[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 164 (Wednesday, December 19, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8169-S8179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT--Continued


                             the Farm Bill

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I also wish to speak about the 
importance of passing a farm bill today and thank the Senator from 
Texas for her support as we passed a strong bipartisan farm bill in the 
Senate back in June when sent it over it the House of Representatives.
  We have had 80 days since the farm bill expired. That is 80 days that 
farm families and small businesses have been holding their breath and 
wanting to know what is going to happen in rural America and 
agriculture across the country. I have not given up, nor have other 
colleagues here. Certainly, my partner here in the Senate, Senator 
Roberts, and our partners in the House, including Chairman Lucas and

[[Page S8170]]

Ranking Member Peterson, all stand ready if we can get a positive 
signal from the House Republican leadership to get this done. There is 
no doubt in my mind that we can do it. For everyone listening, the 
issue is not differences in the commodity title, which I have every 
confidence we can come together on and work out; the question is, as we 
are seeing efforts being worked on for a larger deficit reduction 
package, whether the House leadership will think rural America and 
agriculture are important enough to include. That is the question. It 
is whether the savings we have achieved in deficit reduction by 
eliminating unwarranted taxpayer subsidies and creating other 
efficiencies and tackling waste, fraud, and abuse, whether that is 
worthy of a priority in the effort that is being worked on. We have 
continued to point out the fact that the 16 million people across 
America who work because of agriculture deserve to be a priority.
  I thank our leadership and the leadership across the aisle for making 
it a priority of this Senate back in June. I thank my colleagues on the 
committee in the House for making it a priority and for passing a 
bipartisan bill in July. For the life of me--I am appalled continually 
that the Republican leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives 
does not consider the security and the livelihood of 16 million people 
who live in rural America across this country to be a priority.
  We are including a final list of things that need to get done. We are 
not giving up. We are coming back next week, and we are going to be 
here, and we are ready at any moment to be able to do what we need to 
do.
  Across this aisle, colleagues have worked in good faith in the 
Senate, and I am very grateful. I appreciate the support of the 
Presiding Officer in urging that we get this done. We have colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle who have come together to make tough 
decisions. We are willing to make some more, but we are not willing to 
give up on 16 million people who live in rural communities--small towns 
such as where I grew up in Claire, MI--who are counting on us to do the 
right thing and to give them the ability to plan, the ability to get 
help for the disasters they have seen, and the ability to know they can 
move forward and care for their families.
  We have a disaster bill right now on the floor. As chair of the 
Agriculture Committee, there is no way I am going to allow a disaster 
amendment without being able to offer an amendment that relates to 
agriculture disaster which we have fully paid for in the farm bill.
  So we are willing to do two tracks here if we come together, which I 
hope we will, on a disaster package. Certainly, people in rural 
America--farmers, ranchers across this country--have felt the disasters 
other communities have felt. So I am proud to join with Senator Merkley 
and Senator McCaskill and others in putting forward the portions of the 
farm bill that deal with disaster relief as part of this package which 
is now moving forward. I hope we will have an opportunity to vote and 
come together on that, which is so important. That does not negate the 
need to get a farm bill done or our desire to do that or the fact that 
we are laser-focused until the last moment we have available on getting 
it done.
  Let me remind my colleagues that farming is the riskiest business in 
the world. There are a lot of risky things we can do. There are a lot 
of disasters that have happened.
  I was pleased to have the opportunity to join with our colleague from 
New Jersey, Senator Menendez, last week to visit some of the coastline 
in New Jersey and to be a part of a group that looked at the 
devastation there. And there is no question, it is up to our country at 
times such as these, when people are wiped out, their homes are wiped 
out, it is our responsibility to come together and to act on behalf of 
citizens in those States. I strongly support doing that. It is also our 
responsibility to acknowledge and recognize and help others around the 
country who have similar disasters.
  As I said before, there is no business that is riskier than farming. 
Thank goodness we have people who are willing to stay in farming and 
ranching regardless of what happens with the weather. Thank goodness we 
have a strong crop insurance system in place, and we strengthened that 
even more, which is incredibly important, in this farm bill. But we 
have had disasters happen that need to be addressed for those who farm 
for us.
  In the spring we experienced late freezes in Michigan and in New York 
and in Pennsylvania that wiped out food crops. A lot of small family 
farms, farms in northern Michigan, were wiped out. In my home State, 
late freezes and a spring frost caused them to lose practically their 
entire crop right off the bat. It warmed up, the buds came out, and 
then they had a deep freeze that killed everything. Our growers produce 
75 percent of the U.S. supply of cherries. That is around 270 million 
pounds. The cherry producers experienced a 98-percent loss.
  In our amendment in the disaster bill and in the farm bill, we give 
them some help because they spent the rest of the crop year this year 
having to pay to maintain the orchards and the trees, eating the costs 
and hoping the trees will bounce back next year and produce a crop. So 
they have all the costs of maintaining everything but no revenue coming 
in.
  Cherry producers were also forced to fight spreading diseases such as 
cherry leaf spot and bacterial canker, making the trees even more 
costly to maintain and at risk of loss. They didn't just lose their 
crop this year; they had to invest a lot of money to save their 
orchards without having any dollars coming in. We give them some help. 
It doesn't cover all the losses but some help to be able to stay in 
business. We do that through the farm bill.
  Apple producers in most areas of Michigan and in New York and in 
Pennsylvania had about a 40-percent production, so they lost 60 
percent. Think about a business losing 60 percent of its income for a 
year or, in the case of cherries, 98 percent. We have things in place 
to support them when that happens. That is why we have disaster 
assistance, and that is why we have other things as well. We have 
something called the farm bill when things like this happen in 
agriculture or disaster assistance for agriculture, as we are proposing 
assistance for.
  Also, in the summer we saw record-breaking drought, as we know. We 
heard story after story about families whose crops were left withering 
in the fields, entire corn crops devastated in Iowa, and wildfires in 
Colorado killing 2 people and forcing residents to evacuate over 34,000 
homes. Drought and wildfires cost the State of Oklahoma more than $400 
million this year alone according to a report that has just been 
produced by Oklahoma State University. That includes crops and 
livestock, property loss from wildfires, and emergency costs.
  I have heard so many times from my friend, the distinguished ranking 
member from Kansas, about what has happened in Kansas. We had the 
opportunity to be there and to hear from people directly in Kansas. My 
staff has walked in the field and seen that there is nothing there 
because of the drought and what it means.
  This year represented the worst drought since 1956. That is a 
disaster. At the height of the drought this summer, over 80 percent of 
the contiguous United States experienced drought conditions--80 
percent. We still have 11 States with exceptional drought conditions 
and 17 States with severe drought conditions. Seventeen States across 
the country, in the Northeast, the Midwest, the South, the Great 
Plains, the Southwest, and on the west coast--every region except the 
Pacific Northwest has suffered from long-term drought.
  Sixty percent of the farms in the United States experienced drought 
this year, and we saw severe droughts in 57 percent of farmland acres. 
By the end of this last October, over half of the pastures and ranges 
in the United States were rated poor to very poor. And 1,692 counties 
in the country, spread across 36 States, were declared a primary 
disaster area because of the drought.
  By the way, there are a whole lot of issues around weather that we 
need to be talking about and dealing with, and we need to be doing that 
in the new year.
  So this is what is happening for farmers and ranchers. On May 20 only 
3 percent of our corn crop was rated poor or very poor, but by the end 
of September over 50 percent was rated poor or very

