[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.
____________________