 
expected

[[Page S3810]]

later this month. I think it is important that it be done in the right 
context. A lot of our Democratic colleagues have made clear their view 
that if the ruling doesn't go the way they want it to, it is not 
because they passed an unconstitutional law but rather, in their view, 
because it is some kind of a partisan activity by judicial activists 
and a lot of attention has been specifically focused on Chief Justice 
Roberts. This should not stand.
  The President himself actually started this, I think, when he said:

       I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what 
     would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning 
     a law that was passed by a strong majority of a 
     democratically elected Congress.

  Never mind it was not passed by a strong majority--and, by the way, 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee said something very recently, 
basically issuing a warning to Chief Justice Roberts on the floor of 
the Senate, stating that a 5-to-4 decision to overturn the law would be 
controversial. ``I trust he will be a Chief Justice for all of us and 
that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the 
judicial branch.'' In other words, the intimation here is if the 
decision doesn't go their way, the Court's reputation, and specifically 
the reputation of Chief Justice Roberts, is on the line.
  The Wall Street Journal wrote about this, and others have, talking 
about threats by the President and certain other members of his party 
with warnings that:

       Mr. Roberts has a choice--either uphold ObamaCare, or be 
     portrayed a radical who wants to repeal the New Deal and a 
     century of precedent.

  Let's clear up a few things. First of all, as I said, the law was not 
passed by a strong majority of Congress, it was passed exclusively by 
Democrats. Not a single Republican supported it. It was the first time 
in history that major domestic legislation was passed by one party.
  That is not the key point in terms of the constitutionality of the 
law, however. The key point is that the Court's job is, as Chief 
Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing, to work as an umpire, 
calling the balls and strikes as the Court sees them. Nonlegal 
arguments, such as the Court's decisions have to be popular or 
unanimous--those are just unserious and frankly political rhetoric.
  We all know that in 1803, in the Marbury v. Madison case, the U.S. 
Supreme Court established the review of congressional action under 
article III of the Constitution. Since then, courts have overturned 
hundreds of laws. It would hardly be, therefore, unprecedented or 
extraordinary for the Court to overturn a congressional enactment as 
the President has said. As the Supreme Court noted in that case, courts 
determining whether acts of the legislative branch are consistent with 
the Constitution is ``of the very essence of judicial duty.'' The Court 
further noted that ``the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act 
of the legislature.'' If the two conflict, ``the Constitution and not 
such ordinary act must govern the case to which they both apply.''
  The actual substance of the case which Democrats seem eager to avoid 
talking about is that ObamaCare, if upheld, empowers the Federal 
Government to order its citizens to purchase particular goods and 
services that the government believes its citizens must have. That sort 
of all-powerful Federal Government is at odds with the concept of 
enumerated powers, as is creating commerce in order to regulate it, as 
Justice Kennedy intimated at the oral argument.
  This is why a significant majority of Americans dislike the law. They 
know the Constitution is meant to place limits on the power of our 
Government in order to protect the freedom of the people.
  I can't guess how the Court is going to rule. It may not agree with 
my views. But I suggest that political leaders in the executive and 
legislative branches need to cool their rhetoric, as my colleague said, 
stop yelling at the umpire and stop the thinly veiled threats and react 
to the ruling after it is rendered, rather than before.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, would the Chair advise me when 5 minutes 
have elapsed.
  I wish to add a few more words to what has already been said by some 
of our most distinguished lawyers in the Senate; that is, it is not 
controversial that, since 1803, the doctrine of judicial review, as 
decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, has held in essence that it is the 
responsibility of the judiciary, the Supreme Court, to say what the law 
is. Congress has its role and the Court has its role and they are 
different. We can tell one reason they are different is because 
Congress is elected every 6 years in the Senate, every 2 years in the 
House. We are accountable to the people for our decisions, for the 
policies we vote for and against. That is why we are called the 
political branches of government, as is the executive branch. The 
President stands for election. In essence, every Presidential election, 
every congressional election is a referendum on the people and the 
policies they embrace.
  The role of the Supreme Court and Federal courts is very different, 
as we all know. It is kind of remarkable to me that we are having this 
conversation, but it is necessitated by the fact that the President and 
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee have--at 
different times and different places--questioned the legitimacy of the 
Supreme Court performing this function, which Chief Justice John 
Marshall wrote about in 1803 in Marbury v. Madison, that it is the 
role, the emphatic duty of the Court to say what the law is.
  If it is Congress's responsibility to write the policies and to write 
legislation, how is it different from the judiciary? Sometimes the 
judiciary interprets that legislation, trying to figure out what 
Congress intended. But in the area of constitutional review, more 
fundamentally they want to make sure Congress has stayed within the 
limits imposed upon it by the American people when they ratified the 
U.S. Constitution. Of course, that is the big decision in the health 
care case.

  It is almost unprecedented. We probably have to go back to the 19th 
century to find where the Supreme Court gave so much time for advocates 
to argue a Supreme Court case. Ordinarily, it is very strict time 
limits. But here the Court set 3 days' worth of arguments down because 
of the importance of the case and importance of the issues that the 
Court will be called upon to decide.
  My colleagues have already talked about the fact that the individual 
mandate has been the focus of so much attention. It is not the only 
issue. There is another very important issue in terms of whether the 
Congress and the Federal Government can commandeer State resources 
through a huge expansion in Medicaid, which is then forced down on the 
States that they then have to accommodate within their State balanced 
budget requirements. But on the individual mandate, certainly we saw 
how the Solicitor General of the United States stumbled, not because he 
is inarticulate or incapable--he is very articulate, he is a very 
capable lawyer--but he simply did not have a good argument to make when 
he was asked what is the principle limitation on the Federal 
Government's authority under the commerce clause if the Federal 
Government can do this. Stated another way, what is it that the 
Congress cannot do, the Federal Government cannot do, if they can force 
us to buy a government-approved product and then fine us if we do not 
do that, which is the individual mandated argument.
  I don't think it is a controversial topic, and I am surprised we even 
find ourselves here, responding to the Congress's remarks and the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee's remarks questioning the authority 
that existed since 1810 in Marbury v. Madison, the doctrine of judicial 
review and the role of the judiciary to say what the fundamental law of 
the land allows and does not allow in terms of Federal power.
  There is another argument being made; that is, that if the Supreme 
Court comes out and disagrees with Congress on the health care law, 
that somehow its legitimacy will be jeopardized. I do not think public 
opinion polls have or should have anything to do with the way the 
Supreme Court decides an issue because their focus should be on the 
Constitution and not on the policy arguments. In other words, they 
should not interfere with our role to make policy because, of course, 
we are then held accountable to the voters while they are given life 
tenure and they are given the protection

[[Page S3811]]

of no reduction in their salary during their service on the bench--
exactly for the reason they need to be protected from public opinion 
because their role is to focus on the Constitution.
  I close by saying, according to a recent poll, 74 percent of 
Americans want the Court to strike down the individual mandate. Were 
the Court to do that, it would hardly undermine the legitimacy of the 
Court if the Court happened to, by coincidence, render a decision that 
the majority of Americans would agree with.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the motion to invoke cloture on the 
motion to proceed to the agriculture bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. I ask consent to speaking as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Health Care Reform

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the speech given 
on health care reform, and I would like to put in perspective what the 
challenge is that faces America. Absent health care reform, absent a 
change in the growing increase in the cost of medical care, not only 
families but businesses and governments will find it impossible to 
adequately fund the health care Americans need. If we do not come 
together, as we tried with our health care reform bill, and dedicate 
ourselves to reducing the increase in the growth of the cost of medical 
care and do it with an assurance of quality being protected, then the 
net result of all this, I am afraid, is going to end up with America 
with medical bills it cannot pay.
  We find as we look at government programs--Medicare, Medicaid, 
veterans programs, for example--that if we do not change the projected 
rate of growth of cost in these programs, in just a short period of 
time, the Federal budget of America will be consumed by health care 
costs and interest on the national debt to the exclusion of everything 
else.
  I just heard my friend, the Senator from Texas, speak against 
individual mandates. The word ``mandate,'' I am sure, rubs many people 
the wrong way. But let's take a look at what that individual mandate 
is. From my point of view, it is a question of individual 
responsibility, whether individuals in this country have a 
responsibility to have health insurance.
  Some argue of course not; they do not. Yet the reality is that if we 
do not have some sort of individual responsibility, the people without 
health insurance will get sick, present themselves at the hospital, be 
taken care of, and their expenses will be shifted to all the rest of 
us, to everyone else. So to argue that people have no responsibility to 
have health insurance is an argument against individual responsibility 
and an argument that others should have to pay for the medical bills of 
those who have no insurance. That, to me, is unfair as well.
  We had, within the Health Care Reform Act, protection against 
expensive premiums. We limited the amount an individual would have to 
pay for health insurance to 8 percent of their income. We provided 
special help to those in lower income categories. I think that in 
itself is an effort to strike the right balance.
  I have been given a note by the staff that the Republican side has 
time left. I see my colleague, the Senator from Alabama, has come to 
the floor. I will yield to him at this point and resume after he has 
finished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I know the Senator is the assistant 
leader. The majority has a lot of things to do. If he would like to 
finish now, I would be pleased to yield.
  The American people are all worried about the direction of our 
country and for a good reason; they have witnessed a growing disregard 
for the Constitution and the limits that it places on the federal 
government. Our Government is a government of limited powers. In 
essence, I hear my friend and colleague and able advocate Senator 
Durbin say the question is about medical care. The question is about, 
he thinks, that it is unfair that some people do not buy insurance and 
therefore we ought to make them buy insurance. He thinks that is 
unfair.
  We had a nearly year-long debate in this Congress, and Senator Durbin 
prevailed by a single vote, before Senator Brown could be confirmed to 
kill the health care bill. They were able to pass it through with an 
interim Senator by a single vote and it passed. But that is not what I 
and Senator Cornyn and others are here to talk about today. The point 
today is, Should the Supreme Court of the United States decide this 
question as a matter of law and principle or should they divine what 
they think the people want--although the polls show the American people 
consistently oppose this legislation and never supported it, ever, but 
it was rammed through anyway. So they want to say: This is important. 
We think it is unfair--even though the polling data shows people don't 
want this law--and the Supreme Court should uphold the law and 
shouldn't worry about a little thing like the Constitution and limited 
powers.

  So that is what I want to talk about today. I want to affirm the duty 
of the Supreme Court of the United States, and that duty is to fairly 
and objectively interpret the Constitution and to render justice, not 
based on polling data and not based on congressional desire.
  Polling data shows that the American people overwhelmingly think the 
law is an impermissible, unconstitutional regulation, so it is 
difficult for me to say this is such a matter that the Supreme Court 
has to acknowledge a minority view and approve it even if the 
Constitution doesn't agree. I don't think that is an argument that can 
be sustained, in my view.
  Since the oral arguments in the case, in my view--and a lot of my 
colleagues share this view--the President himself, Democrats in the 
House and the Senate, their friends in the media and liberal 
government, pro-health care advocates have stepped up undignified and 
unjustified attacks on the Court, which seems to me to be a pretty 
transparent effort to try to influence the decision of an independent 
branch of government. It also seems to me an attempt--since I have been 
a student of this for some time now--to lay the groundwork and to 
declare that the Supreme Court is somehow illegitimate if they don't 
render a verdict in line with one that my colleagues think should be 
rendered.
  I will say parenthetically that 2 years ago when this passed 60 to 
40, it took 60 votes to pass it. It wouldn't pass today. It wouldn't 
even come close to having 60 votes today because the American people 
spoke and sent home a lot of people who voted for this bill when they 
didn't want them voting for it. That was a big deal in the election, 
frankly, if you want to talk about that.
  So this philosophy that we hear advocated is a dangerous philosophy 
of law and jurisprudence. It is results-oriented. It is political, not 
law, and it surely is contrary to the great heritage of law that this 
country has been so blessed with. It may be that my colleagues are 
concerned because when pressed by the Supreme Court Justices during 
oral argument, the Solicitor General of the United States seemed to be 
utterly incapable of identifying any limiting principle on government 
power. The Solicitor General proffered various reasons why health care 
is unique, but not one of them was effectively grounded on any 
constitutional text, principle, or theory--at least in my view.
  People can disagree. The Justices will have the final word on it. The 
nonlegal argument that the Court should not overturn a popular law 
suggested by many is, of course, irrelevant, not only because this 
health care law is, in fact, unpopular, but because popularity does not 
translate into constitutionality. Of course, under the popularity 
theory, it would be wrong for the Court to strike down the Defense of 
Marriage Act, which the administration has decided is unconstitutional 
and refuses to defend in court, even though the law was so popular that 
it passed 342 to 67 in the House and 85 to 14 in the Senate. So making 
the popularity argument revealed the lack of legal argument. It 
condemns such advocates as advocates against law, not for law.

[[Page S3812]]

  Supporters of the health care law have disdainfully and consistently 
dismissed the notion, and it was done during the debate, that the 
legislation raised serious constitutional questions. I remember the 
debate in the Senate. This disdain was no more starkly demonstrated 
than when a reporter asked then-Speaker of the House of Representatives 
Nancy Pelosi what the constitutional basis was for the statute, and she 
condescendingly replied: Are you serious?
  Is our time up?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. REID. How much time does the Senator need?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how long might the majority leader 
expect to be, and if it is possible to have consent to speak an 
additional 5 minutes after the majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Alabama be recognized for another 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I know the majority leader is extremely busy, and I 
appreciate his courtesy and respect with the difficult duty he has 
here.
  She said: Are you serious? Well, when the Solicitor General of the 
United States was being grilled by the Justices, I have to say it 
looked serious then. It is axiomatic that the Commerce clause--which is 
the provision in the Constitution that the law's supporters argue gives 
the government the power to take over health care--was never understood 
to grant unlimited power to the Federal Government. The Federal 
Government, without doubt, is a government of limited powers.
  It certainly never meant that Congress could regulate noncommerce 
under the power to regulate commerce. We can't regulate noncommerce 
when the only power the Federal Government is given is the power to 
regulate commerce. Give me a break.
  As distinguished Judge Roger Vinson stated in his opinion in this 
case when he struck this bill down:

       It would be a radical departure from existing law to hold 
     that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce 
     clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive 
     individual into a commercial transaction with a third party 
     merely by asserting--as it was done in the Act--that 
     compelling the actual transaction is itself ``commercial and 
     economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate 
     commerce,'' it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress 
     could do almost anything it wanted . . . If Congress can 
     penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in 
     commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would 
     have been in vain, for it would be ``difficult to perceive 
     any limitation on federal power'' (Lopez), and we would have 
     a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the 
     Founding Fathers could have intended.

  It is a serious question. The Supreme Court needs to decide it, and 
they don't need to have Congress trying to pressure them one way or the 
other.
  The President of the United States, President Obama, might think that 
it is, in his words ``unprecedented'' or ``extraordinary'' for the 
Court to strike down a clearly unconstitutional statute, but it is not. 
The Supreme Court has a duty under the Constitution and under the 
powers of the judiciary to speak clearly if Congress passes a law that 
violates the Constitution, that assumes powers Congress does not have, 
and that attempts to act in ways on behalf of the Federal Government 
that the Constitution never gave the government the power to do. They 
have a duty to strike it down.

  The Court's reputation would be damaged if it bows to political 
bullying, but it won't be damaged if it follows the Constitution. I 
think it is wrong to disparage and threaten the Court during the 
pendency of a case in order to influence the outcome. I don't have any 
problem with criticizing a decision if I disagree with it, but to try 
to politically pressure the Court I think is wrong for us to do.
  These are important questions of law. I have an opinion, but the 
Court has a duty. That duty is to decide the case before them 
impartially, as a neutral umpire, and without regard to the crowd 
noise. I believe they will do their duty, and we all await the outcome.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank the majority leader.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


                        Productivity of Congress

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the last Congress was the most productive in 
the history of the country. Some say not the most productive, but 
certainly no one disagrees that it is the most productive since 
Franklin Roosevelt was President during his first term. But since there 
is a new majority in the House, this Congress has been altogether 
different and that is an understatement.
  Consistently this Congress has taken weeks or months to pass even 
simple, commonsense legislation and proposals that would have 
previously passed in minutes. The Senate has wasted literally months 
considering bipartisan bills only to have those bills smothered to 
death under nonrelevant Republican amendments.
  Congressional Republicans have held even the most important jobs 
measures hostage to extract votes on unrelated ideological amendments--
despite the minority leader's own call to ``stop all the showboats.'' 
Those were his words.
  The Democrats and American people have endured this blatant 
obstruction all year--in fact, for 18 months. What is it we are talking 
about? Obstruction. If you look in the dictionary, it says it all. I 
did that this morning. The dictionary says that obstruction is a 
condition of being clogged or blocked. Doesn't that define what has 
happened here in this wonderful body we call the Senate? Republicans 
have clogged or blocked everything we have tried to do, even things 
they have agreed on.
  Yesterday we read that we will have to endure it every day for the 
rest of the year--every day for the rest of this Congress. And this 
came from Congressman Cantor, the No. 2 person in the Republican-
dominated House of Representatives. House Republican leaders admit they 
have given up on actually running the country. Despite the work that 
remains to keep our country on the right track and continue 27 months 
of private sector job growth, they say they are done legislating for 
the year, and in spite of the fact the President is working to create 
4.3 million private sector jobs.
  But listen to this report from the political publication Politico 
yesterday, and I quote:

       Serious legislating is all but done until after the 
     election . . . The rest of this year, Cantor said, will 
     likely be about sending ``signals. . . .''

  Let's try that again. Because it is hard to comprehend that someone 
who is supposedly running the other body would say such a thing, but he 
did.

       Serious legislation is all but done until after the 
     election. The rest of this year, Cantor said, will likely be 
     about sending ``signals. . . .''
  So rather than work with Democrats to strengthen our economy and 
create jobs, congressional Republicans will put on a show designed to 
demonstrate the extreme ideological direction in which they would lead 
this country.
  Majority Leader Cantor's candor is frightening. He said out loud what 
practically every Republican on Capitol Hill has been thinking all 
along: They care more about winning elections than creating jobs. We 
just don't usually hear them say so in public when reporters are 
listening.
  Just a short month ago, Speaker Boehner urged Congress ``to roll up 
your sleeves and get to work.'' To an audience of conservatives, the 
Speaker said, ``We can't wait until after the election to legislate.''
  Less than a week after, he said Leader McConnell urged us to ``stop 
the show votes that are designed to fail. Let's stop the blame game. 
Let's come together and do what the American people expect us to do.''
  The statements of Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell are Orwellian. 
They do exactly the opposite of what they say.
  Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, by all means a moderate Senator, 
who is retiring amid frustration of increasing partisanship in 
Washington, wrote to me in April to urge quick Senate action on many of 
the challenging issues facing us. It was a letter crying out for help--
but not for help from us, not for help from Democrats. She was speaking 
to the Republicans. She knew they were holding up virtually everything 
we were trying to do. I am sure that is one reason this fine woman is 
leaving the Senate.

[[Page S3813]]

  Leader Cantor's remarks provide a window into the true Republican 
agenda. It seems when congressional Republicans forget the world is 
watching, they say what they really mean. They are more interested in 
putting on a partisan sideshow than in solving the real problems facing 
this Nation. In truth this comes as no surprise. It is just more of the 
same.
  Republicans have launched a series of attacks on access to health 
care for women, even contraception, and have filibustered legislation 
to ensure American women get equal pay for equal work.
  In my desk--I haven't used this in a while, but I knew it was here 
all the time. Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster, filibuster. That is 
what obstruction is all about. ``Filibuster,'' from the dictionary:

       One of a class of piratical adventurers who pillaged the 
     Spanish colonies in the West Indies during the 17th century; 
     one who engages in unauthorized and irregular warfare against 
     foreign States; a pirate craft.

  Now, it is also defined as:

       To obstruct progress in legislative assembly; to practice 
     obstruction.

  That is what they have done. They have filibustered legislation to 
ensure American women get equal pay for equal work. Who could be 
against that? The American people--if we take a poll, no one is against 
it. Republicans aren't against it, except Republicans in the Congress 
of the United States.
  They have stopped us from restoring fairness to the Tax Code to 
ensure billionaires don't pay a lower tax than middle-class families. 
They put women at risk by holding the Violence Against Women Act in 
limbo. They blocked a bill to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters, 
and first responders. They have stalled important jobs measures such as 
the aviation bill. We had 22 short-term extensions of that.
  Finally, they shut down the government on one occasion--the 
government as it relates to the Federal Aviation Administration--
putting tens of thousands of people out of work. They have stalled for 
months and months work done on a bipartisan basis by two fine Senators: 
Senator Boxer, the chairman of that committee, and Senator Inhofe, the 
ranking member. It doesn't matter. They are stalling the highway bill. 
Millions of jobs. We can't get it done.
  For months, congressional Republicans have actively worked against 
any piece of legislation that might create jobs or support economic 
growth. We don't need to take my word for it, just look at the record. 
Democrats have known all along that congressional Republicans' No. 1 
goal isn't to improve the economy or to create jobs. It is to defeat 
President Obama.
  People say: Oh, come on. You don't really mean that, do you? I mean 
every word of it. Here is why: The leader of the Republicans in the 
Senate said it. I didn't make it up. The minority leader, the senior 
Senator from Kentucky, said so plainly in another one of those moments 
of candor. Here is what he said:

       The single most important thing we want to achieve is for 
     President Obama to be a one-term President.

