[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 89 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4109-S4124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                                Resumed

  Mr. REID. I move to proceed to Calendar No. 250, S. 1940.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 250, S. 1940, a bill to 
     amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, to restore 
     the financial solvency of the flood insurance fund, and for 
     other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. The Senate will continue to debate the farm bill today. We 
have a couple of votes lined up. We expect to have those this morning.


                           Not to Compromise

  Last week, in a moment of candor, House Republicans, led by 
Representative Cantor, admitted they have given up legislating until 
after the election. Although there is far more work to be done, they 
have said they are going to have a timeout. I repeat, there is so much 
to be done--especially building on 27 straight months of private sector 
job growth--Republicans in the House are lurching from one recess to 
the next long recess. They don't take short ones, they take long ones. 
Last week's unscripted moment was a window into today's Republican 
Party--a party that obviously cares more about winning elections than 
creating jobs.
  Then a couple of days ago we had another frank assessment of the 
Republican agenda. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said Monday that 
his father, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan would not fit into 
today's Republican Party. He went on to elaborate about some of the 
issues in which they are simply headed in the wrong direction. Governor 
Bush said today's GOP is defined by ``an orthodoxy that doesn't allow 
for disagreement.''
  He is right. The Republican Party no longer has room for moderates or 
anyone unwilling to march in lockstep with the radical tea party. That 
is apparent every day on Capitol Hill--more so in the House than in the 
Senate, but it has now infected the Senate. It was obvious from the 
first weeks of this Congress that the House was taken over by 
extremists with no desire to work for the sake of the economy and

[[Page S4110]]

no concept of the meaning of compromise--and legislation is the art of 
compromise.
  But over the last year and a half it has become clear that 
Republicans in the Senate are also in thrall to the tea party. We see 
the extremism in this Chamber--I have just mentioned that--where 
Republicans have blocked or stalled most every jobs creation measure we 
have brought to the floor. We see it on the campaign trail, where Mitt 
Romney told a crowd he opposes hiring anymore teachers, firefighters, 
and police officers. Putting more teachers in the classroom used to be 
a goal Democrats and Republicans could agree on. But all over the 
country, things are happening just as happened in Nevada a couple of 
days ago, where the school district--let's see, it must be about the 
third or fourth largest school district now in the country, the Clark 
County school district, with well more than 300,000 students--indicated 
they were going to lay off 1,000 teachers. But as a result of not 
filling some positions because of retirements, they were able to have 
to only lay off about 400-some-odd people. It is happening all over the 
country.

  Sending more cops out on patrol used to be something that--I can 
remember when Joe Biden was down here fighting for his COPS Program. 
Police departments in Nevada loved the opportunity to get more people 
on the street. That is the way it was all over the country. We used to 
fight to get more cops on the street. Now we are doing everything we 
can to stop the layoffs, and we can't do enough because we can't get a 
bill passed over here to help. Hiring more brave men and women to fight 
fires and save lives used to be a goal Democrats and Republicans could 
agree on. Not now.
  Because of global warming, there are fires raging all over the West. 
I spoke to Senator Bingaman from New Mexico yesterday. That fire in New 
Mexico is 400,000 acres and, he said, we have another fire that has 
broken out of only 40,000 acres. On the news this morning out of 
Colorado, one person has been killed, scores of buildings and homes 
burned to the ground. The tankers they are using to fight these fires 
are old. One of them crashed in Nevada last week, killing the pilots.
  But today's radical Republicans have another agenda--not hiring more 
cops and not doing something to stop the teacher layoffs, but their 
goal is to drag down the economy because it is good for their politics. 
They believe the more horrible the economy is, the better off they are 
going to be in November. They love bad news.
  We still have the fact that even though there were more than 8 
million jobs lost during the Bush administration, we have been 
fortunate to bring back 4.3 million of those jobs. But we could have 
done so much more with the jobs measures we have brought before this 
body that were lost on procedural grounds over here.
  Yesterday Governor Bush said his father and President Reagan--neither 
of whom could win a Republican primary today--both ``sacrificed 
political points for good public policy.''
  I believe that. I was not a pal of Ronald Reagan's. I met him and 
worked with him. But Paul Laxalt--who retired, and I ran for his spot--
was his pal, his friend. Ronald Reagan would not put up with what is 
going on here today, because there is no question that with Ronald 
Reagan the country came first, not elections.
  I have great admiration for the first President Bush. I have in my 
private possessions a couple of handwritten notes he wrote to me. He 
would not put up with what is going on today. He was a pragmatist. He 
wanted to get things done for our country. He wasn't an ideologue. He 
was conservative. Certainly no one is better qualified to be President 
than the first Bush. He was a Congressman, head of the CIA, head of the 
Republican National Committee, the Vice President, Ambassador to China. 
He was interested in his country, not elections. He was a Republican, 
but we could work with him.
  Today's Republicans aren't interested in good policy and, obviously, 
they aren't interested in creating jobs. They are too obsessed with 
defeating President Obama. That is their No. 1 goal. But don't take my 
word for it. The minority leader said so himself. This is what he said:

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

  That is a quote.
  America is battling its way back from the greatest recession since 
the Great Depression. And although we have created 4.3 million private 
sector jobs, there is so much more to be done.
  I just left a meeting with people interested in infrastructure. We 
have 70,000 bridges in America that need repair and replacement. Not 
700, not 7,000 but 70,000. The highway bill is hung up over in the 
House someplace. They aren't focused on jobs because they are too busy 
checking the political scoreboard.
  Will the Chair announce the business of the day.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, 
leadership time is reserved.
  Under the previous order, the following hour will be 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.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                              The Economy

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, tomorrow, the President plans to 
deliver a speech to once again tout his favorite approach to the 
economy. I say that because aides to the President say we should not 
expect much new in the speech. We can expect more of the same: More 
government, more debt, and higher taxes to pay for it all.
  According to news reports, some Democrats are starting to get a 
little wary of this approach. A number of folks who worked in the 
Clinton administration have suggested something more positive. But 
others are pleading with the President to double down on the message 
that government is the answer.
  So far it appears as though the hard-left wing of the party has the 
upper hand. As liberal columnist E.J. Dionne suggested recently in the 
Washington Post:

       Let's turn [Reagan's] declaration on its head. Opposition 
     to government isn't the solution.

  Opposition to government was and remains the problem, and that is 
precisely what the President appears to be doing--doubling down on the 
same government-driven solutions that have kept the private sector 
mired in what some are calling the worst recovery ever.
  These folks have so much faith in government that they seem blind to 
any failure or excess. They make no distinction between the things 
government has done well in the past and the things it does not do well 
now.
  They have no limiting principle whatsoever. This is their logic: If 
you like the Hoover Dam, you should support bureaucrats making higher 
salaries and better benefits than the taxpayers who are paying for 
them. If you like the Transcontinental Railroad, you should support a 
$1 trillion stimulus bill that has been more effective at creating 
punch lines for late night comedians than it has at creating jobs. If 
you like the GI bill, they believe you must also embrace a debt-to-GDP 
ratio that makes us look like Greece.
  These folks seem to have no limiting principle whatsoever when it 
comes to the growth of government. They have blind faith in it. It is 
the only thing they ever seem to want, and they are completely out of 
touch.
  The President wants you to believe the reason we are in this economic 
slump is because States and local governments have been laying off 
government workers. But what he does not tell you, and what the 
American people will not hear him say tomorrow, is that since the 
recession began, for every government worker who has lost a job 11 
private sector jobs have been lost--for every government worker who has 
lost a job 11 private sector jobs have been lost.

[[Page S4111]]

  Another thing you will not hear the President say is that public 
sector unemployment is just over 4 percent--unemployment among public 
workers, just over 4 percent--while all other private sector industries 
are at least twice that. So government employment is not the problem. 
It is the private sector that is suffering, and it is the private 
sector where we need to focus our policies.
  So the battle lines are clear: After 3\1/2\ years of failure, 
Democrats in Washington have one suggestion: more of the same. The 
President can repackage it however he wants tomorrow, but that is what 
it amounts to: more government, more debt, and fewer jobs--and that is 
not what Americans want.
  Republicans have refused to go along with this approach, and we will 
continue to oppose it until the Democrats recognize what most Americans 
already seem to know: government is not the answer to what ails us; 
government is not the answer to what ails us. It does not mean 
government does not do some things well. It means government has its 
limits, and we have reached them.
  I saw a story line this week about a high school in Utah. It said the 
school has been fined $15,000 for selling carbonated drinks. The school 
has been fined $15,000 for selling carbonated drinks. Why? Because 
Federal nutrition guidelines say the school cannot sell sugary drinks 
during lunch hour. Students could buy them before lunch and drink them 
during lunch, but they cannot buy them during lunch and drink them 
during lunch. The government will not allow it.
  Madam President, we are not talking about the Transcontinental 
Railroad. We are talking about a government that has no sense of its 
own limits under the constitution and a President who does not seem to 
be willing to embrace anything that does not start and end with a 
government bureaucrat calling the shots.
  It is time for a change, and here is what I would suggest: One, the 
Democrat-led Senate should pass a budget. It has not done so in 3 
years. Two, the Senate should take up the 28 job-related bills the 
House Republicans passed that are collecting dust on the majority 
leader's desk. Three, we should pass comprehensive tax reform; and, 
four, entitlement reform. This Nation will not be able to get out from 
under the mountain of debt we have without addressing the out-of-
control spending related to these programs. They are simply 
unsustainable.
  As I said yesterday, without Presidential leadership, it simply 
cannot happen. The same failed policies are not going to cut it. The 
only question is whether Democrats in Washington are capable of seeing 
that.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the speaker situation? Do I have 
some time now to respond to the Republican leader?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Currently, the time is under 
control of the Republican leader for the next 27 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK. I would ask if I could have 2 minutes just to respond 
to my friend.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, we are going to divide time; are we 
not?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I suggest the Senator from California 
use Democratic time, and the time on this side be reserved.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask that I be allowed to speak on the 
Democratic side's time for up to 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank the Republican leader.
  It just stuns me when the Republican leader comes to the floor and 
has his ``blame Obama'' moment every day that he can. I thought this 
one was over the top. It is as if President Obama came in and 
everything was great and suddenly things are not going well.
  Excuse me, I was here. I know. I remember when we had surpluses under 
Bill Clinton and the Democrats, and the Republicans turned it into 
deficits as far as the eye could see.
  I cannot forget that because I remember a time when there was 
discussion about whether we were even going to have U.S. Treasurys 
anymore because we were not going to have debt anymore when Bill 
Clinton was President, and the Democrats set us on that right course. 
We had a balance between investments in our people and fair taxes so 
that the top 1 percent paid a fair share, and everybody did well.

