[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 92 (Monday, June 18, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4223-S4226]
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. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 250,
S. 1940.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
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. Mr. President, the Senate will continue debate on the farm
bill today. At 5 p.m. the Senate will proceed to executive session to
consider the nomination of Mary Lewis to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of South Carolina. At 5:30 this evening there will be a
rollcall vote on confirmation of the Lewis nomination.
Moving Forward
Mr. President, I have spoken to Senator Stabenow several times in the
last couple of days. In fact, I spoke to her today--what time did I get
back? It is 3 o'clock--at 2 o'clock or thereabouts. She indicated to me
they are making progress on the bill. There was one amendment she was
concerned about. I worked that out and told her she could go ahead and
have that as part of the consent agreement. So I have worked very hard
to try to make the lives of Senators Stabenow and Roberts easier, and I
have worked through some of the problems my people had.
But, Mr. President, the issues on this bill overwhelmingly are on the
other side, and I hope we can work something out. They have worked so
hard--Senators Stabenow and Roberts--and I hope we can find a path
forward. It is important. I commend them for their dedication to this
measure which cuts subsidies and protects 16 million American jobs.
We have spent so much precious time on this bill--precious time we do
not have--and we need to move forward on it. We are going to move
forward or off of this bill. I hope we will be able to move forward
today with this bill; otherwise, we are going to have to file cloture
on the bill because it is the third week of jockeying around on this
bill.
The DREAM Act
Mr. President, Astrid Silva is an average American 24-year-old from
all outward appearances. She is a Las Vegas resident. She is fascinated
with Nevada history--whether it is Area 51 or about the time when it is
alleged the mob ran the casinos. She is active in her community, school
politics, and local politics.
One day Astrid would like to come to Washington, DC, to see, as she
said, the Declaration of Independence--see it herself. She recently
completed her associate's degree at the College of Southern Nevada, and
she dreams of completing her bachelor's degree at UNLV.
But there is one issue standing in her way: Astrid is not an American
citizen. Twenty years ago this week this little girl, 3\1/2\ years
old--a little baby girl--was brought to the United States by her
parents. She has no knowledge of Mexico. America is her country. The
country where she was born--Mexico--she knows nothing about. She speaks
perfect English. She was an honor student in high school, and she has
never called anyplace but Nevada her home.
So, of course, I thought of this brave young woman when President
Obama announced last Friday he would suspend the deportation of young
people
[[Page S4224]]
like Astrid who were brought to this country illegally when they were
only children.
I had a difficult campaign, as everyone knows. During that campaign,
on occasion I would be given a little handwritten note. I would look at
it later. One was from Astrid telling me of her dreams--her dreams that
she wanted fulfilled, that could not be because she was not a citizen
even though this is her country.
She has been looking over her shoulder for many years now--since the
time she was old enough to understand--afraid of deportation. She
decided she was going to step out of the shadows and be no longer
afraid and become an advocate for the DREAM Act. She is truly a
DREAMer.
As we know, the DREAM Act would create a pathway to citizenship for
outstanding young people who were brought to this country through no
fault of their own and want to attend college or serve our Nation in
the Armed Services.
The DREAM Act is not amnesty. It rewards responsibility with
opportunity.
Astrid's handwritten letters convinced me years ago of the importance
of this issue. Unfortunately, Republican opposition has stalled this
legislation.
I was stunned listening to the Republican nominee for President say:
Why doesn't Congress do this?
Mr. President, we have tried. We cannot get Republican votes. We have
tried.
Thanks to President Obama, Astrid and 800,000 other young people just
like her who are American in all but paperwork no longer need to live
in fear of deportation. President Obama's directive to suspend
deportation of the DREAMers comes after a yearlong review. It will be
applied on a case-by-case basis. It frees up law enforcement resources
to focus on people who actually threaten public safety and national
security, and it removes the specter of deportation that has hovered
over deserving young men and women.
For a long time the Presiding Officer was the chief attorney, the
chief enforcer of the law in the State of Connecticut, and he had to
direct his resources where they could best be used. He wanted to focus
on people who were threatening public safety and national security.
What good would it do for us as a country to say to people such as
Astrid: You cannot go to school. What you can do is go ahead and be
part of a gang. Women become gang members too. Some of those violent
gang members we have in America today are now women. Are we better off
preventing these young men and women from going to school, from going
into the military, even though this is the only country they have ever
known as home?