[[Page S8171]]

poor. Our cattle inventories were at a 60-year low as farmers and 
ranchers have had to sell off their breeding stock because they don't 
have the hay or grazing land to feed them. Low water levels in the 
Mississippi are affecting grain shipments, threatening to affect 
shipments early next year as farmers try to plant their crops. We have 
seen reports that grain is piling up in elevators while farmers try to 
figure out alternative routes of shipping their products to market.
  Hurricane Isaac left hundreds of thousands of acres underwater. 
Hurricane Isaac caused destruction like nothing we could have imagined. 
As I said, I saw the damage up close from Hurricane Sandy. Weather 
disasters have destroyed millions of acres of farmland and affected 
millions of families in every State and corner of this country.
  We are considering a disaster bill today. Well, the farm bill is a 
disaster bill because it not only has disaster assistance but it 
creates 5-year certainty for our growers, who deserve it. They deserve 
to know what is going to be happening. They deserve to know so they can 
go to the banker and talk about their financing for the coming crop 
year and be able to plan as well as get immediate help.
  I support passing a disaster bill, and agriculture should be a part 
of this, but it is not enough. We need to do that, and we need to have 
a 5-year farm bill in order to create the certainty we need.
  We have spent so much time focusing on how we move forward with 
agriculture today and create the right kind of risk management tools 
for the future. I am very proud of what we have been able to do.
  We--the members of the Agriculture Committees--have also been, 
frankly, the only committee to step up voluntarily and say: We will put 
money on the table for deficit reduction. We did it during deficit 
reduction talks. We have done it in the House and the Senate as we have 
written the farm bills. We are willing to be a part of the solution. We 
are part of the solution.
  One of the things I find very frustrating is that if, in fact, it 
doesn't get done this year, those who don't want reform, those who want 
government payments even in good times may very well get another year 
of government payments that we can't afford and taxpayers should not be 
paying for. So this really is about reform.
  I hear colleagues talking on the other side of the aisle all the time 
about the things we shouldn't be doing and the things we shouldn't be 
paying for. Well, I would encourage them to join us in the fight to get 
a farm bill done to stop an area where we have all agreed we should not 
be providing government payments in the area of direct payments. I know 
there are those in the House who want to keep that going as long as 
possible, but it is not right in an era when we have to make tough 
choices for families and every other part of the budget to allow that 
to happen.
  We passed a reform bill. We tackled fraud and abuse in nutrition. We 
consolidated conservation and saved money. We tackled payments that 
have been given out for years that don't make sense and that the 
government can't afford. We listened to farmers to strengthen risk 
management tools, predominantly crop insurance. With all the weather 
disasters I have described this year, if we can strengthen crop 
insurance, we are going to give them a better safety net going forward 
for whatever comes in the coming year.
  So there is a lot on the line. There is a lot on the line for 16 
million people who have jobs because of agriculture and the food 
industry. There is a lot on the line for people who go to the grocery 
store and eat and want to know food prices are not going to go up, that 
milk prices are not going to go up. There is a lot on the line for 
people who just want us to come together and work together. In light of 
everything going on, we did that kind of a farm bill. They did that in 
the House in committee.
  All the Speaker and the leadership have to do is say: We care about 
rural America. We care about 16 million people who work every day, who 
are folks who do their jobs, and when the job has to get done, whether 
it is early in the morning or late at night, they do it, and they 
expect us to do the same thing.
  There is no excuse--none--that makes any sense not to get a 5-year 
farm bill done, not to make sure we have the disaster assistance that 
is needed for farmers and ranchers, and not to get reforms that cut 
back on taxpayer subsidies we should not be providing, and the deficit 
reduction that is critically important as we come up to this fiscal 
cliff.
  I wish to thank everyone in this body for working with us to get a 
bill done of which I think we should all be very proud. We are going to 
continue to push as we go forward, hoping that at some moment the House 
Republican leadership will look around at the small towns in their 
districts and decide they matter and that they will pass a 5-year farm 
bill.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                              Chained CPI

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as we continue to debate how to prevent 
this so-called fiscal cliff and how to go forward in deficit reduction, 
my Republican friends, apparently, want the American people to believe 
that making the wealthiest people in this country pay a few dollars 
more in taxes would amount to some kind of terrible sacrifice, and they 
are vigorous and unanimous in opposing the President's initial proposal 
to do away with all of Bush's tax breaks for people making $250,000 a 
year or more. I guess their new proposal coming out of the House is 
that only people making $1 million a year or more would see their tax 
rates go up.
  Let me say a word about hardship and a word about sacrifice and it is 
not about the problems of millionaires and billionaires who are doing 
phenomenally well and who are being asked to pay a few dollars more to 
help us deal with deficit reduction, at a time when their tax rates are 
at a historically low rate. Let me tell you about sacrifice, and let me 
tell you about on whom we should not be balancing the budget.
  This morning, in the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I held a press 
conference, which included every major veterans organization in this 
country, representing millions and millions of veterans, people who 
have put their lives on the line to defend our country and many of whom 
have suffered as a result.
  The organizations that were there with me to say no to the so-called 
chained CPI--which would cut benefits for disabled veterans, which 
would cut benefits for widows and kids who lost their husband or their 
father in Iraq or Afghanistan and would see a chained CPI cut back on 
their limited benefits--we had at this press conference the American 
Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, 
the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of 
America, the Blinded Veterans Association, the Wounded Warrior Project, 
the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the National Military Family 
Association, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the National Guard 
Association, the National Association of Uniform Services, the Jewish 
War Veterans, the Military Officers Association of America, AMVETS, the 
Association of the United States Army, the Commissioned Officers 
Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, the Naval Enlisted 
Reserve Association, the United Spinal Association, VetsFirst.
  What all of them said--and some of them made this statement far more 
poignantly than I can--is when we talk about sacrifice, they are there; 
they have already done it. Some of them have come back from our wars 
without arms or legs or maybe they have lost their eyesight. They have 
sacrificed, and it is morally absurd to be equating on one hand the 
sacrifice of a multimillionaire, asking him to pay a few dollars more 
in taxes, with asking people who have lost their limbs defending this 
country to make a sacrifice. That is not equivalent sacrifice.
  Let me talk about this so-called chained CPI. I know there are some 
folks out there--and I think we have had Wall Street CEOs worth 
hundreds of millions of dollars, who were bailed out by the taxpayers 
of this country, who have the most extravagant retirement benefits 
imaginable--they have come to Washington, DC, to tell Congress we 
should cut Social Security