  Madam President, 23 million new jobs were created with Bill Clinton. 
Then George W. comes in. Two wars go on the credit card, tax breaks to 
the wealthiest few--the millionaires and billionaires--on the credit 
card, and suddenly we have a crisis: No regulation of these 
sophisticated securities.
  My friend in the chair, the Acting President pro tempore, knows well 
what happened: no oversight, derivatives, new kinds of securities, 
taking a beautiful home ownership ethic we had in this country and 
gambling on it. What happened? The worst crisis since the Great 
Depression.
  Who comes into office? President Obama takes the oath. The 
unbelievable crisis he inherited and the unbelievable debt he inherited 
and the unbelievable budget deficit he inherited was just unbelievable. 
An auto industry was going to be gone.
  My friend Senator McConnell has a right to his opinion, and I respect 
it so much except he avoids telling the facts about how we got where we 
are. The American people do not suffer from amnesia. They understand 
this. They saw this President, this young President come in, faced with 
jobs bleeding 800,000 a month. Yes, he turned it around. Yes, he did, 
in fact, promote a rescue of the auto industry. We would have been the 
only great economy that did not have one if it was not for his courage. 
Yes, a couple of courageous votes on the Republican side joining with 
Democrats--that was a good moment. Yes, as Mitt Romney said: Oh yeah, 
they could have gone busto, bankrupt. We did not feel that way here. 
The President did not feel that way.
  So all of this Obama bashing on the floor of the Senate is going to 
continue because Senator McConnell is a very straightforward person, 
and he said--and I quote not the exact words, the sentiment, close to 
the exact words: Defeating President Obama is the highest priority of 
the Republicans. We are seeing that play out on this floor. I pledged 
that I would come here when I could to straighten out the record.
  So let's be clear. This President took over in the worst of times 
since the Great Depression. There have been millions of jobs created--
not enough. I will say this: If this economy sputters, this economic 
recovery we are in sputters, and has a hard time because of the depth 
of the crisis originally--the fact that the housing crisis still 
continues, the fact that there are problems in the global marketplace 
in Europe, and all of these factors--I want to say this: I want the 
person in the Oval Office to be a person who understands what is 
happening, and that is President Obama, who relates to working people, 
who relates to the middle class, who is not building an elevator for 
his cars in San Diego. That is how I feel.
  Every time there is an attack on this President, I am going to come 
down here and tell the truth to the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I heard the remarks of my colleague 
from California, and I just cannot let the record stand that President 
Obama took over in the worst circumstances of our time. Really? The 
debt of this country was around $10 trillion when President Obama took 
office. In just 3\1/2\ years, that debt has almost doubled. We are now 
over $15 trillion and will soon be hitting the $16 trillion debt 
ceiling limit in just 3\1/2\ years. We are in a debt crisis not from 
the previous administration, we are in a debt crisis because we are 
spending too much, we are borrowing too much, and the President keeps 
talking about more taxes.
  Just last Friday, the President came out and said: ``The private 
sector is doing [just] fine.'' It is government that is in a crisis. 
Well, yes, government is in a crisis. The private sector

[[Page S4112]]

is not doing just fine, and the government crisis is not caused because 
we are losing government jobs.
  The government crisis is caused because we are spending too much, and 
we are going into debt that is unsustainable in this country.
  For the millions of Americans who are out of work in this country, 
the President's assessment of the private sector must be like salt 
poured in a wound. My goodness, we have seen job numbers of over 8 
percent unemployment since the President took office. The last 3 months 
have been not so good. We are still over 8 percent, and we went up a 
little bit to 8.2 percent in May.
  So to the nearly 13 million Americans who are unemployed and the 
millions more who are underemployed or have left the labor force 
altogether because they have lost hope--Mr. President, things are not 
fine, and the private sector is not fine in this country, and the 
middle class is bearing the brunt.
  On top of the unemployment rate for those who are in poverty 
conditions, the people who hold jobs are also losing ground. On Monday, 
the Federal Reserve reported that the median net worth of American 
families fell 39 percent between 2007 and 2010. We have not seen these 
levels since 1992.
  During the same period, incomes also dropped sharply. Average 
household income fell 11 percent to $78,500, down from $88,300. The 
hardest hit? Families in the rapidly diminishing middle class. While 
these statistics are troubling, there is a concern that cannot be 
measured in dollars and cents; that is, that families are losing faith 
in a secure future. There was a time when every generation had a better 
quality of life and expected a better quality of life for their 
children than their parents had. That is not the case today.
  In 2010, 35 percent of families said they did not have a good idea of 
what their income would be just for the next year. That was 31.4 
percent in 2007, 35 percent now. So the number of families who are 
losing the faith that their children are going to have a better life 
than they have had is diminishing.
  How could they be confident? The job creators in the private sector 
are the ones under siege. I cannot believe the President of the United 
States is so off base as to say the private sector is doing fine. Just 
this week, the National Federation of Independent Business released its 
monthly survey of small business optimism. Survey results continue to 
be historically low and consistent with the subpar performance of gross 
domestic product.
  According to this survey, levels of hiring and spending remained 
depressed in May. We all know that. More important, so did plans for 
the future. The same report states that expectations for increasing 
future sales continued to be weak in May, far below readings recorded 
in any other similar period since 1973.
  Many small business owners are reluctant to expand their businesses 
or hire more workers. Small business owners who expect the economy to 
further deteriorate outnumber those who think there will be an 
improvement. Small businesses are our Nation's primary job creators. 
Small business provided 55 percent of all jobs in the private sector.
  Small business has created two of every three net jobs in the United 
States since the early 1970s. So I would say to the President of the 
United States, it is small business that is the economic engine of 
America, not government. That is the fundamental disagreement we have 
with this administration.
  We must spur the private sector to create income, growth, and 
security in this country. The private sector is not doing fine. What 
should we be doing to help Americans get back to work? We need to 
address what is causing the uncertainty. Why are businesses not hiring? 
Because government spending that serves to crowd out the private sector 
is increasing. There are tax increases being talked about by the 
President constantly.
  So they are looking at looming tax increases, burdensome regulations 
that they see coming by the bills, such as this, out of the U.S. 
Government. Those regulations hamper job growth in this country.
  Then, on top of all that, on top of the talk of new taxes, on top of 
the burdensome regulations our small businesses face every day, in 
bigger numbers every day, it is the health care law that was passed 2 
years ago this December.
  If we want people to be hired, we cannot saddle our entrepreneurs and 
small businesses with new taxes, more regulations, and the cost, the 
overwhelming burden of the Obama health care plan.
  President Obama, in an interview yesterday, dismissed questions from 
a small business owner about the negative impact of the health care law 
and what it is already doing to small businesses. Anybody who has paid 
their part of insurance, if they are lucky enough to be covered, knows 
that the premiums have increased and the coverage has decreased in 
anticipation of the Obama health care law, adding the new burden and 
cost on insurance companies, hospitals, doctors.
  The costs of doing business in health care are increasing in 
anticipation of that health care law taking full effect in the next 
year. I have heard so much opposition in my home State when I travel 
around from small businesses that are just throwing up their hands and 
saying: I cannot provide the government-approved health care for my 
employees, which is going to mean I will have a new tax burden for 
every one of them as they then have to go on the government plan and 
fend for themselves.
  Even families are going to have to do it or they will have to pay a 
tax. It is not just a good plan, it is the government-approved plan. So 
if they provide 35 percent of their employees' premiums, which is what 
they can afford, but the government requires more than that, they will 
still have to pay the fine. The small businesses are saying: I am going 
to pay the fine because that is my only alternative. Those with more 
than 50 employees, will have costly new Federal regulations to comply 
with. The financial penalty is so great we are seeing businesses stop 
at 49 so they will not have more workers and therefore have a bigger 
responsibility.
  I received a letter from a small business owner in Arlington who said 
it best: ``Did Congress and the President know they were going to 
freeze our country's businesses' ability to help grow this economy when 
they passed this bill?'' I will point out that not one Republican in 
the House or Senate voted for this bill in Congress. So I would have to 
say to my small business constituent in Arlington: This was the 
Democrats in Congress and the President's bill. Not one Republican 
would support it because of the fear of exactly what is happening; that 
is, small business owners are losing faith that they will be able to 
grow, and that is what is causing the economic crisis we are in with 
unemployment over 8 percent.
  A small business owner in Corpus Christi, TX, who has 34 employees 
told my office that his company's cheapest option for health insurance 
would boost premiums by 44 percent over last year. How can they do it? 
It is happening everywhere. I hear it everywhere I go. Clearly, this is 
not the incentive our economy needs right now.
  We need government to get out of the way of the job creators in this 
country not block their path with miles of regulations, new burdens and 
costs--new regulations, new costs--and then the talk of new taxes which 
is prevalent everywhere.
  Our best hope is that the Supreme Court will see this has a 
constitutional problem. Then we can start again and take a step-by-step 
reform. That will do what all of us want to do. Everyone in Congress 
and the President had the same goal; that is, to have more Americans 
with affordable coverage and options.
  But that is not the bill that was passed, and it is why Republicans 
could not possibly support it, because they saw the burdens on 
families, on businesses, and they knew it was not going to encourage 
hiring, which is what we need in this country. We have a chance to 
start a process that will be positive. We need to do something to spur 
small business in this economy.
  One thing that could be done, which is in discussions right now, is 
the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would create a $7 billion, shovel-
ready, privately funded project that would transport over 700,000 
barrels of oil from Canada

[[Page S4113]]

to the United States. It has been estimated it would create 20,000 
construction jobs and as many as 100,000 jobs at refineries and other 
businesses.
  By the way, we would be trading with a friendly partner, Canada, so 
we would not have to import more from unfriendly parts of the Middle 
East, and we would also be able to know that these are privately funded 
jobs, not one government cent. In fact, it would create taxes being 
paid to the government because people would be working, and that is the 
way we should be growing our revenue in this country.
  But the President suggested a different solution. He said the answer 
is not to spur the private sector because they are doing just fine. He 
said let's spend more money bailing out the States because they are 
having a hard time. They are having a hard time. We can do something 
for the States, and it is not bailing them out with more borrowed 
Federal dollars that will continue to weigh down the dollar itself. No. 
We can do something for State governments; that is, stop sending 
Federal mandates that we do not pay for that we require them to do, put 
a moratorium on Federal mandates on States today. Let's start repealing 
these Federal mandates we are requiring States to absorb. It is killing 
their economies.
  Medicaid and the lack of flexibility in Medicaid is the biggest 
expense most States have. It is a Federal mandate unpaid for and 
inflexible, not the choice States could make to cover the people who 
need the help. We can help the States but not at the expense of our 
dollar and our debt.
  So the President is suggesting more spending and bailing out States, 
and we are offering a solution that says let's create jobs in the 
private sector. Keystone XL is ready to go right now, private sector, 
100,000 future jobs, not one penny from the Federal Government.
  Let's take these Federal regulations and let's put a moratorium on 
them right now and free our small businesses to be the entrepreneurs 
that built this country. It was the entrepreneurs who built this 
country in freedom. This country has been a magnet for people coming 
from all over the world because they could do their research in 
freedom. They could grow in freedom. They could keep the fruits of 
their labor and give their kids a better chance than they had, which 
they could not get in their home country. That is what built this 
country.
  We can get right back there, but it is not by borrowing more, 
spending more, taxing more, and regulating our small businesses out of 
existence. We can do something positive, and it is time we got started.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Ten minutes.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I, too, wish to rise and talk some 
about the President's statement of last Friday but from maybe a 
different approach than one might imagine.
  The President said he thought the private sector was doing just fine. 
I was driving in the car when I heard the statement, and the statement 
took me back because I feared the President might not actually know how 
the private sector truly was doing.
  Twelve weeks ago, I spent a week on the road doing townhalls, 
knocking on doors, visiting with Georgians. I come to the floor to 
provide some information to the President that maybe the private sector 
isn't doing that well, and maybe there is something we can do about 
it--this administration and this Senate--because right now we are doing 
nothing and America is languishing because of problems, some of which 
are our making.
  The private sector, by definition, is everybody other than the 
government sector; at least that is my definition. Let me talk about 
everybody other than the government sector for a minute and why they 
are not doing very well. Let me talk about the homebuilder I met in 
Valdosta, GA, who talked to me about the fact that he had just sold a 
home he built. I said that is great; house sales are getting better. He 
said, the only problem is I could not get an appraisal for what it cost 
me to build the house, so I am selling it, but I am selling it at a 
loss. Part of that is because of the regulation and oppression that is 
on appraisers right now because of a fear of appraisal fraud.
  Or the tomato farmer I talked to from Bainbridge, GA. He talked about 
the indignation he had when the Labor Department promulgated a rule--
they did not end up passing it--that would have said you have to be 18 
years or older to work on a farm, even if it was your family farm--an 
overreach of the Department of Labor that, fortunately, they pulled 
back, but the type of overreach that causes people to retrench, not 
build and expand and move their business forward.
  Or the 81-year-old community banker I talked to yesterday on the 
phone, from Calhoun, GA, who had a significant amount of his savings 
invested in stock in the community bank he had been a part of so much 
of his life, which is now under a cease-and-desist letter from the FDIC 
and is being managed under what is called a cease-and-desist order, 
which means the FDIC is basically running the bank, or limiting its 
parameters. The bank is slowly but surely dissipating its capital base 
until it gets to 2 percent and then the Feds will come in and close the 
bank and transfer its assets to a bigger bank and give them an 80-
percent loss share guarantee, and the bigger bank will foreclose on the 
property and move forward.
  In fact, what was intended by Dodd-Frank to reduce too big to fail 
and empower banks has done the opposite; the bigger banks have gotten 
bigger, the smaller banks have become fewer, and American banking and 
capital investment is less.
  Or the hospital I visited in Thomasville, GA, which just finished its 
completion, the Archibald Center--a great center. They were talking 
about the difficulties they were having with employees and the fear 
they had that the NLRB mini-union ruling on Specialty Health Care was 
actually going to become the law of the land through regulation, where 
micro units within a facility could actually unionize, where just 
nurses in the emergency room, or in the ICU, could unionize, and 
everybody else would not. Can you imagine a hospital, department store, 
or a manufacturer with a union in the shoe department, a union in the 
nursing department, a union in the lumber department, a union on the 
loading dock, micro unions throughout the organization? You could not 
function; you couldn't cross-train, you couldn't manage. You would 
weight the playing field between management and labor in favor of labor 
and to the detriment of the investor who made the investment.
  I could go on and on. It is those visits that I have talked about, 
the people in those cities I have talked to in Georgia, people in the 
private sector--they are not doing well. And it is for fear of 
overregulation and of uncertainty. If we can do anything to empower our 
economy in the short run in America, we can call time out and say 
enough is enough.
  As I told a member of the administration 2 weeks ago, the 
administration, I think, wants to eliminate risk. Our job is not to 
eliminate; it is to mitigate risk. If you eliminate risk, you take the 
power of investments in the private sector, entrepreneurship, and 
capital risk, you take it out the window. You can't eliminate risk, but 
you can mitigate risk. So let's get back to mitigating risk, making 
sure we have a safe workplace, but where capital investment can be 
made. Let's make sure we mitigate risk in banking, but not so much that 
we choke out the small family banker. Let's make sure that agricultural 
workers are safe, but that the son of a farmer can work on his father's 
own farm. Let's make sure we are not overreaching so far that we are 
making the private sector's plight worse than it is today.
  My message to the Senate and to the President of the United States is 
that the private sector is not just fine. Though it may not all be of 
the government's making, part of it is. We are making it worse. We are 
trying to run a country based on the three-legged stool of legislative, 
judicial, and the executive branch, on a two-legged stool of regulation 
through the executive branch and judicial regulation through the 
judicial branch--cutting out the legislative branch. Do you know what 
happens to two-legged stools? They fall over. The private sector is 
falling over, and it is, in part or in whole, because of us.

