Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 77 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 77 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3927-S3949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2013--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

The Past, Present, and Future

Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, the Senate, I am learning, is an
institution bound by tradition and precedent. One of the time-honored
and worthwhile traditions in this body is that new Senators, for at
least the first few months of their service, are to be essentially seen
and not heard until they deliver their maiden speeches on the Senate
floor. This, Madam President, I am doing today.
As an aside, and in the same vein of new Senators traditionally not
being heard but seen, I may have been well advised for the first few
months of my service to avoid the throngs of reporters who congregate
outside this Chamber, but it is too late for that. Politicians, after
all, can only heed so much advice.
For the past 12 years it was my privilege to serve in the House of
Representatives, a body that has its own traditions and precedents. At
its core the House is governed by the concept of majority rule--one
party can have a majority of only one or two and, by virtue of the
rules, can still maintain control of that body. During my time in the
House, I had the experience of being both in the majority and in the
minority. All things equal, I have preferred the former, but I
understood the power wielded by being in the majority is fleeting. That
is as it should be.
The Senate, on the other hand, is a body governed by consensus. The
party holding the gavel is on a short leash. Bringing even the most
noncontroversial resolutions to the Senate floor requires the
agreement, or at least the acquiescence, of the minority party. Over
the past decades, both parties have chafed under this arrangement. Both
parties have at times considered changing the rules that would in some
way make the Senate more like the House. Both parties have wisely
reconsidered. The House has rules appropriate for the House. The rules
of the Senate, however frustrating to the party that happens to wield
the gavel, are appropriate for the Senate.
I come to this point with great appreciation for those Arizona
Senators who have preceded me. The 48th State in the Union, Arizona
celebrated its centennial just last year. Prior to my swearing in this
year, Arizona had sent just 10 Senators to this body. These Arizonans
who came before me left more of an impression than simply carving their
names in these desks. Few in this body have matched the longevity of
Carl Hayden. Few have had the lasting impact of Barry Goldwater, who
helped launch the conservative movement.
I consider it a high honor to follow in the footsteps of Senator Jon
Kyl, whose steady principled leadership shaped Arizona for the better
and made our Nation stronger and more secure. My constituents now call
the same telephone number I once answered as an intern for Senator
Dennis DeConcini. He taught me a great deal about constituent service.
Now I have the incredible honor to serve here with Senator John
McCain who, as a prisoner of war, taught us all the meaning of
sacrifice. Since that time he has served Arizona, the country, and the
Senate nobly and honorably. Fortunately for all of us his service to
this institution continues. It is my great privilege to serve with him.
The challenges America faces today are legion and growing. Abroad,
cells of terrorists bent on our destruction continue to incubate. Some
receive aid and comfort from countries with long-held grievances and
irreconcilable enmity toward the United States. Other terrorists take
advantage of failed states and lawless regions to hatch their plans.
But it is not just individual terrorists or terror cells we have to
worry about. Countries unbound by the norms and conventions of
traditional nation-states now threaten peace. Today our concern is
primarily focused on Iran and North Korea, but myriad other countries
are but one election or coup removed from boiling over into regional
and international instability.
Here at home our fiscal situation is dire. We continue to spend
considerably more than we take in. Worse yet, we have no serious plan
to remedy the problem in any structural way. We seem to endlessly lurch
from cliff to crisis and back again with fiscal high-wire acts that
erode the confidence of markets and invite the disdain of our
constituents.
It is understandable that with 2-year election cycles the House of
Representatives begins to focus on the next election as soon as one
election is finished. In the House difficult issues are often avoided
or perpetually shelved until the next election. But in the Senate we
have 6-year terms. Senators, therefore, should come with an added dose
of courage to take up the thorny and vexing issues on which the other
Chamber takes a pass. It is our responsibility to lead, and if there
was ever a time for this body, this Chamber--the United States Senate--
to lead, this is it.
I am a proud and unapologetic conservative and a Republican, and I
hope my votes will consistently reflect that philosophy. So I am not
suggesting we hold hands and agree on every issue or even most issues.
There are profound and meaningful differences between the parties. But
I want to spend more time exercising my franchise while debating the
legislation itself and less time on deciding whether such legislation
should be debated on the Senate floor.

