[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 95 (Thursday, June 21, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4400-S4409]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT----MOTION TO PROCEED----
Continued
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 250, S. 1940, an original bill to
amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, to restore
the financial solvency of the flood insurance fund, and for
other purposes.
Harry Reid, Tim Johnson, Al Franken, Patrick J. Leahy,
Christopher A. Coons, Tom Harkin, Barbara A. Mikulski,
Kent Conrad, Robert Menendez, Jack Reed, Barbara Boxer,
Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Michael F. Bennet, Max Baucus,
Mark Begich, Richard Blumenthal, Kay R. Hagan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 1940, an original bill to amend the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, to restore the financial solvency of the
insurance fund, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 165 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--2
Paul
Pryor
NOT VOTING--2
Boxer
Kirk
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 2.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Change Of Vote
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise for a procedural request and a
statement on the farm bill. On Rollcall Vote No. 153, yesterday, I
voted ``yes.'' It was my intention to vote ``no.'' I therefore ask
unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will
not affect the outcome of the amendment or the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I had the Rollcall Vote number wrong. It is not
Rollcall Vote No. 153. It is Rollcall Vote No. 143. I voted ``yes.'' I
would like to change my vote to ``no.'' I ask unanimous consent that be
the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you Mr. President.
Agriculture Reform
Mr. President, I will be brief. I know other Members are on the floor
who want to speak on other subjects.
First, I want to thank the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from
Kansas for an extraordinary job on a very difficult bill, a very
complicated bill--and difficult because it is not just a Republican-
Democratic debate or a Democratic-Republican debate, it is a regional
debate that has to take place, and there is a lot of give-and-take.
I have been proud to vote for every farm bill that has been before
the Senate to my knowledge, but I voted ``no'' today, and I want to say
why.
Despite the great work of Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts, there
was a weak part of this bill, in my view, related to rice farming, and
it is such a significant and important part of our farming structure in
Louisiana that I cast a vote against the bill to send a signal that
more work needs to be done.
This bill passed the Senate with an overwhelming vote. I voted for
many of the amendments that I think helped to shape it to be even
better than when it came out of committee.
We beat back several attacks to uproot, destroy, or significantly
modify the U.S. Sugar Program, which has been very important to the
State of Louisiana--one of the Nation's great sugar growers. As I have
tried to explain to people who continue to attack this program, why
would you want to end a program in this bill that does not cost the
taxpayers a single dime?
There are no direct subsidies for sugar, as there are for all the
other crops. The U.S. Sugar Program provides American consumers with
low, stable sugar prices and ensures that our sugarcane and sugar beet
growers receive a fair price for their crop.
I am happy to say that American growers of sugar can provide almost
85 percent of domestic demand. So why not use domestic sugar if we can
supply our domestic demand? We only import what we need to import. We
do not want to flood the market with cheap imports coming into America
and undermining our jobs. I was proud to stand with our sugar industry
and beat back those amendments.
Louisiana farmers and ranchers make a significant contribution to our
State, generating over $10.8 billion in economic activity alone.
Agriculture--including fisheries and, of course, forestry--and energy
are the backbone of Louisiana's economy.
This farm bill is an important bill. As I said, I was happy to vote
for literally dozens of amendments that strengthened it. But I held out
my final support, hoping that, as it travels to the House and goes
through the conference process, the farm provisions related to our rice
growers could be perfected.
People like to say the United States grows the cheapest, safest, and
most abundant food, fiber, and energy supply in the world. They are
right. The people in my State who do that day in and day out are proud.
They have every reason to be proud because farming is more than a
business, it is more than a job; it is a way of life. It is a way of
life that is important and precious and should be honored. There are
many families--cousins and aunts and uncles and fathers and mothers and
children who are involved in farming. In Louisiana, in our forest
lands, and along our coastal lands, these families follow a preferred
way of life, even though it means hard work, long hours, high risks,
and sometimes heart-breakingly limited returns.
So from sugar and rice in the south to cotton and poultry in the
north, and all the areas in between, Louisiana needs a farm bill that
supports all of
[[Page S4401]]
our farmers. This one failed in one important area, which is why I cast
a ``no'' vote.
This bill did not support adequately, in my view, the 2,000 rice
farmers we have in Louisiana. Our rice industry generates $638 million
in our State alone. Along with Arkansas, we are one of the major rice
producing states. Nationally, U.S. rice supports about 128,000 jobs. It
is $34 billion of economic input each year.
This bill did reduce the deficit by $23 billion, and that is
something I support. However, it took a larger chunk out of rice than
was asked for any other commodity. Rice took a 65% reduction when the
other crops, on average, took a 30% reduction. And I know some of the
peanut growers in Georgia have some of the same concerns we do.
So let me end by saying that I hope the position of our rice farmers
and the important industry that rice represents can be strengthened in
the House. If so, I will proudly put my name on this bill, because
there is some very good that was done to protect our nutrition
programs, to help our middle-class families who find themselves in the
unusual situation of having to get some food relief in these difficult
times. I want to thank Senator Stabenow particularly for her help in
that way.
But for my rice growers, my rice producers, the important mills we
have from Crowley, LA, to other places, for companies such as Kellogg
in Battle Creek, MI, that depend on strong rice production from
Louisiana, I cast a ``no'' vote.
Finally, I will say, I hope we can find a way to open some more
markets for our rice growers. We are interested--very interested--in
trade with Cuba. And the politics sometimes prevents us from opening
more trade relations with a nation that I know has not met our standard
of democracy but most certainly would be an open market for many of my
farmers.
So for my farmers who are looking for markets where we can sell and
compete on the world market, if you give us an opportunity to compete
and open these markets, then we may be able to adjust our program. But
until then, our farmers need the support of other farmers and did not
receive it in this bill.
I so appreciate my colleague from Rhode Island giving me this
opportunity to speak. I thank the chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
40th Anniversary Of The Pell Grant
Mr. REED. Mr. President, 1972 was a watershed year for expanding
educational opportunities in this country.
The Education Amendments of 1972 included title IX--now known as the
Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act--guaranteeing
educational opportunities for women and girls in federally supported
educational institutions.
But 1972 also saw, within the Education Amendments, the creation of
the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant. Today we know it as the Pell
Grant. It was named in honor and in recognition of the extraordinary
vision and service of my colleague, my predecessor from Rhode Island,
Claiborne Pell. He authored this provision.
Forty years later, we can see how these two key changes to our
educational laws have transformed our Nation and transformed the
aspirations of millions of Americans.
It is also a good time to reflect on the challenges that remain and
to renew our commitment to fulfilling the promise of opportunity
represented in the Education Amendments of 1972.
Senator Pell's vision was that no student with the talent, drive, and
desire should be denied the opportunity for a post-secondary education
solely because of a lack of financial resources. Pell grants have
opened the doors to a college education for millions of Americans.
In the 1973-1974 academic year--the first year students received
grants--176,000 Pell grants were awarded. In the school year that began
in the fall of 2010, that number grew to over 9.6 million.
Pell grants constitute approximately 23 percent of all Federal
student aid, which includes grants, loans, and work study programs.
The Pell grant is the cornerstone of our Federal student aid
programs. For needy students, it is the foundation for making college
affordable. Unfortunately, reduced State support for higher education
and rising college costs have eroded that foundation.
In 1976, the maximum Pell grant was $1,400, which was enough to cover
72 percent of the cost of attendance at a public 4-year college. In
2010, the maximum Pell Grant was $5,550, which was only enough to cover
34 percent of the cost of attendance at a public 4-year college.