[[Page S4114]]

  I hope the President understands that there is a private sector that 
pays the taxes and makes America work--a private sector that is 
hurting--and we can help the private sector. Let's put our nose and 
shoulder to the grindstone, and let's move forward in these months 
leading up to the election and change some of the overregulation and 
empower the private sector, not accept that we think it is doing just 
fine.
  I end with this, the front page of the USA Today. Average family 
wealth net worth in the United States has declined 39.4 percent, back 
to the level of 1992, which simply means the private sector has lost 20 
years of accumulation, equity, and investment in the economy of the 
last 3 years. That is unacceptable. It is why we have the depression we 
have in this country. We need to get our shoulder to the grindstone, 
make it work, and let the private sector be just fine again because of 
an empowerment of the private sector, entrepreneurship, and capital 
investment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, we have six Senators, including the 
occupant of the chair, the Senator from New York, on the floor today in 
the majority time to discuss the jammed bipartisan Senate highway bill.
  I heard my colleague from Georgia talk about how we are doing nothing 
and America is languishing. One of the things we are doing nothing on 
is passing a highway bill that should not be complicated. But it is 
jammed up by the House Republicans and, as a result, people in Rhode 
Island and elsewhere are suffering. I will be here throughout our 
majority period. I think the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator 
from New Hampshire were here first, so I yield to them.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island 
for his leadership in bringing us all together. We have to get this 
transportation bill done. This is a bill that passed the Senate with 74 
votes. So we are here today to say to our colleagues over in the House 
and to ask our colleagues on the Republican side in the Senate to ask 
the Republicans in the House to get this bill done.
  Cold-weather States, such as Minnesota, it is sometimes said, have 
two seasons: the winter season and the construction season. This kind 
of delay can be crippling. We have a much smaller window of time to get 
these projects done.
  We have people waiting in traffic. We ask the House, why are we 
making them wait? We look at the cost when we delay construction 
projects--the cost to taxpayers. Everybody knows if you wait too long 
to work on a project, and you are doing something on your house and you 
wait years to get it done, the costs go up.
  We ask our friends in the House, why are they allowing this to happen 
and making this delay? Look at contractors, construction workers, and 
engineering firms. They need consistency. Why is the House making them 
wait?
  Look at Caterpillar, a business that employs 750 people in my State. 
They make road paving equipment and have a manufacturing facility. I 
was there addressing the employees. They gave me a pink hat. There are 
people working all over that company. They want more jobs, and they 
want to make things in America, and they want to export to the world. 
We are not going to be able to do that if we don't have the roads and 
bridges that can take our goods to market. We ask the House of 
Representatives, why are we making these private employers wait? The 
bill makes critical reforms to our transportation policy.
  Last week the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a 
report announcing that 58 percent of high school seniors said they had 
texted or e-mailed while driving in the previous month, and 43 percent 
of high school juniors said they do the same thing. This bill includes 
provisions to help prevent texting while driving, and incentives--the 
two of us together, Madam President, worked on the graduated driver's 
license standards in this bill.
  Why are we making the parents of America wait while their kids are 
texting while driving? It makes reforms in the bill to transportation 
policy, reduces the number of highway programs from over 100 to about 
30. So the Republicans in the House--how can they explain that they are 
making America wait to reform and make these programs less duplicative? 
It defines clear national goals for transportation policy, and it 
streamlines environmental permitting.
  Why would you make America wait? That is what we are asking the House 
of Representatives today. Nobody knows better than Minnesota what 
happens if you neglect roads and bridges: The 35 W bridge crashed down 
in the middle of a river 6 blocks from my house.
  So we ask the House of Representatives, why are you making the people 
of America wait?
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in 
talking about why it is so important to pass this transportation bill. 
I thank Senator Whitehouse for organizing this effort.
  In New Hampshire, we understand what Senator Klobuchar was saying, 
that it is important to get this bill passed so we can get our 
construction season underway. We have a limited amount of time. In only 
17 days, this Nation's surface transportation programs are going to 
shut down unless Congress acts to reauthorize them.
  In March, nearly three-quarters of this Senate voted to pass a 
bipartisan, long-term transportation bill that maintains current 
funding levels and avoids an increase in both the deficit and in gas 
taxes. This legislation is important as we look at roads and bridges 
and mass transit that are going to have support. It is important as we 
look at the jobs in the construction industry and manufacturing 
businesses that depend on our transportation system.
  In fact, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that for every 
$1 billion in highway spending, we support about 27,000 jobs. I was 
pleased last week to see an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the 
House vote to reject policies that will cut spending on roads and 
public transit by one-third. If that had passed, an estimated 2,000 New 
Hampshire jobs would have been lost. I think that vote sends an 
important signal to members of the conference committee that there is a 
strong bipartisan majority in both Houses of Congress to support 
funding for crucial investments in our transportation network.
  I call on the House to work with the Senate in a similar bipartisan 
manner, as we did in the Senate, to pass transportation policies that 
put Americans back to work and generate economic growth. We have seen 
it in New Hampshire, where we have 29 construction projects that are 
going to be on hold if we cannot get transportation legislation passed 
here. We have seen it with Interstate 93, one of our main corridors 
going up and down the middle of our State, which has been delayed 
because of the delay in passing this transportation bill.
  If we are unable to set aside election year amendments, unable to set 
aside this partisan politics and come together to do what is right for 
our country and our economy and pass a transportation bill, it will be 
putting this country in a very difficult situation.
  The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the highway trust 
fund will run out of money next year--sometime in 2013. We are not 
exactly sure when. But that will mean funding to States will face 
drastic cuts without any reauthorization to shore up that revenue. And 
were the highway trust funds to run out of money, projects in this 
country would grind to a halt; it would decimate jobs in the 
construction industry. We cannot afford that.
  Investing in transportation creates jobs and creates the conditions 
for our small companies to succeed. It should not be an issue about 
politics or partisanship. I urge our colleagues on the House side--
because they are the ones holding this up--to come together and pass a 
transportation reauthorization bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I join Senators Shaheen and Klobuchar, 
and I particularly thank Senator

[[Page S4115]]

Whitehouse for bringing us together. Senator Boxer was on the floor 
earlier talking about the transportation conference committee, and 
Senator Begich is also here.
  We are all here because of the urgency of the conference report being 
presented to us so that we have a multiyear reauthorization of the 
transportation programs of this country.
  Let me point out, I know a lot of times our constituents are confused 
as to why legislation cannot move here. Clearly, the holdup in passing 
the surface transportation reauthorization is the Republicans in the 
House of Representatives. They are blocking a bill that has broad 
support from the industries that are affected by it, from the public, 
and from both Democrats and Republicans here in the Senate.