Are we better off saying stay in the shadows or are we better off
letting them get an education and serving our country in the military?
The answer to that is so easy.
It removes the specter of deportation that has hovered over deserving
young men and women. That is what President Obama did. So I
congratulate him for this courageous decision--a decision that benefits
both the DREAMers and our Nation as a whole.
Like Astrid, these young people share our language, share our
culture, share our love for America--the only country they know. They
are talented, patriotic men and women who want to defend our Nation in
the military, get a college education, work hard, and contribute to
their communities and this country.
When they pledge allegiance, it is to the United States of America.
Unfortunately, President Obama's directive is temporary. The onus is
now on Congress to protect the DREAMers and fix our broken immigration
system once and for all.
For all of these people who are saying: Why didn't you do it in
Congress, we tried. We invite them here. If they want to make it
permanent, it could be done very easily.
Comprehensive immigration reform should be tough, fair, and
practical. It should continue efforts to secure our borders, hold
unscrupulous employers accountable, and reform our Nation's legal
immigration system. It should require 11 million undocumented people to
register with the government, pay taxes and fines, work, and learn
English. Then they do not go to the front of the line, they go to the
back of the line and work their way up.
Some Republicans have suggested a solution to the DREAMers' terrible
dilemma should have come from Congress, not the President. I have
talked about that today already.
I repeat, it is Republican opposition that has prevented Congress
from acting. In fact, Senate Republicans have blocked the DREAM Act
twice. Many Republicans who once said they favored a long-term fix for
America's broken immigration system are now abandoning efforts to find
common ground.
It was interesting to note that on one of the Sunday shows yesterday,
the former Governor of Massachusetts refused to answer the question
when asked four times by Bob Schieffer: What is your proposal? He would
not answer four times. We all know he said if the DREAM Act passed he
would veto it. But he is saying: Why don't you work it out in Congress?
But he is saying: If you do, I am going to veto it.
Obviously, efforts to find common ground have been abandoned. So the
President took decisive action in offering this directive. But he can
only do so much by himself. So for Astrid's sake and for the sake of
every American, it is time for Congress to become part of the solution.
I hope my Republican colleagues will finally join Democrats to find a
bipartisan way to mend this Nation's flawed immigration system instead
of just complaining about the system being broken. The pathway is
there. We know what needs to be done. We just need a little help from
our Republican colleagues.
Will the Chair announce the business of the day.
Reservation of Leader Time
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
Mr. REID. I suggest 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. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Responding to the President
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to respond today to some statements
President Obama has been making on the campaign trail regarding debt,
spending, and taxes during his administration.
Last week, the President said he should not be blamed for the massive
debt and spending in recent years because, in his words, it was all
``baked into the cake'' when he took office. He also contended that his
administration has done the responsible thing in taking steps to fix
our Nation's fiscal problems. Here is the totality of what the
President said:
I love it when these guys talk about debt and deficits. I
inherited a trillion dollar deficit. We signed $2 trillion of
spending cuts into law. Spending under my administration has
grown more slowly than under any President in the last 60
years. They baked all this stuff into the cake with the tax
cuts and the war.
I would like to respond to each of the President's comments. First,
on deficits and debt, President Obama is not the reformer he makes
himself out to be. Since he took office, the national debt has climbed
by $5 trillion. It is now larger than the entire economy. If we take
his entire 4 years and all of the Presidents before him, he has
incurred as much debt as all of the Presidents, from George Washington
through George W. Bush, just in his time as President.
Yearly deficits, which is the gap between revenues and spending, have
grown substantially as well. Despite a promise to cut the deficit in
half by the end of his first term, the President has run annual
deficits in excess of $1 trillion for 4 years in a row. None of this
has anything to do with what happened before he became President. So
how about after he became President?
According to the President's own budget numbers, in 2009, the first
year of his Presidency, the deficit was $1.4 trillion. In 2010 the
deficit was $1.3 trillion. In 2011 it, again, was $1.3 trillion.
[[Page S4225]]
If the President's policies are followed, the deficit this year is
expected to top $1.3 trillion. Those are all in the years when he was
President.
The highest deficit under President Bush, his predecessor, was $458
billion, and that was in 2008. Every deficit under President Obama has
been more than double that figure. But President Obama says he is
blameless when it comes to the debt problem? Not hardly. He never even
submitted a plan to come close to balancing the budget, even with the
massive tax hike he supports.
As Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote last week:
Despite [the President's] claim that ``both parties have
laid out their policies on the table,'' President Obama has
made no serious proposal to fix the runaway entitlement
programs that threaten to swamp the government's finances.
Dana Milbank is not a conservative Republican.
Second, let's take a look at the President's claim that spending
during his Presidency has grown more slowly than during any Presidency
in the last 60 years. That claim does not pass the smell test.
Keith Hennessey, former Director of the National Economic Council, is
one of many observers who has debunked this claim.
First, as Hennessey notes, the President's claim is based on a
discredited article that suggests he isn't actually accountable for
anything that happened before October 1, 2009. That is the start of the
fiscal year. But, of course, he took office almost 9 months before that
time.
In other words, that timetable excludes the auto bailouts, the first
year of the stimulus bill--which, of course, was President Obama's
legislation--the bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a lot of
other things. As Hennessey writes, this date was ``cherry-picked . . .
to make President Obama's record look good.''
I would ask: Does President Obama also disclaim anything to do with
the auto bailouts that occurred during that same period of time? No,
last time I heard, he was bragging about that. That is the height of
cherry picking. The things that make you look good, you take; the
things that make you look bad, you reject. You can't have it both ways.
Second, the President actually proposed spending far higher than was
enacted into law. For example, his latest budget request proposed
spending of $3.72 trillion in fiscal year 2013. But the President is
taking credit for spending in the CBO baseline which is $3.58 trillion,
which is somewhat less than the $3.72 trillion he proposed. So the
President wanted to spend more but was restrained by the Republicans in
the House of Representatives in Congress.
Mr. Hennessey also explains how the President's spending claim
collapses once you take three basic errors into account. He writes:
If you instead do this calculation the right way and
measure the average annual growth rate from fiscal year 2008
to CBO scoring of the President's budget proposal for fiscal
year 2013, you get an average annual growth rate of Federal
spending of 4.5 percent. That is a nominal growth rate, so
the real growth rate will be in the 2s.
Finally, on spending, it is inaccurate to measure a President's
record without looking at the overall size and scope of government.
President Obama's preference for big government is obvious to everyone.
He usually argues for it. He doesn't argue he is for a smaller or less
active government. Well, the historical average of spending to gross
domestic product before President Obama took office was roughly 20.6
percent.
So how does President Obama's record stack up? Here is the breakdown
of spending to gross domestic product. These are the ratios during the
Obama years. Remember now, this is compared to the historical average
of 20.6 percent. In 2009, his first year, 25.2 percent; next, 2010,
24.1 percent; in 2011, 24.1 percent again; and an estimate for this
year, 2012, is 24.3 percent.
All of these figures are substantially higher than the historical
average of spending at 20 percent. So his spending every year he has
been in office, including the projected spending this year, will be far
greater than the historical average.
And lastly, in the President's budget request for fiscal year 2013,
which would be next year, the spending averages 22.5 percent--still
above the 20-percent historical figure.
So it is no wonder President Obama doesn't want to run on his real
spending record, because it is not one of fiscal constraint.
Third, I want to address the President's claim that the tax relief
Congress enacted in 2001 and 2003 somehow played an outsized role in
driving up the debt. We have heard him talk about this--if it weren't
for the Bush tax cuts, he said we would be closer to having a balanced
budget. Not true. The records for this come from the nonpartisan
referees at the Congressional Budget Office. These are not partisan
people--not on one side or the other--and they have shown what we have
is a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
In May of 2011, CBO released an analysis showing that nearly 50
percent of the cumulative budget deficit since 2001 is due to increased
government spending, 28 percent of it is due to economic and technical
corrections, and 11 percent is due to temporary stimulus-like tax
provisions. The 2001 and 2003 tax relief to which President Obama
refers--which, by the way, is the same tax relief he extended for 2
years about a year and a half ago--accounts for how much? Just 14
percent of the deficit since 2001 and 2003.
So, far from being the cause of the deficit, it only accounts for 14
percent of the deficit. It is inaccurate for the President to place the
blame for his spending records on broad-based progrowth tax relief that
has helped to create jobs and economic growth in this country prior to
the last downturn--and that he himself supported extending.