We have seen an erosion of the buying power of the Pell grant. If we
were matching the effort that he initiated in the 1970s, we would be
providing more opportunities and more support for college students
across this Nation.
Senator Pell understood that grant aid was critical for low-income
students and families. The goal was to minimize the need for loans.
Frankly, back in the 1970s, most young people with a Pell grant--
working through the summer, and working the extra hours they had to
during the academic year--could pay their way through school, leave
school without huge debt.
Today, regrettably, there are students graduating from school with
$10,000, $20,000, $30,000 worth of debt because the Pell grants have
not kept up, because college costs have accelerated, and because they
have been forced to borrow. Today, low-income students and middle-
income students rely heavily on student loans to pay for college.
And we are seeing another burden; and, frankly, this ripples
throughout our economy. In the 1970s and 1980s, if you left college
owing a few thousand dollars, you could pay that off very quickly. So
by your late twenties, you were ready to settle down, to buy the house.
Today, we have a generation of students who are struggling with debt
that might take them 10 or more years to pay off. Effectively, they
cannot begin to buy the home, to settle down, to do the things that are
so important to our overall economy.
Unless we are able to come to an agreement over the next several
days, we also face the prospect of seeing the rate on subsidized
student loans double by July 1.
That would deal another blow to moderate- and low-income families.
Leader Reid has proposed a very reasonable compromise. I hope that the
Republicans will let that compromise go forward. I am hopeful my
Republican colleagues can use this opportunity not only to continue to
keep the lending rate low for Stafford loans but renew our own pledge
on the Pell grant.
It would be ironic to see, on the 40th anniversary of the Pell grant,
a further undermining of the ability of middle- to low-income Americans
to go to college. In fact, this should be an opportunity to do much
more. Senator Pell's words ring as true today as when he spoke them in
1995, one of the last years of his tenure in the Senate.
In his words:
As I have stated on many occasions, few things in life are
more important than the education of our children. They are
the living legacy that we leave behind and their education
determines the future of the American Nation. . . .
He continued.
. . . Every day families are making decisions about sending
their children to college. Certainly one of, if not the major
obstacle they face is how to pay for college. The loan is
their last resort. It provides the extra but necessary money
they must have after exhausting their own resources and
obtaining any grants for which their children might be
eligible. Increasing the amount that children owe after
graduation may well place the dream of a college education
beyond their reach. That, to my mind, would be a tragedy of
truly immense proportions. . . .
Senator Pell was right. Increasing student debt, especially during
these difficult economic times, would be a tragedy for students, their
families, and our Nation. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, on our side of the aisle, all my colleagues, to work together to
prevent an increase in the student loan interest rate from doubling on
July 1.
That would, indeed, be a fitting tribute to Senator Pell on the 40th
anniversary of the Pell grant.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am honored to join my senior Senator
to commemorate such an important milestone as he has described in
American education.
It was 40 years ago this week that President Nixon signed into law
the
[[Page S4402]]
Education Amendments Act of 1972, including a provision establishing
for the first time the basic educational opportunity grant, which came
to be called the Pell grant for its sponsor, Senator Claiborne Pell of
Rhode Island.
Over the next four decades, Pell grants would turn the dream of
college education into a reality for millions of Americans. Today, more
than ever, a college diploma is important to a young person's success.
The unemployment rate for those 25 and older with a bachelor's degree
is less than 4 percent and over 8 percent for those with only a high
school diploma. The value of that college degree could not be more
apparent. Higher education provides the skills and credentials that
many employers require in today's economy.
In the decades following World War II, the U.S. Government made
college and occupational mobility a reality for more Americans than
ever before. Claiborne Pell was a veteran of that war, and he saw how
the GI bill enabled millions of his fellow veterans to better
themselves through education. He recognized that many of his Coast
Guard shipmates had as much talent as his Princeton classmates but not
the privilege or resources to go to college.
Given the opportunity, this Greatest Generation would not only
provide a better life for their families with that access to college,
but they would contribute mightily to the growth of this Nation, a
growth we still enjoy today.
Claiborne Pell resolved then that all Americans should have such an
opportunity, and his vision would become a reality for millions through
the Pell grant. In 1976, the first year the Pell grants were fully
funded, a full Pell grant paid 72 percent of the cost of attendance at
a typical 4-year public college. Today, a full Pell grant covers just
32 percent of those costs, but still, for many, this vital assistance
can mean the difference between being able to attend college or not.
As grant aid has fallen and tuition has soared, families have had to
borrow to make up the difference to send their kids to college. The
total amount of student loan debt carried by Americans has recently
surpassed $1 trillion, more than Americans now owe on their credit
cards.
I have talked to students around my State and I have read many
heartfelt letters. It is clear Pell grants serve as a gateway to the
opportunities available with a college degree, a gate that would be
shut if not for Pell grants.
I received a letter from Phil in Wakefield, RI, the oldest of five
children. Last year, Phil graduated from Cornell. Phil worked his way
through college, including summers. His parents chipped in when they
could. Phil's father is still paying off student loans, and Phil was
lucky enough to earn private scholarships and receive grants from his
school. He said:
But there's no way my education would have been possible
without Pell Grants. We just wouldn't have been able to
afford it.
I also heard from Anthony, who has been working as a waiter in
Providence. Thanks to the Pell grant, he and his wife Jen have been
able to go back to school at the University of Rhode Island for degrees
in biotechnology. They say their education will enable them to build a
better future together in Rhode Island's rapidly expanding biotech
sector.
Leann is a single mother of two from Pawtucket, already carrying
student loan debt, although she has not been able to finish her
undergraduate program. Last year, Leann enrolled in the School of
Continuing Education at Roger Williams University, and when she
graduates with a bachelor's degree next year, she plans on opening her
own small business. ``None of this would be happening'' she wrote, ``if
I were not receiving a Pell Grant.''
The simple fact is this: Pell grants help millions of people achieve
the dream of college and improve their prospects for employment. It is
a wise investment in the future of our country. Congress has, in recent
years, increased the buying power of Pell Grants, increasing the
maximum grant from $4,050 in academic year 2006-2007 to $5,550 in 2012-
2013.
We also increased the minimum family income that automatically
qualifies a student for the maximum Pell grant, a change that better
reflects today's economic realities. Sadly, however, we are seeing a
truly misguided assault on Pell grants.
The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal marked the 40th
anniversary of Pell grants this week by printing claims about the Pell
grant that, simply to be polite, do not withstand scrutiny. The Journal
says the Pell grant is rife with abuse, with students engaging in
``creative accounting'' to qualify by feigning financial independence.
The most common way one gets deemed independent under the Pell Grant
Program is by being 24 years of age or older. It is hard to imagine
doing much creative accounting with one's date of birth. The other
major proofs of independence are being married and having children.
Maybe when they said ``creative accounting'' they meant ``procreative
accounting.''
The Wall Street Journal implies that better off students can win
larger grants by attending more expensive institutions. But the cost of
tuition cannot increase the maximum size of a grant. The maximum Pell
grant, as I said, is $5,550, regardless of the school one attends. As
we all know, $5,550 is far from sufficient to cover the cost of most
higher education.
Perhaps the most misleading claim from the Journal is to pick out the
period when Pell grant costs rose significantly, between 2008 and 2010,
due largely to the enactment of a funding expansion that has since been
repealed and the fact that more eligible students applied for
assistance as the economy worsened in those years. What they left out
is that the Congressional Budget Office projects almost no average
annual growth in program costs over the next 10 years.
The Republican budget in the House of Representatives slashes funding
and eligibility for Pell grants and eliminates all mandatory funding
for the program over the next 10 years. We all understand the need to
find savings in the Federal budget. We all understand the need to make
difficult choices. But of all the bad choices we could make, of all
unintelligent choices we could make, failing to invest in Pell grants
would be among the worst.