  We passed a consensus bill. It is not even bipartisan, it is 
consensus. We were able to get the right balance between public 
transportation and transit and highways and bridges. We have the proper 
balance between how the money is controlled at the State level and how 
it is controlled at the local level. We have worked out a reform of our 
transportation programs to do this in a most efficient way. That bill 
is being held up for one reason and one reason alone; that is, the 
politics of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. They 
believe they can score political points by blocking any legislation 
from moving.
  Let me underscore the points my colleagues have mentioned. This bill 
is all about jobs. It is all about rebuilding America and saving and 
preserving jobs.
  On Sunday I was in Cumberland, MD, talking about the first Federal 
highway, the national highway that was built over 200 years ago, which 
was the first subsidized road in America. That brought jobs to our 
communities. It connected the East with the expanding Nation. Quite 
frankly, this Transportation bill connects our Nation, and it is 
important for jobs. In the western part of Maryland, we have the 
Appalachian highway that we need to complete, the north-south highway. 
That will affect jobs in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia. 
That is what this is about here.
  A short-term extension costs us jobs. Last month we lost 28,000 jobs 
as a result of not being able to pass a multiyear surface 
transportation program. We lose the construction season, as my 
colleagues have pointed out. And quite frankly, we have the bill before 
us. We have the votes to pass it.
  So what we are asking today is that the Republicans in the House 
release this bill, allow us to move forward so we can create jobs for 
America and continue the economic expansion for America that we need 
through modern transportation. That is what this is about, and that is 
why we are here today, to remind our colleagues, the Republicans in the 
House--the extremists who are holding up this bill--this is a bill that 
is important for our Nation. Let's move forward with the people's 
business.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. BEGICH. Madam President, I would like to thank my colleagues for 
coming to the floor and especially thank Senator Whitehouse for 
organizing all of us to come here to speak on an issue that is really 
the core of what we do here: to figure out how to build infrastructure 
for this country so our private sector can have the infrastructure to 
work from and play off of. But let's be very blunt and very honest 
about what is happening. This Transportation reauthorization bill 
passed this body with 74 votes. It was a bipartisan effort, hard 
fought, with incredible debate, encompassing many different issues. Now 
it sits in a conference committee with House Members, led by the 
Republican majority over there, not wanting to move forward.
  Let's be very blunt about this. Not only do we have that bill over 
there, we have the VAWA bill, the FDA bill, the postal reform bill, and 
they are all just piling up over in the House. People wonder why the 
economy has been struggling this last month. Well, all the business 
that we should be doing and that we are doing here on the Senate side--
we are passing stuff--is all piling up over there on the House side.
  Actually, I did what we were calling ``Begich Minutes,'' give or take 
a few seconds. I went to the middle of the Capitol and described this 
incident of where we pass a bill, and then I physically pointed to the 
House side to show where the bill is now stalled. We have a small group 
within the Republican majority over there that is holding the Speaker 
hostage, literally, because they want to cut the Transportation bill by 
over one-third, which would devastate the infrastructure of this 
country.
  Let me say from my own experience--and I know Senator Whitehouse has 
heard this, and others have as well--as a former mayor, I was in charge 
of the metropolitan planning organization for our community of 
Anchorage, which maintained at that time approximately 45 or 48 percent 
of the population of the State. We were in charge of managing the road 
money. Every time Congress delayed their action or were ineffective in 
getting their work done, as a mayor, I had to put projects off, stall 
projects, and hold contracts and tell contractors they couldn't get to 
work. That created uncertainty, which at the end of the day does one 
thing: It costs more money. And the people who pay for that are the 
taxpayers.
  So they sit over there in the House. I saw a comment that they want 
to do another extension. Well, we have had nine extensions. For people 
who don't know what extensions are, it is where the Congress says: 
Well, we will extend this bill for another week, another 2 weeks, 
another month. But these extensions create more uncertainty and add 
more cost. Every time you hear the word ``extension'' from the other 
side, that just means you--the taxpayers of this country--are paying 
more in taxes. That is what that means, pure and simple. ``Extension'' 
means you pay more for a project that should have been on the board and 
moving forward.
  We have a bipartisan bill, with 74 Democrats and Republicans on the 
Senate side having voted for it. It is now lingering in conference.
  We are now in the midst of the construction season. In Alaska--and I 
know my colleague from Minnesota, who has joined us, will know about 
this--the construction season is short. We need to have contracts let 
in early spring in order to construct in the summer and be completed by 
September or October because the asphalt plants close. When the asphalt 
plants close, you can't put asphalt on the streets. It is very simple. 
We have a very limited time. So the contracting community is frustrated 
and angry because they do not get the certainty they need to hire the 
people. They can't get them to work.
  So I plead with the folks on the other side, the extreme folks in the 
Republican majority over there who are holding the Speaker hostage on 
this issue, let's do what is right for America. Let's make sure these 
jobs, these 3 million jobs that could be retained and added, move 
forward. In an economy where every job makes a difference, we are 
talking here about 3 million jobs. Let's move this forward. Let's quit 
the politics.
  What is amazing about this--and I heard Senator Whitehouse say this 
more than once--if the Speaker of the House would just allow the Senate 
bill to go to the floor for a vote, I can guarantee what will happen: 
Democrats and a group of Republicans will support that bill and pass 
it. But that is not the issue. We have a very small subset of the 
majority of the Republicans over in the House who have told the 
majority leader he is not moving anything--nothing, zero--because they 
are not betting on America like we are. We bet on America. We are 
betting on the right things. What they want to do is to cripple this 
country for their own political gamesmanship.
  I have to say--and I would bet every one of my colleagues here would 
say the same thing--that when I go back home to Alaska, I hear how fed 
up people are with this. They are frustrated by the inability of 
Congress to do its work. And I have told my folks back in Alaska that 
the Senate is doing its work. We are passing bipartisan bills. But they 
get jammed up by a small group of extreme Republican tea party folks 
who believe the best way to solve problems is to do nothing and to let 
this economy falter.

  So I hope Members will come to their senses over there. I can say 
that my

[[Page S4116]]

Congressman, the Republican from Alaska, is working hard to get this 
bill passed. He is on the conference committee. He is one of the 
Republicans who would vote with Democrats to get things done on this 
Transportation bill. Why? Because he likes building things. I like 
building things. But there are some other folks over there who have no 
interest in helping to build this country and make it a better place.
  So, again, I yield my time. I hope folks on the other side in that 
extreme group will get some sense knocked into them. Maybe the American 
people will do it. I hope so.
  Madam President, I yield the floor at this point for my friend from 
Minnesota.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alaska and the 
Senator from Rhode Island.
  I wish to emphasize the need to pass a long-term reauthorization of 
this surface transportation bill. It is time for Congress to do its 
job. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Boxer and Inhofe, this body 
passed a bill with 74 votes. Actually, it probably would have been 76 
votes, but Senator Kirk is back at home recovering--and we wish him 
very well--and Senator Lautenberg couldn't vote that day. I think he 
was at the funeral of a friend. So it really would have been 76 votes. 
Unfortunately, our colleagues in the House were not able to pass a 
comprehensive reauthorization bill and were only able to join a 
conference committee after passing yet another short-term extension.
  So I will repeat myself: It is time for Congress to do its job. As 
the Senator from Alaska, my good colleague, was just saying, the summer 
construction season is now upon us. In Minnesota, that is when we know 
we can build roads and bridges and light rail, because in November and 
December it gets cold and snowy.
  State departments of transportation have already canceled projects 
because the House has failed to act. We have already lost thousands of 
jobs because, for whatever reason, the House will not pass a bill that 
received unanimous bipartisan support in the Environment and Public 
Works Committee and 74 votes in the Senate as a whole.
  Speaker Boehner has said the House may just pass another short-term 
extension. But all of these extensions have whittled away at the 
highway trust fund--whittled it down to a dangerously low balance--and 
any further extension would put it in danger of going bankrupt.
  This should not be controversial. This should not be partisan. 
Transportation and infrastructure have not been in the past. The Senate 
consensus bill simply maintains the current level of funding for our 
transportation system and streamlines many programs to make sure those 
investments are put to the best possible use. This is infrastructure 
that we need to stay competitive in our global economy.
  Minnesota is ready to make these investments. Whether we are talking 
about maintaining our bridges so they are safe, expanding the new light 
rail system in the Twin Cities, or reducing congestion on our highways, 
these are projects that will create jobs now and strengthen our economy 
well into the future, as infrastructure always does.
  On August 1 of this year, we in Minnesota will mark the fifth 
anniversary of a tragedy in our State: the collapse of the Interstate 
35 W bridge in Minneapolis. The collapse killed 13 people and injured 
145. That tragedy should have been a wake-up call in America and in 
this body. Bridges should not collapse in the United States of America.
  If that was a wake-up call, the House seems to be content to have hit 
the snooze button and ignore the problem. Well, we cannot wait any 
longer. There is no reason not to pass this bill. Frankly, the Senate 
bill is the conservative solution. It is paid for, it consolidates many 
Federal programs, and it streamlines project reviews--all things that I 
have heard colleagues in the House ask for. The House negotiators need 
to work with Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe and the rest of the 
Senate conferees and come to an agreement both the House and the Senate 
can live with. If they can't or won't, Speaker Boehner should--as the 
Senator from Alaska just said--just take up the Senate bill and give it 
an up-or-down vote.
  Let's prove to our constituents that we can come together and do what 
is right. Let's pass a bill that will create jobs for workers in our 
States and build prosperity for our future. It is time for Congress to 
do its job and pass a transportation bill without any more delay.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield back to my colleague, the Senator 
from Rhode Island.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I thank the Senators on our side who 
have come here today during the majority time block to express their 
support for moving forward on the highway transportation bill.
  Not all of them have had the chance to speak because time was short, 
but I wish to have the Record reflect that in addition to Senators 
Klobuchar, Shaheen, Begich, Cardin, and Franken, who did speak, and 
myself of course, Senator Gillibrand is also here but presiding. 
Senator Stabenow was here but could not wait. Senator Mark Udall is 
here. Senator Conrad was here. We are all here because we are very 
concerned about what is going on with the highway bill.
  We had a March 31 deadline in order to get things done by the summer 
construction season that we have heard so much about. We made the 
deadline. Not only did we make the deadline, we made the deadline with 
a bipartisan bill, one that was unanimous among both parties in the 
Environment and Public Works Committee and we brought it to the floor 
and we got it passed, 75 or more Senators supporting it. The House did 
not do its job. It did not have a bill. It could not pass a highway 
bill.
  For folks who have been around here longer than I have, the failure 
to pass the highway bill is telling. This is not like getting an A on a 
chemistry test. This is like showing up for class, and they failed at 
that very simple task. So they asked for an extension. We probably 
should not have given it. We probably should have forced the vote then. 
But we did. We gave them an extension on the theory that, in good 
faith, they would come through. We knew the extension would cost jobs. 
The extension has cost jobs. Out of over 90 projects slated for this 
construction season in Rhode Island, about 40 are going to fall off 
because of the delay. Those are real jobs in Rhode Island, a State that 
needs them, and that is true across the rest of the country. Wherever 
winter falls, this predicament exists. So that is why so many of my 
colleagues were here.
  Now we are closing in on the end of the extension we gave them. It 
will end June 30. I am here to urge that we give no further extensions. 
It is either govern or get out of the way to the House of 
Representatives. If they can't pass a highway bill of their own, let 
the Senate bill come up for a vote. It is bipartisan. It is supported 
by manufacturers. It is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It 
is supported by road builders. It is supported by environmentalists. It 
is supported by labor. It is a good bill. It had a great process, wide 
open, on the Senate floor. There is no excuse for not taking up that 
bill. I agree with Senator Begich. If that bill comes up, Democrats and 
Republicans together will give it a massive majority in the House, and 
people will be put to work.
  One place where I think we all ought to be able to agree on both 
sides of the aisle is that Federal spending is actually helpful and 
does create jobs in building our roads and bridges. We don't expect 
Americans to repair the road in front of their house. We don't expect 
Americans to go and build bridges for themselves. It is a government 
job to build roads and bridges. The jam-up Speaker Boehner and Majority 
Leader Cantor have created on this is costing probably hundreds of 
thousands of jobs right now in this country. Why they are doing it, 
their motive, that is not for me to say. But the practical effect is 
that jobs are being lost by unnecessary delay, created by Republicans 
in the House, which they could get rid of by simply calling up the 
bipartisan Senate bill and giving a free vote on it, letting it pass, 
and putting Americans to work.
  I yield the floor. I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah for 
being

[[Page S4117]]

patient as I went over my time a little bit.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my colleague.
  Last week, I discussed some unfinished business that remains for 
Congress and the President to address. Specifically, Congress must take 
up a number of tax-related matters in very short order.
  When I discussed this tax agenda last week, I referred to this chart. 
Things have not changed since then. As this chart shows, the tax 
extenders, which are overdue by almost one-half year, are not alone on 
Congress's to-do list.
  We need to resolve the death tax. Death tax relief expires at the end 
of 2012. We need to prevent the 2013 tax hikes. As I noted earlier, we 
have the so-called tax extenders that are right there, and we have to 
address the alternative minimum tax--or AMT--the second one on that 
list. The issue of the AMT is what I would like to address today.
  Thirty-one million American families will be caught by the AMT or are 
already caught. Yet Congress has done nothing to address the AMT. The 
alternative minimum tax is a stealth tax on 27 million families. 
Approximately, 3.9 million families paid the AMT last year, and they 
may not be surprised if it hits them again this year. But for the other 
27 million American families set to be ensnared by the AMT, this 
represents a significant and stealthy tax increase.
  The AMT burden is, in fact, far broader than just the 31 million 
American families who are in its sights. Nearly double that number--60 
million American families--must fill out the AMT worksheet to determine 
whether they owe an alternative minimum tax. While not as bad as paying 
the tax itself, the task of compliance is just another time-consuming, 
government-imposed challenge for Americans families they don't need to 
have.
  To get some idea of the magnitude of the AMT's reach, consider this 
chart. It breaks down, State by State, the number of American families 
hit by the AMT.
  When I speak of those now being caught by this tax, I am referring to 
those families who make estimated tax payments and who are scheduled to 
make their second payment tomorrow.
  Last year, 3.9 million families were hit by the AMT. I think this was 
3.9 million too many, but it is considerably better than the more than 
31.1 million who will be hit in 2012.
  The reason we are threatened by such a large increase this year is 
that over the last 11 years, Congress has passed legislation to 
temporarily increase the amount of income exempt from the AMT. Unlike 
many other provisions of the Tax Code, the AMT exemption amount is not 
automatically adjusted for inflation. These temporary exemption 
increases have prevented millions of middle-class American families 
from falling prey to the AMT, until now.
  While I have always fought for these temporary exemptions, I believe 
the AMT ought to be permanently repealed. One reason to pursue 
permanent repeal is the uncertainty that the AMT creates for taxpayers 
when Congress must revisit and adjust it every year.
  Unfortunately, a permanent fix does not appear to be forthcoming. 
Congress has yet to undertake any meaningful action on the AMT. 
President Obama has proposed permanently patching or maybe even 
repealing AMT. Yet what he gives with one hand, he takes away with 
another.