Additionally, the recently released ``Long-Term Budget Outlook''
estimates that tax revenues will exceed the historical average in the
next 10 years if this same tax policy--the 2001 and 2003 tax relief--is
extended, and if Congress prevents the alternative minimum tax from
hitting millions of additional middle-class families. And that is what
Republicans have been supporting all along. So we will get back to the
historical average of revenues raised.
We all know robust economic growth is the most effective way to
reduce our debt and that raising taxes will not achieve that goal.
Failure to stop this tax-driven fiscal cliff could push us into another
recession next year, again according to the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office. It would result in a $4.59 trillion tax hike on
individuals, families, businesses, and investors over the next decade.
We have said that is the largest tax increase in the history of our
country--over $4.5 trillion. If we are serious about increasing tax
revenues through economic growth, avoiding a recession is a good place
to start.
Republicans are happy to debate President Obama on the best way to
create jobs and to get our country back on sound fiscal footing. But in
order to do so, we need to get the facts straight first. President
Obama has not lived up to his promise to cut the deficit. He has not
reduced spending in any meaningful way. And tax relief is not the main
reason why we are in the red today.
Mr. President, I suggest 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. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Agriculture Reform
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I rise today to talk
about the critically important piece of legislation currently before
the Senate, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act. But first I
would like to thank Senators Stabenow and Roberts for the great work
they have done to get us to this point in the reauthorization process.
The bill as reported out of the Agriculture Committee saves taxpayers
more than $23 billion over the next 10 years and will support millions
of jobs. With this bill, we are taking several important steps in
making our farm support system more responsive to actual need rather
than sending payments to producers no matter what
[[Page S4226]]
they grow. We are long past due in eliminating direct payments. At the
same time, we are maintaining a strong crop insurance program and
creating a new system that makes assistance available to producers when
they actually experience a loss.
Another important area of reform in this bill is payment limitations
and ensuring that actual farmers receive payments. Senator Grassley and
I have worked for years to lower the caps on our farm program payments
and to direct payments to family farmers. The new Agriculture Risk
Coverage Program contains a cap of $50,000 and requires that program
payment recipients contribute labor to the farm operation. Current law
has enabled multiple farm managers in an operation to qualify for
separate farm program payments with as little participation as one
conference call a year. Not anymore under this bill. I am disappointed
that there have been amendments filed to weaken this language. I don't
understand how anyone can stand before this body and justify sending
Federal farm program payments to people who aren't engaged in
agriculture. Our country faces serious fiscal challenges, and it seems
to me that limiting farm payments to real farmers is a reasonable
concept. I urge my colleagues to oppose efforts to weaken this
language.
With this bill we are also taking important steps to combine and
streamline our conservation programs, while still allowing us to
continue meeting the same land, water, and wildlife goals.
Additionally, this bill contains a sodsaver provision that will
discourage the breaking of native sod for crop production.
One area of the bill with which I am disappointed is that it does not
contain a livestock title. However, I have joined with some of my
colleagues in filing amendments to give our independent livestock
producers a fair shake in the marketplace. Along with Senator Grassley
and others, I have worked for more than a decade to prohibit the
ownership of livestock by the big meatpackers for more than 14 days
prior to slaughter. Additionally, I have joined with Senator Enzi in
filing an amendment to require more transparency in the use of forward
contracts in the livestock markets. These are important provisions that
I hope my colleagues will support.
I also applaud the committee's work on the energy and rural
development titles, which strengthen our rural economies. The Rural
Development water and wastewater program has been a critical funding
source to help alleviate a severe water infrastructure need on the
Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation. I hope my colleagues will act
favorably on Senator Brown's amendment that I have cosponsored to
bolster this and other Rural Development programs.
Finally, I would like to commend efforts to address the pine beetle
epidemic in the forestry title of this bill. The underlying bill does
good work to increase flexibility, and I support the efforts of Senator
Mark Udall and others to increase the resources we are providing to the
Forest Service to address this threat to our forest health and public
safety.
I understand that the Agriculture Committee leaders and Senate
leadership have been making progress in their negotiations toward an
agreement on a path forward. I hope we can avoid letting a small
minority of Senators hold up progress on this bill. It is time that we
act and that we give our producers certainty.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized
as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
(The remarks of Mr. McCAIN pertaining to the introduction of S. 3306
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield to the Chairman.
____________________