[[Page S8172]]

benefits for disabled veterans, raise taxes on low-income workers.
  Let me tell you what this--what some call a tweak--would do. In terms 
of the chained CPI, more than 3.2 million disabled veterans receive 
disability compensation from the Veterans' Administration--3.2 million 
veterans. They would see a reduction--a significant reduction--in their 
benefits. Under the chained CPI, a disabled veteran who started 
receiving VA disability benefits at age 30 would have their benefits 
cut by more than $1,400 at age 45, $2,300 at age 55, and $3,200 at age 
65.
  Does anybody in their right mind think the American people want to 
see benefits cut for men and women who sacrificed, who lost limbs 
defending their country? Are we going to balance the budget on their 
backs?
  I challenge anyone who supports a chained CPI to go to Walter Reed 
hospital, visit with the men and women who have lost their legs, lost 
their arms, lost their eyesight as a result of their service in 
Afghanistan or Iraq. Come Veterans Day and come Memorial Day, all the 
politicians go out and give speeches of how much we love our veterans. 
It is great to give a good speech on Memorial Day or Veterans Day but 
what about standing up for them now?
  I know the Wall Street CEOs and the big money lobbyists are 
descending on Washington trying to protect the wealthy and the 
powerful. But maybe now is the time--not just Veterans Day, not just 
Memorial Day--that we stand with veterans, we stand with disabled 
veterans. They have sacrificed, and I think it is unseemly, I think it 
is immoral to be balancing the budget on their backs.
  We have also made a commitment to the surviving spouses and children 
who have lost a loved one in battle by providing them with Dependency 
Indemnity Compensation benefits that average less than $17,000 a year. 
Do my colleagues truly think we should be cutting benefits for 
surviving spouses who lost their husband in Iraq or Afghanistan?
  Further, we have made a promise to every American; that is, that 
above and beyond benefits for disabled vets, what we have said is a 
couple things: For those who are older, we have said Social Security 
will be there for them in their old age, in their time of need or if 
they become disabled, and we have said those benefits will also keep up 
with inflation.
  Today, over 9 million veterans receive Social Security benefits as 
part of the tens of millions of Americans who receive Social Security, 
and more than 770,000 veterans receive Social Security disability 
benefits.
  We are talking now about the ``Greatest generation,'' the people who 
saved this country in World War II. I just met last week--and it chokes 
me up every time I meet these guys--a fellow from Winooski, VT, who was 
in the Battle of the Bulge, that hugely important battle at the end of 
World War II to stop the Nazi advance. He was also at Normandy.
  Do you truly want to balance the budget on his back?
  We are talking about the brave men and women who served in Korea, 
Vietnam, and other conflicts as well.
  Let us be clear what this chained CPI would do because I think there 
are some people--I guess if someone is a Wall Street CEO guy and is 
making millions of dollars a year and has a great retirement package, 
when we are talking about hundreds of dollars a year, that is what they 
use for lunch. They do not have to worry about keeping their house warm 
or buying food. That is not within their world view.
  Under the chained CPI--we should all understand this is no small 
tweak; this is not some administrative issue--under the chained CPI, 
average seniors who retire at age 65 would see their Social Security 
benefits cut by about $650 a year when they reach age 75. Again, I 
understand if someone is a Wall Street CEO, if one is a millionaire, 
hey, $650 a year is not a lot of money. But let me tell you, if you are 
a senior citizen living in Vermont or Minnesota and you have to worry 
about heating your home, you have to worry about putting gas in your 
car, you have to worry about prescription drugs, $650 a year is a lot 
of money, if you are living on $15-, $16-, $18,000 a year of income, 
most of that coming from Social Security. So if you retire at age 65, 
it is about a $650 cut when you reach age 75, and it is more than 
$1,000 a year when you turn 85.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a chart which 
talks about annual cuts in Social Security benefits under the chained 
CPI.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S8173]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS19DE12.001


  Mr. SANDERS. What the chart shows is that at age 75 the cut would be 
$653, a 3.7-percent cut; at age 85 it would be $1,139, a 6.5-percent 
cut; and at age 95, it would be $1,1611, a 9.2-percent cut.
  The rich are getting richer. We have growing wealth and income 
inequality in America. The wealthiest people in this country are paying 
the lowest effective tax rate in decades. We are going to balance the 
budget on the backs of seniors trying to get by on $15,000, $18,000 a 
year? Is that what this Congress stands for? I certainly hope not.
  The fact of the matter is, the current formula for calculating COLAs 
is not too generous. And whenever I speak in Vermont, I say to 
seniors--and I speak to them quite often--there are some folks in 
Washington who think that your COLA--the formulation and how we reach a 
COLA for you--is too generous. Do you know what happens. They laugh. 
They invariably break out in laughter because they know that in the 
last 3 years, two out of those years they got zero COLA. They know this 
year they are going to get a 1.7-percent

[[Page S8174]]

COLA, which is one of the lowest COLA increases ever.
  They also know the current formulation for a COLA does not fully take 
into account the escalating costs of prescription drugs and health 
care, which is where most seniors spend their money. They are not 
spending their money on flat-screen TVs or iPhones or iPads. They are 
spending their money heating their homes, buying food, paying for 
prescription drugs, and paying for health care. These costs are going 
up much faster than general inflation. I think what most economists 
would tell you is that the current formulation for determining COLAs 
with Social Security is inadequate, too low, rather than, as the 
advocates of the chained CPI would suggest, that they are too high.
  Furthermore--this has not been widely discussed--moving to a chained 
CPI would also result in an across-the-board tax increase of more than 
$60 billion over the next 10 years that will disproportionately hurt 
low-income and middle-income families the most. In fact, two-thirds of 
the tax increase under a chained CPI would impact Americans earning 
less than $100,000 a year, and many would be impacted by losing the 
earned income tax credit and the childcare tax credit.
  Maybe I am missing something, but I thought I heard from the White 
House and here on the floor of the Senate that we are not going to 
raise taxes for people earning less than $250,000 a year. Maybe I am 
wrong. But I thought I heard that many times. Well, if you vote for the 
chained CPI, in fact you are raising taxes on a whole lot of people, 
including low-income working families. Under the chained CPI, low-
income workers would see their taxes go up by 14\1/2\ percent, mainly 
by cutting the earned income tax credit and the refundable childcare 
tax credit. So if we are going to keep faith with what we have said 
here, I say to my Democratic and Republican friends: No tax increases 
for workers making less than $250,000 a year. We better reject this 
chained CPI.
  Furthermore, I must tell you that I am disappointed, because I 
thought I heard a few weeks ago my friends in the White House telling 
us that Social Security--telling us truthfully, correctly--has nothing 
to do with deficit reduction, because Social Security is funded by the 
payroll tax, and that Social Security should be off the table in terms 
of deficit reduction. I heard that many, many times. So I wonder how 
Social Security has suddenly gotten back on the table, including a 
chained CPI, with devastating cuts to seniors and disabled vets.
  I think we should deal with Social Security. I think Senator Dick 
Durbin made a good point: Let's deal with it. Let's deal with it 
separately. Let's determine how, in a fair way, we can make Social 
Security solvent for the next 50 or 75 years without cutting benefits.
  I have ideas on that, Senator Begich has ideas on that, Senator 
Harkin and others. And the Presiding Officer has been thinking about 
ways that we make Social Security solvent and strong for 75 years 
without cutting benefits. Let's have that discussion, but not as part 
of a deficit reduction bill when Social Security has had nothing to do 
with deficit reduction.
  I do not often quote Ronald Reagan, but this is what Ronald Reagan 
said on October 7, 1984. He was absolutely right. Ronald Reagan:

       Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social 
     Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on 
     employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social 
     Security, that money would not go into the general fund to 
     reduce the deficit, it would go into the Social Security 
     Trust Fund, so Social Security has nothing to do with 
     planning the budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.

  October 7, 1984. Reagan was right. I have to tell you that when 
Barack Obama was campaigning for President in 2008, he told the AARP on 
September 6, 2008, that:

       John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer 
     for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut 
     cost of living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let 
     me be clear. I will do neither.

  September 6, 2008, Barack Obama. One of the astounding things about 
Congress and the inside-the-beltway mentality is how out of touch it is 
with what the American people are thinking and what the American people 
are believing. Yesterday there was a poll in the Washington Post. I ask 
unanimous consent that that poll be printed at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1).
  MR. SANDERS. What that poll said--I hope my colleagues are 
listening--this is yesterday in the Washington Post, and this is 
absolutely consistent with every other poll I have seen--60 percent of 
the American people believe it would be unacceptable to change the way 
Social Security benefits are calculated so that benefits increase at a 
slower rate than they do now in order to strike a budget deal. Only 34 
percent would find this acceptable. Sixty percent of the American 
people believe it would be unacceptable to raise the age of Medicare 
eligibility, 68 percent of the American people believe it would be 
unacceptable to cut spending on Medicaid. But 74 percent of the 
American people said in this poll that they would accept raising taxes 
on Americans with incomes of over $250,000 a year. This is consistent 
with every other poll that is out there. The American people are 
saying: Wait a minute. The middle class, the working class is hurting. 
Do not cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. That is what they said 
yesterday in the poll.
  What they also said, at a time when the rich are getting richer, yes, 
they should be asked to contribute more in taxes. I mentioned earlier 
that to the best of my knowledge, every single veterans organization 
has made it clear that they are strongly opposed to the so-called 
chained CPI, which would cut benefits for disabled vets.
  The AARP and the every other seniors organization, including the 
groups to protect Social Security, the National Committee to Protect 
Social Security and Medicare, and others are saying do not cut Social 
Security benefits. The AFL-CIO has been very vigorous in protecting 
working families and saying do not cut Social Security, do not cut 
Medicare, do not cut Medicaid.
  Here we are, the American people overwhelmingly want the wealthy to 
pay more in taxes and not cut Social Security and Medicare and 
Medicaid, organizations representing tens of millions of people are 
saying, ask the wealthy to pay more in taxes, not cut Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid.
  What are we talking about here? We are talking about cutting Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and asking the wealthy to pay more 
but nowhere near as much as they should be asked to pay.
  We wonder. We wonder why Congress has a 9-percent favorability 
rating. I will tell you that my phones today--and I do not think this 
is an organized effort, by the way--my phones in my office--and you 
might want to check your offices, but my office phones are bouncing off 
the hook from people in Vermont and all over this country saying: Do 
not cut Social Security.
  So I would say to the American people, right now a deal is being 
hatched which would cut Social Security and benefits for disabled 
veterans, raising taxes on low-income workers. If you think that is a 
bad idea, you might want to get ahold of your Senator or Member of the 
House.
  Let me conclude by saying, in my view, deficit reduction is a serious 
issue. We, as you know, have already cut $1.5 trillion in programs as a 
result of the agreements in 2010 and 2011, and up to this point the 
millionaires and billionaires have not contributed one nickel--one 
nickel--more in taxes. So deficit reduction is a serious issue. I look 
forward to playing an active role in making sure that we address that 
serious problem. But I will do everything in my power to make sure we 
do not balance the budget on the backs of veterans, the elderly, the 
children, the sick, and the poor, and low-income working people

                              (Exhibit 1)

    Public Wants Compromise on Fiscal Cliff, But Specifics Unpopular


                             In this poll:

       With the end of the year approaching, Americans give Obama 
     his highest approval ratings in over a year and key 
     advantages over Republicans in the battle over the so-called 
     `fiscal cliff.' Still, majorities say both Obama and 
     Republicans are not willing enough to compromise to reach a 
     deal.

[[Page S8175]]