  He has proposed to pay for an AMT fix with this so-called Buffett 
tax. The thing is, the Buffett tax is nothing more than a new 
alternative minimum tax. The solution to the alternative minimum tax 
problem surely can't be an alternative minimum tax.
  Moreover, the revenue generated by the Buffett tax--in spite of the 
suggestion by the President that this tax on the rich could pay for all 
things good--would not come close to providing the revenue necessary to 
address the AMT in a meaningful way.
  Despite assurance from the President and his allies that AMT relief 
is an important issue, nothing has actually been put forward as a 
serious legislative solution for this year. There has been no Senate 
committee markup or floor action for tax extenders, the AMT patch, 
death tax reform or even preventing 2013 tax hikes.
  This year is about half over, and all we have is talk about the need 
to address the AMT, but a theoretical discussion is not a substitute 
for real action, as anyone making a quarterly payment today will attest 
to.
  Everyone seems to agree something needs to be done--and done 
quickly--but the discussion does not go any further from there. We are 
out of time. The second quarterly AMT payment is due. Today, taxpayers 
across the country are under a legal requirement to pay their estimated 
tax. They will use the form depicted on this chart right here--``2012 
Estimated Tax.'' Though I hope otherwise, I expect I will be here again 
when the third payment comes due saying basically the same thing.
  A question remains about whether people who should be making an 
estimated tax payment tomorrow actually will. Most of these 31 million 
taxpayers subject to the AMT do not even know they are subject to the 
alternative minimum tax, so they will not be making that estimated tax 
payment tomorrow, even though they should. If one fails to pay 
sufficient estimated tax or have a sufficient amount of wages withheld 
on a timely basis throughout the year, then one can be subject to 
interest and penalties. This is an awful spot for Congress to put the 
American families in.
  It is also worth recalling that the IRS cannot just flip a switch and 
have its systems in place for an AMT patch. This is not done overnight. 
It takes months. The Congress's failure to act on a timely basis could 
actually delay the processing of 2013 refund checks perhaps by even a 
few months.
  The failure of Congress to promptly enact an alternative minimum tax 
fix would have a cascading effect on our system of tax administration. 
Software providers and tax preparers would struggle to keep up.
  One of the issues holding back an AMT fix is that many on the other 
side insist that, unlike new spending proposals or extensions of 
existing spending programs, AMT reform should happen only if it is 
revenue neutral. That means any revenues not collected through reform 
or repeal of the AMT must be offset by new taxes from somewhere else.
  Notice that I said ``not collected'' rather than ``lost.'' This 
distinction is important for the simple reason that the revenues we do 
not collect as a result of AMT relief are not truly lost. The AMT 
collects revenues it was never supposed to collect in the first place. 
If we offset revenues not collected as a result of AMT repeal or 
reform, total Federal revenues over the long term are projected to push 
through the 30-year historical average and then keep going.
  Originally conceived as a mechanism to ensure that high-income 
taxpayers were not able to eliminate their tax liability completely, 
the AMT has failed. The AMT was originally created back in 1969, with 
just 155 taxpayers in mind--155--a mechanism to ensure that high-income 
taxpayers were not able to eliminate their tax liability completely. 
The AMT has failed completely. On the one hand, as IRS Commissioner 
Everson told the Finance Committee in 2004, the same percentage of 
taxpayers continues to pay no Federal income tax.
  On the other hand, the AMT is projected to bring in future revenues 
it was never designed to collect. At least 31 million middle-class 
families are now in the AMT's crosshairs, and that was never meant to 
be. That is quite a change from 155 rich people who never paid any 
taxes. It should serve as a cautionary tale for those who believe 
today's tax increase proposals will remain limited to the so-called 
wealthy.
  During the 2008 campaign, President Obama advocated for a permanent 
AMT patch. His budgets have maintained that position. While permanent 
repeal without offsetting the AMT is the best option, we absolutely 
must do something to protect taxpayers immediately, even if it involves 
a temporary solution, such as an increase in the exemption amount. Of 
course, if we do that, we are going to be in the same fix next year, 
and I will again be making the same points.
  This coming Friday--June 15, 2012--taxpayers making quarterly 
payments are going to once again discover that the AMT is neither the 
subject of an

[[Page S4118]]

academic seminar nor a future problem we can put off dealing with. The 
AMT is a real problem right now. If this Congress was truly serious 
about tax fairness, it does need to stand and take action.
  I would like to take a few moments to address another matter of 
importance.
  A conference committee is currently meeting with the goal of 
producing a transportation bill. As I said at the public meeting that 
was held last month, ensuring that local communities have a strong 
voice in the transportation decisionmaking process is a priority of 
mine. There are many ways this can be achieved, but one particularly 
effective method is through the implementation of environmental 
streamlining.
  Negotiations are still ongoing, so I do not want to go into too much 
detail. Yet environmental streamlining is something that will benefit 
my own home State of Utah and every other State that is currently 
forced to comply with redundant and oppressive redtape when engaging in 
transportation projects with the Federal Government.
  The highway trust fund, which funds many transportation programs, 
currently has more money coming out of it than is going into it. While 
there are many who want to deal with bloated and unfocused spending by 
raising taxes, I disagree. If revenues do not meet outlays, then we 
should not be punishing the American taxpayer; rather, we should be 
reevaluating spending priorities.
  In addition to examining what Congress spends money on, we need to 
ensure that money being spent is spent efficiently. Currently, 
governments at the Federal, State and local level spend considerable 
resources complying with Federal regulations designed to protect the 
environment. Given that many of these regulations have accumulated over 
time, I am confident that we can scrape many of these barnacles off the 
ship of state without harming the environment.
  Both the Senate and the House recognize the truth of what I am 
saying, and both bills currently in conference reflect this sentiment. 
Both contain provisions designed to streamline or simplify the 
environmental reviews with which transportation projects must comply. 
In particular, I am appreciative of the efforts shown by Chairman Mica 
of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his role 
in highlighting the importance of environmental streamlining within the 
conference committee.
  Madam President, I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no controlled time. The 
Senator has the time.
  Mr. HATCH. I do not want to infringe on my colleagues. Let me just 
say this: I am appreciative of the efforts shown by Chairman Mica of 
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his role in 
highlighting the importance of environmental streamlining within the 
conference committee. I hope the rest of my fellow Senate conferees are 
carefully reviewing his suggested language. I know all of us want to do 
all we can to expedite project delivery times while minimizing 
redundant costs. Chairman Mica is clearly eager to engage on this 
topic.
  President Obama has talked in the past about the importance of 
funding shovel-ready jobs. All we are asking is when there is a shovel-
ready job to move forward without undue or unnecessary environmental 
reviews.
  I close with an appeal rooted in my role as ranking member of the 
Finance Committee. The highway trust fund is currently on a path to 
insolvency, and the Senate bill does not change that. By working with 
our colleagues in the House we can make sure taxpayer money is not 
wasted on redundant and unnecessary compliance and regulation. Despite 
current policy being green in the environmental sense, it does not mean 
we have to sacrifice being green in a budgetary sense.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the 
amendment that is pending to kill the Sugar Program in the United 
States. My colleagues should know that the domestic sugar industry 
employs 140,000 people in this country. If there were ever a jobs-
killer amendment, it is the amendment that is going to be offered to 
kill the U.S. Sugar Program.
  In advancing that amendment, a series of claims have been made about 
the U.S. Sugar Program that I believe are false. First of all, it is 
said that the Sugar Program has a high cost for taxpayers. That is 
false. It is said that it keeps sugar prices artificially high. That is 
false. It is said that the Sugar Program drives the confectionary 
industry out of the United States. That is false. It is said that the 
Sugar Program impedes imports into the United States. That is false. It 
is also said that consumers will benefit from eliminating the Sugar 
Program. I believe that is false as well.
  Let's take each of these arguments in turn. First is that it has a 
high taxpayer cost. Here is the cost, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office, of the Sugar Program for 2013 to 2022. The cost is zero. 
It is hard to get lower than zero. Maybe the square root of zero would 
be lower. But those who say there is a high cost to taxpayers are just 
wrong. It is false.
  The second claim is that it keeps sugar prices artificially high--
false again. This chart shows the average retail sugar price in major 
countries around the world. Here is the United States way down here, 59 
cents. The global average is 67 cents. The developed country average is 
73 cents. We are below the global average, and we are below the average 
of developed countries. So the claim that it keeps sugar prices high is 
false again.
  The third claim is that the Sugar Program drives the confectionary 
industry out of the United States. Wrong again. Here is what is 
happening to the U.S. chocolate and nonchocolate confectionery 
production in the United States since 2004. Do you see the trend line? 
It is up. More production not less production.
  These are facts, and facts are stubborn things. Let's go to the 
fourth claim, that this Sugar Program impedes imports. This is maybe 
the biggest whopper of all. Here are the facts: The United States, in 
the period from 2008 2009 through 2010 2011, is the biggest importer of 
sugar in the world. So this program is impeding imports into the United 
States? If it is, it is not doing a very good job of it because the 
United States is No. 1 in imports of sugar in the world.
  Before we get to the final assertion, let's look at what other 
countries, poor countries that produce sugar are saying to us about our 
Sugar Program. The argument made on the Senate floor is we are hurting 
poor countries with our Sugar Program. Maybe we ought to listen to what 
those poor countries say. Here is their organization, the International 
Sugar Trade Coalition, that represents sugar producers in 17 developing 
nations in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Central America, and South 
America. Here is what they say:

       The U.S. sugar policy contained in the Farm Bill passed by 
     the Senate Agriculture Committee is important to sugar 
     producers in developing nations because it provides a 
     guaranteed level of access to the United States sugar market 
     at fair, predictable prices. Attempts to weaken this policy 
     through amendments on the Senate floor would not only harm 
     U.S. farmers but also poor growers from developing countries 
     where sugar is a key economic driver.

  These are the poor countries that produce sugar who are saying to us: 
Keep your Sugar Program because not only does it benefit you, but it 
benefits us.
  Let me go further in their letter:

       Ending the sugar program would reward only a handful of 
     large food companies and agricultural superpowers like 
     Brazil, while punishing some of the world's poorest 
     economies.

  It goes on to say:

       This was what happened when the European Union radically 
     altered its sugar policy, and thereby lowered standards of 
     living in places like Guyana, Fiji and Mauritius where there 
     is no agricultural alternative to sugarcane. Sadly, Saint 
     Kitts and Nevis had to stop sugar production altogether after 
     300 years as a result of the EU's reforms.

  Let's not make that same mistake.
  Finally, on this notion that consumers are going to benefit by 
eliminating the Sugar Program--really? Let's look at the facts. The 
green line is the trendline on retail sugar prices. That trendline 
since 2010 is going up.