It is, frankly, shameful that Federal financial aid has not kept pace
with the rising cost of college. It is truly misguided to roll back
financial aid for a generation of young Americans preparing to compete
in an evermore global economy. We need a highly trained workforce. Pell
grants are very often the keystone in the arch that students must build
to afford college, as Phil and Anthony and Jen and Leann all showed.
Rhode Island is a small State. But over the years we have had some
towering and remarkable Senators. Claiborne Pell was one. Claiborne
Pell believed, as he once told the Providence Journal, ``that
government--and the federal government in particular--can, should, and
does make a positive impact on the lives of most Americans.''
The Pell grant's positive impact is that people who cannot afford
college have the chance to go to college, and it lifts off their backs
a little bit of that burden of debt. That is something we want in this
country, not just for the sake of the individual Pell grant recipient,
not just for the sake of the next generation but for the sake of the
good of our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Agriculture Reform
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to talk about the farm bill. As we
can see from an open Senate, I think we have done our work, and we have
been successful. Most of what we can say on this bill has already been
said.
After final passage, I simply wish to reiterate what the chairwoman
has said, what I have said all along: This is a reform bill. We cut $23
billion in mandatory spending. These are real cuts, no gimmicks. We
have eliminated four commodity programs--four commodity programs. We
have streamlined conservation programs from 23 to 13. We have
eliminated numerous other authorizations.
[[Page S4403]]
In total, approximately 100 authorizations for spending and
appropriations are eliminated. This is real reform. I also wish to take
a quick moment to thank all the staff who have worked so hard on this
legislation, especially the committee staff on both the majority and
the minority sides.
I especially wish to thank the legislative magician, if I may call
him that--expert--David Schiappa and his staff. They are no longer
here, but they guided us through some difficult times, as he always
does--as they always do.
I would like to take a few moments to recognize the members of my
staff who worked on this bill. For me, this is a very special occasion.
We are only as good as our staff. I have been blessed with the very
best, and I have been a bucket toter. That is what a staff member is.
When someone totes buckets, they try not to spill anything.
Sometimes they are successful and other times they may trip and fall.
Other times it is just the way it is. I was administrative assistant to
Senator Frank Carlson, the only man in Kansas to serve us as a Member
of Congress, as a Governor, and a Senator, prior to our current
Governor, Sam Brownback.
I was the administrative assistant for Congressman Keith Sebelius,
who was on the House Agriculture Committee, and learned an awful lot
about agriculture with Keith as we went through those days. Obviously,
if someone is from Kansas, they are a legislative assistant or a bucket
toter or whatever description you want for Bob Dole forever.
These people, as far as I am concerned, are not only my staff, they
are my family. They have persevered. Anne Hazlett, my chief counsel, in
my opinion, is the best chief counsel in the Senate, one of the top
legislative drafters in the Senate, former director of the Indiana
State Department of Agriculture under Gov. Mitch Daniels. When she is
at my door, I know I am going to be told no on something.
I actually had better listen to her.
Eric Steiner. Eric has charged me with cruel and unusual punishment
for putting him in the charge of dairy policy. After the 1996 farm bill
and all that--and the 2002 and 2008 farm bills--I said I don't do dairy
anymore. Then, in came Eric. He also became a dad for the first time
earlier this year as we worked on this bill--talk about working 24/7
and giving up your family.
Keira Franz is a former Bob Dole staffer. Bob still tells her what to
do so she can tell me what he says I am supposed to be doing.
Autumn Veazey, our southern bell and specialty crop guru, has also
had the pleasure of getting to know places such as Dodge City and the
inside of a meat processing plant--something that should be required of
every agriculture assistant. Don't ask her.
Gregg Doud. Here is a real Kansas cowboy and one of the top
agriculture trade experts in Washington, and he still wears his boots.
Tara Smith, our commodities and crop insurance expert, helps me
navigate the minefields of both. Thank you so much, Tara. You have been
wonderful.
Janae Brady keeps our staff--and, most importantly, my staff--
director organized.
Andrew Vlasity, a great young man and a tremendous writer, has helped
create a research title for the future.
Max Fisher, our No. 1 crunching guru, also became a dad for the third
time as we worked on this bill.
Chris Hicks, our other legal counsel, is a former Senate-confirmed
general counsel at the Department of Agriculture and provides the
wisdom of that position as we work on complicated matters.
Patty Lawrence is our Department of Agriculture detailee on
conservation issues and the ultimate professional.
Also, in my personal office: Ryan Flickner, a young Kansas farm lad
who will soon return to Kansas to get married and become my deputy
State director.
Wane Stoskopf is another Kansas farm boy who is taking Ryan's
position, and Emily Haug.
Also, my communications director, Sarah Little--dear Sarah is never
short of work when it comes to cleaning up what I have said and should
not have said.
My State agriculture representative is Mel Thompson. I used to work
with Mel. He was a legislative assistant and I was administrative
assistant with Keith Sebelius. We went through two farm bills. There is
no better person to have eyes and ears on the ground than Mel Thompson.
Then, there are Joel and Mike, the ``two musketeers,'' who saw me
every morning, every afternoon, and every evening. I have a tendency to
wander, to reflect on past farm bill stories, and to occasionally give
ranks. These are not particularly helpful in regard to moving
legislation forward, and so Joel and Mike would say: Sir--at least they
said ``sir''--Sir, keep your eye on the ball. Stay focused. Where there
is a will, there is a way. If you rank, if you wander, you will be lost
in the midst of the desert farm bill purgatory. Don't be lost in the
desert farm bill purgatory. Stay focused.
I tried. I think we succeeded, for the most part.
The chairwoman also has a great staff. Everybody likes to brag on
their staffs, and I know she will mention many of them. I especially
thank her staff director, Chris Adamo, and chief counsel, Jonathan
Coppess, for their outstanding work on this legislation. They have been
professional throughout. I don't know what you guys are going to do now
that we are not breaking into your office in the mornings, afternoons,
and evenings to see your smiling faces--and then we wonder why you are
not smiling. Thank you for a top job.
I also thank all those in Senate legislative counsel and the
Congressional Budget Office who helped us get to this point today. They
all worked behind the scenes, but we could not be here today without
them.
I view my staff as family. I thank my family over here for their
tremendous work in achieving what I think is a great farm bill and for
doing something to restore the Senate back to the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we have been looking forward to this day
to be able to have the opportunity to celebrate a successful conclusion
in the Senate. We have more work to do, but for 1 day we can pause and
celebrate what is an important and great day after a tremendous amount
of hard work that has gone on by our staffs, my ranking member, myself,
along with our colleagues on the committee. We are so grateful for the
wonderful effort that has gotten us to this point.
I have said this before and I will say it again: 16 million people
count on us. They work in agriculture or food-related industries. That
is a lot of people. I am not sure we have had a jobs bill that has come
before the Senate that we can say addresses 16 million people's jobs,
but certainly this is one. It affects every corner of every State.
I thank everyone in the Senate for their patience with us. I thank
the majority leader for his incredible patience and leadership. I thank
Senator McConnell for working with us and I thank all those who voted
on 73 amendments and everybody who was involved in putting those
together and making sure we could move through this process.
Of course, I thank Senator Roberts again. Kansas is lucky to have him
as a champion in the Senate. I have been very lucky to have him at my
side throughout this debate and work, starting in the fall with our
deficit reduction proposal up until today. We have come together on a
bipartisan basis. I hope we can do that more. I have heard so many
comments from colleagues in the last few days, saying it feels good to
work through issues, debating issues, having votes, working together,
and actually accomplishing something. It feels good and we need to
continue to do more of it. Frankly, the American people want us to do
more of it. So I am hopeful this will be a sign, as other things have
been, frankly, in the Senate moving forward.