                             Poll Questions

       Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama Is 
     handling his job as president?
       APPROVE--54%
       DISAPPROVE--42
       Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is 
     handling the economy?
       APPROVE--50%
       DISAPPROVE--48
       Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is 
     handling taxes?
       APPROVE--48%
       DISAPPROVE--45
       Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is 
     handling Budget negotiations to avoid the so-called `fiscal 
     cliff'?
       APPROVE--45%
       DISAPPROVE--43
       Q. Do you think Obama has a mandate to carry out the agenda 
     he presented during the presidential campaign, or should he 
     compromise on the things the Republicans strongly oppose?
       OBAMA HAS MANDATE TO CARRY OUT AGENDA--34%
       OBAMA SHOULD COMPROMISE--56
       Q: Which comes closest to describing the way you feel about 
     the outcome of the 2012 presidential election: enthusiastic, 
     satisfied but not enthusiastic, dissatisfied but not angry or 
     angry?
       Enthusiastic--23%; Satisfied but not enthusiastic--31; 
     Dissatisfied but not angry--31; No opinion--2.
       Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way The Democrats in 
     Congress are doing their Job?
       APPROVE--39%
       DISAPPROVE--56
       Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way The Republicans 
     in Congress are doing their job?
       APPROVE--25%
       DISAPPROVE--70
       Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way the Republican 
     leaders of Congress are handling budget negotiations to avoid 
     the so-called `fiscal cliff'?
       APPROVE--26%
       DISAPPROVE--65
       Q: Who do you trust to do a better Job Coping with the main 
     problems the nation faces over the next few years--(Obama) or 
     (the Republicans in Congress)?
       Obama--50%; Republicans--35; (VOL) Both equally--1; (VOL) 
     Neither--11; No opinion--3.
       Q: Who do you trust to do a better job Handling the 
     economy--(Obama) or (the Republicans in Congress)?
       Obama--54%; Republicans in Congress--36; (VOL) Both 
     equally--1; (VOL) Neither--7; No opinion--1.
       Q: Who do you trust to do a better job Protecting the 
     middle class--(Obama) or (the Republicans In Congress)?
       Obama--58%; Republicans in Congress--32; (VOL) Both 
     equally--1; (VOL) Neither--7; No opinion--3.
       Q: Who do you trust to do a better job Handling taxes--
     (Obama) or (the Republicans in Congress)?
       Obama--46%; Republicans in Congress--42; (VOL) Both 
     equally--1; (VOL) Neither--9; No opinion--3.
       Q: Who do you trust to do a better job Handling the federal 
     budget deficit--(Obama) or (the Republicans in Congress)?
       Obama--45%; Republicans in Congress--41; (VOL) Both 
     equally--2; (VOL) Neither--10; No opinion--3.
       Q: Overall, what do you think is the best way to reduce the 
     federal budget deficit--(by cutting federal spending), (by 
     increasing taxes) or by a combination of both?
       Cutting federal spending--29%; Increasing taxes--4; 
     Combination of both--65; No opinion--2.
       Q: If deficit reduction comes both from (cutting spending) 
     AND from (increasing taxes), should it be more from (cutting 
     spending), or more from (increasing taxes) or should it be 
     half from each?
       More from cutting spending--47%; More from increasing 
     taxes--10; Half from each--41; No opinion--2.
       Q: in order to strike a budget deal, would you accept 
     Cutting spending on Medicaid, which is the government health 
     insurance program for the poor or is this something you would 
     find unacceptable?
       ACCEPT--28%
       UNACCEPTABLE--68
       Q: In order to strike a budget deal that avoids the so-
     called `fiscal cliff', would you accept Cutting military 
     spending or is this something you would find unacceptable?
       ACCEPT--42%
       UNACCEPTABLE--55
       Q: In order to strike a budget deal that avoids the so-
     called `fiscal cliff', would you accept Raising taxes on 
     Americans with incomes over 250-thousand dollars a year or is 
     this something you would find unacceptable?
       ACCEPT--74%-
       UNACCEPTABLE--24
       Q: In order to strike a budget deal that avoids the so-
     called `fiscal cliff', would you accept Raising the age for 
     Medicare coverage from 65 to 67 or is this something you 
     would find unacceptable?
       ACCEPT--36%-
       UNACCEPTABLE--60
       Q: In order to strike a budget deal, would you accept 
     Changing the way Social Security benefits are calculated so 
     that benefits increase at a slower rate than they do now or 
     is this something you would find unacceptable?
       ACCEPT--34%-
       UNACCEPTABLE--60
       Q: In order to strike a budget deal, would you accept 
     Capping the amount of money people can claim in tax 
     deductions at no more than 50-thousand dollars a year or is 
     this something you would find unacceptable?
       ACCEPT--54%-
       UNACCEPTABLE--36
       Q: How likely do you think it is that (Obama) and 
     (Republicans in Congress) will agree on a budget plan that 
     avoids the fiscal cliff?
       Very likely--14%; Somewhat likely--38; Somewhat unlikely--
     26; Very unlikely--19; No opinion--2.
       Q. If a budget agreement is not reached, who do you think 
     will be mainly to blame--(the Republicans in Congress) or 
     (Obama)?
       Republicans in Congress)--47%; Obama--31; (VOL) Both--18; 
     (VOL) Neither--*; No opinion--3.
       Q: How concerned are you, if at all, about what may happen 
     to the national economy if Obama and Congress cannot reach a 
     budget agreement?
       Very concerned--58%; Somewhat concerned--30; Not too 
     concerned--7; Not concerned at all--3; No opinion--1.
       Q: How concerned are you, if at all, about what may happen 
     to your personal finances If Obama and Congress cannot reach 
     a budget agreement?
       Very concerned--48%; Somewhat concerned--32; Not too 
     concerned--11; Not concerned at all--10; No opinion--1.
       Q: How concerned are you, if at all, about what may happen 
     to the government's ability to operate effectively if Obama 
     and Congress cannot reach a budget agreement?
       Very concerned--48%; Somewhat concerned--30; Not too 
     concerned--11; Not concerned at all--9; No opinion--2.
       Q: How concerned are you, if at all, about what may happen 
     to the U.S. military if Obama and Congress cannot reach a 
     budget agreement?
       Very concerned--44%; Somewhat concerned--31; Not too 
     concerned--14; Not concerned at all--9; No opinion--2.
       Q: Has the leadership of the Republican Party been too 
     willing or not willing enough to compromise with Obama on the 
     budget deficit?
       Too willing--14%; Not willing enough--76; About right--2; 
     No opinion--8.
       Q: Has Obama been too willing or not willing enough to 
     compromise with the leadership of the Republican Party on the 
     budget deficit?
       Too willing--28%; Not willing enough--57; About right--5; 
     No opinion--10.
       Q: Generally speaking, do you usually think of yourself as 
     . . .?
       Democrat--31%; Republican--24; Independent--38.
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico.) The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for a period of up to 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Newtown, Connecticut Tragedy

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart. When we 
first heard of the horrific shooting in Newtown, CT, on Friday, it was 
impossible for me not to react, not just as a Senator but as a parent, 
as a father. And as my wife and I spent the weekend reflecting on the 
heartbreaking loss of 20 innocent children and 6 of their teachers and 
faculty, as we talked to our own 3 young children about what had 
happened, we thought about the grief and the anguish for a whole range 
of different parents deeply touched by this tragic incident.
  The first, of course, are the parents who lost their precious 
innocent children, their 6- and 7-year-olds in the massacre at Sandy 
Hook Elementary School last Friday. Joel and JoAnn Bacon lost their 
precocious, outgoing, red-haired daughter Charlotte, just 6 years old. 
JoAnn had recently bought Charlotte a new holiday dress in her favorite 
color--pink--and a pair of white boots. Charlotte had begged and begged 
to wear her new outfit early, and on Friday, December 14, the last day 
of Charlotte's young life, her mother JoAnn agreed.
  Steve and Rebecca Kowalski lost their active and athletic 7-year-old 
son Chase. Just 2 days before the shooting, Chase's next-door neighbor 
had asked him what he wanted for Christmas, and I understand he pointed 
to his two missing front teeth.
  Any of us who have had the special blessing and joy of raising young 
children, especially at holiday time, can