There is a time and a place for using supermajority rules to block
legislation and/or nominees from coming to the Senate floor; there is a
time and a place for partisanship but not every time and not every
place.
This country yearns for a functioning Senate, a Senate that
recognizes the gravity of our fiscal situation and its responsibility
to propose and adopt measures to solve it for the long term. This
country yearns for a Senate that exercises its prerogative as part of
the first branch of government to rein in executive branch excesses in
both domestic and foreign affairs.
Domestically, the parade of missteps and abuses at the IRS and other
Federal agencies stand as exhibit A of the need for more robust
legislative direction and oversight. Recent Presidents, both Republican
and Democratic, have exercised authority in the foreign arena far
beyond that contemplated for a Commander in Chief, often obligating
future Congresses to financial commitments far beyond security
arrangements. A better functioning Senate, less distracted by games of
shirts and skins, would not countenance such theft of its authority.
Now is not the time for this institution to retreat into irrelevance,
where the sum of our influence is to sign off on another continuing
resolution to fund the government for another 6 months; where success
is measured by how well our tracks are covered when the debt ceiling is
raised; where prioritizing spending cuts are avoided by invoking
another sequester. No, we have been there, done that. It is time now
for the Senate to lead.
There are encouraging signs we may be moving in this direction.
Earlier this year a budget was passed by this Chamber. It wasn't a
budget I preferred, but I was given ample opportunity to offer and
debate amendments to that legislation, as were my Republican
colleagues. We came up short, but at least the Senate got back to
regular order.
In the coming weeks this body will consider an immigration bill.
Immigration reform has been and remains a complex and vexing issue,
with Members holding strong and discordant views on many of its facets.
Still, a bill having had a thorough vetting in committee will now be
allowed to come to the Senate floor to be debated, amended, and,
hopefully, improved upon. This is the way it should work.

[[Page S3928]]

To conclude, a few days after last November's election, the 12 newly
elected Senate freshmen were invited to the National Archives. We were
taken to the legislative vault where we viewed the original signed
copies of the first bill enacted by Congress, as well as other landmark
pieces of legislation and memorabilia. Oaths of allegiance signed by
Revolutionary War soldiers witnessed by General Washington, and
documents and artifacts related to the Civil War, segregation, and
women's suffrage were also on hand. It was an affirmation to me of the
tumultuous seas through which our ship of state has sailed for more
than 200 years.
We have had many brilliant and inspired individuals at the helm and
trimming the sails along the way. We have also had personalities
ranging from mediocre to malevolent. But our system of government has
survived them all.
Serious challenges lie ahead, but any honest reckoning of our history
and our prospects will note we have confronted and survived more
daunting challenges than we now face. This is a durable, resilient
system of government, designed to withstand the foibles of men,
including yours truly.
It is the honor of a lifetime just to be here in this storied
institution--more than I could have ever hoped for. My modest hope
going forward is that my contributions will in some small way honor the
Senate's storied past and help it realize its full potential as the
world's most deliberative body.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Gun Violence

Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, first let me congratulate Senator Flake
on his maiden speech. It was very thoughtful and I think a challenge to
this body to get back to the work it has been given by the American
people.
I come to the floor to once again talk about the 4,670 victims of gun
violence we have seen across this country since December 14.
December 14 is a date that everyone in Connecticut knows but, as time
goes by, maybe fades from the memories of other Americans. That is the
day in which a deranged young man walked into Sandy Hook Elementary
School in Newtown, CT, and gunned down 20 6- and 7-year-olds, in
addition to 6 teachers and education professionals who were charged
with taking care of those kids. That is a day none of us will ever
forget.
We came to the floor of the Senate in the weeks and months that
followed with the intention of passing legislation that would make sure
we did everything within our power to assure that another Sandy Hook
didn't happen somewhere else in this country. But we also were
endeavoring to do something about the all too routine gun violence that
has plagued our cities and our suburbs--frankly, almost every community
in this country.
This is a stunning number. Since December 14 of last year, in just
over 6 months, 4,670 people have died from gun violence, and during
that time the Senate and the House of Representatives have done nothing
to try to change that reality. I will at least give this body credit;
we debated a bill in the Judiciary Committee and we brought it to the
Senate floor. Because of the rules of this place, unfortunately, 55
votes was not enough to get a gun violence package passed that would
have imposed criminal background checks on thousands of gun purchases
that now operate outside that system that would have made it a Federal
crime to illegally traffic in guns, that would have placed more
resources in the hands of mental health professionals. At least in the
Senate we tried to do it. The House, on the other hand, has taken no
steps to try to cut down on the 4,670 deaths all across this country
just in the last 6 months.
What I have tried to do every week since the failure of that bill is
to come down to the floor of the Senate. Instead of talking over and
over about the policy implications or the different ways and paths we
can get to a gun violence package, instead, I think it is important to
talk about the victims. Who are these 4,670 people? Because their
stories should be the ones that move this place to action.
One such story as that of Matthew Tarto, age 16, who died just a few
days ago, May 24. He was killed implausibly by his father. His 52-year-
old father killed his 16-year-old son in an apparent murder-suicide.
Matthew was an amazing young man. He was a backup offensive lineman
for his high school, John Curtis Christian School. He was a superior
track and field athlete. He was an honor roll student. His friends
called him a happy-go-lucky kid. They said he always had a smile. His
football coach said:

This kind of thing is unbelievable, that something like
this could happen. The only way we know how to get through
this is with deep prayer. I just feel so heartbroken, not
only for his family but for the kids, his friends and his
teammates.