I am proud we have been the ones doing a bipartisan transportation
bill and the ones passing other bipartisan bills. This is a significant
milestone in that process of working together.
I am also very proud of the reforms in the bill we have done on a
bipartisan basis. This is $23 billion in spending cuts for deficit
reduction. It is true that if every committee within their jurisdiction
were to focus on analyzing and reviewing the programs under their
jurisdiction and making tough
[[Page S4404]]
decisions, ending paperwork duplication, and so on, actually it would
end up to be a pretty big deficit reduction plan--if we all did it in
those areas we control. That is the way we looked at the process.
We have come up with $23 billion in deficit reduction. We have done
that by ending four different subsidies that folks have talked about
changing for a long time--direct payments and other subsidies that are
paid out regardless of losses. We passed a bill that continues support
for healthy local food systems, farmers markets, and local food hubs.
We have passed a bill that strengthens conservation and continues
protections that maintain healthy soil, clean water, and fresh air.
We passed a bill that supports America's rural communities. Every
State has small rural communities, towns, villages, and counties that
are counting on us to continue to have their economic development
tools--which is the rural development title of the farm bill--as robust
as possible. American energy independence is addressed in this bill. We
passed the bill in a bipartisan way. This is an incredibly important
step.
Now our bill goes to the House of Representatives. I have great
confidence in the chairman and ranking member of the committee. I know
they will be successful in moving a bill out of committee, and I am
sure they are going to do everything humanly possible to pass it in the
House. I believe, ultimately, they will because every American is
counting on them in order to maintain food security for our country and
the ability for us to have a strong, successful, safe food supply, as
well as all the jobs connected to that.
I wish to thank my extraordinary staff. They worked from sunrise to
sunset and then another few hours. I think we added hours--I think we
changed from 24 hours to 30 a couple of times. It has been an
incredible experience, and I am very grateful, truly, to all of them.
No team does it without a great captain. I thank Chris Adamo, who was
with me on the last farm bill and is now our staff director. He has
provided incredible leadership. He has deep knowledge of agriculture,
and he brings a tremendous leadership to this process. He put together
a tremendous team. I would not be here, and we would not be here in the
Senate without his leadership and hard work and the team effort
involved.
I also thank Jonathan Coppess, my great chief counsel, who actually
helped bring a baby into the world last August, as we were saying,
``Why don't we do deficit reduction.'' When the supercommittee was put
into place, he was helping bring a new baby into the world. So we thank
Jonathan for his leadership. I have to say this as a point of personal
privilege: Even though he is from Ohio, we still welcomed him into the
fold--despite the rivalry between Michigan and Ohio.
I thank all our teams as well. I thank our commodities and dairy
teams. It is tough work. We changed the commodity title. I think this
is the most reform, probably--I don't know ever but in a long time.
Moving from subsidy systems to a risk management system is easy to say,
but it is hard to put into place in a way that makes sense. It is fair
with commodities and will work in a simple way across the country.
I thank our Joe Shultz, who has been amazing. So many times we said:
I don't know how we are going to do this, and he pulled another rabbit
out of his hat. We thank Joe for all his wonderful work as our chief
economist.
Cory Claussen is on dairy. It is not an easy thing to do--focus on
dairy. There are large farms and small dairies. It is an incredible
job.
Marcus Graham, as well, did amazing work, as did Chelsea Render.
There was great teamwork on commodities and the dairy issues. Thank you
so very much.
We had a great team on title II. Thanks to the ``T2 warriors'', Tina
May, an amazing person, who reminded me every other day that we had 643
conservation groups from every one of the 50 States. I have it in my
memory because Tina said it every time I saw her. The truth is we did
have 643 different conservation and environmental groups supporting
this bill. It is because of Tina May, Catie Lee and Kevin Norton and
the incredible work they brought to what I believe is an extraordinary
reform in conservation. We are placing conservation as a priority in a
way that has not been in other farm bills. We will see our country
provide better opportunities around land and water and air quality and
quantity issues as a result of their hard work.
Jacqlyn Schneider and Jesseca Taylor deserve a tremendous amount of
credit for their work on the nutrition and healthy food issues. A major
area of debate that will be going forward, as we address nutrition and
healthy foods issues, is specialty crops, which are so important to me.
I know in New Hampshire and other parts of the country it is very
important. They did incredible work. We had some hard issues to work
through on how we could create savings in our bill in nutrition, while
maintaining the strong commitment to families. So I would like to thank
them for an extraordinary effort as well.
And then each of our team members--let me go through them because
there are so many people who did so many wonderful things.
Jonathan Cordone, who kept me out of trouble at most moments, in his
work as general counsel, counseled me well and gave me wonderful words
of wisdom as we moved along, both on procedure as well as policy.
Brandon McBride on rural development--we worked through many issues
on the floor with Members, many issues that Members who were not on the
committee had and wanted to work on and develop further, and Brandon's
patience and creativity and hard work really created a rural
development title that is extraordinary.
One of the things we worked on, which may sound easy but was not easy
at all, was the differing definitions of what rural is. The Secretary
of Agriculture told me one time we had 11 different definitions of what
rural was. He said: You know, you ought to fix that.
We heard from part-time mayors and village presidents and county
commissioners and others who said: We would like to figure this out,
how we might use these programs to support our communities, but we
don't know whether we fit or under which definition we fit.
Well, we have one definition now, and that may sound simple, but, no,
it was very hard. And Brandon deserves a tremendous amount of credit,
along with our team, for getting us to that point.
Karla Thieman, who is not here at the moment, did a tremendous job on
livestock, livestock disaster assistance, and efforts on the energy
title. We thank her and wish she were able to be here to actually
celebrate. I don't think she is, is she? No, she is not here, but we
thank her so much.
Ben Becker made sure that we were communicating effectively with
those in the media, that we were communicating what we were doing. He
worked extremely hard to make sure that was happening.
Russ Behnam. We thank Russ so much for all his incredible work as we
moved through these amendments and moved through this process. He was
absolutely invaluable in his work as well.
We thank Hanna Abou-El-Seoud, who was a terrific part of our team,
and Maureen James, Alexis Stanczuk, Ryan Hocker, and Jesse Williams,
our chief clerk, Nicole Hertenstein, Jacob Chaney, Seth Buchsbaum, and
Alvaro Zarco. They are a terrific team, each one of them playing a very
important role in getting us to this point and helping me have the
information I needed, making sure things were getting done and the team
was able to come together.
We had two great fellows, Lauren Reid and Matt Eldred, whom we thank
as well. Also, we thank all of the great interns we have had with us
since we began this process: Ryan Smoes, Jasmine Macies, Dawn Lucas,
and Seth Collins.
This really is a team effort, with an extraordinary breadth of
jurisdiction under this bill that created the need to really make sure
we had the smartest people in the room, and I really believe we
achieved that with this great team.
Also, I couldn't have gotten it done without my great chief of staff,
Amanda Renteria, and the great role she played with Chris Adamo putting
together our great agriculture team, and Todd Wooten, legislative
director, who was on the phone counting votes every moment right up
until the final vote. He did such a great job in bringing that
together.
[[Page S4405]]
Bill Sweeney, my deputy chief of staff, made sure we were
communicating in the right way, being able to tell the story of what it
means to have a farm bill, what it means to people back home, to every
family, every business, and every farmer. He did an extraordinary job
of helping me do that.