[[Page S8176]]

only imagine the unbearable sorrow of these families who now and 
forever will have a child-sized hole in their hearts and their lives.
  We offer you whatever small measure of comfort we can in knowing that 
you are not alone, that all across this country and around the world 
people pray for your healing, and we all hope that with time you and 
your families can come to understand and live through the grief of this 
moment.
  We also think of other parents, parents who years before raised their 
young adult children to give back to their community and the next 
generation--young adults who chose to become teachers. In addition to 
the heroics of school principal Dawn Hochsprung, school psychologist 
Mary Sherlach, and teacher Anne Marie Murphy, a mother of four herself, 
three other very young teachers gave their lives to protect the 
students in their care: Lauren Rousseau, a 30-year-old substitute 
teacher; Victoria Soto, a heroic 27-year-old teacher; and Rachel 
Davino, a 29-year-old whose boyfriend was planning to propose on 
Christmas Eve. Their parents too, their families are in our prayers.
  Also in our hearts today are the families of the courageous first 
responders who rushed toward danger as everyone else rushed away. In 
any emergency, Mr. President, as you know, being a former attorney 
general, our law enforcement officers face unknown danger with 
extraordinary courage. At Sandy Hook Elementary, police officers rushed 
to the site knowing full well that an armed gunman awaited them. What 
they found was unimaginable. Thank God they arrived as quickly as they 
did or the carnage might have been worse. But we need but reflect for a 
moment on what those police officers and firefighters and folks from 
the ME's office ultimately found--unspeakable carnage. These heroes 
could not react as parents, as community members. They had to choke 
back their own grief and horror to carry out their professional 
responsibilities to catalogue, investigate, and document every detail 
of this tragic scene so that justice could be done and lessons learned. 
The scars of those long hours on a crime scene like this last a 
lifetime, and first responders all across this country in situations 
such as this bear them with honor and dignity and without complaint.
  This tragedy, of course, also has ripple effects far beyond Sandy 
Hook and far beyond Newtown, CT. All over this country there are 
parents whose children struggle with mental illness, with mental health 
challenges, who don't have the resources they need to cope. My office 
has had many calls from worried parents since Friday's shootings, 
worried for many reasons, but one that stood out for me was a dad from 
Newark, DE, whose own child is struggling with mental illness and who 
is working hard to try to find the resources to ensure appropriate care 
so that he won't someday be watching the television with horror as the 
tragic actions of his child unfold.
  We think of the story also shared online of the mother in Idaho, 
terrified her own son has the capacity to kill someday and yet without 
the ability to give him the intensive medical care, treatment, and 
intervention she believes he needs.
  Across this country, mental health care is a growing challenge for 
us. Between 2009 and 2011, States cut more than $2 billion from 
community mental health services. Two-thirds of States have 
significantly slashed funding in these difficult economic times, 
leaving parents seeking help for their mentally ill children often with 
nowhere to turn.
  We must do better for all these parents--the parents who lost their 
children at Sandy Hook Elementary, the parents who lost their children 
who were teachers and faculty, the families of those who were first 
responders, and families who struggle with children with mental illness 
and mental health problems.
  But, frankly, this week I also think about parents all over our 
country who have lost their children, just as precious and just as 
innocent as those at Sandy Hook, to gun violence, outside the media 
spotlight. The truth is gun violence knows no boundaries of race or 
class, but our national response at times seems to.
  There were 41 murders in Delaware alone last year, 28 of them where 
guns were used as the murder weapon.
  Sixteen-year-old Alexander Kamara was playing in a soccer tournament 
at Eden Park in my hometown of Wilmington this summer when he was shot 
and killed in execution style.
  Dominique Helm, age 19, was standing with his teenage cousins on the 
steps of his Brandywine Village rowhouse last September when a gunman 
opened fire. He stumbled through the doorway and died in his living 
room as his mother Nicole ran to him.
  Stories like this are tragically, appallingly, common across our 
country every day. Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with a gun. It 
happens in our streets and in our neighborhoods. It happens in movie 
theaters in Aurora, CO, and houses of worship at Oak Creek, WI. It 
happens in high schools in Littleton, CO, and at a college campus in 
Blacksburg, VA. It happens outside a supermarket in Tucson, AZ, where 
one of the six people killed was 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green--a 
child herself born on 9/11, imbued with a sense of hope and a call to 
public service, who wanted to meet her Congresswoman Gabbie Giffords in 
order to learn more about public service.
  They say nearly 40 percent of Americans know someone directly who has 
been a victim of gun violence. In Christina's case, her father was my 
high school classmate back in Delaware. Gun violence touches families, 
communities, and neighborhoods all over this country.
  So what do we owe these parents? What can we offer their families 
besides our thoughts and prayers? I believe we must fulfill our central 
responsibility of protecting the safety of our children and our 
communities, while also preserving the individual liberties guaranteed 
in our Constitution.
  On Sunday night, we watched President Obama speak to a community 
reeling in shock and grief, for the fourth time in his time as 
President. He asked us as a Nation whether we are doing enough to 
protect our children, and he gave us the painfully honest answer that 
we did not give ourselves after Fort Hood, after Tucson, after Aurora. 
He said, No, we are not. We are not doing enough to protect our own 
children.
  Horrible crimes like these have a very complex web of causes--
including, of course, mental illness. This complexity presents us with 
a complicated challenge. But the reality is the United States has the 
highest rate of gun deaths in the industrialized world, nearly 20 times 
higher than comparable nations.
  In my view, this calls out for a comprehensive approach, for a 
thorough and searching examination of the causes of this uniquely 
American crisis. I believe it requires action by this Congress and our 
President.
  I have received calls and letters, e-mails and Facebook posts, from 
Delawareans around the State, Republicans and Democrats, doctors and 
teachers, parents and children. They have shared with me their grief 
and their ideas, and they have called for action.
  The United States has a long and proud tradition of independence, of 
protecting ourselves, of exercising our right to self-determination, of 
hunting and of a sporting tradition that is enshrined in our second 
amendment. And we have to recognize the importance--the legitimacy--of 
the concerns of gun owners to know that in the debate that can and will 
and should unfold in this Chamber we will respect their right to bear 
arms and that we will respect and honor this most important part of 
America's fabric. But every constitutionally protected right has its 
boundaries, its limitations.
  I am troubled in particular by the thread that ties together too many 
of these tragic mass shootings: that the perpetrator had clear mental 
health problems, unaddressed, untreated mental illness challenges, and 
used military-style weapons and clips that have no place in everyday 
civilian life.
  Several of my colleagues have already come forward with proposals--
Senators Manchin, Lautenberg, Warner, Feinstein, and others, and I will 
touch on a few.
  I believe reinstating the ban on high-capacity magazines, focusing on 
ammunition and on the outrageously devastating impact of military clips 
and military ammunition particularly on children across all these 
instances--I