  He said that in October of 2010 when this country was mired in 
monumental challenges, rather than saying let's work together and do 
some things. How many jobs could we have created if we had some 
semblance of help from the Republicans in Congress? Not 4.3 million 
jobs. Remember, 8 million or 10 million were lost in the Bush 
administration. We have struggled to get some of them back. We could 
have created millions more jobs just with a little help, but here is 
where they are headed. They are headed toward doing everything they 
can, no matter what it takes, to try to make President Obama a one-term 
President.
  We are fighting back from the greatest recession since the Great 
Depression. Yet Republicans' top priority hasn't been to create jobs; 
their top priority wasn't to help businesses to grow and to have people 
hire workers. It wasn't to train the next generation of skilled 
employees or to hire more cops and firefighters or to put construction 
crews back to work building those roads and bridges we need. We have 
70,000--not 7,000--70,000 bridges that are in trouble in this country. 
They need help.
  We have a bridge in Reno, NV, where they will not have the kids stay 
on the schoolbus. They take them out, drive the bus over the bridge, 
and have the kids walk across the bridge. That is not the only place; 
all over the country that is happening. But we are getting no help. No, 
that wasn't their top priority, to help create those construction jobs. 
It was to drag down the economy in the hopes of defeating President 
Obama. Thanks to Leader Cantor's candor, today we know Republican 
priorities haven't changed one single bit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the majority leader for 
that statement. He comes to the floor with the other members of the 
leadership team to call to the attention of the Nation a statement made 
yesterday by the majority leader of the House Republicans, Eric Cantor 
of Virginia.

  Many people remember, I say to the majority leader, that it was Eric 
Cantor who was appointed to the deficit task force the President 
created, chaired by Vice President Joe Biden--a bipartisan effort to 
try to deal with the deficit--and people will remember there came a 
moment after several weeks when Mr. Cantor stood up and said: I am 
leaving. He walked out, literally walked out of this highest level 
negotiation on deficit reduction. He said: I want no part of it.
  Well, we have another walkaway. Eric Cantor, the majority leader in 
the House, has announced we are finished for business this year. There 
is nothing more we are going to do. We are going to politic and 
campaign and posture. To him, I guess, that is an important 
responsibility. To the rest of America it is an abdication of 
responsibility--an abdication of responsibility.
  This morning, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, 
appeared before the Joint Economic Committee. They wanted to talk to 
him about what more could be done at the Federal Reserve on monetary 
policy dealing with interest rates to get the economy moving forward. 
It is a legitimate policy question. But if Mr. Bernanke could have 
turned the tables for a moment, he might have asked the Members of 
Congress: Well, what are you doing to get the economy moving forward? I 
think that is a reasonable question.
  Let me suggest to Mr. Cantor, who thinks we are finished for business 
this year, that there are many elements of outstanding business that 
can help create jobs in America. Let's start with the first one: the 
Transportation bill. The Transportation bill will create 2.8 million 
jobs in America. What kind of jobs? As the majority leader said, jobs 
to repair bridges and highways, to build our airports, to make sure 
America has a safe infrastructure upon which to build our economy.
  Well, in the Senate, we came to an agreement. Senator Barbara Boxer, 
the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator 
Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma, the ranking Republican member, reached an 
agreement and brought a bill to the Senate floor. We went through the 
long process of amendments, and it passed. I think the final rollcall 
was 74 to 22. It was an overwhelming bipartisan vote that extended for 
2 years highway construction in America and created 2.8 million jobs.
  Well, obviously, that is something that is good for America. The 
question that should be asked is, Well, where was the House 
Transportation bill? The honest answer is they never produced one--
never. They couldn't agree on a bill. The House Republicans failed to 
pass the Transportation bill. Ultimately, they passed a measure to 
extend the current highway trust fund and taxes that are collected to 
July 1, just a few weeks from now.
  Then the majority leader appointed a conference committee, and I am 
honored to be on that committee with a number of my colleagues. I can't 
tell my colleagues how hard Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe have 
worked on that committee. This bipartisan effort, Democrats and 
Republicans, has resulted in a compromised counteroffer which they 
personally hand-delivered to the Chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee John Mica. They understand we have a July 1 
deadline. They understand the urgency to take it up and move it to 
create and keep 2.8 million jobs in America.
  What was the response of Speaker Boehner? Well, it was warming and

[[Page S3814]]

welcoming, but the fact is as of today, maybe tomorrow--the House is 
gone for a week. So in this critical period of time when we are up 
against a July 1 deadline, when millions of American jobs are on the 
line, the House Republicans are leaving and the Republican majority 
leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, said it doesn't make any difference if 
they stayed because they are not going to do anything significant. They 
are just going to politic and posture.
  How do we explain that to the families of all of these workers across 
America--workers who need a job at a time when the economy is tough? I 
guess people living paycheck to paycheck now have to accept this 
furlough that the majority leader has announced for the rest of the 
year.
  There is important work to be done, and it isn't just the 
Transportation bill. The majority leader raised some questions and 
issues that are still pending between us. Let me also add another one 
to the list: cybersecurity.
  I attended a meeting, I guess it was about 2 months ago, the likes of 
which I have never seen since I have been in the Senate. We had a 
request by the administration--in fact, it started with Senator 
Mikulski asking them for it--to ask all of the Senators, Democrats and 
Republicans, to go to a classified setting--a secret setting--for a 
briefing on cybersecurity. There was a large turnout, Democrats and 
Republicans, and they spelled out to us the threat to the United States 
of America from China, Russia, other countries, and individual actors 
who are trying to invade our information technology to steal the 
secrets not only of our government but also of major companies, to 
burrow into our systems such as the utilities of America and be 
prepared at a moments' notice to destroy the capacity of the U.S. 
economy or worse.
  We went through the exercise, and it really spelled out for us what 
might happen; what might happen if there were a cybersecurity attack 
into the United States and it literally turned out the lights on the 
great city of New York. What would happen? Well, it would take days 
before we could restore service. In the process, people would die, the 
economy would be crippled, and we are at risk of that happening.
  So the administration has produced a cybersecurity bill to keep 
America safe from that kind of attack. Well, unfortunately, it doesn't 
meet Mr. Cantor's test. He has told us we can't do anything the rest of 
the year. All we can do is campaign, politic, and give speeches.
  We have a responsibility as Members of the Senate and the House to 
accept the challenges facing this Nation; No. 1, to create jobs, 
invigorate the economy, and get this country moving forward; second, 
keeping America safe.

  I might say to Mr. Cantor from Virginia, take some time during your 
next recess--which is next week--and go over to the Central 
Intelligence Agency and sit down with them and talk about cybersecurity 
and the danger to the United States, and ask them if we can wait 6 
months or a year to get back to this issue. I know what they are going 
to say. They are going to remind him he swore to defend and uphold this 
great United States of America. And if he is going to do it, he ought 
to roll up his sleeves and go to work instead of coming up with another 
excuse for political campaigning and delay.
  This comes down to a basic question. Eric Cantor, House Republican 
majority leader, has all but predicted that 2012--this year--is 
substantively over. We are finished. No more heavy lifting. It reminds 
me of when I was a kid on the last day of school before summer 
vacation. Remember that? It is usually a half day. You could not wait 
to race out the front door, screaming and hollering and throwing things 
in every direction, jumping up and down with your buddies, saying: We 
are going to go swimming tomorrow. And get your bike out. We are going 
to go have some fun. It was 3 months, at least, of pure unadulterated 
joy, no responsibility.
  Well, Majority Leader Cantor has announced that school is out for the 
House Republicans. They are finished for the year. But America is not 
finished. Our agenda is still there.
  I want to commend the Senate Republicans who have joined us in 
passing this transportation bill. And I want to say to Speaker Boehner: 
When you return from the next recess, next week, roll up your sleeves 
and get to work. Put 2.8 million Americans to work with this bipartisan 
transportation bill. Have the courage to bring it for a vote on the 
floor of the House of Representatives so we can put America to work and 
make certain they know we take our job seriously.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise in support of the words of the 
majority leader and the majority whip. Many of us have been frustrated 
lately by the glacial pace of activity in the House of Representatives. 
The Senate is supposed to be the cooling saucer, but, these days, the 
House is where jobs bills and other important measures go to die.
  They are dragging out negotiations on a highway bill that would put 
millions to work. They refuse to even allow a conference on a 
bipartisan Violence Against Women Act reauthorization, even though the 
Senate produced a bill with 68 votes. They have refused to act at all 
on a bipartisan bill that cracks down on China's unfair currency 
practices--something which their own party's nominee for President 
claims to support.
  Why the stalling? Well, we got our answer in the pages of Politico 2 
days ago.
  Eric Cantor, who controls the floor schedule in the House, has 
decided to forgo legislating in favor of politicking full time.
  Despite all the major challenges this Congress faces--despite the 
crisis of confidence that may hit our markets in the fall due to 
uncertainty over the looming fiscal cliff--Eric Cantor has declared a 
moratorium on any serious legislating until after the fall elections.
  The House of Representatives is like a computer that has been turned 
on sleep mode, and it does not plan to be rebooted until after 
November.
  This is a breathtaking admission by the No. 2 Republican in the 
House. I would not be surprised if Leader Cantor wishes he could take 
his statement back. It contradicts the rhetoric from many on his own 
side.
  Just last month, in a speech at the Peterson Institute, the Speaker 
of the House made a great show of calling on the administration and 
Congress to tackle tax cuts and the debt ceiling now--before the 
election. Here is what Speaker Boehner said:

       It's about time we roll up our sleeves and get to work.

  Unfortunately, Leader Cantor's comments seem to reflect House 
Republicans' true intentions more so than Speaker Boehner's quote. And 
that is a terrible shame. Leader Cantor and the House Republicans are 
shrinking from a potentially historic moment.
  I have a message for Leader Cantor: You may have abandoned any 
intention to legislate this year, but we will not bow to election-year 
politics here in the Senate. The Nation needs us, and we have too much 
to do.
  All around this Chamber, there are green shoots of bipartisan 
activity. In the last 2 months alone, we have overhauled the postal 
system, approved a multiyear transportation program, renewed the 
Violence Against Women Act, streamlined drug approval rules at the FDA, 
renewed the Export-Import Bank, and passed a bill to help business 
startups. We have confirmed 20 judges and put the Federal Reserve Board 
at full strength for the first time in 6 years. And just this morning, 
we moved to proceed to a farm bill--the first overhaul of agriculture 
in 5 years--by an overwhelming 90-to-8 vote.
  Every one of the issues I mentioned had broad bipartisan support. 
Each would not have been accomplished without bipartisan support. These 
are items, certainly, that are not the same as the big challenges that 
await us on taxes and spending, but they are not trivial. They are not 
post office namings either. They are real accomplishments.
  ``The Senate is on something of a roll,'' the New York Times recently 
reported. These accomplishments could very well prove to be the 
building blocks for bipartisan compromise on the bigger issues that 
await our Nation. So the House may already have entered election mode, 
but, I daresay, the Senate may be starting to gel at just the right 
time.

[[Page S3815]]

  In the Senate there is a hunger to legislate. Republicans and 
Democrats alike in this Chamber sense our Nation is at a crossroads, 
and their first instinct is not to pause to contemplate its political 
implications, but to get things done. For this, I must salute the 
growing number of my colleagues across the aisle who are seeking to 
work across the aisle.
  Even as the loudest voices on the Republican side cite the 
President's defeat as their No. 1 goal, I believe there is a silent 
majority within the Republican Caucus that yearns to come together and 
address the Nation's problems, free of partisan politics.
  Even after the extreme elements in their own party have claimed two 
of the most esteemed Members of this body--one by retirement; one in a 
contentious primary--a silent majority of brave Republicans still dares 
to believe that compromise is a virtue, not a vice.
  My colleague from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, is a Senator I 
admire. He has taken the lead in bringing Members together to tackle 
the big issues that await us at the end of this calendar year.

  I was at a briefing this week organized by Senator Alexander, a 
Republican, and Senator Warner, a Democrat. Believe me, no one in that 
room thinks, as Leader Cantor apparently does, that these issues should 
be put off till the election. The conversations were quite preliminary, 
for sure, but the motivations of all the Senators who attended were 
pure.
  Senator Coburn is another brave Republican. I may disagree with Tom 
Coburn on most issues, and even on many of his tactics, but I admire 
the courage he displays on a daily basis by standing up to even the 
most powerful special interests in his party. He does not talk the talk 
about bucking his party's orthodoxy on revenues. He walks the walk. 
Just this morning, I watched him on one of the morning news programs 
making great sense about the need for both parties to show leadership 
in confronting the big issues. He also made a point of saying that, 
unlike Leader Cantor, he does not believe these issues should wait till 
the election.
  My colleague from South Carolina, Senator Graham, is another such 
brave Republican. We have our differences on many issues, but he is a 
statesman, plain and simple. He has been quite vocal on his wish to 
overturn the defense cuts in the sequester. But while others in his 
party propose to replace these cuts on entirely their own terms, 
Senator Graham has bravely signaled an openness to make the tradeoffs 
needed to help bridge the partisan divide. Asked by the New York Times 
recently about the potential for tapping revenues to replace some of 
the sequester cuts, Senator Graham bravely bucked his party's 
orthodoxy. ``I have crossed the Rubicon on that [one],'' he said. Be 
assured, Senator Graham is someone we can negotiate with.
  Senators Alexander, Coburn, and Graham are not alone. There are 
others who realize the need to act in a bipartisan fashion.
  Senator Alexander's colleague from Tennessee, Senator Corker, 
recently called out his own party for famously rejecting a deal, a 
hypothetical deficit deal with a 10-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax 
increases.
  Senators Isakson and Collins said in the same Politico article that 
they, too, would be open to supporting a grand bargain that includes 
revenues as well as spending cuts.
  And my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, is featured in the 
pages of Roll Call today for his Herculean efforts to get House 
Republicans to be reasonable on a long-term highway bill, along with 
his colleague and our friend Senator Boxer.
  I suggest that the House majority leader reconsider his remarks to 
Politico and take a page from the book of these brave Republicans. The 
House may be in an all-politics mode, but the Senate is not done 
legislating--not by a long shot. And let's be honest: If a solution to 
these big issues is at all possible in the lameduck, or maybe even 
before the election, it is not going to come from the House. It is 
going to come out of the Senate.
  So I suggest to Leader Cantor, Washington does not need an election 
to bridge our differences. It needs the Senate.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I come today to talk--as my colleagues 
have discussed--about the fact that Republicans in the House of 
Representatives seem ready to pack it in for the year.
  Led by their majority leader and by the ``my way or the highway'' 
philosophy they have stuck to all year, they have signaled that they 
have given up on the work of the American people.
  From our yearly responsibility to pass appropriations bills, to 
legislation that would create thousands of good-paying construction 
jobs, to efforts to stop an impending student loan hike, to a bill that 
would protect vulnerable American women from violence, House 
Republicans have now indicated they would rather kick the can down the 
road.
  It is unfortunate that this is their attitude--not just for our 
college students or construction workers looking for jobs or women at 
risk, but it is statements such as the one the House majority leader 
made that make every American shake their head. That is because as 
American families come together around their kitchen table to make 
tough decisions about their mortgage or how to make tuition payments or 
even about how they are going to afford groceries, they want to see us 
coming together to make similarly tough decisions.
  But as Leader Reid and my other colleagues have made clear: It is 
tough to legislate from only one side of Capitol Hill. It is tough to 
address the issues affecting everyday Americans when House Republicans 
are more interested in drawing dividing lines than coming to the 
middle. It is pretty tough to create jobs and help our economy rebound 
when House Republicans are more focused on next year than on the bills 
that are stuck in their Chamber today. And it is impossible to do 
anything about the looming fiscal cliff we face when House Republicans 
continue to show they do not get that it will take a balanced approach 
to fix.
  The bottom line is we need a partner in legislating, and it appears 
from comments such as those that were made this week that hope is 
quickly fading.
  What is particularly concerning about House Republicans wanting to 
shutter their Chamber for the year is the fact that bipartisan, 
commonsense Senate legislation is languishing there. Bills that have 
gotten support from overwhelming majorities, and that were carefully 
crafted over months of negotiations, are in limbo for no good reason.
  In fact, what I would like to do today is highlight two important 
numbers to illustrate what I mean. The first number is 68. Madam 
President, 68--that is the number of Senators who voted to pass a 
bipartisan, inclusive bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women 
Act. It is a total that includes 15 Republican Senators who, like the 
vast majority of Americans, agreed with us that we not only need to 
reaffirm our commitment to protect those at risk from domestic violence 
but that we also need to improve and expand protections. Those are 68 
Senators who came together to say that our commitment to saving the 
lives of victims of domestic violence should be above politics; 68 
Senators who said we cannot allow partisan considerations to decide 
which victims we help and which we ignore; 68 Senators who sent a 
strong bipartisan message to the House that we can come together to 
strengthen protections for all victims, regardless of where they live 
or their race or their religion or gender or sexual orientation. 
Unfortunately, it is a message that Republicans in the House have 
ignored. True to form, instead of taking up our bipartisan bill, 
Republicans have passed a bill that leaves out both the additional 
protections for vulnerable women and the delicate compromises we 
achieved.

  Men and women across our country see the headlines that Leader Reid 
pointed out earlier. They know their protections are at risk, and they 
are at risk not because the Senate cannot come together but because 
House Republicans refuse to join us.
  The second number I wanted to highlight today is 74. That is the 
number of Senators who came together to send a bipartisan 
transportation jobs bill to the House; 74 Senators who voted for a bill 
that will create or save millions of jobs in the country today; 74 
Senators

[[Page S3816]]

who said that politics should not get in the way of our economic 
recovery or the need to fix our crumbling infrastructure; 74 Senators 
who got behind a bill that was the product of intense and long 
negotiation between Senators we know often did not see eye to eye but 
who did come together to pass a bill that could truly be called a 
compromise.
  Yet here we are, months after this bill was passed with overwhelming 
bipartisan support, and it, too, is now the subject of political games 
in the House. Another bill that should never be considered political 
has become part of their grandstanding routine. It does not have to be 
this way. If Republicans can set aside politics and stand up to their 
tea party base, we can protect victims of domestic violence. We can 
pass a transportation bill. We can stop those tuition hikes. We can 
pass our appropriations bills.
  In fact, we can even come together on the big issues that House 
Republicans have indicated they believe can only be resolved after an 
election. If Republicans are ready to admit it will take a balanced and 
bipartisan deal to avoid that fiscal cliff, we can make a deal 
tomorrow. But on this issue, Republicans have not just refused to meet 
us in the middle. They will not even come out of their corner.
  We all know a bipartisan deal is going to be required to include new 
revenue along with spending cuts. Unfortunately, Republicans are 
singularly focused on protecting the wealthiest Americans from paying a 
penny more in taxes. Democrats are ready. We are willing to compromise. 
We know it is difficult, but we have to have a partner to do that.
  Republicans need to understand that the fiscal cliff is not simply 
going to disappear if they close their eyes and wish hard enough. We 
are going to have to act, and Republicans should not let politics stop 
them from working with us now on a balanced and bipartisan deal which 
middle-class families expect and deserve.
  Statements such as the one made by the House majority leader only 
reaffirm what American families fear the most, that at a time when they 
deserve a government at their backs, they are being abandoned. In the 
Senate, we have shown we can come together around bipartisan solutions. 
But we cannot do it alone. House Republicans need to send the American 
people a clear message they are willing to be a partner in compromise.
  It is time for them to take up our bipartisan legislation to protect 
women and put workers back on the job. It is time to work with us in 
the appropriations process and help our Nation too. It is time to 
realize that a solution to the impending fiscal cliff will require a 
balance. It is certainly not time to give up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate very much the wonderful statements by Senators 
Durbin, Schumer, and Murray. We have a problem in this country based on 
what Cantor said. Here are the headlines: ``Congress switches from 
policy to politicking.'' All we have said here today has been based on 
fact. That is too bad. It is too bad we have someone who is running the 
House of Representatives who is trying to kill these important pieces 
of legislation Senator Schumer outlined that we have passed over here. 
We have passed all these things, worked very hard to get them done.
  Because of politicking, and not policy, the majority leader of the 
House of Representatives is killing all this legislation for reasons we 
all understand.