Cullen Schwarz, who is a terrific communications director, made sure
we were communicating effectively what we were doing and why we were
doing it.
I also wish to thank our team in Michigan, led by Teresa Plachetka, a
wonderful team that made sure we were focused, as I always am, on
Michigan. Our great team consists of Mary Judnich, Kali Fox, and
Brandon Fewins, who have done terrific work and outreach around the
State, and Korey Hall in urban agriculture. All of our team made sure
we were communicating at home with our growers.
We are proud to say we have more diversity of crops than any State
but California, so I have always had to pay attention to every page. I
have always kind of been jealous of folks who had to only pay attention
to one title. We have had to pay attention to everything. The good news
is that prepared me well for assuming the chair of the committee. But I
do want to thank our Michigan staff because they are terrific as well.
This really is a bipartisan effort. It really, really is. And I have
such respect and admiration for the staff of Senator Roberts on the
committee, led by Mike Seyfert, Joel Leftwich, and Anne Hazlett. I
thank them all so much for their terrific work and partnership.
Everyone involved whom Senator Roberts spoke of is professional, smart,
and dedicated. We had some tough things we had to work through, both
policy-wise and procedurally, and they were terrific, just absolutely
magnificent, and I am very grateful for the wonderful way in which we
really have a team. It is not a Democratic team or a Republican team--
we have a team.
I also wish to briefly mention our CBO farm team, whom we kept up
late at night many times as we tried to get scores and work through how
we fit this all together and maintain over $23 billion in deficit
reduction. So Doug Elmendorf and his terrific team--Jim Langley, Greg
Hitz, Dave Hull, Kathleen FitzGerald, Emily Holcombe, Ann Futrell, Dan
Hoople, and Jeff LaFave--we call them the farm team--have been
magnificent and worked weekends, have gone above and beyond for us, and
I thank them, with a shout-out to everybody at CBO who has helped us.
I thank Michelle Johnson-Wieder and Gary Endicott from Legislative
Counsel for their invaluable assistance. And on Senator Reid's staff, I
thank Kasey Gillette and Nathan Engle. I claim Kasey as my former staff
person, so I told Senator Reid that I trained her well. But we are very
grateful for the incredible team effort there.
All our floor staff, Gary Myrick, Tim Mitchell, David Krone, Bill
Dauster, Reema Dodin, Stacy Rich, Meredith Mellody, and everyone
involved on the majority team who was so absolutely essential to us,
putting in very long days and getting this done--everybody hung in
there with us, and we are grateful.
Finally, let me mention the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack,
and the USDA Office of General Counsel. We had a lot of technical needs
as we worked through this bill, a tremendous need for technical
assistance and support, so that when we were done, as we completed the
bill, it actually worked for farmers and ranchers, it worked from a
Department standpoint to support farmers and ranchers and those
involved in every part of this bill, and we received tremendous help
and encouragement and support. So I thank them for their leadership.
To all the members of the Agriculture Committee, Democrats and
Republicans, and their staffs, I wish to say how very lucky I am to
have such a tremendous team who is so knowledgeable and has so much
experience and a committee that has so much experience. It has been
quite amazing.
So as I conclude, Madam President, I would just say this is a proud
day for those who care about having the Senate work together well, for
producing a product that is one that has real reforms in it and
something that we can look to the American people with pride and say:
We worked hard, we worked together, and we got the job done.
I thank everyone, and now we look forward to working with our House
colleagues as they move this measure forward.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak as if
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Taxmageddon
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise to express my growing concern as
massive tax increases loom on the horizon, and yet the Senate has not
taken a single vote to forestall what many are appropriately calling
taxmageddon.
Washington tends to be a place where people speak in hyperbole, but
it is hard to overstate the magnitude of the tax increases that will
hit our economy starting next year if we do not act. If Congress does
not vote to extend the current income-tax rates, the lower tax rates on
investment income, relief from the alternative minimum tax, relief from
the Federal estate tax, and other expiring tax relief measures, the
result will be a tax increase of more than $470 billion on Americans in
2013 alone.
Over the next 10 years this tax increase will result in nearly $4.5
trillion in new taxes on American families and entrepreneurs. This will
be the largest tax increase in our Nation's history in absolute dollars
and the second largest tax increase since World War II as a percentage
of our economy. This massive tax increase does not even take into
account the new taxes enacted as part of ObamaCare that will also go
into effect in 2013 and that will impose an additional $23 billion in
higher taxes on individuals and businesses.
What will these taxes mean to the average American family? The
Heritage Foundation recently published a study that estimated the
increase per tax return in every State. In my State of South Dakota,
Heritage estimates that the average tax increase per tax return will be
$3,187 in 2013.
I would say this to my Democratic friends who generally believe in
demand-driven Keynesian economics: The average family in South Dakota
can do more to stimulate our economy and create new employment by
keeping their $3,187 and spending it as they see fit, not as Washington
sees fit to spend it on their behalf.
Taxmageddon is an apt description when we consider the impact of
these tax increases not just on individual families but on our entire
economy. Until recently we could speculate about the impact of these
tax increases on our fragile economy, but the magnitude of the damage
was not in dispute. Not anymore.
Last month, the Congressional Budget Office gave us the most
definitive estimate yet of the impact of the nearly $\1/2\ trillion of
tax increases in 2013 when combined with the more than $100 billion of
spending cuts from the sequester.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that the combination of
massive tax increases and the sequester will result in real GDP growth
in calendar year 2013 of only one-half of 1 percent. The picture is
even bleaker when we consider that the Congressional Budget Office also
projects that the economy will actually contract by 1.3 percent in the
first half of 2013. According to the CBO, such a contraction and output
in the first half of 2013 would ``probably be judged to be a
recession.''
So let's be clear about what ``taxmageddon'' means. We are not
talking about a slight slowdown in growth of a few tenths of a percent.
What we are facing is the difference between positive growth on one
hand--which will mean more jobs and higher incomes--and a recession on
the other hand.
How big is the difference in economic growth next year if we act to
forestall the pending tax increases versus not doing anything about it?
According to the Congressional Budget Office, if Congress acted to
remove the tax increases and budget cuts, the growth of real GDP in
2013 would be in the range of 4.4 percent.
[[Page S4406]]
This sort of robust growth is a far cry from the lackluster economic
performance that we have experienced of late. In fact, GDP growth for
the first quarter of this year was recently revised downward to just
1.9 percent. This is hardly the magnitude of economic growth necessary
to sustain a meaningful recovery that will finally bring the
unemployment rate below 8 percent--something the current meager
recovery has failed to accomplish.
We can, and must, do better. We can start by providing Americans some
certainty as to what their taxes are going to be come next year.
Fortunately, we learned recently that the House of Representatives
intends to hold a vote on legislation to extend the existing tax rate
next month. According to statements by House Speaker Boehner and
Majority Leader Cantor, the House is likely to consider a short-term--
perhaps for 1 year--extension of existing tax rates as a bridge to
fundamental tax reform next year.
Some may question why we need to vote on an extension of the tax
rates now because they assume these tax issues can simply be dealt with
as a part of the postelection lameduck session. The answer is that we
need a vote now because the delay in extending current tax policy is
having a very real impact on our economy today.
In fact, the Congressional Budget Office again estimates that the
mere possibility of pending tax increases and spending cuts will lower
U.S. GDP by one-half of 1 percent in the second half of this year--not
next year, this year. The reason for this is simple. Americans, whether
they be investors, small business owners, or simply consumers,
understand that they may have a larger tax bill come next year, meaning
they will have less aftertax income. Faced with that possibility, we
should not be surprised if Americans are choosing to consume less or
put off business investments until they know what their tax situation
is going to be.
