[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.
____________________