                           Order of Procedure

  Madam President, cloture has been invoked on the motion to proceed to 
the farm bill by an overwhelming vote of 90 to 8. Senators Stabenow and 
Roberts are now, as we speak, working on an agreement to amendments to 
the bill. I am hopeful they can make significant progress over the 
weekend. There will be no more rollcall votes today. Monday at 5:30 we 
will have a vote on Andrew Hurwitz to be a Ninth Circuit judge.
  I hope we can get the farm bill done next week and lock in an 
agreement on flood insurance, which is also vitally important to this 
country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                              Legislating

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I came to the floor to talk about 
legislating. I was struck, in fact, by the comments recently because 
what I am here to talk about is essentially the yeoman's bipartisanship 
we have seen with Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts on the farm 
bill. I am going to talk about some specific ideas, each of which I 
believe could win bipartisan support and help strengthen the 
legislation as we go forward in the Senate.
  I believe it is hard to overstate the importance of writing the best 
possible farm bill in the Senate. When America desperately needs more 
jobs, and 1 in every 12 American jobs is tied to agriculture, this bill 
is an opportunity for the private sector to grow more jobs. When 
obesity rates are driving the American health care challenge, this bill 
can promote healthier eating without extra cost to taxpayers. When we 
are concerned about the threat to our treasured lands and air and 
water, this bill is our primary conservation program. When our rural 
communities are especially hard hit, and the Presiding Officer knows 
about this because she has a lot of rural country in her State, these 
rural communities are walking on an economic tightrope, and this bill 
can be a lifeline.
  I spent much of last week in rural Oregon. In my State, Oregonians do 
a lot of things well, but what we do best is grow things--lots of 
things. Oregon grows more than 250 different crops, including 
everything from alfalfa seed to mint and blueberries. Several weeks 
ago, the Oregon Extension Service reported that agricultural sales in 
my home State increased more than 19 percent in 2011.
  Agriculture in Oregon is now more than a $5 billion industry 
annually, and much of this is driven by high prices for wheat and 
cattle and dairy products, fruits, vegetables, and other specialty 
crops. The fact is, agriculture is the lodestar to prosperity for many 
rural Oregon communities. Nationwide, there are many other towns in a 
similar position to the small communities I have the honor to represent 
in the Senate.

  That is what is apropos about this talk and the need for 
bipartisanship. Senator Schumer listed a number of these bipartisan 
areas. I consulted with the chair of the Agriculture Committee, Senator 
Stabenow, and the ranking member, Senator Roberts, who I also served 
with in the other body. After getting their counsel, I selected 28 
Oregonians, from every corner of my State and across all types of 
agriculture, to help serve as an advisory committee on ways to improve 
the economic opportunities for Oregon, specifically through this bill.
  We have the good fortune to have the committee chaired by Mrs. Karla 
Chambers, who owns a farm in the Willamette Valley, Stahlbush Farms, 
and also Mike Thorne, a wheat farmer in eastern Oregon.
  From the outset, this advisory committee did not talk at all about 
politics, did not talk about whether there was a Democratic way to 
write a farm bill or a Republican way to write a farm bill. What they 
did talk about was the importance of the issues I have just outlined: 
jobs, health care, conservation, rural communities. That is what they 
spent their time focused on and particularly the jobs issue was central 
to their discussion.
  There are about 38,000 farms in my home State which roughly support 
234,000 jobs. That is about 11 percent of our State's employment. As 
much as 80 percent of the agricultural goods produced in Oregon are 
sold out of State. Half of that is exported to foreign countries. That 
is especially important to me because I chair the trade subcommittee of 
the Senate Finance Committee. So what I have taken as the centerpiece 
of my approach to agriculture and to our country's economy is that we 
ought to do our very best to: grow things in the United States, to add 
value to them in the United States, and then ship them somewhere.
  It is especially important for Oregon agriculture. As I just noted, 
80 percent of the agricultural goods that are produced in our State are 
sold out of State.
  Abroad, our producers are doing very well. Nationally, each $1 
billion in agricultural exports is tied to approximately 8,400 American 
jobs. These growing overseas markets represent a

[[Page S3817]]

way to create and sustain good-paying jobs that rely on export sales. 
In fact, agriculture is one of the only sectors with a trade surplus, 
and in 2011, it boasted a surplus totaling $42.5 billion--the highest 
annual surplus on record.
  That is why I was honored to have a chance--when Chairman Baucus was 
tied up in discussions with respect to the super committee--to manage a 
significant part of the debate on the three recently passed free-trade 
agreements, which again give us a chance, as I have indicated, to build 
on that proposition that I have outlined, where we grow things here, 
add value to them here, and then ship them somewhere else.
  Nothing says that more than giving those opportunities to producers 
from Oregon to Florida. They sell their fruits and vegetables, their 
wheat, their beef, their nursery crops, and other high-value products 
at home and abroad. The farm bill continues those programs that 
American producers rely on to help market their goods in foreign 
markets. I think it is important again to stress the bipartisanship 
associated with making sure there are bountiful opportunities for 
American agriculture and particularly for Oregon agricultural goods.
  The second area my agriculture advisory committee focused on was 
stressing the importance of healthy nutrition here at home. Of course, 
the USDA, our Department of Agriculture, has recommended eating five 
fresh fruits and vegetables daily.
  What that means is that from Burns, OR, to Bangor, ME, farm programs 
need to make it easier for those with low incomes to be able to eat 
healthier. There never ought to be a tradeoff between health and 
affordable food. So I think we have to look at some fresh approaches to 
promote healthy nutrition in this country. I believe it is not just an 
economic threat to our economy, it is also a national security threat 
to our Nation because we have seen, regrettably, that many Americans 
who would like to wear the uniform of the United States, patriots, have 
not been able to pass the health standards necessary to serve in our 
military.
  In the past three decades, obesity rates have quadrupled for children 
ages 6 to 11. More than 40 percent of Americans are expected to be 
obese by 2030. The Centers for Disease Control reports that in 2008 
alone, the United States spent $147 billion on medical care related to 
obesity. Obesity is the top medical reason one in four young people 
cannot join the military, and it has been identified by the Department 
of Defense as a threat to national security. It doesn't have to be this 
way.
  I wish to outline some specific ideas for changing that and to 
promote good health in our country without adding extra costs to 
taxpayers. One opportunity for change is through the Farm to School 
Program. Again, without costing taxpayers additional money, it ought to 
be easier for delicious pears, cherries, and other healthy produce, 
grown just a few miles down the road, to make it into our schools. This 
ought to be a national approach. Schools from Springfield, OR, to 
Savannah, GA, currently purchase their fruits and vegetables from 
USDA--the Department of Agriculture--warehouses, which may be hundreds 
of miles away. Many of our farmers and our producers would like to sell 
their goods to local schools, and many schools would like to source 
their produce locally. The farm bill ought to promote that.
  When I was in Oregon last week, I had a chance to meet with the 
management of Harry & David. They are a major employer in my State, and 
an Oregon pear producer. They told me they want to sell their fruit to 
schools down the street, but instead a complex maze of Federal rules 
and regulations has created a hassle for them, and the process sounds 
like bureaucratic water torture. So I am going to offer an amendment 
that would make it less of a hassle for producers such as Harry & David 
and farmers to sell directly to local schools, all without spending 
additional Federal dollars.
  A second opportunity to improve our Nation's health lies with the 
SNAP program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better 
known as food stamps. This program currently spends over $70 billion a 
year. This is the big expenditure in the farm bill, and there is no way 
to really determine whether it promotes good nutrition. Think of all of 
the possibilities for helping our country, all the possible benefits if 
the SNAP program did more to improve nutritional outcomes for those who 
use the program.
  Let me make clear that I am not for cutting benefits. I understand 
the crucial lifeline this program provides for millions of our people. 
What I am interested in doing is seeing that, through that $70 billion, 
it is possible to improve nutritional outcomes, all while getting the 
best value out of that enormous expenditure.
  One of the ways we could do it would be to allow States to obtain a 
waiver from the SNAP program when they bring their farmers, their 
retailers, their health specialists, and their beneficiaries together 
and say: We have a consensus for improving the nutritional outcomes in 
our State, for those on the Food Stamp Program, the SNAP program. They 
ought to be able to get a waiver in order to do that and help us 
produce more good health in America. That is not some kind of national 
nanny program. That is not telling people they can only eat this or 
that. It is just common sense to have farmers, retailers, those on the 
program, and health specialists look, for example, to try to create 
some voluntarily incentive to promote better nutrition with this 
enormous expenditure, and I intend to offer an amendment to do that.
  A third opportunity for improvement is through what is known as 
gleaning. Historically, gleaners gathered leftover produce from the 
fields, but today gleaners play a crucial role in reducing the 
staggering amount of food that goes to waste each year. At a time when 
food waste is the single largest category of waste in our local 
landfills--more than 34 million tons of food--again, without spending 
extra taxpayer money, we can do more to ensure that this unwanted food 
is used to tackle hunger in America.
  Led by the dedicated work of local food banks, many are striving to 
put America's food bounty to better use. In Portland, OR, Tracy Oseran 
runs a wonderful nonprofit organization known as Urban Gleaners. They 
are poised to collect surplus food--hundreds of thousands of pounds of 
food--from grocers, restaurants, parties, and all kinds of social 
organizations, and they redistribute those hundreds of thousands of 
pounds of food to organizations that serve the hungry. Urban Gleaners 
is doing great work, but they could be doing a lot more.
  Without spending a dime of extra money, we can advocate for gleaners 
all across America by making it possible for them to receive loans 
through the Microloan Program. If someone is trying to set up a 
gleaning program in a small town and they have to borrow, say, $20,000 
to start a refrigeration program to preserve the quality of the food, 
let's make it possible for the gleaners to do that.
  I am not proposing--and I discussed this with the chair of the 
committee, Senator Stabenow, and Senator Roberts, the ranking minority 
member--to allocate one additional dime to the program. I think it is a 
fine program. I simply want to say that when we have gleaners in our 
country who are telling us about the enormous amount of food that is 
still wasted despite their tremendous efforts, let's not pass up an 
opportunity to, with this bill, make it possible to promote gleaning in 
our country.
  To produce the healthy food needed to feed America, we need fertile 
agricultural land, and conservation plays a central role in that. 
Roughly 28 percent of Oregon's land mass is devoted to agricultural 
production. Maintaining this land is crucial for our long-term 
productivity. For more than half a century, the farm bill has supported 
infrastructure modernization and conservation projects. They give, once 
again, the opportunity for collaboration, and that is key to our 
natural resources.
  I see my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, here. We talked about 
doing this in the forestry area years ago. We ought to be promoting 
collaborative projects to boost rural economies. It is the Oregon way, 
and we ought to build on that in this farm bill as well.
  The time is also ripe to promote farmers markets and locally grown 
food, which will lead to greater awareness of local markets, roadside 
stands, and community-supported agriculture.

[[Page S3818]]

This farm bill expands those opportunities, and I think these types of 
local initiatives give us the opportunity to change the trajectory--the 
tragic and staggering trajectory--of obesity in this country, and to 
ensure the viability of these programs, the land required to produce 
nutritious foods must be addressed.

  I plan to offer, as I have indicated in these comments, a number of 
amendments to the farm bill, each of which I have discussed with the 
chair of the committee, Senator Stabenow, and ranking member, Senator 
Roberts.
  The farm-to-school amendment that I will offer would not spend 
additional taxpayer money, but it would make it easier for schools to 
purchase locally for the breakfast, lunches, and snacks they serve 
children.
  My second amendment would allow States across this country to get a 
waiver under the SNAP program, so they can consult with their farmers, 
their retailers, their health specialists, and those who use it, and 
try to come up with a way to get more good health and nutrition out of 
the $70 billion that is spent on the program. States ought to have an 
opportunity to do that so that the SNAP program can be a launch pad for 
healthier eating rather than just a conveyor belt for calories. With a 
waiver, States with innovation and effective ideas could improve 
nutritional outcomes and put their good ideas into action.
  Third, I intend to offer an amendment--again, it doesn't spend 
additional taxpayer money--to promote gleaning through the Microloan 
Program.
  Finally, based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, I 
will offer an amendment to make it possible to advance some of the 
recommendations of the Institute of Medicine to look at the 
relationship between agriculture policy, the diet of the average 
American, and how we can reduce childhood obesity. This amendment would 
give us a chance to advance the recommendations of the Institute of 
Medicine. They have made a number of thoughtful proposals that I think 
will give us a chance to reduce obesity and promote our national 
security, and we certainly should pursue them through this farm bill.
  The last comment I will make is that I think Oregonians got it right, 
and I think we ought to be building on the work done by Senator 
Stabenow and Senator Roberts. At a crucial time in American history, 
this bill can help us grow more jobs, it can help us improve the health 
of the people of our country without spending additional money, and it 
is an opportunity to protect our treasured land and air and water. 
Finally, it is a lifeline for rural communities--these communities that 
I have described as walking on an economic tight rope.
  I intend to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis. I have 
heard all this talk about how the legislating is over. We ought to 
build on the work that has been done already and get this important 
bill across the finish line because it will be good for our economy, 
for our national security, and it will be good for our health and for 
our environment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Tribute to Fallen Heroes

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, last week on Memorial Day, Americans 
remembered our Nation's fallen troops who laid down their lives for our 
Nation. We are blessed to live in a country where individuals volunteer 
to defend our Nation and our freedoms--no matter the cost. Because of 
the sacrifices of our Nation's veterans, we have the opportunity to 
live in the strongest, freest, and greatest Nation on Earth.
  Today at Arlington National Cemetery, 30 U.S. servicemembers will be 
honored for their service and sacrifice to our country. These men were 
killed last August when insurgents fired upon their helicopter as it 
was rushing to aid troops in a firefight in Wardak Province in 
Afghanistan. More than 20 U.S. special operations forces were killed 
when the helicopter crashed--the deadliest single loss of American 
forces in the war in Afghanistan.
  Among those lost were brave soldiers who called Kansas home: CWO 
Bryan Nichols of Hays, SPC Spencer Duncan of Olathe, and SGT Alexander 
Bennett of Tacoma, WA, who was stationed in New Century, KS. These men 
will be given full honors during a special memorial service and laid to 
rest at Arlington National Cemetery.
  We lost 30 American heroes on that tragic day--brave men who answered 
the call to defend our country. Our Nation is forever indebted to these 
young men for their service and sacrifice. Especially today, we think 
of their families and the loved ones they left behind. May God comfort 
them in their time of grief and be a source of strength for them.
  Yesterday, in Kansas, another soldier's life was remembered. PFC Cale 
Miller of Olathe was killed just 2 weeks ago during a combat mission in 
Afghanistan when the vehicle he was driving was struck by an improvised 
explosive device.
  It has been said that the ``American soldier does not fight because 
he hates who is in front of him, he fights because he loves those who 
are behind him.'' This passage was read during Cale's service in 
Olathe, and it is a fitting description of this young man's devotion to 
his country.
  Cale was raised in Olathe and was a 2007 graduate of Olathe Northwest 
High School, where he was a member of the football and track teams and 
played trumpet in the marching and jazz bands. Three years after 
graduation, Cale joined the Army and was assigned to Ft. Lewis in 
Washington State.
  Cale was known as a fierce warrior on the battlefield and was one of 
``the best of the best.'' Among his buddies he had a reputation for 
being a hard worker, someone who would go above and beyond to 
accomplish the task at hand. Cale's battalion commander said he was 
known as ``everyone's protector'' and was ``hands down, the best 
Stryker driver he ever had seen.''
  More importantly, his sergeant said Cale had the unique ability of 
knowing the right thing to say at the right moment. He was a source of 
strength that pulled his sergeant and his squad mates through many 
difficult days.
  Cale loved the Army, but he was also devoted to his family. He loved 
to laugh and had a great sense of humor, which helped his family find 
the bright side of every situation. His stepfather Dave is known for 
giving sound and practical advice and served as a role model for Cale. 
In fact, Cale once told his mom he was turning into the ``Dave'' for 
his buddies since they often turned to him for advice or encouragement. 
Cale had a close relationship with his sister Courtney and loved his 
mother deeply. He spoke of her often to his buddies.
  My heart goes out to the entire Miller family, and I ask that all 
Kansans, all Americans, join me in remembering them in our thoughts and 
prayers during this difficult time.
  On Monday, Cale was given a hero's welcome upon his return to Kansas. 
Volunteers placed flags along 151st Street in Olathe and hundreds of 
people stood in silence waving those flags and signs that read 
``Community 4 Cale'' to honor this young man and his service to our 
country. This demonstration of support comes naturally to Kansans who 
respect and honor those who volunteer to defend and serve our Nation.
  Today we honor Cale Miller, Brian Nichols, Spencer Duncan, and 
Alexander Bennett, who laid down their lives for our country. We thank 
God for giving us these heroes, and we remain committed to preserving 
this Nation for the sake of the next generation so they, too, can 
pursue the American dream with freedom and liberty. We are indebted to 
our veterans to do nothing less.
  May God bless our service men and women, our veterans, and the 
country we all love.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank Senator Moran of Kansas for a very 
moving tribute to those who have served and sacrificed. I know the 
people of Kansas join him in expressing their gratitude for their 
service and sacrifice, and I thank the Senator from Kansas for a very 
eloquent and moving statement. God bless.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his 
tremendous service.

[[Page S3819]]

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Connecticut and I be permitted to join in a colloquy on the 
situation in Syria.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Syria

  Mr. McCAIN. Before entering into our colloquy, I would like to make 
some brief remarks.
  It should come as no surprise to any of our colleagues--and it 
certainly comes as no surprise to me--that the civil war raging in 
Syria has only deteriorated further over the past 2 weeks. On Saturday, 
May 26, we read the horrific news of a massacre that Bashar al-Assad's 
forces committed in the Syrian town of Houla. At least 108 civilians--
the majority of them women and children--are now believed to have been 
killed, some from repeated shelling by Assad's tanks and artillery, but 
most slaughtered in their homes and executed in the streets. Survivors 
describe a scene so gruesome that even after 16 months of bloodshed and 
more than 10,000 dead, it still manages to shock the conscience.
  There are now reports of another massacre by Assad's forces with as 
many as 78 Syrians dead and that Syrian authorities are blocking access 
to the scene for the U.N. monitors on the ground. These massacres of 
civilians are sickening and evil, but it is only the latest and most 
appalling evidence there is no limit to the savagery of Assad and his 
forces. They will do anything, kill anyone, and stop at nothing to hold 
on to power.
  What has been the response of the United States and the rest of the 
civilized world to this most recent atrocity in Syria? More empty words 
of scorn and condemnation. More hollow pledges that the killing must 
stop. More strained expressions of amazement at what has become so 
tragically commonplace.
  Indeed, as Jeffrey Goldberg has noted, administration officials are 
now at risk of running out of superlative adjectives and adverbs with 
which to condemn this violence in Syria. They have called it 
``heinous,'' ``outrageous,'' ``unforgivable,'' ``breathtaking,'' 
``disgraceful,'' and many other synonyms for the same. I don't know 
what else they can call it. Yet the killing goes on.
  The administration now appears to be so desperate they are returning 
to old ideas that have already been tried and failed. Let me quote from 
a New York Times article that appeared on May 27.

       In a new effort to halt more than a year of bloodshed in 
     Syria, President Obama will push for the departure of 
     President Bashar al-Assad under a proposal modeled on the 
     transition in another strife-torn Arab country, Yemen. . . . 
     The success of the plan hinges on Russia, one of Mr. Assad's 
     staunchest allies, which has strongly opposed his removal.

  This is a case of history repeating itself as farce. Trying to enlist 
Russia in a policy of regime change in Syria is exactly what the 
administration spent months doing earlier this year, and that approach 
was decisively rejected by Russia when it vetoed a toothless sanctions 
resolution in the U.N. Security Council in February.
  How is this recycled policy working out? Well, last week, a human 
rights organization disclosed that on May 26, a Russian ship delivered 
the latest Russian supply of heavy weapons to the Assad regime in the 
Port of Tartus. Last Friday, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a 
statement on the Houla massacre--and blamed it on the opposition. 
President Putin, after blowing off a trip to Washington in favor of a 
visit to Europe, suggested that foreign powers were also to blame for 
the Houla massacre. He went on to reject further sanctions on the Assad 
regime and to deny Russia is shipping any relevant weapons to Assad.

  Not to be outdone, last week the Russian Foreign Minister also 
described the situation in Syria this way.

       It takes two to dance--although this seems less like a 
     tango and more like a disco, where several dozens are taking 
     part at once.