Just this week there was a Bloomberg article entitled ``Fiscal Cliff
Concerns Hurting Economy As Companies Hold Back.'' The article quoted a
senior economist at Bank of America who said, ``You don't board up the
windows when the hurricane is there. You board up the windows in
anticipation.'' This economist predicted U.S. growth decelerating to
1.3 percent in the third quarter of this year and 1 percent in the
fourth quarter.
The moral of the story is clear. The sooner we act to extend the
current tax rates, the better off our economy will be and the better
off will be the 12.7 million Americans who are currently unemployed.
The sooner we act, the better off will be the 5.4 million Americans who
have been unemployed long term or the 46.2 million Americans living in
poverty or the record 46 million Americans who receive food stamps.
I agree with President Obama when he said in August of 2009, ``You
don't raise taxes in a recession.'' End quote of President Obama in
August of 2009.
If you should not raise taxes in a recession, it stands to reason you
also should not raise taxes that will cause a recession. I also agree
with a number of my Democratic colleagues quoted earlier this week in
an article about these pending tax increases. I agree with Senator Jim
Webb, who is quoted as saying, ``We shouldn't raise taxes on ordinary
income.'' I agree with Senator Ben Nelson, ``My druthers is to extend
the tax cuts for everybody.''
I agree with former Senator Pete Domenici and former OMB Director
Alice Rivlin, who appeared before the Finance Committee earlier this
week, and who both agreed we need a short-term extension of current tax
law in order to get us to a place where we can consider fundamental
reforms to our Tax Code and our entitlement programs.
Even former President Bill Clinton, a major surrogate for the Obama
campaign, admitted the obvious when he said recently that a short-term
extension of the tax cuts might be necessary.
Former President Clinton and other Democratic Members whom I
mentioned have not suddenly become supply-side tax cutters. But they
realize it is simply common sense that with the economy slowing, the
last thing the Congress should do is slam on the brakes by allowing
massive tax increases.
We were reminded earlier this week just how destructive the proposed
income tax rate increases would be on the sector of our economy
responsible for the bulk of new job creation, and that is our small
businesses. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee
on Taxation released on June 18, the tax increases that President Obama
has proposed would hit more than half--53 percent, to be precise--of
all flowthrough business income. The Joint Tax Committee estimates that
40,000 business owners would find themselves subject to higher tax
rates next year.
Does anyone think, with unemployment above 8 percent for 41 straight
months, that higher taxes on nearly a million business owners is the
right policy? Yet that is exactly where we are headed if we do not act.
Of course, extending current tax law temporarily is only a short-term
fix. What is needed is comprehensive tax reform, much like the Tax
Reform Act of 1986. Real tax reform will drive economic growth higher,
will lead to robust job creation, and result in more revenue to the
Federal Government. But real tax reform will require Presidential
leadership, something that has been unfortunately lacking over the past
3\1/2\ years. Perhaps next year we will have a President truly willing
to commit to tax reform, a President who is not content with simply
releasing a 23-page framework for corporate tax reform. But until we
get to comprehensive tax reform, the least we can do now is ensure that
Americans do not face a massive new tax hike.
In conclusion, we are facing a moment of truth. We can choose to put
our heads in the sand and pretend as though Taxmaggedon is not real, we
can choose to accept slower economic growth for the remainder of this
year and a recession in the first half of next year or we can choose to
take action in a way that says, loudly and clearly to all Americans,
now is not the time for a massive new tax increase.
I am hopeful we will see a bill from the House of Representatives in
the coming weeks to extend the tax rates in order to avert Taxmaggedon.
If the Senate majority is serious in its rhetoric of getting our
economy back on track, they will allow a straight up-or-down vote on
this measure. Fundamental tax reform may need to wait until the next
Congress, but we can and we should act immediately to forestall the
looming tax increases that we know will throw this economy back into a
recession. It is not a Republican or a Democratic thing to do, it is
simply common sense. I am hopeful the Democratic majority will allow
for debate and vote on an extension of the current tax rates sooner
rather than later. Every day we wait is another day our economy suffers
unnecessarily.
I do not have to tell anybody here, if you look at all the economic
data that comes in month after month, we have the weakest economic
recovery in 60 years. We have 23 million unemployed or underemployed
Americans. We have, as I said, 41 consecutive months now of
unemployment over 8 percent, and we have anemic, sluggish growth
projections next year by the Congressional Budget Office if in fact we
do not take the steps necessary to avert Taxmaggedon.
I hope the House of Representatives will vote. I hope the U.S. Senate
will follow suit. I hope the President of the United States will join
us in recognizing that we cannot afford to allow taxes to go up--the
largest tax increase in American history--on January 1 of next year.
We cannot wait until a lameduck session to address it, because every
single day we do, Americans, investors, small businesses are putting
off decisions about hiring, about putting their capital to work and
growing this economy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Debt And Taxes
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, next week I will probably speak more
about this. But looking at tax policy and debt and whatnot--I urge
Senators to look at the article written by Walter Pincus in today's
Washington Post. The two wars we have been in, Iraq and Afghanistan--
the two longest wars in America's history--are noted not just for their
length but for the fact that it is the only time America has gone to
war where we have not had a special tax to pay for the war. In fact, it
is the only time America has gone to war where we not only have not had
a tax to pay
[[Page S4407]]
for the war but we have ended up with a tax cut, and we ended up
trillions of dollars in debt as a result.
I hope we will come to the time that we will say--especially with
wars of choice, these were not cases where we were attacked that there
was a totally unnecessary war in Iraq--totally unnecessary. We went to
war in Iraq and said we will put it on our credit card.
Of course, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had
nothing to do with 9/11. A bad guy was running it, but there are a lot
of countries we support with bad guys running them. There are $1
trillion and thousands of American lives--tens of thousands of
coalition and Iraqi lives--gone, and our children are going to have a
$1 trillion bill to pay for it and we got absolutely nothing out of it.
We went in Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. We got him. We have
been stuck there for years--another $1 trillion to beef up a corrupt
government, and our children and grandchildren will be given the bill.
Then we talk about what else can we do that we will not pay for? We
should think about it. Let me speak now about a more positive thing.
Agriculture Reform
Earlier today, the Senate passed legislation to address one of the
most significant legislative issues on our agenda this year--making
needed reforms to our Nation's agriculture and food systems.
I have been both chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture
Committee and I think I can say, probably as well as anybody here, how
much thanks the U.S. Senate and the country owe to Chairwoman Stabenow
and Ranking Member Roberts, who did what Senators are supposed to do.
They worked together in a bipartisan way to advance the farm bill, the
Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012.
A lot of what people criticize about the Congress today would
disappear if everyone acted the way Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
did, and Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas did, working across party lines,
across ideologies, to try to put together a farm bill that is not a
Democratic or Republican farm bill, but a farm bill for the United
States of America. I am so proud of them.
I mentioned earlier today to Chairwoman Stabenow, I don't know how
many times she called me weekends when I was at my home in Vermont, or
sent me e-mails late in the evening, because she was trying to keep
this coalition going.
The work of these leaders and the passage of this bill proves that
the Senate can act in accordance with its greatest traditions and we
can reach across the aisle to pass critical legislation that reflects
compromise. As a former Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, and
having worked closely with Senator Lugar on many bipartisan Farm Bills,
I know how difficult the task can be of forging a comprehensive bill
that addresses the many competing needs. I said earlier that Senator
Richard Lugar and I traded places back and forth, as either chairman or
ranking member on that committee. We passed bipartisan farm bills. We
worked closely together, with complete candor and honestness with each
other, as one would expect from Senator Lugar. We forged these
comprehensive bills.