[[Page S8177]]

think we should focus on that, and reinstate the ban on high-capacity 
magazines in the next Congress.
  In addition, Senator Lieberman just the other day on the floor--and 
he has been joined by Senator Rockefeller--has called for a study to 
gain a better understanding of the linked issues of mental health, mass 
shootings, and the desensitization of violence in our culture. 
President Obama has picked that up and carried it forward, and is 
proposing a new commission which the Vice President--Delaware's own Joe 
Biden--will be chairing. It is my hope that out of this important work 
we can find a path forward that marries the crying need to deal with 
mental health issues with cultural concerns about violence and 
desensitization with responsible limitations on the excessive use of 
military-style weapons and clips.
  Last, in my view, we can and must do more to keep guns out of the 
hands of those with a history of violent crime or demonstrated mental 
illness. Our database system is broken and has to be repaired.
  At Virginia Tech, 32 students and professors were murdered by a young 
man who got a gun he should have been prohibited from buying. A court 
had already ruled he was mentally ill and posed an imminent danger, but 
these findings simply weren't reported to the FBI's gun background 
check system. That is a travesty. The parents of those 32 murdered in 
Blacksburg, VA should be crying out for justice.
  We should ensure that no gun sold in this country is sold to someone 
we know to be dangerous or who poses a direct threat to innocent 
Americans' lives. Today, an estimated 40 percent of all gun sales--some 
6 million weapons a year--are sold by unlicensed dealers who aren't 
required to conduct any criminal background check under Federal law. 
This is how 12 students and 1 teacher were murdered at Columbine High 
School in Colorado, with guns bought from an unlicensed seller--no 
paperwork, no questions asked.
  It is my hope, it is my prayer, that we will work to address this and 
many other complex but important issues in the coming weeks and months, 
and that we will consider all these proposals carefully and reach a 
balanced but effective solution.
  I will apply the test of balance to find ways that we can continue to 
respect our traditions and protect constitutional liberties while still 
advancing our moral requirement to keep our kids and our communities 
safe.
  As parents, we can't help but react with horror at the slaughter of 
innocent children in their classrooms. We all have to take time first 
to grieve with our families and our communities; but as policymakers, 
we also have a calling to react to the facts as we see them. And in 
this regard a reaction will have three stages: We need to reflect, we 
need to debate, and then we need to act.
  The reflection and the debate have already begun. The action is still 
to come. I look forward to working with the Presiding Officer and my 
colleagues in the weeks and months ahead to ensure that this time we 
act. The victims of Newtown, CT, deserve nothing less.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know we have Senators who have talked 
about bringing amendments to the floor. I know the distinguished 
majority leader is trying to get a finite list and a time to vote on 
them. I hope that can be done. I hope Senators who have amendments will 
bring them up, debate them, and vote them up or down so we can get on 
with this bill.
  If you are a person whose home has been devastated or your children's 
school has been destroyed in this storm or your business is only a pile 
of rubble--those people really find it pretty difficult to see us, 
whether it is the U.S. Senate or the other body, standing around saying 
we may have amendments, we may not have amendments, we may have 
something that is not germane to what we have here but we want to make 
a message amendment. They are saying: We are Americans--we are 
Americans and we are suffering. Do something for us, just as this body 
always has. Whether the disaster has been in the Midwest, the West, the 
Northeast, the Southeast, or the South, we have come together for our 
fellow Americans.
  Time is running out, and we should get moving. I urge Senators, bring 
your amendments. If you really think they have merit, if you really 
think they have anything to do with this disaster relief, if you really 
think they are going to be able to help, bring them in and let's vote 
them up, vote them down. But let's not just sit here thinking that 
maybe we can wait longer.
  We get paid our salaries. I don't know of any Senator who has lost 
his or her home, certainly not his or her business. They are still 
here, and they still get paid every couple of weeks. That is not the 
case for hundreds of thousands of people. Let's start acting to take 
care of them.
  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. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            The Fiscal Cliff

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the ongoing 
situation with the so-called fiscal cliff. To millions of Americans, 
what's happening here in Washington must be a mystery.
  In less than 2 weeks, almost every single taxpaying citizen will face 
a massive tax hike if we don't act. For weeks now, the Speaker of the 
House, John Boehner, has been trying to get this President to come up 
with a fair, reasonable and balanced solution so we don't go over this 
cliff.
  The President, thinking he has some sort of mandate after his 
reelection, has been less than reasonable. In fact, this President has 
proposed more and more spending, and more and more tax hikes in his 
proposals to the Speaker, while the Speaker is trying to stop these tax 
hikes and deal with our over $16 trillion debt. The President just 
can't take yes for an answer. He must think that if he keeps slow-
walking these proposals that Republicans will get the blame--and 
members of his administration have even reveled that they would be more 
than happy if we went over the cliff.
  What kind of cruel Christmas gift is that?
  After the Speaker and the President exchanged offers this week, House 
Republicans are looking at having votes on two competing pieces of 
legislation as early as tomorrow. The first is legislation that passed 
this body over the summer--deeply-flawed legislation that every 
Democrat in this body supported.
  I should note that I put forward a more common-sense alternative that 
would have extended all the current tax policy for 1 year during which 
time we could undertake a comprehensive overhaul of our bloated, broken 
tax code. I think I characterized it as putting it over for 1 year and 
dedicating that year to tax reform, which we all know needs to be done.
  The second piece of legislation that the House will vote on is 
legislation that Speaker Boehner has called ``Plan B''--a more limited 
piece of legislation that extends almost all the current tax policy as 
is in the law today.
  I understand that this ``Plan B'' is a plan of necessity. And while I 
understand that the Speaker continues to negotiate with the President 
to try and reach an agreement, the Speaker has put this forward to 
force action from this intransigent White House.
  What does the Speaker's plan do?
  The Speaker's plan would provide seamless permanent tax relief for 
American taxpayers who earn less than $1 million. For taxpayers earning 
above $1 million, the statutory rates on ordinary and capital gain 
income would be set at the level President Obama and Congressional 
Democrats have insisted on.
  My preference is clear. I have legislation that this body voted on in 
August that shows what I believe is the better path.
  I oppose tax increases very strongly and have said over and over that 
we should not be touching tax rates. But I

[[Page S8178]]

also understand, given the reality before us, that the Speaker has to 
move forward with a plan to force action.
  Is it perfect from my perspective? No, but we cannot let the perfect 
be the enemy of the good.
  The Speaker, in my view, is the only person in these negotiations 
trying to find a resolution. I commend him--I admire him--I back him--
and I know he is working hard discussing this legislation with the 
members of the House Republican Conference as they move towards a vote.
  I hope they support this plan. However, it turns out, if I was a 
member of the House, I would.
  But I am a Member of the Senate and this leads me to ask: after the 
House passes ``Plan B'' and defeats the Senate Democrats' tax bill, 
what is it that Senate Democrats want to do?
  The House will presumably send its bill to the Senate. Senator Reid 
and the White House have already said it is dead on arrival in the 
Senate. I find that very curious indeed since so many Democrats seem to 
have wanted exactly what the Speaker is giving them. Then they complain 
that the Speaker's plan isn't ``balanced,'' despite the fact that the 
President in a proposal was calling on more stimulus spending and for 
the continuation of so-called temporary stimulus tax provisions that 
the President now somehow wants to make permanent.
  So I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, what is 
it exactly that you want to do?
  What is it that Senate Democrats and the White House want?
  We are all waiting.
  The American people are waiting.
  Enough of the games. Put your money where your mouth is, and tell us 
what you think is better than what Speaker Boehner is ultimately going 
to put forward.
  If I were in the House, I would be supporting Speaker Boehner. 
Frankly, I do support Speaker Boehner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 3367, as Modified