[[Page S4119]]

Here is what the wholesale price of sugar has been--flat. Do you see 
the disconnection? Wholesale prices flat, retail prices up. The fact is 
that sugar is such a small part of the cost of finished products that 
it has almost no bearing whatsoever on retail prices of a candy bar, 
the box of cereal, or any of the other things that sugar goes into.
  The record is so clear on the facts that I urge my colleagues to 
oppose the amendment being offered to kill the U.S. Sugar Program, to 
kill 140,000 good jobs in this country, to kill $19 billion of economic 
activity in this country. It would be a profound mistake not only for 
us but for the poor countries in the world that produce sugar, that are 
calling on us to keep our Sugar Program because not only is it 
important to U.S. farmers, it is important to their farmers as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next 10 minutes be 
provided to Senator Udall of Colorado and then 5 minutes for Senator 
Gillibrand of New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank Senator Conrad. He is always gracious 
and compelling, and I appreciate the strong case he made for his point 
of view.
  I rise as I did yesterday, and I will continue to do so, to highlight 
why it is so important that we extend the production of the tax 
credits, or PTC as it is known, for wind energy. Senator Bennet from 
Colorado joins me, feeling the urgency of the moment. Members of both 
parties have agreed that the PTC is vital for continued economic growth 
in our country. Put simply, the PTC means good-paying American jobs. 
The longer we wait, the more American jobs we can expect to be lost in 
the coming months and weeks ahead.
  When I go home, Coloradoans say to me it does not make any sense that 
we would not extend the production tax credit. So over the next couple 
of weeks I am going to come to the floor every day to talk about how 
the wind production tax credit affects each State across the country, 
to drive home the point that real American jobs will be lost if we do 
not take this commonsense step.
  The PTC has meant economic growth in Colorado. We have a favorable 
business climate in Colorado, and we have tremendous wind resources. In 
fact, if we harness the wind potential that is there, similar to the 
wind potential that is off the shores of the State of the Presiding 
Officer, there is enough wind power to go way beyond our needs. In 
Colorado's case, 25 times over the State's electricity needs could be 
met if we harness and harvest that wind.
  That is an amazing statistic. It is generated by the National 
Renewable Energy Lab, which we are happy to host in Colorado, a 
flagship of energy research, development, and innovation.
  I hope I will not have to say too many days in the future what I said 
yesterday: The strong growth in the wind sector is at risk. Thousands 
of jobs, as you can see in this chart of Colorado, have been created 
across my State, all the way from Pueblo in the south central portion 
of the State, to Greeley, Fort Morgan up in the northeast, to Yuma 
County way out in the eastern part of the State.
  These are quality jobs. These jobs support families and communities. 
I want to put a face on these families and these communities. I want to 
talk about Derek Palmer. He lives in Greeley, up here in the 
northeastern part of the State. He has three children and a wife. He 
graduated from the University of Northern Colorado in 2011 with a 
degree in business management, and he has worked at the Windsor 
manufacturing plant--it is a Vestas plant that manufactures wind 
blades--for the past 9 months. He left an excellent managerial job in 
the service industry and joined Vestas, in large part because of the 
strong benefits package that is there for his wife and kids. He loves 
working there. He is patriotic, and he is helping our country become 
energy independent. Because of our inaction, thousands of jobs like 
Derek's are in jeopardy. This industry deserves some certainty, some 
stability, and so do countless families like Derek's in Colorado and 
all over the country. So if we don't act, I fear dire consequences.

  The CEO of Vestas--I think you have met him, Mr. President--says that 
he expects the wind market in the United States to fall by 80 percent 
if the PTC isn't extended. Eighty percent is a huge number. That is 80 
percent fewer jobs, 80 percent fewer families pulling themselves out of 
this recession, and 80 percent less investment than we have today, all 
because we are not active, all because we are not taking the right 
steps for it.
  As I close, this is not a partisan issue. Both Democrats and 
Republicans, Senators and House Members, agree that we need to extend 
this commonsense tax credit. There are bipartisan bills to extend it. I 
led an effort with six Democrats and six Republicans here earlier 
urging us to extend the PTC. The solution is simple. We just need to 
extend the PTC ASAP. We need to do it. Let's do it as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I would like to commend the 
chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee and the ranking member of that 
committee for their dedicated effort to move the farm bill to the floor 
to discuss our Nation's agricultural policy and for their leadership in 
championing so many issues that help America's and New York's farmers.
  I rise today because I really want to make clear to the American 
people just what is at stake and at the heart of this farm bill. It is 
about a growing economy for our family farms and for our small 
businesses. It is about reviving rural communities and rebuilding a 
thriving middle class and the opportunity for all of those who are 
trying to get there. It is about the health of our agricultural 
industry, the jobs it provides, and the health of our families whom it 
helps to feed. But from the amendments that are being filed today from 
across the aisle, you would not know it. There are some trying to use 
this bill to roll back protections for the air we breathe and for the 
water we drink. There are some who want to use this bill to expand 
concealed-carry laws for weapons. We are even seeing attempts to bring 
in the divisive politics from the Wisconsin recall and inject it right 
into the debate on the Senate floor on farm policy.
  This bill has so much potential to create jobs, to help our farms 
thrive, to protect our farmers and small businesses from natural 
disasters, to feed our children, and to feed our at-risk seniors. But 
if we are ever going to reach that potential, we can't afford to get 
bogged down in these dead-end fights that are meant only to score 
political points.
  Worse yet, there are Draconian cuts being proposed by some that will 
take even more money away from those who are the greatest in need. They 
want to take money away from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, better known as food stamps, which literally will result in 
children going to bed hungry in this country. These amendments simply 
do not meet the fundamental founding principles of this Nation or who 
we are as Americans. In this day and age, in this country, as rich as 
we are, to accept hungry children, hungry families, hungry seniors is 
unacceptable.
  This farm bill started out with a $4.5 billion cut to food stamps 
over 10 years. These cuts must be restored. While I fought against 
these cuts with 13 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, 
others are still actually advocating for additional, much more extreme 
cuts. They could even cut SNAP by almost half.
  If you have heard from families living off of food stamps, as I have, 
you know this is something no one strives for. Most have never imagined 
that they would be on food stamps or that they would need that kind of 
support. But many have been dealt a very bad hand in this economy, and 
through no fault of their own they are finding they are in need. Food 
stamps are often the last resort for those who are just trying to keep 
the lights on, put food on the table for their kids, and find their way 
back to that paycheck they desperately want to be earning.
  Among all the families relying on food stamps at historical rates, we 
are now seeing veterans and their families. I can tell you that our 
veterans and their families have already suffered a lot. For these 
troops who are coming

[[Page S4120]]

home, they are coming back into a very tough economy and are unable to 
find the jobs they need. And we have to imagine these children of our 
vets who have already suffered so much, and now they are being faced 
with not knowing from where their next meal will come.
  For any parent watching this debate today, I just want to ask one 
question. Has your child ever said to you: Mommy, I am still hungry.
  Well, I can't imagine what a mother would feel like if she could not 
hand her child some food. I can't imagine what a mother would feel like 
if her child said that to her every single night. That is exactly what 
we are talking about today in this farm bill. As a mother and 
legislator, watching children suffer, watching America's children not 
having enough to eat is something I will not stand quietly by and 
watch.
  Under this bill, nearly 300,000 families in New York will become food 
insecure, and what that translates to is $90 a month that they will 
have less money to put food on the table, and what that translates to 
is that it is the last week of the month. That $90 pays the grocery 
bills every single week. What do these families do when they don't have 
enough money at the end of the month? Despite not being responsible for 
the economic crisis our country has faced, we will be asking these 
families to share a disproportionate amount of the burden being placed 
on them.
  We know that food stamps are such a good investment into our economy. 
For every dollar we put into food stamps, we get $1.71 back into the 
economy. Even one of the best economists, Mark Zandi, said: ``The 
fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the 
SNAP/food stamps program.'' These food stamps pay salaries for grocery 
clerks and truckers who haul the food. The USDA estimates that 16 cents 
goes right back to the farmer.
  I know my time is expiring, but I have 13 bipartisan cosponsors for 
this amendment, and the list keeps growing with the support from the 
AARP, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and all of those who are 
fighting on the front line for hunger.
  Our amendment will restore the SNAP funding back to the $4.5 billion 
that has been cut, and it will pay for the food our kids so desperately 
need. Every child in America deserves to be fed. Every child in America 
deserves to reach their God-given potential. We need to restore these 
cuts to ensure that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a particular amendment--
perhaps a couple of amendments--on the farm bill, specifically the 
amendments to the sugar portion. There are a number of titles, it is a 
big, complicated bill, and there is a great deal of discussion about 
the many reforms that are contained in this bill.
  There is one very glaring exception. There is one huge program that 
has no reforms whatsoever in the underlying bill, and it just so 
happens to be in, in my view, one of the most egregiously flawed 
programs in the entire agricultural sector, maybe in government as a 
whole, and it is the Sugar Program. This is a program which 
systematically forces American consumers to pay much more than the 
global price for sugar. It is a huge transfer of wealth from consumers, 
including the poorest American consumers, to a handful of wealthy sugar 
producers. It is completely wrong, it is ill-conceived in the first 
place, it is perpetuated in this bill, and I think that is just 
unconscionable.
  Some of the specific ways in which the existing program has the 
government completely manipulating the market for sugar include 
explicit limits on how much sugar can be produced domestically. There 
is a de facto government-imposed price floor on sugar rather than 
allowing the price to reflect whatever supply and demand would lead to. 
It puts strict limits on how much sugar can be imported without forcing 
Americans to pay taxes on those imports in the form of duties. It 
mandates that the government purchase excess sugar and then sell it at 
a loss to ethanol producers. All of these are features of the existing 
sugar policy, and all of them are left completely unchanged by this 
bill. So it is screaming for some amendments to provide some 
commonsense reforms to this very badly flawed program.
  Let me be very clear. At the end of the day, the net effect of all of 
these machinations in which the government manipulates the market for 
sugar is that U.S. consumers end up paying much more, often about 
double the going rate that everyone else in the world who doesn't 
manipulate their markets pays for sugar.
  By the way, that should be reason enough to end this program 
entirely, but there are other reasons. For instance, the existing sugar 
policy--as I said, unchanged in this bill--is absolutely costing us 
jobs in the United States. That is not even disputable. It is, on 
balance, a job killer. It is costing us jobs today specifically in 
manufacturing--the manufacturing of products that include sugar, of 
which there are many.
  Here is a simple observation from the CEO of a candy manufacturer in 
Pennsylvania who uses sugar as an import. He points out: These sugar 
subsidies artificially inflate the price of one of the staples of the 
candy industry and force us, and any other companies, to choose between 
absorbing the higher costs, passing the costs on to consumers, or 
producing elsewhere.
  The fact is that some people inevitably choose to produce elsewhere.
  The next chart illustrates a point that has been made by the U.S. 
Department of Commerce. We are not just making these things up. Many 
U.S.--essentially sugar-consuming producers--manufacturers have already 
closed or relocated to Canada, where sugar prices are less than half of 
the United States. Why? Because Canada chooses not to have a ridiculous 
sugar program. So we lose jobs as manufacturers go to Canada, use 
market-priced sugar at much lower costs to produce candies, and then 
import them into the United States.
  The next chart quantifies this. It is very simple. For every job that 
is protected somewhere where they are growing beets or cane sugar, 
three manufacturing jobs are lost. Again, these are statistics from the 
Department of Commerce. This is very clear. This is not really 
refutable.
  The final chart illustrates this in another way. The Canadian 
Government has figured this out, and they advertise the fact that they 
have a huge competitive advantage because they choose not to create an 
artificially high price for sugar, and as a result they are constantly 
trying to persuade manufacturers to move up to Canada where they can 
have lower costs. By the way, for many of these companies, the cost of 
sugar in the United States is the single biggest cost they pay.
  The other point that we should stress and that I would like to 
underline is that not only do we lose jobs systematically because of 
this program, it also hurts consumers. Think about it. Everybody 
consumes sugar. There is sugar in so many products that it is 
impossible to avoid this inflated cost. It should be seen as equivalent 
to a tax. It is as though the Federal Government is imposing a tax on 
sugar. It doesn't work literally that way, but it has that economic 
effect. It is completely equivalent. Who gets hit the hardest? It is 
the lowest income Americans. It is as regressive a tax as we can have. 
Think about that. Wealthy people devote a small percentage of their 
income to food. They have plenty of money to spend on other things. If 
you are a low-income American, then you necessarily are devoting a 
large part of your income to food, and so much of it is artificially 
inflated in cost by our own Federal Government. This is what is so 
egregious about it.
  The GAO said in 2000 that the existing sugar policy forced Americans 
to pay $2 billion in additional food costs. And if we use their same 
methodology and we move it ahead to today, AEI projects that those 
costs are now $3.5 billion. This is a simple straightforward transfer 
of wealth from low- and middle-income and ordinary American consumers 
to a handful of wealthy producers. It is as simple as that.
  There is one other feature. There is also an ongoing risk to 
taxpayers. Because of that feature I alluded to earlier in which the 
Federal Government buys what is deemed to be excess sugar and then 
sells it at a loss to ethanol makers, CBO projects this will lose $193