  One might think this alone would be enough to disabuse the 
administration of its insistence, against all empirical evidence, that 
Russia is the key to ending the violence in Syria. One might think so, 
but one would be wrong. Asked last week whether he could envision some 
kind of military intervention in Syria without a U.N. Security Council 
resolution, which is subject to a Russian and Chinese veto, the 
Secretary of Defense said, no, he cannot envision it.
  Similarly, the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, rejected the idea 
of providing weapons to the Syrian people to help them defend 
themselves, saying that would lead to--get this, get this: If we 
supplied weapons to the Syrian resistance, it would lead to ``chaos and 
carnage,'' and it would militarize the conflict. It would militarize 
the conflict. After more than 10,000 have been slaughtered by Bashar 
al-Assad with Russian weapons, Iranians on the ground, it would 
militarize the conflict.
  It is difficult even to muster a response to statements and actions 
such as these. U.S. policy in Syria now seems to be subject to the 
approval of Russian leaders who are arming Assad's forces and who 
believe the slaughter of more than 10,000 people in Syria can be 
compared to a disco party. Meanwhile, the administration refuses even 
to provide weapons to Syrians who are struggling and dying in an unfair 
fight, all for fear of ``militarizing the conflict.'' If only the 
Russians and the Iranians and al-Qaida shared that lofty sentiment.
  I pray that President Obama will finally realize what President 
Clinton came to understand during the Balkan wars. President Clinton, 
who took military action to stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and did so 
in Kosovo without the U.N. Security Council mandate, ultimately 
understood that when regimes are willing to commit any atrocity to stay 
in power, diplomacy cannot succeed until the military balance of power 
changes on the ground.
  As long as Assad and his foreign supporters think they can win 
militarily, which they do, they will continue fighting and more Syrians 
will die. In short, military intervention of some kind is a 
prerequisite to the political resolution of the conflict we all want to 
achieve.
  The question I would pose to my colleague from Connecticut and to the 
administration is this: How many more have to die? How many more have 
to die? How many more young women have to be raped? How many more young 
Syrians are going to be tortured and killed? How many more? How many 
more before we will act? How many more?
  I would like to also ask, When will the President of the United 
States speak up in favor of these people who are fighting and dying for 
freedom?
  I thank my colleague from Connecticut for his continued involvement. 
He has shared the same experiences I have in refugee camps, meeting 
people who have been driven out of their homes, family members killed, 
tortured, young women raped as a matter of policy and doctrine of 
Assad's brutal forces.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, it is an honor to join in this 
colloquy with my friend from Arizona, though I obviously take no 
pleasure in it because it is an outcry--a cri de coeur--an outcry of 
the heart about the slaughter going on in Syria now, once again, with a 
government killing its own people to maintain its own presence and 
power. It is an outcry because for more than a year now the rest of the 
world, including the United States, has offered these victims of the 
brutal violence of the Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus essentially 
words--words of condemnation, words of sympathy. But those words--or 
the few cell phones we have given those Syrian freedom fighters--don't 
stand up against Assad's tanks, his guns, and the brutality of his 
forces.
  So I would say the answer to the question my friend from Arizona 
posed--how many more people have to be killed?--obviously, too many 
people have already been killed. It is time for the United States to 
show some leadership.
  Senator McCain and I are not calling for American troops on the 
ground in Syria. We are not calling for the United States alone to take 
action. There is a coalition of the willing. If we continue to say we 
are not going to take action to help the victims of Assad's brutality 
until and unless we get authorization from the U.N. Security Council, 
there is never going to be any help to go to these victims in

[[Page S3820]]

Syria because the Russians and probably the Chinese will veto any U.N. 
resolution.
  Every time we say we have to go to the U.N., we raise the power of 
Russia to protect its ally in Damascus. But there is a coalition of the 
willing ready throughout the Arab world, and I think some in Europe and 
elsewhere, which will not act until the United States shows some 
leadership.
  I want to just briefly put this in a historical context. After the 
Nazi Holocaust of the last century, the world said, ``Never again.'' 
``Never again.'' We have kept that pledge in some cases, such as Bosnia 
and Kosovo, although it took us too long--too many people were killed 
before the world acted--and in other places, such as Rwanda, we turned 
away from the slaughter of people there.
  Once again, we are challenged to show the victims whether we are true 
to our words. I read something a few days ago in the Washington Post. 
An article was drawing parallels between the genocide in Bosnia during 
the 1990s and the killing that is taking place in Syria today. There 
was a 37-year-old survivor of the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia that 
finally got the world to get involved, who said:

       It's bizarre how ``never again'' has come to mean ``again 
     and again.'' It is obvious that we live in a world where 
     Srebrenicas are still possible. What is happening in Syria 
     today is almost identical to what happened in Bosnia two 
     decades ago.

  So what is the world waiting for? A Syrian Srebrenica when thousands 
are killed on a single day by their own government before we act? I 
hope not. And that is why we speak out today.
  Just within the hour, a story was posted on Reuters news service out 
of Beirut:

       Six hours after tanks and militiamen pulled out of Mazraat 
     al-Qubeir, a Syrian farmer said he returned to find only 
     charred bodies among the smoldering homes of his once-
     tranquil hamlet.
       ``There was smoke rising from the buildings and a horrible 
     smell of human flesh burning'' said a man who told how he 
     watched Syrian troops and ``shabbiha'' gunmen attack his 
     village as he hid in his family olive grove.
       ``It was like a ghost town'' he told Reuters, . . .''

  Senator McCain and I have been explicit for some period of time. We 
have been both to Turkey and Lebanon to talk to leaders of the 
opposition and people in the refugee camps, and they simply say to us: 
As Americans, you are our only hope. This is from a people whose 
government has been determined in its anti-American posture, the Assad 
government, and yet the people now turn to us--as people always do in a 
time of crisis around the world--and say, This is what America is 
about. America has a moral government that cares about people's right 
to life and liberty, and we will not be saved unless you get involved.
  I hope the latest events move our government to go beyond words to 
actions. And immediately. Again, Senator McCain and I have talked about 
actions we would support: arms to the opposition fighters, training of 
the opposition fighters, safe havens in Turkey, and perhaps other 
neighboring countries to Syria, where they can be trained and equipped; 
provision of intelligence that we have, which will help the opposition 
fight to defend themselves and their families.
  Frankly, if it were up to us--and I know I can speak for Senator 
McCain--I think if we wanted to help and turn the tide quickly without 
a lot of unnecessary loss of life, we would use allied air power, 
Americans and our allies, and we would hit some targets important to 
the Assad government. I think that would break their will, and it would 
increase the number of defections from Assad's army and from the very 
important business community, and would result in a much sooner end to 
this terrible waste of lives.
  So that is our outcry, and that is my answer to the question of my 
friend from Arizona. I thought the Senator was particularly right in 
condemning the idea that if we get involved, it militarizes the 
conflict--the conflict is already militarized on one side. Russia and 
Iran are providing Assad with all the weapons he needs. In the 
meantime, the opposition is scrounging around, paying exorbitant prices 
just for bullets which they have been running out of.
  I ask my friend from Arizona, people say that intervention in Syria 
will be much harder than it was in Libya. I wonder if he would respond 
to that argument against us getting involved.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. I also want to point out that 
traveling in the region and meeting with the leaders in these various 
countries, it cries out for American leadership, I think my colleague 
would agree, in a coordinated partnership with these countries. But 
they cry out for American leadership. And meanwhile, the President of 
the United States, as this slaughter goes on, is silent. His spokesman 
says they don't want to militarize the conflict. How in the world could 
you make a statement like that when 10,000 people have already been 
slaughtered? That, to me, is so bizarre. I am not sure I have ever seen 
anything quite like it.
  There is always the comparison, I say to my friend from Connecticut, 
about Libya. There is an aspect of this issue. Libya was not in 
America's security interests. Libya was clearly a situation where we 
got rid of one of the most brutal dictators who was responsible for the 
bombing of Pan Am 103 and the deaths of Americans. But if Syria goes on 
the path to democracy, it is the greatest blow to Iran in 25 years. 
Hezbollah is broken off. Russia loses its last client state. Iran loses 
the most important ally it has in the region.
  Finally, I would say to my friend we keep hearing over and over again 
that extremists will come in; Al Qaida will come in. We heard that in 
Tunisia, we heard that in Libya, we are hearing that in Egypt, and we 
are hearing that again--neglecting the fact that al Qaida and 
extremists are the exact antithesis of who these people are. These 
people believe in peaceful demonstrations to bring about change--they 
have been repressed through brutality--whereas al Qaida, as we know, 
believes in acts of terror.
  I agree with my colleague, if we provided a sanctuary for these 
people in order to organize and care for the wounded, to have a shadow 
government set up as we saw in Libya, then I think it is pretty obvious 
that it would be a huge step forward.
  Again, as my friend from Connecticut has often said so eloquently, 
probably the most immortal words ever written in English are: We hold 
these truths to be self-evident, that all of us are endowed--all--by 
our Creator with certain inalienable rights.
  The people of Syria who are suffering under this brutal dictatorship 
and are being slaughtered as we speak I believe have those inalienable 
rights. The role of the United States has not been to go everywhere and 
fight every war, but it has been the role of the United States of 
America, when it can, to go to the assistance of people who are 
suffering under dictatorships such as this, one of the most brutal in 
history. And for us to now consign them to the good graces of Russia 
and whether they will veto a U.N. Security Council resolution as to 
whether we will act on behalf of these people is a great abdication of 
American authority and responsibility.
  Finally, I wish to say that Senator Lieberman and I have visited 
these places. We have seen these people. I wish all of our colleagues--
I wish all Americans--could have gone to the refugee camp where there 
are 25,000 people who have been ejected from their homes, the young men 
who still had fresh wounds, the young women who had been gang raped, 
the families and mothers who had lost their sons and daughters. It is 
deeply moving. It is deeply, deeply moving. And, as my friend from 
Connecticut said, they cry out. They cry out for our help.
  We should be speaking up every day on their behalf, all of us, and we 
should be contemplating actions that stop this unprecedented brutality.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank Senator McCain. I think he 
spoke with real clarity and strength, and this is exactly what we need 
to continue to do.
  I want to go to the point he made. Some people say we shouldn't get 
involved in Syria because we don't know who the opposition is; 
therefore, we should be cautious before helping them.
  We have had the opportunity to meet the opposition and their 
leadership, both the political opposition and the military opposition. 
And I would tell you, to the best of my judgment--I believe it is our 
judgment--these aren't extremists. These are Syrian patriots.

[[Page S3821]]

As Senator McCain said, this whole movement started peacefully. They 
went out into the squares in big cities in Syria. They were asking for 
more freedom. They actually weren't at the beginning asking for an 
overthrow of the Assad government. But what was Assad's response to 
them? He turned his guns on them and started to kill them wantonly. And 
when they decided there was no peaceful course--because he rejected 
every compromise alternative that intermediaries put in--they took up 
arms such as they could find.
  The danger here is not that the people who are the leaders of the 
opposition are extremists or terrorists; the danger is that the 
extremists and terrorists will take over this movement if we and the 
rest of the civilized world don't get involved, and the Syrian 
opposition will be sorely tempted to take their support because they 
have no alternative. We simply can't let that happen.
  I know there is a lot going on in our country. I know people are 
worried about the economy, as we are, of course. But America's strength 
and credibility in the world has actually always been not only what we 
are about by our founding documents and our history but what maintains 
our credibility and strength in the world, which is a foundation of our 
economic strength. The longer we give words but no action in response 
to the murder and rape of victims in Syria, the lower our credibility 
is. And we can't afford that.
  Senator McCain said, and I want to emphasize, the main reason to get 
involved here is humanitarian. It is what America is about. It is about 
the protection of life and liberty. But it happens to be that this 
makes a lot of strategic sense, too, because the No. 1 enemy we have in 
the world today is Iran. If Assad goes down, Iran will suffer a 
grievous blow.
  Some people said, and some still say it--including high officials of 
our government--that it is not a question of whether Bashar al Assad 
will fall but when. I don't agree. Having been over there talking to 
the opposition, watching what is happening, this is a profoundly unfair 
fight. Assad has most of the guns and systems, and the freedom fighters 
have very little. He will keep doing this as long as he has to, and 
this war will go on a long time, with thousands and thousands and 
thousands of more innocent people killed as they were earlier today in 
the Mazraat al-Qubeir.
  The facts cry out for us to take action. I hope and pray we will. 
Senator McCain and I and others have. Senator Rubio has an op-ed in the 
Wall Street Journal today that speaks to some of the points we have 
made, and others on both sides I hope will continue to speak out until 
finally there will be action to save the lives of innocents.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of 
questions that opponents of our involvement raised, and the answers I 
would offer to those questions arguing for our involvement with a 
coalition of the willing.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Providing weapons to the opposition will only 
     ``militarize'' the situation in Syria further and add to the 
     chaos there.
       Our policy must be based on the reality of the situation in 
     Syria as it is, not as we might wish it to be--and the 
     reality in Syria today is that the conflict has already 
     militarized. It has militarized not because of the Syrian 
     opposition--which began last year by holding peaceful 
     protests--but because of Bashar al Assad himself, who 
     responded to peaceful protests by unleashing tanks, 
     artillery, militias and attack helicopters to slaughter the 
     Syrian people, and will keep doing so until he is stopped.
       Bashar's regime has been enabled and encouraged in its 
     campaign of violence by Russia, by Iran, and by Hezbollah. 
     They are providing and resupplying Assad with weapons. They 
     are providing funding to sustain his killing machine. They 
     are providing training and instruction to Assad's forces. 
     There are even reports that Iranian operatives are on the 
     ground in Syria. In fact, an IRGC Quds force commander 
     acknowledged this last week.
       That is why the situation has militarized in Syria. And 
     right now, it is not a fair fight. While Assad is being armed 
     and resupplied by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, the Free 
     Syrian Army has only light weapons to defend itself. When 
     Senator McCain and I traveled to southern Turkey in April to 
     meet with Syrian refugees and opposition fighters, we were 
     told that opposition fighters were running out of ammunition. 
     Getting communications equipment to the opposition in Syria, 
     as the United States has pledged to do, will be helpful. But 
     radios alone will not protect the Syrian people against tanks 
     and helicopters.
       Providing weapons and intelligence and other lethal support 
     to the Syrian opposition therefore won't militarize the 
     situation in Syria. The conflict already has been 
     militarized, because of Assad. What we can do is give the 
     Syrian people the chance to defend themselves against Assad, 
     by providing them with weapons. This will give the Syrian 
     people a chance to fight back and change the military balance 
     on the ground in Syria.
       And let me add: it has been almost a year since President 
     Obama said that Assad must go. And still he remains in power. 
     We all agree that there will be no peace or stability in 
     Syria as long as Assad is in charge. But there is absolutely 
     no prospect that he will leave power until the military 
     balance of power in Syria turns against him. As of now, Assad 
     thinks that he is winning. The only way to change the 
     military balance of power is to begin to provide the 
     opposition with the means to turn the tide of this fight 
     against him. Until that happens, Assad will stay, and the 
     Syrian people will continue to die.
                                  ____

       Syria is not Libya. Intervention in Syria will be much 
     harder and more complicated.
       It is true that there are differences between Syria and 
     Libya. Syria's air defenses are far more sophisticated. The 
     population of Syria is larger and more diverse than the 
     population of Libya. And the opposition in Syria does not 
     have a safe zone--although it is worth remembering that the 
     only reason the opposition in Libya had a safe zone was 
     because of our intervention. Had we not stepped in when we 
     did, Qaddafi's forces would have overrun Benghazi and 
     slaughtered the people there--just as Bashar al Assad did 
     after the opposition briefly took over Homs and Hama and 
     other cities in Syria. Likewise, if we were to intervene as 
     we did in Libya, we could create a safe zone for the Syrian 
     opposition to organize.
       But here is another difference between Libya and Syria that 
     is even more important. The stakes in Syria are dramatically 
     higher than they were in Libya.
       First, let's remember: Bashar al Assad is Iran's most 
     important ally in the Arab world. His regime is the critical 
     linchpin that connects Iran and Hezbollah. As General Mattis 
     told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year, 
     the fall of Assad would represent ``the biggest strategic 
     defeat for Iran in 25 years.'' It would make it harder for 
     Tehran to ship weapons to Hezbollah, including the tens of 
     thousands of rockets that are pointed at our ally Israel. 
     That is why the Iranians are doing everything in their power 
     to help Assad crush the opposition and stay in power. The 
     fight in Syria, therefore, is fundamentally about Iran. If 
     Assad stays in power, it will be viewed by everyone in the 
     Middle East as a huge victory for Iran, and a defeat for the 
     United States.
       Second, if things continue on their current path in Syria, 
     it is increasingly clear that the country will descend into a 
     sectarian civil war. The result could be a failed state in 
     the heart of the Middle East, and the perfect environment for 
     al Qaeda to establish a toehold. In addition, we are already 
     seeing signs that chaos in Syria is spilling over and 
     destabilizing Lebanon. This will likely get worse, 
     threatening not only Lebanon but also Syria's other 
     neighbors, including Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and of course 
     Israel. In short, if Syria collapses, it will be a threat to 
     the entire Middle East, including some of our closest friends 
     there. Add to this that the Syrian regime has one of the 
     largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world.
       For all of these reasons, the United States has vital 
     national interests at stake in Syria--much more than we did 
     in Libya. We cannot afford to let Iran prevail in Syria. We 
     cannot afford to let Syria become a failed state with weapons 
     of destruction that threaten its neighbors. We cannot afford 
     to allow Syria to become a new base for al Qaeda. And yet, in 
     the absence of our intervention, these are precisely the 
     outcomes that are most likely to happen.
                                  ____

       Unlike in Libya, there is no international consensus for 
     intervention in Syria.
       Let's be absolutely clear. The United States should not act 
     unilaterally in Syria. Nor do we need to put any boots on the 
     ground there. On the contrary, our key partners in the Middle 
     East have the money, resources, and territory that are needed 
     for a full-scale effort to train, equip, arm, and organize 
     the Syrian opposition against Assad--and they are ready to do 
     so. What has been missing is leadership, organization and 
     strategy, which only the United States can provide.
       Senator McCain and I have personally traveled to the Middle 
     East on several occasions this year. We have spoken to the 
     leaders of our key partners in the region. They are ready to 
     work with us to help the opposition. They have also said so 
     publicly. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have called for providing 
     weapons to the Syrian resistance. The Kuwaiti parliament has 
     called on its government to do the same. The leader of Turkey 
     has spoken openly about the need for establishing safe zones. 
     Most importantly, Syrians themselves have for months been 
     calling for international intervention, including military 
     intervention.
       Now it is true we cannot get a UN Security Council 
     resolution authorizing military

[[Page S3822]]

     intervention in Syria. That is because of Russia and China, 
     whose governments made clear long ago that, for their own 
     reasons, they will veto any meaningful resolution related to 
     Syria. There is no sign that is going to change.
       But let's also remember: NATO took military action in 
     Kosovo in 1999 without UN authorization. Then, as now, a 
     dictator was slaughtering innocent people. Then, as now, the 
     dictator was a close ally of Moscow, which made clear it 
     would not allow the UN to authorize the use of force. 
     Thankfully, this did not stop President Clinton from rescuing 
     Kosovo. At the time, he argued, correctly, that the UN 
     Security Council was not the sole path to international 
     legitimacy and instead worked through NATO to save Kosovo.
       The same is true today. And there is no reason why the Arab 
     League or the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) or perhaps the 
     Friends of Syria Contact Group couldn't provide the 
     legitimacy for military measures to save Syria, just as NATO 
     did in 1999.
                                  ____

       Why not just let Syria's neighbors take the lead in helping 
     the Syrian opposition? Why does America need to be involved?
       It's true that many of our partners in the Middle East want 
     to help the Syrian opposition by providing them with weapons. 
     But they want and need America to work with them in this 
     effort. They recognize that only the United States can 
     provide the leadership, the organization, and the strategy to 
     ensure that these efforts to support the Syrian opposition 
     are successful.
       That being said, I don't doubt that, in the absence of U.S. 
     leadership, some countries in the region will try to supply 
     the Syrians with weapons on their own. Likewise, the Syrian 
     fighters themselves are trying to find weapons wherever they 
     can--including through the black market and criminal 
     networks. And can we blame them for doing so? They are in a 
     fight for their very lives.
       So the question is not whether weapons are going to flow to 
     the opposition. The question is whether we the United States 
     play a role in this process, or whether we take a hands-off 
     approach and just let the chips fall where they may. The 
     question is, which path is more likely to allow us to protect 
     our interests and encourage a decent outcome in Syria? Which 
     path is more likely to be successful?
       If we stand back, it is much more likely that the people in 
     Syria who will end up with weapons will not be the people we 
     want to see empowered. It will not be the elements in the 
     opposition who respect human rights and reject terrorism.
       By contrast, if we get involved, we will be in a much 
     stronger position to influence the conduct of the Syrian 
     opposition, to empower the responsible elements inside the 
     country and sideline those on the fringes who commit human 
     rights abuses or who have ties to al Qaeda.
                                  ____

       The Russians can be persuaded to abandon Assad. We should 
     focus on attention on diplomacy with Moscow, rather than 
     aiding the opposition.
       For months, the Obama Administration has told us that 
     Russia is on the brink of changing its position and 
     abandoning Assad. For months, we have been told that Moscow 
     is coming around to seeing things our way. And as we've 
     waited and waited for the Russians, thousands more Syrians 
     have been killed, the situation inside Syria has 
     deteriorated, and nothing has changed.
       Mr. President, it is time to stop waiting for Putin. The 
     Russians are not going to abandon Assad--especially as long 
     as he seems to be winning on the battlefield. If there is any 
     chance to get Moscow on board, it will only happen when the 
     Russians realize that Assad is going to lose--and that it is 
     therefore in their interest to work with us to hasten his 
     departure in exchange for protecting their interests in post-
     Assad Syria.
       Finally, let me add, even if Putin is somehow persuaded to 
     abandon Assad, it is far from clear that he has the means to 
     deliver. Last year, the Turkish government--which had 
     previously been one of Assad's closest partners in the 
     world--turned against him as the violence in Syria escalated. 
     This had absolutely no effect on Assad, who continued his 
     campaign of terror. The same very well could prove to be the 
     case with Russia as well.
                                  ____

       We don't know who the opposition is, and we should 
     therefore be cautious before helping them.
       Mr. President, we hear again and again that we don't know 
     who the Syrian opposition is. This astonishes me. It has been 
     nearly a year and a half since this uprising began. If we 
     don't know who the Syrian opposition is by now, it is only 
     because of a willful refusal on the part of the Obama 
     Administration to find out who they are.
       The truth is, we do have a good idea of who these people 
     are. Senator McCain and I have met with them--here in 
     Washington, in Turkey, Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. 
     We have met the leaders of the Syrian National Council and of 
     the Free Syrian Army. We have met with young Syrian activists 
     who have been going back and forth into Syria. We have met 
     with the refugees who have fled the killing fields of Hama 
     and Homs and Deraa into neighboring countries.
       So there is no great mystery here. These people are not al 
     Qaeda. They are Syrians who are desperately trying to free 
     themselves from a terrible dictatorship.
       Now it is unquestionably true that al Qaeda is trying to 
     exploit the situation in Syria. They want to get a foothold 
     there. But that is precisely why we must help the opposition. 
     The fact is, the longer this conflict goes on, the more the 
     Syrian people are going to be vulnerable to radicalization. 
     And if responsible nations abandon the people of Syria, al 
     Qaeda will stand a better chance of making inroads.
                                  ____