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect 
to my amendment, No. 3367.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. MERKLEY. I have a modification at the desk. I ask that my 
amendment be so modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment is as follows: 
       At the end of title I, add the following:

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER

       Sec. 101. (a) Section 531 of the Federal Crop Insurance Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1531) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``The Secretary shall 
     use such sums as are necessary from the Trust Fund'' and 
     inserting ``Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
     the Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary for fiscal 
     year 2012'';
       (2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``The Secretary shall 
     use such sums as are necessary from the Trust Fund'' and 
     inserting ``Of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
     the Secretary shall use such sums as are necessary for fiscal 
     year 2012'';
       (3) in subsection (e)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Of the 
     funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, the Secretary''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``per year from the Trust Fund'' and 
     inserting ``for fiscal year 2012'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by striking ``the Secretary 
     shall use such sums as are necessary from the Trust Fund'' 
     and inserting ``of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary shall use such sums as are 
     necessary for fiscal year 2012''; and
       (5) in subsection (i), by striking ``September 30, 2011'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2012 (except in the case of 
     subsection (b), which shall be September 30, 2011)''.
       (b) This section is designated by Congress as being for an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to--
       (1) section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)(A)(i)); and
       (2) section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 
     (Public Law 111-139; 2 U.S.C. 933(g)).
       Sec. 102. (a) Section 196 of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7333) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Coverages.--In the case of an eligible crop described 
     in paragraph (2), the Secretary of Agriculture shall operate 
     a noninsured crop disaster assistance program to provide 
     coverages based on individual yields (other than for value-
     loss crops) equivalent to--
       ``(i) catastrophic risk protection available under section 
     508(b) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)); 
     or
       ``(ii) additional coverage available under subsections (c) 
     and (h) of section 508 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) that does 
     not exceed 65 percent.
       ``(B) Administration.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     section through the Farm Service Agency (referred to in this 
     section as the `Agency').''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon 
     at the end;
       (II) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
       (III) by inserting after clause (i) the following:

       ``(ii) for which additional coverage under subsections (c) 
     and (h) of section 508 of that Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) is not 
     available; and''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by inserting ``(except ferns)'' after 
     ``floricultural'';
       (II) by inserting ``(except ferns)'' after ``ornamental 
     nursery''; and
       (III) by striking ``(including ornamental fish)'' and 
     inserting ``(including ornamental fish, but excluding 
     tropical fish)'';

       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to subsection (l), the Secretary'';
       (3) in subsection (k)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$250'' and inserting 
     ``$260''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``$750'' and inserting ``$780''; and
       (ii) by striking ``$1,875'' and inserting ``$1,950''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Payment Equivalent to Additional Coverage.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall make available to a 
     producer eligible for noninsured assistance under this 
     section a payment equivalent to an indemnity for additional 
     coverage under subsections (c) and (h) of section 508 of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508) that does not 
     exceed 65 percent, computed by multiplying--
       ``(A) the quantity that is less than 50 to 65 percent of 
     the established yield for the crop, as determined by the 
     Secretary, specified in increments of 5 percent;
       ``(B) 100 percent of the average market price for the crop, 
     as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(C) a payment rate for the type of crop, as determined by 
     the Secretary, that reflects--
       ``(i) in the case of a crop that is produced with a 
     significant and variable harvesting expense, the decreasing 
     cost incurred in the production cycle for the crop that is, 
     as applicable--

       ``(I) harvested;
       ``(II) planted but not harvested; or
       ``(III) prevented from being planted because of drought, 
     flood, or other natural disaster, as determined by the 
     Secretary; or

       ``(ii) in the case of a crop that is produced without a 
     significant and variable harvesting expense, such rate as 
     shall be determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Premium.--To be eligible to receive a payment under 
     this subsection, a producer shall pay--
       ``(A) the service fee required by subsection (k); and
       ``(B) a premium for the applicable crop year that is equal 
     to--
       ``(i) the product obtained by multiplying--

       ``(I) the number of acres devoted to the eligible crop;
       ``(II) the yield, as determined by the Secretary under 
     subsection (e);
       ``(III) the coverage level elected by the producer;
       ``(IV) the average market price, as determined by the 
     Secretary; and

       ``(ii) 5.25-percent premium fee.
       ``(3) Limited resource, beginning, and socially 
     disadvantaged farmers.--The additional coverage made 
     available under this subsection shall be available to limited 
     resource, beginning, and socially disadvantaged producers, as 
     determined by the Secretary, in exchange for a premium that 
     is 50 percent of the premium determined for a producer under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Additional availability.--
       ``(A) In general.--As soon as practicable, the Secretary 
     shall make assistance available to producers of an otherwise 
     eligible crop described in subsection (a)(2) that suffered 
     losses--
       ``(i) to a 2012 annual fruit crop grown on a bush or tree; 
     and
       ``(ii) in a county covered by a declaration by the 
     Secretary of a natural disaster for production losses due to 
     a freeze or frost.
       ``(B) Assistance.--The Secretary shall make assistance 
     available under subparagraph (A) in an amount equivalent to 
     assistance available under paragraph (1), less any fees not 
     previously paid under paragraph (2).
       (b)(1) Effective October 1, 2017, subsection (a) and the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) (other than the amendments 
     made by clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of subsection (a)(1)(B)) are 
     repealed.
       (2) Effective October 1, 2017, section 196 of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7333) shall be applied and administered as if subsection (a) 
     and the amendments made by subsection (a) (other than the 
     amendments made by clauses (i)(I) and (ii) of subsection 
     (a)(1)(B)) had not been enacted.

[[Page S8179]]

       (c) This section is designated by Congress as being for an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to--
       (1) section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)(A)(i)); and
       (2) section 4(g) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 
     (Public Law 111-139; 2 U.S.C. 933(g)).

  Mr. MERKLEY. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Franken, 
Senator Tim Johnson, and Senator Tom Udall as cosponsors to the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order Of Procedure

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that at 4 o'clock, 
Senator Durbin from Illinois will be speaking. I ask unanimous consent 
that I be allowed to speak at the conclusion of his remarks, at or 
around 4:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

                          ____________________