[[Page S4121]]

million for taxpayers over the next decade.
  We have an amendment that would address this, the Shaheen amendment. 
I think Senator Shaheen has actually offered more than one amendment on 
this topic, one would repeal the entire program. I salute her. I agree 
with her. I support that. My understanding is that we will soon be 
voting on a motion to table that amendment. I think it is quite 
unfortunate that Senator Reid would choose to take this amendment off 
the table, so to speak, to put it aside. A vote to table the amendment 
is, of course, a vote to kill it. I think we ought to be passing this 
amendment and end the practice of forcing American consumers to 
transfer this wealth in this fashion.
  But I wish to also stress that I am concerned about the process that 
has gotten us here. I am concerned that Senator Reid has intentionally 
chosen an amendment that is going to be very difficult to pass. As 
strong as its merits are, from my point of view, I know it is difficult 
to get a majority in this body to support the full repeal of this 
program. I hope we can succeed in that, but I don't know that we can. 
If we cannot, Senator Shaheen has another amendment that I have joined 
her on which would push back some of the excesses of this program--push 
us back to where we were back in 2008, prior to the most recent farm 
bill. The amendment makes some modest changes and just scales back some 
of these excesses. I certainly hope we get a chance to vote on that. If 
we can't pass full repeal, we have every right--and I would argue every 
responsibility in this body--to try to at least improve on what is such 
an egregiously flawed program.
  Again, I would underscore the fact that the current bill is silent; 
in other words, it perpetuates, it continues this spectacularly flawed 
program that is so unfair to American consumers. We will have an 
opportunity to vote later today on a motion to table. I hope we defeat 
the motion to table so we can take up this amendment and do away with 
this program. But failing that, it is very important that we have an 
opportunity to at least amend the program.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague 
Senator Toomey to talk about what truly is an egregious oversight in 
the underlying farm bill we are considering.
  This morning, the Senate is going to have the opportunity to vote on 
an amendment that would repeal the Sugar Program. As Senator Toomey has 
pointed out, I submitted several amendments. One would reform the Sugar 
Program. The one we are going to vote on this morning is the one to 
actually repeal the program. I, as does Senator Toomey, hope we will 
get a vote on both, but I certainly hope people will vote against the 
tabling motion to repeal the Sugar Program.
  The underlying farm bill we are considering reforms almost every farm 
program we have. Every farm group has had to sacrifice with this farm 
bill so we can reform these programs. Unfortunately, there is one 
glaring exception to these reforms; that is, the Sugar Program.
  We need to reform the sugar subsidy because it costs consumers and 
businesses $3.5 billion each year in the form of higher prices. That is 
almost double the world average. We can see on this chart--which shows 
sugar prices over the last 30 years since 1981. This is the world price 
for sugar, and that is the U.S. price. We can see demonstrated very 
graphically--no pun intended--that we in America are paying almost 
twice what the world price is for sugar. It also costs us about 20,000 
jobs every year. We are doing all this--we are affecting consumers and 
hundreds of thousands of jobs--to benefit fewer than 5,000 sugar 
growers. To benefit those 5,000, all of us are paying more, and we have 
been paying more, as this chart clearly indicates, for the last 30 
years.
  How does the subsidy program work? Senator Toomey did a great job of 
explaining it, but it essentially manipulates the market. It controls 
how much sugar is grown in the United States. It restricts how much 
sugar comes into the United States from outside the country. It sets a 
floor on sugar prices by providing a government guarantee to sugar 
growers on what they are going to get paid, and it requires the 
government, in some cases--this is what is truly outrageous--it 
requires the government to buy sugar off the market and then sell it to 
ethanol plants at a loss to taxpayers. The proponents of this program 
say it doesn't cost us any money? What our amendment would do is phase 
out this outdated program over the course of a couple years.
  I wish to respond to some of the claims we have heard from those who 
support this Sugar Program. The first is that it doesn't cost taxpayers 
any money. That is if we ignore the fact that consumers are paying out 
of one pocket; they may not be paying as taxpayers in taxes, but they 
are paying out of the other pocket as consumers. But, in fact, that is 
not even accurate when it comes to taxpayer dollars. A recent study by 
Iowa State University showed that the program costs $3.5 billion a year 
to consumers in the form of higher prices, and the Congressional Budget 
Office estimates this program will cost taxpayers directly in the 
coming years. CBO has scored this amendment as saving millions of 
dollars for taxpayers in the next decade. So repealing the Sugar 
Program, according to CBO, will save millions for taxpayers in the next 
decade.
  Those who support the Sugar Program also claim prices just aren't 
that high and that consumers actually benefit from the sugar subsidy. 
That is absurd. We can see graphed out very clearly what consumers are 
paying. Consumer groups, such as the Consumer Federation and the 
National Consumers League, support our amendment because the sugar 
subsidy costs consumers and businesses $3.5 billion a year.
  Subsidy supporters cite a study which was paid for by the sugar 
industry to support their data. That is not accurate. Using data from 
USDA shows a very different story, because for wholesale prices which 
represent two-thirds of the sugar bought by businesses in the United 
States, the effect of the Sugar Program is obvious, and it is hard to 
argue with this drastic difference as displayed on the chart. What we 
have is a hidden tax that is designed to benefit a small powerful 
interest group. Again, studies have found that consumers are paying a 
cost to the tune of $3.5 billion a year.
  The supporters of the sugar subsidy also say this program doesn't get 
in the way of job creation. This is an argument that just doesn't hold 
up when we look at the facts. Multiple studies have found we are 
sacrificing hundreds and thousands of jobs by keeping sugar prices 
high. In 2006, the Department of Commerce found that for every job 
protected in the sugar industry, three were lost in manufacturing. A 
recent study from Iowa State University found that we are sacrificing 
20,000 new jobs created every year due to the sugar subsidy program. So 
we are losing 20,000 jobs every year because of the sugar subsidy. 
There is no evidence sugar reform is going to hurt job creation; in 
fact, it is going to help. We have a small business in New Hampshire, a 
family-run business called Granite State Candy. They have been doing 
very well. They would like to expand, but because of the high cost of 
sugar they are having trouble thinking about how they are going to pay 
for that.

  There is nothing more definitive than the illustration Senator Toomey 
showed earlier today and that I showed yesterday on the floor which is 
from a Canadian brochure designed to attract businesses in the 
confectionery industry to come to Canada. It points out how much less 
they are going to pay. Here it is. It points out how much less 
businesses are going to pay for sugar in Canada and how much more 
beneficial it would be for companies to do business in Canada rather 
than the United States. It says very clearly:

       Consider these hard facts: Sugar refiners import the vast 
     majority of their raw materials at world prices. Canadian 
     sugar users enjoy a significant advantage. The average price 
     of refined sugar is usually 30 to 40 percent lower in Canada 
     than in the United States. Most manufactured products 
     containing sugar are freely traded in the NAFTA region.

  If one needs any other evidence, that is it. It is clear we are 
losing those jobs.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against tabling this amendment 
today.

[[Page S4122]]

This may be our only chance to reform the Sugar Program in this farm 
bill. Tabling this amendment would be a vote to support special 
interests, those fewer than 5,000 sugar growers, at the expense of over 
600,000 employees in the food industry and millions of consumers.
  Thank you very much. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the Paul 
amendment No. 2182, which would cripple the food stamp program. I have 
to tell my colleagues that there is an aura of wonderment around here 
that says: Look, let's cut food stamps for hungry families and for 
little children. We have the agri companies to take care of, the 
agribusinesses, to make sure they can feed their children.
  The most fundamental test for any family is to put food on the 
table--to make sure their children get the nutrition they need. When 
tough economic times hit, families can find themselves struggling to 
meet their most basic needs. The food stamp program was created so that 
even in the toughest of times, children in this country do not go to 
bed hungry.
  Here is a picture of a child reaching out for food--the old story 
about models on cereal programs, talking about satisfying the brother's 
hunger with the old remarkable display of what it is that comes to the 
fundamentals and taking care or letting families who need help get 
some, especially in this area.
  It is appalling that our Republican colleague from Kentucky has 
proposed an amendment to cut more than $300 billion from a program that 
is a lifeline for many families. These harsh cuts would punish families 
who need help the most. We are debating a bill that contains billions 
in support for big agricultural companies, but instead of targeting the 
subsidies they get from the Federal Government--from the taxpayers--
Republicans say we ought to cut programs for hungry children. I wonder 
if those who want to cut the food stamp program would participate in a 
real way and say to their little children, say to their family: Look, 
just to show we are serious, just to show we care, we will limit the 
amount of food we are going to give our children, the amount of food we 
are going to give the elders in our household, to show we are serious 
about this.
  Hungry children didn't cause the recession or the deficit. Cutting 
food stamps will not solve our debt problem. But hungry children don't 
have lobbyists, so programs such as food stamps end up on the 
Republican chopping block--heroic, muscular men and women who say: We 
want to make our country fiscally sound, so let's take the food stamps 
away from people who could be starving.
  The Paul amendment would cut support for food stamps by almost 45 
percent next year alone. The consequences could be devastating. The 
consequences would be devastating.

  The numbers are staggering: More than 46 million Americans, including 
800,000 people from my State of New Jersey--we are a State that has 
about 9 million people--are dependent on food stamps to make it through 
the month. Half of them are children.
  When you look at this placard, can you imagine telling a mother that 
she has to tell her kids they have to do more with less food so maybe 
other businesses--agribusinesses--can continue to get subsidies?
  Republicans should have to tell these families: We are not going to 
cut corporate subsidies. No, no; we have to do that. We have to make 
sure the rich will not pay more in taxes. So please understand, as we 
take food off their tables, we say to our kids: Eat less, get thinner, 
get trimmer. Stop doing your homework because you are too tired or stop 
complaining because you do not feel well when the food quantity is not 
sufficient.
  On average the Food Stamp Program provides assistance of just $1.50 
per meal--a buck and a half. There is not much there to cut. The 
Republicans who are so eager to cut food stamps from children should 
try living on $1.50 per meal for the next month. Let them then report 
how it feels, how their kids survived with less food than they need. 
Then we will see how eager they are to cut the food stamps.
  The Republican approach would hurt those with the least to protect 
those with the most. That is not what this country is about. Too many 
of America's families are still struggling. Too many parents are still 
looking for work. Too many of our children are still hungry. The food 
banks across the country are getting evermore attention and visits.
  Republicans should offer them help, show some heart. This is not an 
accounting organization. We are not here to just balance the books. 
Yes, we have to balance the books. I come from business, and I know 
what they have to do. But that means we would not be servicing our 
democratic structures, the people in our society who need help. 
Republicans should offer them help. Instead, they offer them deeper 
poverty and greater hunger.
  The bottom line is this: At a time when 50 percent of food stamp 
recipients are children, it would be a moral stain on our country's 
character to cut this program. That is not what America is about, and 
that is not why any of us serve.
  The children who would be harmed by reckless cuts cannot speak for 
themselves. But we should not need to hear their crying voices to know 
what is right. I urge my colleagues to listen to their consciences and 
defeat the Paul amendment.
  I conclude by saying how disappointing it is to see a $4 billion 
reduction to the Food Stamp Program in the farm bill. I am proud to 
join Senator Gillibrand in offering an amendment to reverse these cuts. 
We are going to try to make that happen.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2393