       The opposition is too divided, and therefore we can't 
     effectively help them until they unify and get organized.
       It is true that there are divisions in the Syrian 
     opposition. But it is worth remembering that the Libyan 
     opposition also was divided. It was our intervention that 
     helped them to unite, not least because we ensured that they 
     had the safe zone in which to do so.
       People who therefore argue that we shouldn't help the 
     Syrian opposition until they are united have it exactly 
     backwards. It is precisely by helping the Syrian opposition 
     that we can unite them.
       A U.S.-coordinated train-and-equip mission would provide 
     the leverage to better unify and broaden the opposition, 
     incorporate all of the key stakeholders in Syrian society, 
     and influence their conduct. The benefit for the United 
     States in helping to lead this effort directly is that it 
     would allow us to more effectively empower those Syrian 
     groups that share our interests and our values.
       Syrian fighters who want our help must reject al-Qaeda and 
     terrorism; refrain from human rights abuses and revenge 
     killings; place themselves under civilian-led opposition 
     command-and-control; and secure any weapons stockpiles that 
     fall into their hands.
                                  ____

       The American people are tired of war. We can't afford to 
     get involved in another fight in the Middle East.
       Mr. President, Senator McCain and I know that the American 
     people are tired of war. But the fact is, the United States 
     remains the leader of the world. We are the indispensable 
     nation. And we have vital national interests in the world 
     that we need to uphold, and we have values that we have to 
     stand for. Everyone in the world knows that there is only one 
     nation on earth that can stop the killing in Syria, if it 
     chooses to do so, and that is us. And if we fail to do so, 
     then the responsibility for that failure and that continued 
     killing will also rest with us--just as it did with Rwanda.
       Let me close, Mr. President, by asking a simple question: 
     how many people must die before the United States puts an end 
     to this slaughter? More than 10,000 have been killed. More 
     than 1,000 have died just since the Annan plan was announced 
     two months ago. How many more must be killed before we do 
     something meaningful to hasten the end of the Assad regime?
       A few days ago, the Washington Post ran a story about the 
     parallels between the genocide in Bosnia during the 1990s, 
     and the killing that is taking place in Syria today. The Post 
     interviewed a 37-year old survivor of the Srebrenica 
     massacre, who said: ``It's bizarre how `never again' has come 
     to mean `again and again.' It's obvious that we live in a 
     world where Srebrenicas are still possible. What's happening 
     in Syria today is almost identical to what happened in Bosnia 
     two decades ago.''
       That is sadly true. Shame on us if we fail to stop history 
     from repeating itself.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask permission to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Gaspee Day

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, we are always wise in this Chamber 
to reflect with reverence and gratitude on those who risked their lives 
fighting to establish this great Republic. Today I would like to 
recognize and celebrate the 240th anniversary of one of the earliest 
acts of defiance against the British Crown in our American struggle for 
independence.
  Most Americans remember the Boston Tea Party as one of the major 
events building up to the American Revolution. I see the pages in front 
of me nodding knowledgeably: Yes, I do know about the Boston Tea Party.
  We learned that story of the spirited Bostonians--literally spirited 
Bostonians, I am told--clamoring onto the decks of the East India 
Company's ships and dumping those tea bags into Boston Harbor to 
protest British taxation without representation.
  However, there is a milestone on the path to the Revolutionary War 
that is too often overlooked, and that is the story of 60 or so brave 
Rhode Islanders who challenged British rule more than

[[Page S3823]]

a year before the Tea Party in Boston. Today I rise to honor those 
little-known heroes who risked their lives in defiance of oppression on 
one dark night in Rhode Island 240 years ago.
  In the year before the Revolutionary War, as tensions with the 
American Colonies grew, King George III stationed revenue cutters, 
armed customs patrol vessels, along the American coastline to prevent 
smuggling and force the payment of taxes and impose the authority of 
the Crown. One of the most notorious of these ships was stationed in 
Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay. The HMS Gaspee and her captain, Lt 
William Dudingston, were known for destroying fishing vessels, seizing 
cargo, and flagging down ships only to harass, humiliate, and 
interrogate the colonials.
  Outraged by this egregious abuse of power, the merchants and 
shipmasters of Rhode Island flooded civil and military officials with 
complaints of the Gaspee, exhausting every diplomatic and legal means 
to stir the British Crown to regulate Dudingston's conduct. Not only 
did British officials ignore the Rhode Islanders' concerns, they 
responded with open hostility. The commander of the local British 
fleet, Adm John Montagu, warned that anyone who dared attempt acts of 
resistance or retaliation against the Gaspee would be taken into 
custody and hanged as a pirate, which brings us to June 9, 1772, 240 
years ago this week.
  Rhode Island ship captain Benjamin Lindsey was en route to Providence 
from Newport in his ship, the Hannah, when he was accosted and ordered 
to yield for inspection by the Gaspee. Captain Lindsey and his crew 
ignored that command and raced northward up Narragansett Bay--despite 
the warning shots fired by the Gaspee. As the Gaspee gave chase, 
Captain Lindsey knew that his ship was lighter and drew less water, so 
he sped north toward Pawtuxet Cove, toward the shallow waters off 
Namquid Point. The Hannah shot over the shallows, but the heavier 
Gaspee grounded and stuck firm.
  The British ship and her crew were caught stranded in a falling tide 
and would need to wait many hours for a rising tide to free the hulking 
Gaspee. Spotting this irresistible opportunity, Captain Lindsey 
proceeded on his course to Providence and enlisted the help of John 
Brown, a respected merchant from one of the most prominent families in 
the city. The two men rallied a group of Rhode Island patriots at 
Sabin's Tavern in what is now the East Side of Providence. Together, 
the group resolved to put an end to the Gaspee's reign over Rhode 
Island waters.
  That night, the men, led by Captain Lindsey and Abraham Whipple, 
embarked in eight longboats quietly down Narragansett Bay. They 
encircled the Gaspee and called on Lieutenant Dudingston to surrender 
his ship. Dudingston refused and ordered his men to fire upon any who 
tried to board. Refusing to yield to Dudingston's threats, the Rhode 
Islanders forced their way onto the Gaspee's deck, wounding Dudingston 
with a musket ball in the midst of the struggle. Right there in the 
waters of Warwick, RI, the very first blood in the conflict that was to 
become the American Revolution was drawn.
  As the patriots commandeered the ship, Brown ordered one of his Rhode 
Islanders, a physician named John Mawney, to head immediately to the 
ship's cabin to tend to Dudingston's wound. In their moment of victory, 
Brown and his men showed mercy to a man loathed for his cruelty, a man 
who had threatened to open fire on them only moments before.
  Allowing the Gaspee's crew time to collect their belongings, Brown 
and Whipple took the captive Englishmen to the shore before returning 
to the despised Gaspee to rid Narragansett Bay of her presence once and 
for all. They set her afire. The blaze spread to the ship's powder 
magazine, setting off explosions like fireworks, the resulting blast 
echoing across the bay as airborne fragments of the ship splashed down 
into the water.
  The site of this historic victory is now named Gaspee Point in honor 
of these audacious Rhode Islanders. So I come again to this Senate 
floor to share this story and to commemorate the night of June 9, 1772, 
and the names of Benjamin Lindsey, John Brown, and Abraham Whipple, a 
man who went on to serve as a naval commander in the Revolutionary War. 
I do know that these events and the patriots whose efforts allowed for 
their success are not forgotten in my home State. Over the years, I 
have enjoyed marching in the annual Gaspee Day Parade in Warwick, RI, 
as every year we recall the courage and zeal of these men who fired the 
first shots that drew the first blood in that great contest for the 
freedoms we enjoy today. They set a precedent for future patriots to 
follow--including those in Boston who more than a year later would have 
their Tea Party.
  But don't forget, as my home State prepares once again to celebrate 
the anniversary of the Gaspee incident, that while Massachusetts 
colonists threw tea bags off the deck of their British ship, we blew 
ours up and shot its captain more than a year before. We are little in 
Rhode Island, but, as Lieutenant Dudingston discovered, we pack a 
punch.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  Jobs

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I just returned from a week back home in 
Indiana where I had the opportunity to meet with Hoosiers from all 
parts of our State and on all kinds of different issues. One of the 
common themes that came out of my week back home was the sentiment that 
we just are not growing as fast as we need to as a nation in order to 
get people back to work.
  We held a job fair in Lafayette, IN. About 2,200 people showed up at 
this job fair looking for work opportunities. While many walked away 
with job offers in hand, clearly there are not enough viable 
opportunities out there to get the people back to work who really want 
to get back to work.

  As I talked to businesspeople across the State, particularly with 
small business owners, there was a common theme that came forward: they 
are very reluctant to hire. It is not that their businesses aren't 
improving. We have seen some significant improvement, particularly in 
Indiana, with some drop in the unemployment rate. But they say it is 
not specifically that they don't have the work, it is that they are 
afraid to hire. They are afraid to hire new people because there is so 
much uncertainty about what their taxes are going to be, what new 
regulations are going to come forward, what new items are going to be 
imposed upon them by the regulatory authorities in Washington, DC, and 
by the health care reform bill which puts some new mandate on them.

       To hire new employees, they say, we have to factor in all 
     of these various uncertainties in terms of our ability to 
     continue this business on a profitable basis. So whether it 
     is talking to farmers in southern Indiana who are upset about 
     the various proposed regulations affecting their businesses 
     or whether it is manufacturers in northwest Indiana or to 
     small business people across the State, I am hearing this 
     repetitive response--that Washington is trying to impose too 
     much, and there is too much uncertainty about their ability 
     to deal with the future and make decisions about hiring.

  One of the latest things we have been hearing is that the EPA is 
imposing significant new regulations relative to the Clean Air Act on 
emissions that will affect Indiana utilities in a very significant way. 
Another thing our businesspeople mentioned is they don't know what 
their utility rates are going to be in the future because of these new 
regulations coming out, and the utilities are basically telling them 
they are going to have to pay more in the future because of these new 
regulations.
  I stand here as someone who voted for the Clean Air Act and supports 
the Clean Air Act. We are all for clean air. However, there are those 
of us who are trying to propose reasonable ways of achieving that goal 
without negatively impacting our ability to hire people and the ability 
of consumers to pay their utility bills and the ability of corporations 
and businesses to have reasonable rates so they can compete

[[Page S3824]]

worldwide in producing products. They are not asking for a return to 
dirty skies. They are not asking for a return to dirty water. They are 
citizens of the United States. They breathe the same air we all 
breathe. What they are saying, however, is that they need a solution to 
the problem handled in a responsible, reasonable way, and an affordable 
way that gives them time to implement these regulations. There has been 
a lot of talk recently about two items the EPA has been imposing on the 
power industry, and after visiting with Indiana utilities it is clear 
the EPA timeline will result in more job loss and skyrocketing rates. 
So, again, while we all want to support clean air, doing so in a way 
that also keeps our people at work and keeps our utility rates at a 
reasonable level is not being considered by the EPA.
  I joined with a Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, to bring 
forward legislation that meets the standards and meets the goals but 
does so in a way that gives those power-producing utilities the 
opportunity and time and cost opportunity to be able to accomplish 
that. All we have done is just extend, in the case of one of the 
regulations, for 2 years, and in the case of another, for 3 years to 
give those utilities time to comply because the immediate compliance 
requirements of the EPA on these utilities means they are going to have 
to shut down the plants.
  Some of them are in retrofit as we speak; however, that retrofit may 
not meet the EPA deadline. Therefore, they are asking for the right to 
get a waiver for an extension. That is what Manchin-Coats--Coats-
Manchin--does. It provides a reasonable way of achieving the goals of 
clean air, but doing so in a way that doesn't have a devastating impact 
on our States as these regulations would do.
  One is the CSAPR Rule, which deals with sulfur and nitrogen oxide 
emissions, and the other is called Utility MACT, which reduces mercury 
emissions. In particular, there is a movement underway now to remove 
mercury from these emissions. But if we don't do it in a responsible 
way, the consequences of the EPA regulations coming down hard mean 
closing up to six powerplants in Indiana and a skyrocketing of utility 
rates.
  There is a particular impact on small business. Small business, as we 
know, provides most of the hiring and those small businesspeople don't 
have the backroom support to comply with all the written and required 
regulations that are being imposed on them. I have talked to so many 
people who have said instead of being out on the showroom floor, being 
out front at the counter, they have to be back half the time in their 
business complying with regulations. A hospital administrator told me 
of the 12,000 people under their employ, 6,000 provide care and 6,000 
fill out paperwork for compliance with regulations, compliance with 
reimbursement, administrative costs, many of which are imposed by 
legislation or regulation, in most cases, that comes out of Washington.
  So as we look at opportunities in the Senate to responsibly address 
some of these issues, in this business it is always tempting to 
politicize the process so that if someone doesn't immediately step up 
and salute the latest EPA regulation, we are harming people here or 
denying people there; that there are safety concerns, and we are 
risking harm to people and so forth. All we are asking for is a 
reasonable way to go forward to meet reasonable health and safety 
standards. What we are saying is that the surge of regulations that is 
pouring out of Washington upon our people and upon our businesses 
within the last 2 or 3 years is staggering, and it is clearly holding 
down growth. It is clearly holding down economic recovery. It is 
clearly holding down the ability of businesses to hire and put more 
people back to work.
  So whether it is the Inhofe resolution of disapproval, which I 
strongly support, or any of a number of other proposals, I am going to 
support those. The blank check that has been given to regulatory 
agencies, because it is not possible for this administration to pass it 
through Congress as they did in 2009 and 2010 with a total majority no 
longer exists. Therefore, the regulatory agencies appear to have been 
given a blank check, and they have just run amok with regulations. So 
as we look at these regulations, let's take a reasonable look in terms 
of what we need to accomplish and in terms of providing for the health 
and safety of our people and what the consequences are of trying to do 
it in a way that jeopardizes our economic recovery and getting people 
back to work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to speak on S. 3240, the 
legislation to reauthorize the farm bill. As a former chairman and 
former ranking member of the Agriculture Committee in the Senate, I 
recognize how difficult it is to combine all of the diverse interests 
into legislation that meets the needs of all crops, regions, and rural 
and urban communities that the farm bill impacts. This bill before us 
is no exception. I am disappointed that at this time I am not able to 
support this bill because of its current form.
  I wish to take a moment to commend the chairman and the ranking 
member for their efforts in putting a farm bill together in the very 
difficult budget time we are in. We all understand that agriculture has 
to pay its fair share of deficit reduction. Frankly, for what it is 
worth, it is going to be at the lead of the pack when it comes to 
participating in deficit reduction. We are one of the first agencies 
out of the box to make a commitment to do so.
  That being said, it is my hope that at the end of the day, I will be 
able to support this bill as we complete the legislative process. 
However, as of today, the bill is filled with inequities and is 
unbalanced. Contrary to statements made on this floor over the last 
several days, the bill under consideration seeks to place a one-size-
fits-all policy on every region of the country. It works for some 
regions, but it does not work for other regions. Because the 
distribution of benefits is skewed to one particular region, it fails 
the basic test of fairness that we all seek in legislation that moves 
through this Chamber.
  I believe the farm bill needs to provide an effective safety net for 
farmers, ranchers, and rural communities in times of deep and sustained 
price decline. It should also responsibly provide nutrition assistance 
to those in need in all parts of the country, urban and rural alike.
  The farm bill initially, and remains, focused on farmers and 
ranchers, helping them manage a combination of challenges, much out of 
their own individual control, such as unpredictable weather, variable 
input costs, and market volatility. All combined determine profit or 
loss in any given year. The 2008 farm bill continues today to provide a 
strong safety net for producers, and any follow-on legislation must 
adhere to and honor the same commitment we made to our farmers and 
ranchers across America 4 years ago.
  At the same time, I believe the agriculture sector can contribute to 
deficit reduction, and the bill before us provides savings and 
mandatory spending programs. The key, though, is to do this in an 
equitable and fair manner throughout all titles and areas of the bill. 
The nutrition benefits in this bill, which are already inflated by the 
President's failed stimulus package, are reduced by only one-half of 1 
percent, while the commodity title is cut by roughly 15 percent. By 
this account, it is clear that the Agriculture Committee carefully 
determined how best to contribute to deficit reduction to ensure an 
undue burden was not placed on those truly in need.
  This farm bill will be my fourth as a Member of Congress, and each 
has had its own unique challenges and opportunities. Balancing the 
needs and interests of all agriculture requires patience and an open 
ear. It is very important that we recognize the unique differences 
between commodities as well as different parts of the country.
  As agricultural markets become more complex, we must be mindful that 
a one-size-fits-all program no longer works for U.S. agriculture. 
Regions are much more diverse than they ever were, and we need to 
recognize this diversity by providing producers with different options 
that best match their cropping and growing decisions.
  My greatest concern with this bill is that the commodity title 
redistributes resources from one region to another not based on market 
forces or cropping decisions, but based on how the underlying program--
the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program--was designed.

[[Page S3825]]

After deducting a share for deficit reduction, certain commodities 
receive more resources than others, and crops such as peanuts and rice 
are left without any safety net whatsoever.
  There are many reports illustrating the lopsidedness of this bill. 
Among the biggest losers in budget baseline are wheat, barley, grain, 
grain sorghum, rice, cotton, and peanuts. We should not convince 
ourselves that this is not going to have an enormous negative 
consequence for many regions of the country. Put simply, by making the 
bill too rich for a few at the expense of many it lacks balance.
  Some will say planting shifts are responsible for much of the change 
in the budget baseline, and that is partly true. But it does not take 
away the injury that would be inflicted on regions of the country nor 
does it tell the whole story. By squeezing all crops into a program 
specially designed for one or two crops, this bill will force many 
growers to switch to those crops in order to have an effective safety 
net. This is the very planting distortion caused by farm policy that we 
seek to avoid in any farm bill.

  But there is another very serious problem with this bill: It is not 
going to be there when farmers really need it. Whether offered on an 
on-farm or area-wide basis, offering farmers a narrow 10-percent band 
of revenue protection will not provide a safety net if crop prices 
collapse--and we know they will. Under this bill, a farmer has an 11-
percent deductible, then the next 10 percent of losses is covered, but 
then farmers are left totally exposed to a plunge in crop prices all 
the way down to the loan rate. If that happens, Congress will be asked 
to pass ad hoc disaster programs again. We should seek to avoid such 
disaster packages, and farm bills give us the opportunity to do that, 
not create ad hoc disaster opportunities. Crop insurance can cover the 
production side of the risk if you can afford to buy higher coverage, 
but it does not cover year-on-year low prices. Even the 10-percent 
revenue band the bill does cover has problems. Because the revenue 
guarantee is based on the previous 5 years' price and production, the 
guarantee is only as good as those previous 5 years. If they were bad 
or they become bad, the guarantee is also bad. This is not an effective 
safety net.
  Just last week, my staff and I traveled throughout south Georgia, and 
we witnessed crop damages and in some cases total losses of crops which 
were the result of a hailstorm that occurred across a 40-mile stretch 
of Georgia. It is estimated that well over 10,000 acres have been 
damaged or totally lost. I do not see how a small band of revenue 
protection, provided for in this bill, that is limited to $50,000, is 
helpful to some farmers who lost over $1 million in one field. The ARC 
proposal in this bill is simply not an effective safety net.
  Members have come to the floor championing the commodity and crop 
insurance programs included in the bill, as well as stating that we 
were solving the problem with commodity programs by eliminating direct 
payments. I have seen quotes in the press criticizing southern 
commodities, stating we are too closely tied to direct payments.
  Well, let me be very clear. I have never been a fan of direct 
payments, and back in 1996, as a Member of the House, I supported a 
much different proposal. Let me also state clearly that from my point 
of view, direct payments were always difficult to defend and we needed 
to find a different way to provide a safety net, while doing it in a 
fiscally responsible way. Southern growers have not asked for direct 
payments at any time during the current discussions. My criticism stems 
entirely from the fact that this farm bill shoehorns all producers into 
a one-size-fits-all policy. Producer choice based on a producer's 
inherent risk is the better course to follow.
  The University of Georgia's National Center for Peanut 
Competitiveness evaluated the ARC Program, which is the fundamental 
safety net that is provided for in this farm bill, and they determined 
that it is of little utility to peanut producers. The center has a 
database of 22 representative farms spread throughout Oklahoma, New 
Mexico, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, 
North Carolina, and Virginia. Based on the analysis provided, this farm 
bill does not provide the same level of protection as for midwestern 
growers who will be growing corn and soybeans. That is a fact.
  I want to work with the chair and ranking member with respect to 
trying to make the bill more balanced and more equitable, but, frankly, 
all of our offers to this point in time have been rejected. Peanut 
producers have offered no proposal that includes direct payments, yet 
they are labeled as ``unwilling to change from the status quo.'' The 
ARC Program is not new; it is a derivative of a program in the 2008 
farm bill that experienced low participation. In fact, when producers 
had a choice, they chose something other than this type of program.
  In spite of all this, I should point out that this bill includes a 
new program for cotton that complies with our international commitments 
and will show our trading partners that we will abide by our 
international agreements.
  As chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, I 
committed to finding a solution to the WTO Brazil case. I authored 
legislation in 2005 and again in 2008 that made significant changes in 
the cotton and export programs to bring us into compliance with our 
international commitments. We eliminated the Step 2 program, we 
reformed the cotton marketing loan program, and reduced the cotton 
countercyclical program unilaterally and in good faith.
  We find ourselves again reforming the cotton safety net with what is 
called the Stacked Income Protection Plan for users of upland cotton, 
or the STAX program. The program in this bill is a significant 
departure from what is available to other covered commodities and puts 
us down the path of resolving the WTO dispute with Brazil. My hope now 
is that our Brazilian friends engage in a real and meaningful way and 
we can put this issue behind us.
  At the end of the day, let's remember, the reason we are here is to 
represent the hard-working men and women who work the land each day to 
provide the highest quality of agricultural products in the world. I 
believe we have the opportunity to pass a bill that can be equal to 
their commitment in providing food, feed, and fiber that allow us to 
continue to be the greatest producer on the Earth.
  Right now, this bill lacks the commitment and strength of those it 
was designed to support. I do not intend to impede the movement of the 
farm bill that, if repaired through an open amendment process--of which 
we have been assured at this point--has the potential of providing for 
all of America.
  Farm bills are complex. They always consume a lot of floor time. But 
the farm policy is also very important. I look forward to the 
forthcoming debate over the next several days and weeks and, at the end 
of the day, to hopefully having a true, meaningful, and balanced farm 
bill that will provide producers an equitable opportunity of a safety 
net and at the same time continue to provide the world with the safest, 
most productive, and highest quality agricultural products there are 
today.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                   Majority Control of Senate Agenda