The Senate's action today could not have been accomplished without
the hard work of many dedicated, wonderful staffers, mine and others,
both here in Washington and back home in Vermont. Being such a large
and far reaching bill there were many staff involved throughout its
development and final passage. I would like to thank in particular
Adrienne Wojciechowski, Michelle Lacko, Aaron Kaigle, Kathryn
Toomajian, Kara Leene, Tom Berry, Chris Saunders, Emma Van Susteren,
Ted Brady, Lauren Bracket, Nikole Manatt, Greg Cota, Will Goodman,
Erica Chabot, and John Dowd from my staff.
I would also like to thank both the Chairwoman and Ranking Member's
staff on the Senate Agriculture Committee who worked so closely with my
office on many different issues and programs including the dairy
reforms, conservation consolidation, nutrition, rural development,
forestry, food aid, research, organics, energy, and the wonderful
improvements we made to the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance
Program.
It is not easy to get what we have here, a strong bipartisan bill. So
I rise to say I hope the House of Representatives will act swiftly to
consider legislation that is going to allow us to move to conference.
Because just as it was important to the U.S. Senate to get together and
pass this bill by an overwhelming majority, the swift passage of this
farm bill is essential. The current Farm Bill expires at the end of
September. Before August 31, we must address the serious problem of
dairy policy or our dairy farmers will be left without a vital safety
net.
Dairy is a crucial industry in Vermont. I hear often from dairy
farmers who are worried about the dangerous rollercoaster of price
swings that impacts both producers and consumers. This is a roller
coaster we have been on in dairy pricing in Vermont since January of
2000. How can any farmer stay in business if this is the way their
prices go? How can they plan to buy new equipment? How can they plan to
send their children to school? How can they plan to modernize their
farm if they never know what day the price will be up, what day prices
will be down?
I hear too often from dairy farmers who meet with me or talk to me
when I am at the grocery store in Vermont, or just walking down the
street. They tell me they are worried about the dangerous roller
coaster of prices. These swings impact both consumers and the
producers.
For our farmers in Vermont, the dairy reforms included in the 2012
farm bill will bring some relief. We simply must free our dairy farmers
from this destructive cycle of volatile price changes.
The current Federal safety net provides no protection for dairy
farmers from this roller coaster of price volatility.
The 2009 dairy crisis brought plummeting milk prices and sky-high
feed costs that combined to devastate dairy farmers in ways that many
were unable to recover from. Many had to close down. Let's stop the
roller coaster. Let's give stability to the hard-working men and women
who are dairy farmers. Dairy farmers have come together to identify
ways to move us away from the regional dairy fights and the constant
policy conflicts between small and large farms. The results are the
changes included in the 2012 Farm Bill, which will help farmers and
consumers move away from these volatile price swings. Now we will have
some protection.
The 2012 Farm Bill scraps outdated price supports and the Milk Income
Loss Contract Program. It establishes a new risk management plan that
protects farm income when margins shrink dangerously, and a
stabilization program to allow farmers to take a proactive role in
easing the instability in our dairy markets. And it accomplishes this
at a lower cost than the current program that it replaces while
contributing to the savings to this bill. It is a voluntary program,
and can be tailored by the farmer to fit their individual needs.
Dairy is Vermont's largest agricultural commodity. Dairy products
account for upward of 83 percent--or 90 percent depending on market
prices--of Vermont's agricultural products sales. I am proud the dairy
farmers of Vermont have had a voice in developing this farm bill, and
enacting it is going to bring long-needed relief to the industry.
I hope that the House can now come together in a bipartisan way, just
as we did in the Senate, to quickly pass a bipartisan Farm Bill.
Republicans and Democrats alike came together in this body, so surely
it can be done. We know the impact of this legislation goes well beyond
our farms and forests to our economy, our families, and our kitchen
tables.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S4408]]
Tribute to Governor Gaston Caperton
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate former West
Virginia Gov. Gaston Caperton on 30 years of outstanding leadership as
the president of the College Board.
It is my privilege to honor Governor Caperton, a native of
Charleston, WV, for his leadership in the field of education. Governor
Caperton's own childhood experience instilled in him the importance of
education at a very young age. As a child who struggled with dyslexia,
he was able to overcome the hurdles he faced in the classroom and truly
achieve educational excellence. He earned his bachelor's degree in
business from the University of North Carolina and has taught at
prestigious institutions, including Harvard and Columbia University. He
also holds 10 honorary doctoral degrees.
Governor Caperton returned to the great State of West Virginia and
served as Governor from 1989 to 1997. During his two terms in office,
Governor Caperton made education a top priority and improved the lives
of thousands of West Virginia students. He supported an $800 million
school renovation program that directly benefited two-thirds of West
Virginia's public school students, facilitating classroom upgrades and
additional renovations in all of our schools. Governor Caperton has
been recognized nationally for working to upgrade our State's classroom
technology to keep West Virginia students competitive in an
increasingly global economy. In addition, he helped raise teacher
salaries from 49th place to 31st place in the Nation.
Governor Caperton's leadership in education left a lasting legacy in
our State, and I am so proud of the work he did for West Virginia
schools and all of our students.
In 1999 Gaston Caperton was appointed the eighth president of the
College Board. Over the past 13 years Governor Caperton has done such
important work to make higher education available to a greater number
of students, especially those from underserved areas, and that is truly
something of which to be proud. No matter their background, we need to
do all we can to help our students achieve a higher level of education
if we are going to create the jobs and train the workforce that makes
America the greatest Nation in the world.
Since 1999 the College Board has reached a total of 23,000 high
schools and 3,800 colleges and has served 7 million students and
parents. The organization continues to provide college preparatory
materials and has dramatically changed college entrance exams. In
addition, the College Board has enabled students' enrollment in
advanced placement courses, and Governor Caperton is responsible for
more than tripling the number of students from low-income backgrounds
taking AP courses.
Governor Caperton has continued to be a champion for students as he
supports financial aid policies and programs, while advocating for
tuition equity. From his tenure as Governor, to his work at Harvard and
Columbia Universities, to his 13 years of leadership at the College
Board, providing equal opportunities in the classroom has been the
driving force behind Gaston Caperton's career. I am proud to honor this
outstanding West Virginian and recognize his achievements in the field
of education. I am also extremely proud to call him my friend, as do
most all West Virginians.
Prescription Drug Abuse
Mr. President, I also rise today to express my deep concern and my
disappointment that the special interest groups who have a vested
financial interest have derailed a strong effort to fight prescription
drug abuse. It is an epidemic that is devastating communities all
across this Nation. They got their victory--but not at my expense. The
people who will pay the price are the young boys and girls in
communities all across this Nation who are seeing their families and
their schools and their neighborhoods wrecked by abuse and addiction.
What my amendment would do is simply this: It would require patients
to get a new prescription to get their pills refilled. What we have
right now in trying to schedule hydrocodone from a schedule III to a
schedule II is the ease of availability and the prescriptions that are
being refilled without any visits to their doctors. It is of an
epidemic proportion. The pills would have to be stored and transported
more securely, and traffickers would be subject to increased fines and
penalties.
I am not trying to put anyone out of business. In fighting for this
amendment, I asked anyone and everyone who was opposed to come to see
me, and if we could find a way to work together, we would do that. We
tried to accommodate the groups who were worried about additional
administrative costs, such as new security requirements for storing
hydrocodone, or additional paperwork that would come as a result of
rescheduling. But at the end of the day these groups seemed more
concerned with their business plans and the ability to sell more pills
than the responsibility we all have to protect the future of this
country and the future of the generation we are counting on to lead and
defend this country.
