[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.

                          ____________________