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, earlier today the majority leader and the 
majority whip came to the floor to decry and denounce, attack 
Republicans for what appeared to be literally everything bad that has 
happened in the world in the last several years, to the point you have 
to ask yourself, do they really believe what they are saying? They came 
down here to talk about how Republicans are blocking this, are blocking 
that.
  I think it is important to point out that now for the past 6 years, 
the Democrats have been the majority party in the U.S. Senate. In fact, 
for 2 of those years, they had a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in 
the Senate. Filibuster proof--literally, they could do anything they 
wanted to in the Senate. They had a majority in the House of 
Representatives, and, of course, they got the Presidency.
  If you look at the volume of the legislation that was produced at the 
time, most of the things that were accomplished with the 60-vote, 
filibuster-proof majority were things the American people disagreed 
with--I think as

[[Page S3826]]

evidenced now by what you see in terms of public opinion polling about 
the health care bill. Most people disagree with the individual mandate 
that was included in that legislation and disagree generally with many 
of the provisions in the bill.
  But my point very simply is, for a period of time, the Democrats 
literally had the run of the tables here in Washington, DC, as we know 
it--a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the Senate, a majority in 
the House of Representatives, and the Presidency--yet they come down 
and decry Republicans as being responsible for all the things that have 
or have not happened here in the Senate.
  One of the things they point out is that there is this intent by 
Republicans to continue to filibuster legislation. I would argue that 
nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, everybody knows that 
in the Senate the majority leader is the person who is first to be 
recognized on the Senate floor, which allows him to use that power to 
offer a series of Democratic amendments to pending legislation in a way 
that prevents Republicans from offering their own ideas. It is called 
filling the tree--sort of a term of art that is used around here in the 
Senate. But filling the tree essentially is what the Democratic 
majority leader has the opportunity to do because he has the power of 
recognition and he can fill the amendment tree and prevent the 
Republican amendments from being offered and voted on.
  Now, interestingly enough, Majority Leader Reid once insisted that 
this practice ``runs against the basic nature of the Senate.'' Let me 
repeat that. Majority Leader Reid once insisted that filling the 
amendment tree ``runs against the basic nature of the Senate.'' But by 
the way the Senate operates today, it is pretty clear that he has 
abandoned that assessment.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the CRS, Majority 
Leader Reid has employed this tactic a record 59 times. He has used it 
to block minority input into legislation 50 percent more often than the 
past six majority leaders combined. I think that is worth repeating. 
This majority leader has used the filling-of-the-tree procedure 50 
percent more often than the past six majority leaders combined. So the 
only option the minority is left with under that scenario is to 
basically try to get votes on amendments and to work with the majority, 
in which case the majority says: No, we are not going to give you any 
amendments; we have filled the tree. So a cloture motion is filed, and 
we end up having a vote on cloture.
  What we have seen repeatedly now is the Senate sort of break down 
into this state of dysfunction simply because the majority does not 
want to make tough votes on amendments. We have seen this over and over 
and over again. As I say, it is historic and unprecedented in terms of 
the number of times it has occurred in the U.S Senate.
  I would also suggest that the real reason, probably, that we do not 
have votes on amendments and that the filling of the tree is used 
repeatedly is because Members on the other side do not want to make the 
hard decisions, do not want to cast the tough votes. I think that is 
evidenced as well by the fact that for 3 years in a row now, we have 
not had a budget in the Senate.
  If there was a real interest in solving problems, you would think the 
majority--again, which has the responsibility to put a budget on the 
floor--would bring a budget to the floor that would set a direction for 
the future of this country and ask the Members of the Senate to vote on 
it, to vote on amendments, to have an opportunity to say to the 
American people: This is how we would lead the country. That has not 
happened now for over 1,100 days, for the past 3 years.
  Now, Republicans are ready and willing to work with the majority, as 
we have evidenced on many occasions. In fact, we are going to debate, 
this next week, farm bill legislation--something for which there is 
bipartisan support in the Senate.
  I would argue that there are many things we would like to see done. 
We would love to have an opportunity to vote on extending the tax rates 
that are in effect today--which is something that even President 
Clinton in the last few days has come out in support of--because we 
know--everybody here knows--we are facing this fiscal cliff. It could 
be very dangerous to our economy if steps are not taken to prevent and 
avoid that. And we would be more than willing to work with the majority 
on extending the tax rates to give some certainty to our job creators 
and our small businesses.
  We would also like to work with them on the sequester that is going 
to happen at the end of the year, in redistributing those cuts in a way 
that does not completely decimate our national security budget.
  There are lots of things the Republicans are ready to work on with 
our colleagues on the other side when it comes to trying to grow the 
economy and create jobs. But, frankly, we believe it is important that 
we at least have an opportunity to get amendments debated and voted on. 
That simply has not happened, as I pointed out by the number of times 
the majority leader has filled the tree.
  So I am not suggesting there is not plenty of blame to go around in 
Washington for the state of the situation we are in. All I am simply 
saying is that for the majority leader to come down here and suggest 
that somehow Republicans are responsible for gridlock here in the U.S. 
Senate is a complete denial of reality and a denial of the facts.
  As I said before, they had a period here for a few years where they 
had the complete run of the place. They had a 60-vote, filibuster-proof 
majority in the Senate, a majority in the House of Representatives, and 
the Presidency, enabling you to do literally anything you wanted to do. 
They still have the majority in the U.S. Senate, the ability to control 
the agenda and to determine what does and does not come to the floor, 
what amendments are allowed, and the use of the filling of the tree in 
an unprecedented way. It is pretty clear to me that to suggest for a 
moment it is Republicans who are attempting to slow things down around 
here or keep the majority from working its will is completely contrary 
to the facts and the reality, as I think most Senators--all Senators, I 
think--know.
  I know my colleague from Wyoming is someone who is somewhat new here, 
but he has been here long enough now to have seen many times where the 
majority has prevented the minority from actually offering amendments, 
getting votes on amendments on the floor of the Senate. I would just 
suggest to him and allow him to make some observations with regard to 
this subject as well because it strikes me, at least, that he and I 
both--and many of our colleagues--are very interested in working with 
the majority on things that would actually put people back to work, get 
our economy growing again.
  We would love to have that opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I would just like to comment on that. 
Because it does not matter how long one is here, all we need do is pick 
up the newspaper or pick up the National Journal. I agree with my 
colleague from South Dakota.
  At the beginning of this year, the National Journal, big article, 
picture of the majority leader, and the headline is: ``Reid's New 
Electoral Strategy.'' ``Forget passing bills'' is the subheadline. 
``Forget passing bills. The Democrats just want to play the blame game 
in 2012.''
  That is exactly what we saw this morning on the floor of the Senate. 
This is not some piece of fiction. This is something that actually the 
majority leader told 40 Democrats from the House about his goal, his 
intentions for the 2012 year in Congress. It goes on to say:

       Working with the White House, Senate Democrats are 
     applauding a 2012 floor agenda driven by Obama's reelection 
     campaign. . . .

  It goes on.

       Senate floor action will be planned less to make law--

  We have 8.2 percent unemployment, and this party admits--the leader 
admits in this piece the Senate action will be planned less to make 
law--

     than to buttress Obama's charge that Republicans are 
     obstructing measures. . . .

  That is what their goal is? That is a year's plan, as outlined to 
Democrats in the House from the majority leader.
  It goes on to say:

       . . . Democrats will push legislation that polls well and 
     dovetails with Obama's campaign. . . .


[[Page S3827]]


  With 8.2 percent unemployment, that is not polling so well. With the 
New York Times reporting today that over two-thirds of Americans want 
to find that the health care law is unconstitutional--New York Times, 
two-thirds of Americans, unconstitutional health care law. That is what 
the people are saying.
  Nothing this President and this administration and the Democrats are 
doing is polling very well. We ought to look back at the history of 
this great institution. The Senate is a unique legislative institution. 
No matter who the majority is, it is designed to guarantee the minority 
party, and therefore a large block of Americans whom it represents, 
that that party has a voice.
  Traditionally, this body functions well when the majority party works 
to find consensus with the minority party on the process and the 
substance of legislation--consultation, compromise, and both parties 
working together. Historically, that has been the rule, not the 
exception, as we have seen in recent years.
  I sit here and look at the seat, the empty seat a couple rows ahead 
of me and off to the other side of the aisle where Robert Byrd sat.
  Senator Byrd understood the importance of allowing for a full debate 
and amendment process in order to preserve the Senate as a unique 
institution in our democracy--``the one place in the whole government 
where the minority is guaranteed a public airing of its views.'' The 
Senate, he taught, ``was intended to be a forum for open and free 
debate and for the protection of political minorities.'' Indeed, ``as 
long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of 
unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure.''
  I would say allowing the minority to debate and amend legislation has 
given way to what we see now as Democrat's election-year political 
strategy of blaming Republicans as obstructionists. The minority and 
the majority need to work together. Majority Leader Reid has done all 
these things in terms of the strategy and the blaming by preventing 
Republicans from amending pending legislation, ending debate before it 
starts, and bypassing the committee process.
  He has made a habit of squelching the voice of the minority by 
curtailing its ability to amend legislation. The majority leader is 
always the first to be recognized on the Senate floor. He can use that 
power to offer a series of Democratic amendments to pending legislation 
in a way that prevents Republicans from offering any of their ideas. It 
is called filling the tree.
  How often does it happen? Let's think first about the history. The 
majority leader once insisted that this practice of filling the tree, 
he said, ``runs against the basic nature of the Senate.'' By the way 
the Senate operates today, however, it is clear he has abandoned that 
previous assessment.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, Majority Leader Reid 
has employed this tactic a record 59 times. He has used it to block 
minority input in legislation 50 percent more often than the past five 
majority leaders combined. The minority's only option, under these 
circumstances, is to oppose ending debate on legislation known as 
invoking cloture in order to convince the majority to allow it to offer 
amendments to legislation and thereby represent the interests of their 
constituents.
  This is a very bad practice. When one takes a look at Congress after 
Congress, whether it was George Mitchell, Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Tom 
Daschle, Bill Frist, combined, here we have Senator Reid 50 percent 
more than all the others combined.
  So here we are. We have come to the floor of the Senate to respond to 
what we heard from the majority leader this morning about 
obstructionism, and what do we see? It is just a page from the majority 
leader's playbook of the electoral strategy for 2012 from the leader of 
the majority. Forget passing bills, the Democrats just want to play the 
blame game in 2012. That is exactly what we saw today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                            The Highway Bill

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, actually, I am not here to play the 
blame game. I am here to talk about a place where we in the Senate have 
found real bipartisan consensus. It is an issue that is critical to us 
in the State of New Hampshire and to all the Senators because, in 23 
days, our country's surface transportation programs are going to shut 
down unless Congress can come to an agreement on critical legislation.
  Nearly 3 months ago, 74 Senators voted to pass a measure that would 
reauthorize these programs through the end of fiscal year 2013, 
providing much needed certainty to our States and to private industry. 
In this Chamber, Senators from vastly different ideologies were able to 
lay aside those differences and come up with bipartisan ways to pay for 
this bill, to streamline Federal programs, and to make our 
transportation investments more efficient, so we spend less on 
overhead, more on roads and bridges and other transportation projects.
  This process was not easy, as everyone remembers. It required 
compromise from both sides to ensure that we could put together 
legislation that would bring America's transportation policies into the 
21st century. But if Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma, the ranking member on 
the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Barbara Boxer, the 
chair of that committee, can come together and figure out how to put 
together a transportation bill, there is no reason why our adjoining 
body over in the House cannot do the same thing.
  I have been very disturbed by recent news that the House is less 
interested in finishing this bill than in approving a host of unrelated 
policies. There is a time and a place for us to consider whether some 
of the amendments that have been proposed on the Transportation bill in 
the House, such as whether coal ash should be regulated as a hazardous 
material, but the Transportation bill is not one of those places.

  We need to focus on policies that will encourage the types of 
investment in our highways, in our railroads, in our bridges that put 
Americans back to work and spur economic growth. We just heard the 
unemployment rate went up slightly for the last month. We have 
legislation pending that came out of the Senate that would put people 
back to work.
  Every billion dollars we spend in transportation funding puts 28,000 
people to work, and we have the House fiddling while construction 
workers all over this country are out of work. The conference committee 
needs to focus on transportation policies that will reduce congestion, 
that will create jobs, and that unleash economic development.
  We have a project similar to that in New Hampshire. It is one of our 
most important roads. It is the corridor that goes from our largest 
city of Manchester down to the border with Massachusetts. It has too 
much traffic on it today. It is a safety concern. We need to finish 
this road. We are being held up from doing that because of the failure 
of the House to be willing to go along with what the Senate did and 
reach agreement.
  Our Department of Transportation in New Hampshire has said that work 
on just a single portion of this highway, Interstate 93, will put to 
work 369 people in the construction industry, which is still 
struggling. That is the industry in this country that still has the 
biggest impact from this recession. Last year in Nashua and Portsmouth, 
NH, construction employment declined by 7 percent. Job creation in that 
industry remains stagnant in New Hampshire and nationwide and we need 
this legislation to get these folks back to work.
  It is not only construction jobs that depend on Federal investments 
in transportation; it is our economy as a whole. The deteriorating 
condition of America's infrastructure, its roads, its railroads, its 
bridges, costs businesses more than $100 billion a year in lost 
productivity, and this is a bill that a broad coalition of people are 
behind. Both the AFL CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce agree that we 
need transportation legislation.
  Despite the importance of this spending to American workers and 
businesses today, the House plans to vote on a motion to cut Federal 
transportation investment by one-third. The Federal Highway 
Administration found that cutting funding so severely would put 2,000 
people in New Hampshire alone out of work, one-half million people in 
the country out of work.

[[Page S3828]]

  This is a time when we should be creating jobs, not destroying them. 
Cutting funding at this time would be so shortsighted. Brazil, China, 
and India are all spending about 9 percent of their GDP per year on 
infrastructure, roads, bridges, public transportation. What we are 
spending in the United States is roughly 2 percent. That is half of 
what we were spending in the 1960s when there was real bipartisan 
support for policies from both President Kennedy and President Dwight 
Eisenhower to invest in projects such as our Interstate Highway System.
  Both Republicans and Democrats agree that investment in our 
Interstate Highway System was one of the best decisions in our Nation's 
history. Members of both parties need to come together as we have for 
decades and focus on reasonable bipartisan policies that will end the 
uncertainty that States and private industry are facing when it comes 
to our transportation legislation.
  On June 30, it will have been 1,000 days since our last Federal 
Transportation bill expired. Congress needs to come together now and 
pass a transportation reauthorization bill before we get to the end of 
those 1,000 days.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the farm 
bill which is now before the Senate. As a member of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, I worked, together with my fellow committee 
members, on a bipartisan basis to put forward what we believe is a 
sound farm bill for this country. We passed the bill out of committee 
on a strong bipartisan vote, 16 to 5. So it comes to the Senate floor 
for deliberation. The bill is entitled ``The Agriculture, Reform, Food 
and Jobs Act of 2012.''
  I would like to begin with just a simple question. Why is the farm 
bill so important? Why is the farm bill so important? I think the first 
chart I have sums it up. This is the most important point I will make 
today. I am going to begin and I am going to conclude my comments with 
it as well. U.S. farmers and ranchers provide the highest quality, 
lowest cost food supply in the world. Our farmers and ranchers today 
provide the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world.
  Not only do they provide the highest quality, lowest cost food supply 
in the world, but in the history of the world. That is vitally 
important to every single American. So when we pass a farm policy that 
supports our network of farmers and ranchers throughout this great 
country, we are doing something that makes a fundamental difference 
every day for every American and for millions of people beyond our 
borders.
  There are other aspects to the farm bill that are very important as 
well. For example, we have a tremendous number of jobs in farming and 
ranching across this country--every State in this country, throughout 
our heartland and beyond. There are not just direct jobs in farming and 
ranching but there are indirect jobs, from food processing to retail, 
to transportation, to marketing--you name it. We could say it is an 
incredible jobs bill, which it is. There is no question about it. When 
we provide a good, sound, solid farm program for our farmers and 
ranchers, we are also very much passing a jobs bill as well.
  We can also talk about it in terms of a favorable balance of trade. 
The United States has a deficit in its trade balance, but agriculture 
has a positive balance of trade. We export millions in food products 
all over the world to feed hungry people, and it generates a positive 
return for this country in a big way.
  We can talk about it in terms of national security. Think about how 
important good farm policy is for national security. We produce not 
only the food we need, but far more than the food we need for our 
citizens, we provide food for many citizens in other countries as well. 
Think about the national security implications if we had to depend on 
other countries for our food supply--maybe even countries that don't 
necessarily share our interests or values, which is currently the case 
with energy. We certainly don't want to be in that situation when it 
comes to feeding our people. So it is truly an issue of national 
security. We want to be in the position to make sure we have farmers 
and ranchers who will supply not only the food we need in this country 
but food that people consume in many countries throughout the world.
  For all those reasons this is an incredibly important bill. It is not 
just incredibly important to farmers and ranchers, it is incredibly 
important for every single one of us--for all those reasons and more.
  The second point I want to make is this farm bill is cost-effective. 
It is not only cost-effective, but we provide real savings to help to 
reduce the deficit and the debt. It provides strong support to our 
farmers and ranchers, but it does it the right way. It does it in a way 
where we provide savings that will go to reduce the deficit and debt. 
Our farmers and ranchers are stepping up and not only doing an amazing 
job for this country in terms of what they do in food supply and job 
creation, but they are helping meet the challenge of our deficit and 
debt as well.
  The second chart is an example of what I am talking about in terms of 
the farm program being cost-effective. I will use this and several 
other charts to go into the actual numbers to show that the farm 
program--particularly this bill we have crafted--is not only cost-
effective, but it provides real savings as well. At the same time, it 
provides enhanced support for our farmers and ranchers throughout the 
country.
  Looking at the chart, if you think of the total Federal budget as 
this cornfield, the portion that goes to the farm bill would be similar 
to this ear of corn out of the cornfield. If you think of the total 
cornfield as the Federal budget, the farm bill would be about one ear 
of corn. The portion of the farm bill that goes to farmers and ranchers 
to support what they do would be one kernel of corn out of the entire 
cornfield. To put those numbers into perspective--and these are 
analyzed numbers--you are talking about Federal spending of about $3.7 
trillion, in that range. You are talking about a farm bill that, on an 
annualized basis, is about $100 billion. So it is $100 billion out of 
$3.7 trillion. Then if you talk about the portion that actually goes to 
support farmers and ranchers and support that network, you are talking 
about less than $20 billion out of $3.7 trillion. That is why I use 
this frame of reference.
  If we go to the next chart, we will go into some of the numbers and 
how that funding is broken out in the farm bill itself. This pie chart 
shows the CBO scoring. Of course with any legislation you need the CBO 
scoring that shows the actual cost. We try to do that in a consistent 
way across all of the legislation we pass. CBO uses a 10-year scoring 
period. On that basis, this entire pie, the farm program score, over a 
10-year period is $960 billion. Of that, almost $800 billion is 
nutrition programs. Almost 80 percent goes to nutrition. I mean by 
that, primarily SNAP, nutritional assistance payments, or food stamps. 
So nutrition programs comprise 80 percent of the total cost in the farm 
bill.
  Only about 20 percent actually goes for farming and ranching, for 
farm programs, and for conservation. So in the scoring, that is only 
about $200 billion. We know the bill is not a 10-year bill, it is a 5-
year bill. So the actual cost is $480 billion, or half of the score. 
That means approximately $400 billion goes for nutrition programs, food 
stamps, and so forth; and less than $100 billion goes for farm programs 
and conservation programs. So we are talking about an annual cost of 
this farm program--a program that supports farmers and ranchers who 
feed this country and much of the world--of about $20 billion--actually 
less.
  Let's go to the next chart on how the program actually provides 
savings, how farmers and ranchers are providing real savings for 
deficit reduction in this country. This bill saves more than $23 
billion--$23.6 billion is the savings generated by this farm bill; $15 
billion comes from the farm programs themselves; $6 billion comes from 
conservation programs; only about $4 billion comes out of nutrition 
programs. So 80 percent of the cost in the bill is nutrition programs, 
which is $400 billion over 5 years. Only $4 billion comes out of the 
nutrition programs; close to $20 billion comes out of the agriculture 
portion of the bill. Going back to my prior chart, if you go back to 
the crop insurance provisions and commodity,