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to an 
amendment that would eliminate the Sugar Program, and I urge my 
colleagues to table it at this time.
  As we continue our work on the farm bill, as we debate these 
amendments, I think my colleagues should keep in mind at every moment 
that this proposal contains $23 billion in cuts that we have brought 
together on a bipartisan basis, and two-thirds of those cuts--$16 
billion--is on only 14 percent of the bill; that is, the farm programs. 
Two-thirds of the cuts: $16 billion on the farm program.
  This bill is supported by 630 conservation groups, nutrition groups--
a number of them. Obviously, they would like to see changes. People 
want to make things better. But if we do not get this bill done, you 
can imagine what is going to happen to school hot lunches and the like.
  Unfortunately, eliminating the Sugar Program would actually hurt jobs 
in America. I know Senator Conrad was here earlier putting the facts 
out, but people need to know the facts. This is a zero-cost program 
that supports 142,000 jobs and generates nearly $20 billion in economic 
activity. This is the kind of value we are looking for.
  I believe we need to be doing everything we can to maintain programs 
that are working for our farmers in an efficient way--programs that are 
supporting jobs and putting dollars into our economy, especially those 
programs that do not cost money.
  Most of us can appreciate the value of a strong farm safety net. 
During our discussions in the Agriculture Committee, I worked with 
Chairwoman Stabenow and other members of the committee to make sure the 
bill provided for that safety net so the livelihoods of our farmers 
cannot be swept away in the blink of an eye by natural disasters and 
market failures and because, you know what, we as a country do not want 
to be dependent on foreign food like we are dependent on foreign oil.
  The Sugar Program has played its own key role in shielding farmers 
from risk--albeit it is a different and more predictable kind of risk 
they face. I am talking about the risk of competing against heavily 
subsidized sugar from foreign countries.
  Let's put it this way: If you do not like being dependent on foreign 
oil, you are not going to love being dependent on foreign sugar. Past 
U.S. trade agreements have already opened our domestic market to 
foreign sugar. Over the last 3 years, the United States, on average, 
has been the world's largest

[[Page S4123]]

sugar importer, supplying nearly one-third of our total sugar needs.
  Since 1985 we have had 54 sugar factories close due to sustained low 
prices. Once these jobs are gone, they are gone forever. This is why we 
need to continue the Sugar Program in the 2012 farm bill--one that 
supports American sugar beet and sugar cane producers while ensuring an 
abundant supply of sugar for consumers and manufacturers.
  We must continue this program. Look at what has happened. The average 
global retail price for sugar is 14 percent higher than it is in the 
United States. In other developed countries, the average price is 24 
percent higher than it is in the United States.
  Some people have blamed farmers for the high cost of sugar foods in 
the grocery store. But look at the numbers. For example, a $1 candy bar 
has about 2 cents' worth of sugar in it. A $3.50 carton of ice cream 
has about 10 cents' worth of sugar. So ending the Sugar Program is not 
the solution that will keep food prices competitive. It is the 
opposite.
  This is an important program for our country. If changes are to be 
made to it, the answer should not be to eliminate it. That is why I ask 
my colleagues to join me in tabling this amendment as we work together 
in the future to make sure we preserve American jobs.
  The sugar industry supplies American jobs. Just ask the people in the 
Red River Valley in Minnesota and North Dakota.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for her 
comments. This is an amendment that has come up on a regular basis--
always started from New Hampshire, always defeated by the Senate.
  I encourage my colleagues to table Reid amendment No. 2393. This 
measure is known as Senator Shaheen's amendment to phase out the 
Federal Sugar Program.
  First, I would like to commend Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member 
Roberts for their work on the underlying bill. They proved that the 
Agriculture Committee is able to take a serious look at the farm bill 
programs and improve what is working while cutting what is not.
  The Sugar Program is an excellent example of what works in the farm 
bill. Since its early years, the Sugar Program has evolved to ensure 
that beet and cane growers can continue to provide the United States 
with a safe and reliable source of sugar products. I underscore 
``reliable'' because sugar is a unique commodity. Not only are sugar 
crops extremely limited in their seasons, but an added component is 
that both sugar beets and cane must be processed immediately after 
harvest. Processing involves what is essentially a refinery.
  In Wyoming we have three facilities that process sugar, all of which 
are grower owned and operated. People can always tell its October back 
home when the large piles of sugar beets begin to appear outside the 
sugar plants. Workers race to produce raw sugar before the beets go 
bad. Any number of complications can spoil the crop and put the sugar 
refineries out of business.
  Such unique conditions produce risk that is not common with other 
agricultural commodities. Because much of the year's sugar is produced 
in such a small window, a sugar program is needed to stabilize the 
price of sugar through the entire year. This policy benefits the very 
people who opponents of the Sugar Program wish to protect.
  With stability in the sugar markets confectioners, food 
manufacturers, and beveragemakers have a steady supply of quality sugar 
without wild price swings. Not only are U.S. sugar prices stable under 
the program, but the United States offers sugar users some of the 
lowest prices in the developed world.
  I also wish to add that the U.S. Sugar Program works to ensure that 
other nations have access to sugar markets. Some claim the U.S. Sugar 
Program is a protectionist policy. This could not be more false. Mr. 
President, 17 of the largest sugar exporting countries in Africa, Asia, 
the Caribbean, Central America, and South America have all expressed 
support for the U.S. Sugar Program.
  As a matter of fact, the United States is the second largest net 
importer of sugar behind only Russia. The program is operated to ensure 
that we fulfill our trade obligations, especially within the WTO, and 
continues to provide a sugar market for developing nations wishing to 
export their product.
  Finally, the U.S. Sugar Program has been run for the past 10 years at 
zero cost to the U.S. taxpayers, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
predicts it will remain that way in its current form for at least 10 
more. As other colleagues have mentioned, this is all while the U.S. 
sugar industry has helped to generate nearly $20 billion in annual 
economic activity in our country.
  Wyoming offers just a few examples of how much of an economic impact 
the sugar industry has on rural communities across our Nation. As I 
mentioned, the growers and local communities in my State own the plants 
that refine the raw sugar we use every day. Those plants produce jobs 
and keep economic activity local. With all the inherent risks in sugar 
production, these communities are able to continue providing the United 
States with a safe and reliable supply of sugar for the United States.
  The U.S. sugar policy not only helps growers but keeps prices low for 
consumers. Some American food manufacturers will claim that it is the 
price of sugar causing them to shed jobs or move overseas. However, 
sugar represents only a small portion of the input costs that go into 
food production. Instead, it is the cost of labor, environmental 
standards, and regulatory burdens that play the biggest role in whether 
U.S. firms can compete with food markets overseas. In recent years, 
U.S. candy production has actually gone up, and the U.S. Sugar Program 
has played its role by keeping prices stable.
  With that, I ask my colleagues to table amendment No. 2393 and keep 
the programs that work in this farm bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to support and underscore the 
points just made by Senator Enzi in support of the U.S. Sugar Program, 
which, as he indicated, has operated successfully at no cost to the 
American taxpayers, consumers, or food manufacturers.
  As you know, the sugar beet industry is very important to my State of 
Idaho, bringing in approximately $1.1 billion in revenue every year. 
History has shown that grocers and food manufacturers do not pass their 
savings from lower ingredient prices along to consumers.
  For example, from the summer of 2010 until now, producer prices for 
sugar have dropped nearly 20 percent. In fact, the U.S. Sugar Program 
remains crucial because other nations are implementing trade-distorting 
subsidies for their otherwise uncompetitive sugar industries. The world 
sugar price, as is so often debated in these Halls, suffers from 
government-backed dumping that protects sugar producers overseas to the 
detriment of American sugar producers--hence, the need for the U.S. 
Sugar Program.
  Consumers in the rest of the world pay, on average, 14 percent more 
for sugar--in the developed world, 24 percent more--than American 
consumers pay. In America, sugar is a readily available and affordable 
product.
  Critics of U.S. sugar policy make the argument that the program 
causes disastrous shortages in U.S. sugar supply, which flies in the 
face of reality. U.S. farmers and producers have proven themselves, 
time and again, to be the most efficient in the world, but they cannot 
be left alone to face a trade market undermined by foreign government 
manipulation.
  Nothing could be further from the truth, and the latest numbers 
released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture underline that. The USDA 
now estimates that there is enough sugar surplus to give every man, 
woman, and child in this country nearly 12 pounds of sugar on top of 
what they already consume. This is enough surplus sugar to fill the 
Capitol Dome 55 times.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose any attempts at 
repealing this program. At risk would be 142,000 American jobs 
generated by the U.S.

[[Page S4124]]

sugar-producing industry. Many of these jobs would be lost to 
subsidized foreign producers who are generally less efficient and less 
reliable and produce sugar far less safely and responsibly than 
American sugar producers.
  I support Idaho's sugar beet growers as well as sugar growers 
throughout the country. I am committed to ensuring that they have 
access to the tools they need to produce an affordable and abundant 
sugar supply.
  The bottom line is not only is this program not a cost to the U.S. 
taxpayer, it generates revenue to help us reduce our deficit. These are 
the kinds of programs we need to protect American producers.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose the Shaheen amendment.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by Senator 
Shaheen and others which would phase out the Federal Sugar Program. I 
would like to share some of my personal history with my colleagues. My 
grandfather and grandmother emigrated from Japan to work at McBryde 
Sugar Company on the island of Kauai in 1899. In my office here in 
Washington, I have a framed copy of the contract on which my 
grandfather, Asakichi Inouye, placed his ``X.'' The contract includes a 
photograph of this brave young man and his wife and a little baby boy 
they are holding, my father.
  Nearly a century later, Asakichi Inouye's grandson is proud to be 
representing the State of Hawaii in the United States Senate. With 
exception of one, all of Hawaii's sugar plantations are now closed. The 
Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company, HC&S, remains operational on the 
island of Maui and employs nearly 800 employees. HC&S is Hawaii's 
largest provider of raw sugar, producing approximately 200,000 tons 
each year. In addition to the growing and milling of sugarcane, HC&S 
produces raw sugar, specialty sugar, molasses, and the generation and 
sale of electricity to help provide power across the island.
  I am proud to represent the men and women in Hawaii who still work 
directly or indirectly for the sugar industry, and their families. 
These agricultural workers, who are among the world's most productive, 
have enjoyed collective bargaining for decades and are rewarded for 
their productivity with good wages, with some of the best health care 
benefits in the country, and with generous benefits for insurance and 
retirement. Their safety and their health are bolstered by some of the 
strictest worker protection rules and highest environmental standards 
in the Nation, and possibly in the world.
  These workers, many of whose families have been in sugar for three or 
four generations, lead comfortable, but by no means extravagant lives. 
They can put their children through college and can look forward to a 
decent retirement, but they are far from wealthy in the monetary sense.
  The U.S. sugar policy has ensured American consumers with dependable 
supplies of reasonably priced sugar, adhering to U.S. standards for 
food safety and quality. Consumers in other developed countries pay on 
average 24 percent more for their sugar than American consumers. The 
U.S. Sugar Program provides no subsidies to American sugar producers. 
For the past 10 years, the policy has operated at zero cost to 
taxpayers, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts it will 
remain at zero cost for the next 10 years, to 2022. In the absence of a 
U.S. sugar policy, it would eliminate or severely damage the no-
taxpayer-cost U.S. sugar policy, and, among other things, shift 
American jobs overseas. Hawaii's existing sugar producer could 
potentially close, forcing my constituents to lose their livelihood.
  If the U.S. sugar policy were eliminated, our U.S. market would be 
flooded with subsidized sugar from the world dump market that is less 
reliable and less safe. The U.S. market would collapse, and efficient 
American sugar farmers would be driven out of business. Job and incomes 
losses would devastate rural economies where sugar is grown and harm 
urban economies where sugar is processed.
  Further, if the U.S. sugar policy were eliminated Americans would 
have to cope with less reliable, less safe, more costly, foreign sugar. 
American consumers demand consistent quantity and quality. In other 
words, when consumers go to the grocery store to purchase sugar, they 
expect a high-quality product that is safe and contaminant free and 
identical with every purchase. They also expect to find such products 
on the shelf whenever they want to buy them. This is exactly what the 
American consumer gets from the U.S. sugar industry--so much so that we 
take it for granted. Further, in many of these countries, producers 
operate with labor, environmental, and food safety standards or 
enforcement that is much less than what American producers routinely 
meet. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to table Shaheen amendment.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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. Franken.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now withdraw my motion to proceed to S. 
1940.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.

                          ____________________