Since the moment the Senate adopted my hydrocodone rescheduling
amendment, lobbyists have been turning out in droves to fight this
effort to limit people's ability to get pills too easily and abuse
them. Yesterday these lobbyists got a victory when the House of
Representatives passed a compromise version of the FDA bill that does
not contain my amendment, and I assume the Senate will do the same.
Just a few weeks ago it was a different story. I was so proud when
the Senate unanimously adopted this amendment because this is a problem
that affects every single Member in every single State. I don't know of
a person in this country who doesn't have somebody in their immediate
family, extended family, or a close friend who has not been affected by
the abuse of prescription drugs. Where I come from, that is an
epidemic. It is an epidemic we all have and we all are facing. In fact,
prescription drug abuse is responsible for about 75 percent of drug-
related deaths in the United States and 90 percent in my State of West
Virginia. According to the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy, prescription drug abuse is the fastest growing drug problem in
the United States, and it is claiming the lives of thousands of
Americans every day.
I understand that limiting access to hydrocodone pills doesn't
necessarily fit into the model of selling more product, but I also
understand this: We have a responsibility to this Nation and, most
importantly, to the next generation to win the war on drugs.
I have been a businessperson all of my life. I understand that in
business one has to have a good business plan to be successful. One
should also have the ability to alter that plan when necessary, while
still being successful. I assure my colleagues that this is one of
those necessary times. The health of our country and the public good
are at stake.
I am hearing on a daily basis from people and businesses--small,
medium-sized, and large--that are having a hard time finding qualified
workers--qualified workers who can pass a drug test.
We have folks who cannot get the type of education they need to be
part of the workforce of the 21st century because they are drug
impaired.
I have been in Washington a short time compared to some of my
colleagues, but I have been here long enough to know the pressures
Members face around here when special interest groups get entrenched--
it is no different in the Presiding Officer's beautiful State of
Delaware and my State of West Virginia--and it does not look like my
amendment will go into this bill. But I can assure you, it will not go
away and neither will the problem of drug abuse. I am determined to see
this thing through. This measure will pass. It might not be this year,
it might not be next year, but I assure you it will pass.
Until we do something, there are going to be families who are
separated and torn apart because of drug abuse and little kids who come
to me and the Chair and plead for help because their daddy is addicted
or their mother is hooked on drugs or they have had a brother or a
sister or a friend who has overdosed or died.
I do not pretend this amendment will solve the entire problem of
prescription drug abuse. But when every law enforcement agency--listen,
every law enforcement agency in America, every
[[Page S4409]]
one of them to a T, which we rely on to fight the war on drugs--has
supported this amendment openly and spoken out loudly and clearly that
it would help them tremendously, I do not know how we can ignore this
problem much longer.
The fact is we must act. I can assure you that working together, as
we do, we will find a way to move forward with this vital piece of
legislation.
I promise the Presiding Officer this: I will continue to fight this
war on drugs with him, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same.
This is a war we cannot afford to lose.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. I thank the Chair.
A Second Opinion
Mr. President, I come to the floor to do what I have done week after
week since the health care bill was signed into law by President Obama,
to offer a doctor's second opinion about the health care law, a law
that I believe is bad for patients, bad for providers--the nurses and
the doctors who take care of those patients--and I believe it is
terrible for the American taxpayers.
I come to the floor because the Supreme Court is soon going to rule
on the constitutionality of the President's health care law.
The Court's decision will revolve around, primarily, the individual
mandate, the component of the law requiring all individuals to purchase
not just health insurance but government-approved health insurance.
Never in the history of this country has the Federal Government
required individuals to purchase a product, to come into our homes and
tell us we must buy a government-approved product. Why? Simply because
we happen to be a citizen of the United States.
The American people are not happy with this mandate. As a matter of
fact, a recent Gallup poll found that 72 percent of Americans believe
the mandate is unconstitutional. The results of the Gallup poll,
however, are not surprising.
As I travel across Wyoming, I hear constantly from people who are
opposed to the mandate.
It is not just the mandate they are opposed to. But, specifically,
the mandate is what brings people all across the country together to be
opposed to the law.
It is interesting when I go and have meetings and talk to folks. I
will ask them: Under the President's health care law--remember, the one
where he promised insurance rates would drop by $2,500 per family--how
many of you actually believe your own insurance rates will go up, and
every hand goes up.
Then, when I ask: How many of you think the quality and availability
of care for you and your family is going to go down, again, the hands
go up.
It is not just the mandate; it is the entire health care law that is
a problem for patients and providers and the taxpayers.
But the mandate is interesting. I bring this to the attention of the
Senate because President Obama, at one point, was opposed to the
mandate. When he was running for President, during his campaign for the
White House, then the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Obama, quipped: ``If a
mandate was the solution, we can try to solve homelessness by mandating
everybody to buy a house.''
Now the President's tune has obviously changed.
I believe the mandate is unconstitutional. I believe if the Court
strikes down the mandate, the rest of the law should also be found
unconstitutional.
During the health care debate 2 years ago, supporters of the law
repeatedly stated--repeatedly stated--that the mandate was an essential
component of the law. So let's review what folks have said.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Attorney
General Eric Holder, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, wrote:
``Without an individual responsibility provision''--is what they called
the individual mandate--the law ``doesn't work.''
The law ``doesn't work.''
Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came to this same conclusion. In two
separate blog posts, she stated that without the individual mandate,
the math, she said, behind the health care law does not work.
The current chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Baucus,
also came to this same conclusion during the debate on the health care
law.
During a committee hearing, Chairman Baucus stated that allowing
individuals to opt out of the individual mandate would ``strike at the
heart of health care reform.''
Finally, Senate Democrats in their amicus curiae brief filed with the
Supreme Court argued that the individual mandate is an ``integral
part'' of the health care law.
It seems to me that supporters of the law from the very beginning of
this debate recognized that without the individual mandate, the rest of
the health care law would need to go away.
Now it seems Washington Democrats are changing their tune and coming
to a different conclusion.
In a story published by the Associated Press on June 18 of this year,
it was reported that ``the Obama Administration plans to move ahead
with major parts of the President's health care law if its most
controversial provision''--obviously, the individual mandate--``does
not survive.'' In fact, an anonymous, high-level Democratic official
declared that the administration would move ``full speed ahead'' with
implementation of the health care law.
It seems the administration only views the mandate as essential when
it is politically convenient.
As I have stated many times before, I believe the entire health care
law needs to be completely repealed and replaced. This law does not
address runaway health care spending, it increases taxes, and it hurts
job creation at a time of 8.2 percent unemployment across the country,
at a time when college graduates are moving back home because they
cannot find work, when people are underemployed, people have given up
looking for work. Yet the health care law adds to the costs and adds to
the uncertainty of these uncertain times and a weak economy.
The American people want a healthy economy, and this health care law
is making it worse. If the law's individual mandate is struck down, the
President should not implement whatever is left standing. Instead, he
should work with Congress--both sides of the aisle--to implement
commonsense, step-by-step reforms that will actually lower the cost of
health care for all Americans.
It seems to be lost on many that the original goal of health care
reform was actually to lower the cost of care. It is what the President
talked about in his initial speech to the joint session of Congress.
But it is something that was ignored when the 2,700-page health care
law was presented to Congress and the American people.
Americans know what they want. They know what they have been looking
for in a health care law, and this is not it. Americans deserve a law
that helps them get the care they need, from the doctor they choose--
not that the government chooses, not that the insurance company
chooses: the doctor they choose--and at lower cost.
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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________