[[Page S3829]]

which comprise the farm support network, that is about $150 billion in 
the CBO scoring. Remember, I said $15 billion comes out of that $150 
billion. My point is that 10-percent reduction. So farmers and ranchers 
are stepping up in the farm bill and saying, OK, we are going to help 
meet the deficit and the debt challenge. They are, in essence, taking 
10 percent less.
  Think about that, if throughout all aspects of the Federal budget 
everybody stepped up the way farmers and ranchers are in this 
legislation and said, OK, here is a 10-percent reduction we are going 
to take to help get the deficit under control and the debt under 
control. My point is, very clearly, in this legislation we have real 
savings, and that savings is being provided by our farmers and 
ranchers.
  At the same time--this is my third point, and it is very important--
this farm bill provides the kinds of support our farmers and ranchers 
need by providing the risk management tools our farmers need. This farm 
bill provides strong support for our farmers and ranchers, and it does 
it the right way. It does it right, with sound risk management tools. 
What are those risk management tools? I have them here on the chart. It 
enhances crop insurance. Second, a new Agriculture Risk Coverage--or 
ARC--Program. It includes also reauthorization of the no-net-cost sugar 
program. It improves and extends the livestock disaster assistance 
program. These are the kinds of risk management tools our farmers and 
ranchers have asked for. They are cost-effective and a market-based 
approach. They provide the sound, solid safety net our farmers and 
producers need to continue to produce the food supply for this country.
  I will go into more detail on the next chart on crop insurance. As I 
travel around the State, and as myself and others who are members of 
the Ag Committee travel the country, one thing our farmers and ranchers 
say to us over and over again is that they want enhancements to crop 
insurance. We worked on the safety net for our farmers, and as we 
worked on the tools for them, they said the heart of the farm bill 
needs to be enhanced crop insurance. That is exactly what we have done 
with this legislation. That is the heart of the bill.
  Enhanced crop insurance involves a number of things. First, farmers 
can buy individual crop insurance, and do buy it, at whatever level 
they deem appropriate. They look at their farm operation and decide how 
much crop insurance they are going to buy to cover that farm operation. 
But as they insure at higher levels, the cost to buy that insurance 
gets more and more expensive. One of the things we tried to do in terms 
of enhancing crop insurance is figure out how we can help insure at a 
higher level at an affordable price. That is one of the new 
innovations. It is called the supplemental coverage option, or SCO. It 
enables farmers to insure or cover their farming operation at a higher 
level, but still at an affordable price.
  The way it works is, the farmer buys his normal, individual, crop 
insurance that he would normally purchase. But then, in addition, on a 
countywide basis, he can buy supplemental coverage, with the 
supplemental coverage option, on top of his existing insurance. If he 
typically insures up to, say, 60, 65, or maybe a 70-percent level, he 
can buy additional insurance on top of his regular policy at a 
reasonable premium. His regular policy is an individual, farm-based 
policy, and this is a county-based policy that provides additional 
coverage at a reduced rate--again, management tools on a market-based 
approach to cover their farming operation.
  The second innovation on the next chart is a program called 
Agriculture Risk Coverage, or ARC. Very often, farmers--obviously, one 
of the challenges they face is due to weather. When they face weather 
challenges, oftentimes we can get in a wet cycle or a dry cycle. So the 
problem they have with weather may not be limited to one year. You may 
have a number of years where they face real weather challenges.
  In addition, what may happen is that it may trigger losses in their 
farming operation that are not severe enough to trigger their regular 
crop insurance, but still cause them losses. You can have repetitive or 
shallow losses. Over time, those can make an incredible difference in 
terms of farmers being able to continue in farming and continue their 
operation. We add shallow loss coverage, or the agriculture risk 
coverage, to help them protect against these repetitive losses, which 
they often face due to weather conditions. That is the agriculture risk 
coverage. It covers between 11 and 21 percent of historical revenue.
  How do you calculate that percentage? That is a 5-year average--the 
last 5-year average--based on price and yield, the revenue they 
generate on their farming operation. You take out the high year and the 
low year, and you average the other three. The way it works is, when 
you have a year where the farmer's crop insurance may not trigger, they 
still have help when they have a loss, but a loss that may not trigger 
on their crop insurance. In other cases, it works with their crop 
insurance to make sure they are adequately covered so they can continue 
their farming operation. Again, an enhanced risk management tool, cost-
effective, focused on a market-based approach to make sure our farmers 
and ranchers have the coverage they need to continue their operation.

  One other point I want to make in wrapping up is that this bill also 
continues strong support for agricultural research. Agricultural 
research is making a tremendous difference for our farmers in terms of 
what they are doing to increase productivity. Obviously, we all know 
technology has done amazing things to help productivity. But at the 
same time, agricultural research has made an incredible difference in 
not only food production--productivity when it comes to food 
production--but energy production as well.
  So that is it. That is how this legislation works. It provides strong 
support to our farmers and ranchers. It provides that support on a 
cost-effective basis. The bill emphasizes a market-based approach, 
focused on crop insurance, which is exactly what producers have told us 
they want. At the same time, this legislation provides real savings--
$23.6 billion--to help reduce the Federal deficit and the debt. It is 
bipartisan, and it received strong committee support.
  I know some of our southern friends are still looking for more help 
with price protection, and we are working with them. It is likely the 
House Agriculture Committee will seek to do more in that area as well. 
But this is legislation that we need to move forward. This is 
legislation that supports our farmers and our ranchers the right way as 
they continue to provide--and I am going to go back to my very first 
chart--support our farmers and ranchers as they provide the highest 
quality and the lowest cost food supply for every single American.
  As I said, this is where I started my comments, and this is where I 
will conclude. When we are talking about a farm bill, we are talking 
about something that is important to every single American--every 
single American. We do it the right way here, and I ask all of my 
fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle--we worked together in a 
great bipartisan way in the committee--to work together in a great 
bipartisan way on the Senate floor and pass this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Health Care Cost Reduction Act of 2012

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the House of Representatives will 
vote on the Health Care Cost Reduction Act of 2012. I want to say a few 
words about that bill, which repeals two of the more counterproductive 
of the many components of the President's health care law.
  Specifically, it repeals the restrictions on the use of FSAs and HSAs 
in the purchase of over-the-counter medications, as well as the medical 
device tax.
  I want to thank my colleagues in the House for advancing this 
legislation. Repeal of the onerous OTC restrictions and the device tax 
are priorities of

[[Page S3830]]

mine as well. I have introduced legislation that specifically repeals 
the medical device tax, and my bill--the Family and Retirement Health 
Investment Act--includes the repeal of the limitations on the purchase 
of over-the-counter medication.
  Others in the Senate, including my friend and colleague Senator 
Hutchison, have also been working to repeal the OTC restrictions. My 
friends from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, Senators Brown and Toomey, 
have been strong advocates for repeal of the medical device tax. I 
appreciate working with them and all Members who are committed to the 
repeal of the President's health care law.
  I appreciate the hard work of Chairman Camp and Speaker Boehner in 
moving the Health Care Cost Reduction Act through committee and onto 
the floor. I also want to thank, in particular, my friend Congressman 
Erik Paulsen of Minnesota for his hard work. We have partnered on both 
the OTC repeal and the medical device repeal, and he has been tireless 
in fighting not only for his constituents but for all Americans who are 
burdened by these misguided policies.
  Despite some weak protestations to the contrary from the White House, 
neither of these provisions serve any health policy purpose. They exist 
for one reason: to bankroll the $2.6 trillion in new spending that is 
the real soul of ObamaCare. There is no good that can come of 
ObamaCare. The bad and ugly are plenty, however.
  The restriction on the purchase of over-the-counter medications--what 
some have called a medicine cabinet tax--inconveniences patients and 
busy families, increases burdens on primary care providers, reduces 
patient choice, and may actually increase health care utilization and 
spending. So much for bending the cost curve down.
  The medical device tax, in addition to harming patients, is a job 
killer at a time when our country needs all the good jobs it can get. 
Together, they are also clear violations of the President's pledge not 
to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.
  With respect to the restrictions on the purchase of over-the-counter 
medications, ObamaCare now requires the holders of health savings 
accounts and flexible spending arrangements to obtain a physician's 
prescription before using those accounts to purchase over-the-counter 
medicine. In some respects, this policy, more than any 
other, represents the incredible arrogance and wrongheadedness of the 
President's signature domestic achievement.

  When President Obama and his allies touted the virtues of this law, 
they mentioned increased access and lower costs. Yet to pay for the 
law's coverage expansions, they included this medicine cabinet tax, 
which will do nothing but burden medical providers, undermine access to 
health care, and increase costs for patients and businesses.
  It is worth noting that in yesterday's Statement of Administration 
Policy announcing President Obama's opposition to the House bill, they 
did not even describe this provision in detail, much less defend it. It 
seems clear to me the administration is embarrassed by this tax on 
patients, and they should be.
  A study from the Consumer Health Products Association determined that 
10 percent of office visits are for minor ailments, and 40 million 
medical appointments are avoided annually through the self-care enabled 
by over-the-counter drugs.
  According to a study by Booz & Company, the availability of these 
over-the-counter medications saves $102 billion annually in clinical 
and drug costs. Yet ObamaCare deliberately restricts their 
availability.
  With respect to the medical device tax, we all know how bad this tax 
policy is. I am sure the President knows how bad this policy is as 
well, but he and his allies continue to defend it. Beginning next year, 
ObamaCare imposes a tax on the sales of medical device makers--not the 
profits, the sales.
  With this excise tax, even unprofitable firms will be responsible for 
a 2.30-percent tax on sales of their devices. It is difficult to 
overstate the damage to patients and our economy this tax will wreak.
  According to one analysis, this ObamaCare tax will kill between 
14,000 and 47,000 jobs. We wonder why we are having trouble with 
unemployment. According to another analysis by Benjamin Zycher, it will 
reduce research and development by $2 billion a year. The resulting 
collapse in innovation will undermine care for not only the elderly but 
all patients. Zycher has determined that the effect of this tax will be 
1 million life-years lost annually--one million life-years lost 
annually.
  Between 1980 and 2000, new diagnostic and treatment tools, such as 
improved scanners, catheters and tools for minimally invasive surgery, 
helped increase life expectancy by more than 3 years. Medical devices 
helped to slash the death rate from heart disease by a stunning 50 
percent and cut the death rate from stroke by 30 percent.
  From 1980 to 2000 the medical device industry was responsible for a 
4-percent increase in U.S. life expectancy, a 16-percent decrease in 
mortality rates, and an astounding 25-percent decline in elderly 
disability rates, according to a study by MEDTAP International.
  Why on Earth would anyone vote for a targeted tax on an industry that 
provides such enormous value and security to patients?
  For those who vote against repealing this tax today and stand against 
its repeal in the Senate, it is worth recalling last week's jobs 
report. In the month of May, our economy created only 69,000 new jobs. 
That is, frankly, pathetic. It is barely keeping up with population 
growth, much less digging us out of our jobs deficit.
  I think there is little doubt the mere threat of this tax on medical 
devices is contributing to these paltry numbers. In other words, this 
tax is undercutting a key industry, creating deep uncertainty, and 
hindering job creation.
  Since President Obama signed this tax into law, the dollar amount of 
venture capital invested has declined more than 70 percent. The $200 
million raised last year is the lowest level of medical device startup 
activity since 1996.
  This industry is one of the engines of our economy. According to the 
Lewin Group--a highly respected group--the medical technology industry 
contributes nearly $382 billion in economic output to the U.S. economy 
every year. In 2006, it shipped over $123 billion in goods, paid $21.5 
billion in salaries to 400,000 American workers, and was responsible 
for a total of 2 million American jobs.
  It pays its employees on average $84,156--that is 1.85 times the 
national average--and more than 80 percent of medical device companies 
are small businesses employing 50 people or less. Yet this is the 
industry President Obama decided to target? This is the industry every 
Senate Democrat voted to tax when Obamacare passed the Senate?
  There are over 120 medical device companies in my home State of Utah 
alone. Let me tell you, they know what is going to happen if this tax 
goes into effect, and it is not going to be pretty. I think the 
President must know this. He and his advisers must know what a disaster 
the medicine cabinet tax and the medical device tax are as both fiscal 
and health policy. But yesterday they doubled down on it. Their 
Statement of Administration Policy threatened a veto of the House bill. 
It is clear to everyone that the USS Obamacare is a sinking ship, but 
the President seems committed to going down with it.
  Obamacare needs to go. All of it. The law created a web of 
unconstitutional, misguided, unrealistic, and costly regulations, 
taxes, fees, and penalties. That web must be pulled down in its 
entirety, whether by the Supreme Court, or by a Republican Congress and 
President Romney.
  There are few policies more emblematic of that law's failures than 
the medical device tax and restrictions on the purchase of over-the-
counter medications, and I commend my friends in the House for 
repealing them today.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Coons pertaining to the introduction of S. 3275 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')

[[Page S3831]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since we are talking about farm 
legislation as well as nutrition legislation, I think I should be very 
transparent when I talk about this and talk about my background and 
lifetime in farming. I don't want to say something about farm bills and 
then have people who don't know where I am coming from find out later 
that I am a farmer and might benefit from some of the farm programs. So 
in the vein of transparency and accountability, I will just say that 
since 1960, when my father died, I have been involved in farming. Since 
1980, I have been involved with my son Robin renting my farmland, 
farming with what we call in Iowa 50 50 farming. Others might call it 
crop share. Basically, that means that he and I are partners, and I pay 
for half the expenses, and I get half of the crop to market, and he 
gets the land rent-free. When you are crop-sharing or when you are 50 
50, that means I am not an absentee landowner collecting cash rent, 
that I have risks. With risks, you assume that maybe you might get a 
crop or not get a crop, and if you don't get a crop, you don't get your 
rent as a landlord. It is the same for my son. He has risks as well. If 
he doesn't get a crop, he won't have to pay rent, but he isn't going to 
have anything to live on if he doesn't have a crop. So that is kind of 
the situation I have been in since 1960 when I was farming on my own 
and then in partnership with my son.
  In the last 7 or 8 years, we have had a grandson, Patrick Grassley, 
who is a member of the State legislature, join our farming operation, 
and what I found out, with having a grandson in the farming operation, 
they don't have a lot of work for a grandfather to do. So last year 
about all I did was fall tillage with what we call in Iowa chisel 
plowing.
  With that background, I want to go to my statement.
  Growing up on my family farm outside of New Hartford, IA, where I 
still live today, I grew to appreciate what it means to be a farmer. 
The dictionary defines a farmer as ``a person who cultivates land or 
crops or raises animals.'' But that definition doesn't come close to 
fully describing what a farmer is. Being a farmer means someone willing 
to help a cow deliver a calf in the middle of the night when it might 
be 5 degrees outside. A farmer is someone who is willing to put all of 
their earthly possessions at risk just to put a bunch of seed in the 
ground and hope the seed gets rain at just the right time. Farmers work 
hard cultivating their crops and get the satisfaction of seeing the 
result of their hard work at the end of each crop season. They take 
great pride in knowing they are feeding this Nation. A farmer in Iowa 
produces enough food to feed 160 other people. So obviously we export 
about one-third of our agricultural production.
  Farmers tend to be people who relish the independence that comes with 
their chosen profession. They are people with dirt under their 
fingernails, and they also work very long hours. Often they are 
underappreciated for what they do to put food on America's dinner 
table, and they receive an ever-shrinking share of the food dollar.
  At this point, I would speak about a fellow Senator. I won't name the 
fellow Senator, but he is from an urban State.
  Throughout our years of service here, I like to say to him: Do you 
know that food grows on farms?
  And he says: Oh, does it?
  Well, the other night at the spouses' dinner we had, he came up to my 
wife and he said: I know food grows in supermarkets, but Chuck thinks 
it grows on farms.
  So that is the sort of camaraderie we have around here on 
agriculture, and I am very glad to have it.
  I always say that agriculture is probably a little easier in the 
Senate because I believe every Senator, even in Alaska, Hawaii, and New 
Hampshire, represents agriculture to some degree--maybe not as much as 
in the Midwest, where I come from, or California or Texas, but every 
State has some agriculture, and there is an appreciation of it. In the 
other body, our House of Representatives, I don't know an exact figure, 
but I would imagine that there are probably only 50 districts that 
really are agriculture-oriented districts and the rest of them are very 
urban or suburban. So we have an understanding of agriculture and how 
important it is. When I talk about it, I don't mean to talk down to my 
colleagues, but I do think I understand agriculture. It is not to say 
that other Senators don't understand agriculture, but I think if you 
have been involved in it for a lifetime the way three or four of us 
here in the Senate have been, it means a little more.
  Farmers have chosen a line of work that comes with risk. It is a risk 
that is inherent in farming and often out of their control. The risk 
inherent in farming is why we have farm programs.
  If I may digress a little bit here, from memory, just to show how 
there are a lot of issues with agriculture that are beyond the control 
of farmers--I am not just talking about natural disasters such as hail 
or drought. In 1972 Nixon wanted to get reelected so bad that he froze 
the price of beef. It was only for a short period of time, maybe 3 or 4 
months, because they found out it was not working the way he wanted. He 
didn't care about the farmers. Iowa was No. 1 in beef production up to 
that time. After that, everybody got squeezed out of the beef business 
because of the freeze. We went from No. 1 down to No. 13. Now I think 
we are about fifth or sixth in the production of beef.
  Another example is when soybeans were being exported and they got up 
to $13 a bushel in 1973 or 1974--let's see. I am just trying to think. 
It was either when Nixon or Ford was President. At the time, one of 
them decided it was going to drive up the price of food in America, so 
they forbid the export of soybean. Soybean prices fell from $13 down to 
$3.
  Another time, Carter decided that it was wrong for Russia to invade 
Afghanistan. At that time, we were selling them wheat, until the 
decision was made that we were not going to sell them any more wheat, 
so the price dropped.
  I suppose I ought to think of things a lot more recent, but there are 
a lot of international politics that affect farming. Right now it is 
with Iran sanctions and oil. I am not sure to what extent that affects 
the price of energy, but agriculture is a big user of energy.
  So what I am trying to say with just a few examples--and I ought to 
have more from memory--is that there are so many things that are beyond 
the control of farmers that if you ever wonder why we have a farm 
safety net, that is why.
  Why do we have a farm safety net? For national security. As Napoleon 
said, an Army marches on its belly. We have to have food. Why do you 
think Japan and Germany protect their farmers so much today? Because 
they found in World War II that if they don't have food, they don't 
have very good national security. Or how long can a nuclear submarine 
stay underwater? Forever. Except if it runs out of food, it has to come 
up. Or what about the old adage of being nine meals away from a 
revolution? In other words, as a mother and dad, if you can't get food 
for your kids for 3 days, and they are crying, you might take any 
action to make sure they get food.

  So I think having a secure supply of food is very essential to the 
social cohesion of our society.
  We don't worry about that in America, do we? We go to the supermarket 
and the shelves are full, but there are a lot of places in the world 
where they don't have that. There are a lot of places in the world 
where they pay more than 50 percent of disposable income for food, and 
in America it is about 9, 10, or 11 percent.
  So there are plenty of reasons to make sure we have a sound 
agricultural system in America, and we ought to make sure we take it 
seriously, both from a national security standpoint and for our social 
betterment.
  If we want a stable food supply in this country, we need farmers who 
are able to produce it. When they are hit by floods, droughts, natural 
disasters, wild market swings, or unfair international barriers to 
their products, farmers need the support to make it through because so 
much is beyond the control of farmers. Most farmers I know wish there 
wasn't the need for a government safety net, but they appreciate that 
safety net when they do need it. For decade after decade, Congress has 
maintained farm programs because the American people understand the 
necessity of providing a safety net for those providing our food.

[[Page S3832]]

  That is not to say that each and every farm program ever created 
needs to continue. In fact, there is a lot in this farm bill we have 
before us that brings reform, and some programs not reauthorized, that 
prove what I just said--that just because we have had some for 60 years 
doesn't mean we have to have them for the next 5 years in this farm 
program. Just as there are shifts in the market, sometimes public 
sentiment toward certain farm programs also shifts.
  Take direct payments, for instance. There was a time and place for 
direct payments to help farmers through some lean years. But now times 
are OK in the agriculture industry, and the American people have 
rightly decided it is time for direct payments to end. With a $1.5 
trillion deficit every year, it is also a reality that those payments 
can't continue from a budget point of view. So the Senate committee has 
responded, and we have proposed eliminating the direct payment program, 
and many farmers agree direct payments should go away as well.
  There are other reforms the American taxpayers want to see. There is 
no reason the Federal Government should be subsidizing big farmers to 
get even bigger. I might repeat myself as I go through my statement, 
but I want to say that a farm safety net ought to protect the people 
who don't have the ability to get beyond these things that are beyond 
their control--whether it is domestic politics or whether it is a 
natural disaster or whether it is international politics or energy 
policies or all of the things that can happen.
  There are some farmers who might not get over that hump because it is 
beyond their control--a problem that affects them financially. But 
there are some farmers who have that capability, and I think 
traditionally we have geared the farm program--not enough, from my 
point of view--but we have geared the farm program toward a safety net 
for small- and medium-sized farmers.
  We have a situation where 10 percent of the farmers in recent years--
the biggest farmers--are getting 70 percent of the benefits of the farm 
program. There is nothing wrong with getting bigger. I want to make 
that clear. In fact, in agriculture, with the equipment costs a farmer 
has to get bigger, but the Federal taxpayers should not be subsidizing 
farmers to get bigger. It isn't just a case of a principle not to do 
that; it is the economic impact. When we do that--provide the 
government subsidy to the big farmers--they go out and buy more land, 
which drives up the price of farmland or drives up the cash rent in a 
particular area. Consequently, it makes it very difficult for young 
people to get started farming.
  We want to be able--we have to pass this on to the young farmers. 
Many farmers understand that in order for us to have a farm program 
that is defensible and justifiable, it needs to be a program designed 
to help these small- and medium-sized farmers who actually need the 
assistance to get through rough patches out of their control.
  So what I have been trying to do for years, and it was finally put in 
this farm bill, is to put a hard cap on the amount of money one farming 
operation can get so, hopefully, we cut down that 10 percent of the 
largest farmers that gets 70 percent of farm payments, so it is more 
proportional to the benefit of small- and medium-sized farmers. That is 
in this bill at $50,000 per individual and $100,000 per married couple 
for the payments under the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program. It is in 
this bill. I know to a lot of people listening that $50,000 and 
$100,000 is too much, and it is even too much for most Iowans. But 
there are some sections of this country, such as the South and West, 
where we will find our fellow Senators--I don't know how open they are 
going to be about this, but behind the scenes they are raising Cain 
about this $50,000 cap. I just about had this put in the present farm 
bill in 2008, except I had 57 votes, and we know how things work around 
here. We have to have 60 votes to get something done if people want to 
push the point. So I didn't get 60 votes. Now it is in the farm bill. I 
don't know who is negotiating around here on amendments, but there is 
going to be somebody trying to take this out of here--somebody from the 
South, I would imagine--trying to take this $50,000 cap out.
  I expect to have the same considerations to this not being taken out 
by a 60-vote margin as I was kept from putting it in 5 years ago 
because if it had been put in 5 years ago, we would have saved $1.3 
billion over that period of time.
  Taxpayers are tired of reading reports about how so many nonfarmers 
receive farm payments. I have been working to get reforms on the farm 
payment eligibility for years, and just as the tide has turned on the 
status quo for direct payments, the tide has turned on program 
eligibility. The bill contains crucial reforms to the ``actively 
engaged'' requirements. These reforms will ensure farm payments go to 
actual farmers. The American people are not going to stand idly by 
anymore and watch farm payments head out the door to people who don't 
farm. In other words, if they aren't out there working the land--if 
they are on Wall Street or something and have farmland in the Midwest--
they shouldn't be collecting these farm payments.
  There have been some people complaining about the payment limit 
reforms I have talked about. They complain it will detrimentally change 
the way some farm operations do things. Well, if they mean it will not 
allow nonfarmers to skirt around payment eligibilities and line their 
pockets with taxpayers' money meant for actual farmers, then the answer 
is, yes; that is what those reforms will do.
  Let me make it perfectly clear. The reforms contained in this bill 
will not impact a farmer's ability to receive farm payments. 
Furthermore, the reforms will not affect the spouse rule. In other 
words, if the husband and wife are together in the farming operation, 
and some Senator comes around and says the spouse who is working beside 
the other spouse in this farming operation can't get the benefit of it, 
they are wrong.

  These reforms reflect what we hear from the grassroots, which is 
Congress needs to be a better steward of the taxpayers' dollars. That 
is true if we are talking about farm programs or any other Federal 
program.
  Those who are against these reforms are asking the American people to 
accept the status quo and to continue to watch as farm payments go to 
megafarms and nonfarmers. We cannot and will not accept the status quo. 
In other words, 10 percent of the biggest farmers getting 70 percent of 
the benefits of the farm program ought to end.
  The Agriculture Committee should be proud of the improvements we are 
making to payment limitations in this bill. With these reforms we bring 
defensibility and integrity to this farm bill. In addition, it is 
probably the only bill that is going to pass this year that is going to 
cut any programs, and it is going to do that by $23 billion. In fact, 
without these reforms in the farm program, I wouldn't be able to 
support this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to voice their support for these important 
payment limitation provisions and join with me in resisting any attempt 
to weaken these reforms, particularly from people in the Southern 
States who say somehow we ought to still continue to allow these 
megafarmers to get these millions of dollars of payments.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to discuss today several 
amendments I have to the farm bill that is now before the Senate. What 
might surprise many people to learn is that the overwhelming majority 
of funds in the farm bill are not spent on anything to do with farmers 
or even agriculture production. For instance, crop insurance amounts 
to--which is a big part of the new bill and is progress, I think--the 
crop insurance provisions amount to just 8 percent of what we will be 
spending. Horticulture is less than 1 percent. But a full 80 percent of 
the farm bill spending goes to the Federal food stamp program. Yet only 
17 percent of the small savings that are found in this proposal comes 
from food stamps. Out of the $23 billion in cuts, none of which

[[Page S3833]]

occurs next year, out of almost $1 trillion in spending over 10 years. 
So about $23 billion in cuts. Most of that is taken from the farm 
provisions, but only 20 percent of it goes to that. At the same time, 
food stamp spending is virtually untouched. I believe they propose $4 
billion in savings after 80 percent of the cost of this bill is in the 
food stamp program. The other $17 billion comes out of the 20 percent--
not the food stamps.
  Overall, the legislation will spend $82 billion on food stamps next 
year--$82 billion, and an estimated $770 billion over the next 10 
years. To put these figures in perspective--and they are so large it is 
difficult to comprehend--we will spend, next year, $40 billion on the 
Federal highway program, but $80 billion on the food stamp program.
  Food stamp spending has more than quadrupled--four times. It has 
increased fourfold since the year 2001. It has increased 100 percent 
since President Obama took office, doubled in that amount of time. 
There are a number of reasons for this arresting trend. While the poor 
economy has undeniably increased the number of people who qualify for 
food stamps, this alone does not explain the extraordinary growth in 
the program.
  For instance, between 2001 and 2006, food stamp spending doubled, but 
the unemployment rate remained around 5 percent. So from 2001 to 2006, 
we had a doubling of food stamps while unemployment is the same. When 
the food stamp program was first expanded nationwide, about 1 in 50 
Americans received food stamp benefits. Today, nearly one in seven 
receive food stamp benefits.
  We need to think about that. This is a very significant event. We 
need to ask ourselves, is this good policy? Is it good for America? Not 
only is it a question of, do we have the money, the second thing is, is 
it going to the right people? Is the money being expended wisely? Is it 
helping people become independent? Is it encouraging people to look for 
ways to be productive and be responsible themselves for their families? 
Or does it create dependency, part of a series of government programs 
that, in effect, are not beneficial to the people who actually benefit 
from them in the short term?
  Three factors help explain this increase. First is that eligibility 
standards have been significantly loosened over time with a dramatic 
drop in eligibility standards in the last few years. Second, it has 
been the explicit policy goal of the Federal bureaucracy to increase 
the number of people on food stamps. Bonus pay is even offered to 
States that sign up more people. States administer this program.
  And, third, the way the system is arranged with States administering 
the program but the Federal Government providing all of the money, all 
of it, they do not have--States do not match food stamps. States have 
an incentive, do you not see, to see their food stamp budget grow, not 
shrink, because it is more Federal money coming into the State which 
they pay no part of.
  That means overlooking, I am afraid, I hate to say, dramatic amounts 
of fraud and abuse, because the enforcement and supervision is given 
over to the States. So I filed a modest package of food stamp reforms 
to the farm bill which will achieve several important goals: save 
taxpayer dollars, which is a good thing; reduce the deficit; achieve 
greater accountability in how the program is administered; confront 
widespread waste; direct food stamps to those who truly need them; and 
help more Americans achieve financial independence.
  I guess I am the only person in the Senate who has ever dealt with 
fraud in the food stamp program. Shortly after law school, when I was a 
young Federal prosecutor, I prosecuted fraud in the food stamp program. 
Later I came back as a U.S. attorney, and we saw drug dealers selling 
food stamps, we saw various other manipulations of it. As attorney 
general of Alabama for a period, I was involved in enforcing integrity 
in the program. So I know the benefits food stamps play to people in 
desperate need. I know it is helpful. But I know, Americans know, they 
see it every day, that there are abuses in this program. It is the 
fastest growing entitlement program bar none. We need to look at it. I 
understand there are some who oppose even saving $4 billion over 10 
years out of the food stamp program.
  We are spending 80 a year. Four years ago, we were spending 40. We 
cannot do better than that?
  Food stamps is the second largest Federal welfare program following 
Medicaid. If food stamp spending were returned next year to the 2007 
funding level, and you agreed to increase it for 10 years at the rate 
of inflation, that would produce an astonishing $340 billion in savings 
for the U.S. Treasury. And we have to have some savings because we 
don't have the money to continue spending at the rate we are.
  Food stamps are 1 of 17 Federal nutritional support programs and 1 of 
nearly 80 Federal welfare programs. So there is no confusion, these 
figures count only low-income support programs. They don't include 
Medicare, Social Security, or unemployment benefits.
  Collectively, our Federal welfare programs constitute about $700 
billion in Federal spending and $200 billion in State contributions to 
the same programs. That is about $900 billion on the Federal-State 
combined--most of it Federal--and $900 billion is about one-fourth of 
the entire Federal budget.
  An individual on food stamps may receive as much as $25,000 in 
various forms of financial assistance for their household from the 
Federal Government--as much as $25,000--in addition to whatever salary 
they may earn in part- or full-time work, or any support they may 
receive from their families or communities. In other words, this is not 
normally the only source of income for the person.
  Changes in eligibility have also eliminated the asset test for food 
stamp benefits, which brings me to the first of four amendments I have 
filed.
  No. 1, let's restore the asset test for food stamps. This change has 
been quite significant. Through a system known as categorical 
eligibility, States can provide benefits to those whose assets exceed 
the statutory asset limit, as long as they receive some other Federal 
benefit. Why is that? I don't know; it makes no sense to me. If you 
qualify for another program, you automatically get food stamps. 
Categorically, you are eligible for them. One State went so far as to 
determine that individuals were food-stamp eligible solely because they 
received a brochure for another benefit program in the mail. Well, that 
meant there is more money from the Federal Government coming into their 
State, more benefits. I guess they see it as an economic benefit. It 
didn't cost them any money; the money came from Washington.
  According to the CBO, the simple process of going back and 
restricting the categorical eligibility problem that is now springing 
up would produce $12 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 
years and should not eliminate a single person who qualifies for food 
stamps under the statutory restrictions for the program. All it would 
mean is that if you qualify for food stamps and fill out the proper 
form, you get it, like everybody else has to do.
  Second, there is the heating subsidy loophole. Fifteen States are 
using a loophole in order to get more food stamp dollars from the 
Federal Government. They do this by mailing a very small check--get 
this--often less than a dollar a month--under the Low Income Home 
Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. Anyone who receives that check, 
which may be as little as a few dollars a year, becomes eligible to 
claim a lower income on the basis of home energy expenses--even if they 
don't pay those expenses.
  This reform will require households that receive food stamps to 
provide proof of payment for their heating or cooling in order to 
qualify for the income deduction. If the government is paying for your 
heating, you should not say I need food stamps because I have a big 
heating bill. But this is a clever maneuver designed by States--
frankly, deliberately--to extract more money from Washington--free 
money for their States, and it is not good policy for America. It is 
not right that some States get more under the food stamps program by 
using this technique than others who don't use this abusive practice. 
Closing this loophole will produce $14 billion in savings over the next 
10 years. That is a lot of money.
  No. 3, let's end the bonus payments going to States for increasing 
the number of people who sign up. We ought to

[[Page S3834]]

be giving bonuses to people who identify people who are abusing the 
problem and bringing those down, if anything.
  States currently receive bonus payments for enrolling individuals in 
the food stamp program. Those bonus payments highlight the perverse 
incentive States have to expand food stamp registration rather than to 
reduce fraud and help more people achieve financial independence. We 
need to be focusing on helping people to get work and to be more 
productive and to bring in more money for their families than food 
stamps would bring in. That is what the focus of American vitality and 
growth should be.
  No. 4, let's implement the SAVE Program for food stamp usage. This 
amendment would simply require the government to use a very simple SAVE 
Program, similar to the E-Verify Program, to ensure that adults 
receiving benefits are in fact lawfully in the country. This is a 
commonsense thing to do at a time when we have to borrow 40 cents out 
of every dollar we spend in this government. We spend $3,700 billion 
and we take in $2,400 billion. We borrow the rest every year. We cannot 
afford to be providing incentives, benefits, bonuses, and payments to 
reward people who have entered the country illegally. We just don't 
have the money.
  Ultimately, beyond first steps, the best way to achieve integrity in 
the food stamp program is to block-grant it to the States. Send so much 
for the program, a fair percentage to each State, and let them 
distribute it. This will provide States with a strong incentive to make 
sure each dollar is being properly spent. They don't have that today. 
It does no damage to a State if somebody is getting the money 
improperly, or getting more than they are entitled to. If a State is 
administering the program and some people are getting too much and 
others are not getting enough, then the State has an incentive to make 
sure the abuses stop and the aid goes to the people who need it. That 
is the kind of program we need in America--one that works and has 
incentives built in to make the program have integrity.
  The House budget adopts this reform. They like to complain about the 
House and say the House doesn't know what they are doing. This is a 
commonsense reform. I am proud of what the House did. They did exactly 
the right thing. Senate Democrats, of course, have not even written a 
budget in 3 years. It has become clear that if we had gone through a 
financial analysis, a budget debate in this Congress, we could save a 
lot of money by ending the abuses in the Food Stamp Program, and it 
would help us do other things the government needs to do. It would also 
become clear that we will run out of money to pay for this program if 
we don't make changes soon. We are in a financial situation that is so 
grave that every expert has told us we are on an unsustainable path and 
we have to get off of it. If we don't, we can have another financial 
catastrophe, like in 2007, and like they are having in Europe today. 
That is very possible. So we have to reduce our deficit and our abusive 
spending.
  Reforming the way we deliver welfare is the compassionate course. It 
is not mean-spirited to say that people who are not entitled to the 
benefits don't need the benefits and should not get them. There is 
nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with having incentives 
in your program, not to see how many people you can get on food stamps 
but to see how many we can get to work and be productive and take care 
of themselves.
  The result of welfare reform in 1996, if you remember that--and many 
of you do--was less poverty, more growth, less teen pregnancy, more 
work, and more people successfully caring for themselves. We have 
slipped back, in my opinion. We moved back from some of the progress we 
made from the 1996 provision.

  Unfortunately, since 1996, Members in both parties have failed to 
protect these gains. The welfare budget has swelled dramatically. 
Oversight has diminished. Standards have slipped. We now find ourselves 
in need of welfare reform for the 21st century. We do. That is the 
nature of any government, where once programs are established, they go 
beyond rationality and need to be reformed periodically.
  It is time to re-engage the national discussion over how the receipt 
of welfare benefits can become damaging, not merely to the Treasury but 
also to the recipient.
  Left unattended, the safety net can become a restraint, permanently 
removing people from the workforce. And Federal programs, unmonitored, 
can begin to replace family, church, and community as a source of aid 
and support.
  We need to reestablish the moral principle that Federal welfare 
should be seen as temporary assistance, not permanent support. The goal 
should be to help people become independent and self-sufficient.
  Such reforms, made sincerely and with concern for those in need, will 
improve America's social, fiscal, and economic health. Empowering the 
individual is more than sound policy; it remains the animating moral 
idea behind the American experience, our national exceptionalism. We 
believe in individual responsibility. We believe in helping people in 
need, but we don't believe in creating circumstances where decent, 
hard-working people, who work extra and save their money, who give up 
vacations and going out to eat so they can take care of their family, 
are also required to support people who are irresponsible. That is not 
a healthy situation for us to be in.
  We need to strike the right balance. We can help those people in need 
and create a government and a social assistance program in America that 
benefits the people we seek to benefit and benefits the State 
treasuries at the same time.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, I come to the floor fairly often to 
share letters I get from people in Ohio and especially when it is an 
issue that is on the tips of so many young people's tongues and on the 
minds of so many in our State.
  I spent much of the last month visiting with students on college 
campuses at Wright State University in Dayton, at Hiram College in 
Portage County in northeast Ohio, at the Cuyahoga County Community 
College in Cleveland, at the University of Cincinnati, and Ohio State 
University. Just this last Monday, I was at Owens Community College in 
Toledo. I hear over and over and over about the debt that far too many 
of our young people bear when they get out of school.
  Today is the last session day for our pages from the winter term, and 
I hope the burden of debt on them--they are still several years away 
from absorbing the debt from college and going on to the workplace. But 
I worry for them, as I worry for so many of my constituents from 
Cleveland to Cincinnati and Ashtabula to Middletown and Gallipolis to 
Wauseon because the average Ohio student who is graduating from a 4-
year school and who has borrowed money owes $27,000. This is a small 
step, but it is one more piling on of debt. If we are not able to 
freeze interest rates on Stafford loans--which is what my legislation 
will do, with Senator Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Harkin of Iowa--to 
freeze interest rates for at least another year, these students will be 
faced with another $1,000, in addition to what they are already facing.
  It has become a moral issue. If we turn things over to these young 
people when they come out of school and they face this kind of debt, it 
means they are less likely to buy a house, it means they are less 
likely to start a business, and it means they are less likely to start 
a family. Do we want to do that to this generation of smart, young, 
enthusiastic, talented people, instead of giving them a better launch 
for their lives in their twenties and thirties? That is why it is 
essential we do this.
  Two years before the Presiding Officer came to the Senate, in 2007, 
we

[[Page S3835]]

passed this freeze; President Bush signed legislation that Senator 
Kennedy and I and others in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee worked on to freeze interest rates for Stafford subsidized 
loans at 3.4 percent. There is a 5-year freeze. If we don't act by July 
1, 2012, 5 years after we passed it, that will mean these loans are 
going to double.
  I wish to share a couple letters I have gotten from people in Ohio. 
This doesn't just affect the students; there are some 380,000 college 
students in my State whom it affects. But it doesn't just affect these 
students; it affects their families. Their parents, sometimes their 
grandparents, send us letters about how serious this is for them. I 
will read two letters.
  Jeff from Lorain--which happens to be my home county:

       I've been a lifelong resident of Lorain, OH. My daughter 
     graduated top of her class from Southview in 2008. She just 
     graduated from Hiram College with a bachelor in Mathematics 
     and minor in Political Science Cum Laude. She maxed out her 
     Stafford loans each year, and these help her to attend 
     college. I've worked in factories all my life, the last 20 
     years at Avon Lake Ford so we are able to help some but the 
     major work was done by our daughter with her focus and hard 
     work. She is moving on to grad school but at some point she 
     will have to start repaying these loans. Do we want to burden 
     these young bright minds with loan payments that are so large 
     they will weigh them down financially for a large portion of 
     their young adult lives? Were these loans designed to help 
     students who don't come from families with large disposable 
     incomes? Or are they to be used as a way to make money off 
     our young people trying to reach their potential?

  One of the good things President Obama did about this was he helped 
people get into the Federal Direct Loan Program so they would no longer 
be borrowing from banks at much higher interest rates. College is too 
expensive. The States don't put enough money into colleges so that the 
colleges don't charge such high tuitions. Tuitions have gone up like 
this over the years. But at least we were able to make a big difference 
on interest. This is our chance to do it again, and we shouldn't let 
Jeff and his daughter down and others.
  The other letter I will read is from Marcelline from Wilberforce.

       I am 60 years old. I went back to school to get a job that 
     would not continue to destroy my physical health. My previous 
     job for companies like BP and Wal-Mart were devastatingly 
     hard on me all with little or no medical help. I also 
     returned in hopes of obtaining employment that will position 
     me to be gainfully employed for the next 15 to 20 years. I am 
     supporting my two grandchildren both are aspergers and my son 
     while he tries to gain a degree of his own. I see no 
     possibility of retiring before I die. I also see no 
     possibility of paying off my education before I die. When I 
     started my education I could justify the cost, but I have 
     seen it going up yearly to the point I see no way of paying 
     for it now, especially if interest rates continue to climb. I 
     cannot conceive how the young people will be able to repay 
     their debts. I am very concerned for them. The burden this 
     will place on them as they go forward is heartbreaking.

  This is the story the Presiding Officer hears in Anchorage, in 
Fairbanks, in Nome. I hear it in Toledo. I hear it in Lima. I hear it 
in Mansfield. I hear it in Sandusky. It is incumbent upon us--it is a 
moral question--not to load more debt on these young people so they can 
develop their talents in a way that not only will help them 
individually, not only will help their families but will help our 
society prosper.
  We know what the GI bill did in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. It not 
only helped millions of service men and women and their families, it 
also lifted the prosperity of the United States of America. We owe this 
generation no less than that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________