We talk a lot about the fact that it is important to change gun laws.
There are others who say that all of our emphasis should be on early
intervention; that our mental health system should be the sole focus of
this place so we can stop these murders before they happen. But as we
know, often we can't see these things coming.
The case of Matthew Tarto is such an illustration. Neighbors said
they never saw any signs of trouble from this household. In fact, one
neighbor remembers seeing the father and the son taking walks together
through the neighborhood just days and weeks before this happened.
Matthew was an amazing guy: honor roll student, great athlete,
friendly, happy-go-lucky kid, but in an awful murder-suicide, he was
taken from us, as well as his father.
Another 16-year-old 3 days beforehand was gunned down in the Back of
the Yards neighborhood of Chicago. Angel Cano was killed with a gunshot
wound to the head. He was pronounced dead on the scene, according to
the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office.
His father had brought his oldest son to Chicago from Mexico in 2004
in search of a better life. His father said his son just desperately
wanted to be someone. His son, at 16 years old, had dreams of becoming
a singer or a professional soccer player. He was always down at the
local soccer fields playing soccer, endlessly, teaching other young
kids how to be better soccer players. At 16, he still had this dream.
Yet apparently on the way back from the soccer fields that evening, he
was gunned down. The police have said it may be gang related, but the
family says that Angel was never, ever affiliated with any gangs.
Then, lastly, the story of Jamica Woods. Ms. Woods was 37 years old.
The night before she died, on May 20, her boyfriend uploaded pictures
onto his Facebook page of a shotgun, along with pictures of a shotgun
shell, that he had recently bought at Walmart. He uploaded the pictures
because he had already set about a plan to kill his girlfriend the next
night.
According to police, Ms. Woods had taken out an emergency protective
order against her boyfriend last December, but she had never gone about
the process of finalizing it. She was in the process of kicking her
boyfriend out when she got killed. Had she just taken a few more steps,
it is possible he would have never been able to buy that gun in the
first place. If she had taken those steps to fill out a protective
order and if that order had been filed and if the Walmart had run a
background check and found that protective order, it is possible she
would still be alive today.
Frankly, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women
across this country who are alive today because of that law--because of
that law that came so very close to saving Jamica Woods: a protective
order being filed due to domestic violence, a gun purchase being
stopped because of that order.
One of the reasons we have that law on the books today is the
advocacy of Senator Frank Lautenberg. Senator Frank Lautenberg, who
died this week, made it his life's cause to try to make the streets of
his State of New Jersey safer. He was advocating right up until his
final days on the floor of this Chamber to enact a ban on high-capacity
magazines such as the one that killed 20 little 6- and 7-year-olds in
Connecticut.
But he was successful in passing through this Chamber a piece of
legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of people who have been
convicted of domestic violence. It is a law that has worked. It is a
law that has saved the

[[Page S3929]]

lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women all across this
country. It is a reminder that this place can do something about the
4,670 people who have died since Newtown due to gun violence.
Frank Lautenberg knew this place had the power to save lives by
enacting commonsense gun violence legislation--in his case, just a
simple rule that if someone has been convicted of domestic violence,
maybe they shouldn't get their hands on a gun.
Senator Lautenberg's work is a reminder that whether it is next
month, later this year or next year, we still have work to do to try to
honor the memories of the thousands of victims of gun violence all
across this country.
I yield the floor.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Immigration

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to say a few
words about the immigration reform bill that, as I understand it, we
will begin discussing next week. As the son of an immigrant, somebody
who came to this country at the age of 17 without a nickel in his
pocket and who was able to send his two kids to college, needless to
say I support immigration. Our country is unique in the world. Our
country is great because we are the sons and daughters of immigrants. I
think we should all be very proud of that.
I also commend the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy and Senator
Schumer and Senator Durbin--all of those people who have been working
very hard on what I consider to be a good and strong immigration reform
bill. Here are some of the very strong components of that bill that I
hope every Member of the Senate would support: That is the need for a
pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in
this country. Bringing undocumented workers out of the shadows and
giving them legal status will make it more difficult for employers to
undercut the wages and benefits of all workers and, in my view, will be
good for the entire economy.

I have always--and continue to--strongly support the DREAM Act part
of the immigration reform bill, which is to make sure that children of
illegal immigrants who are brought into this country by their parents
years and years ago are allowed to become citizens.
I strongly support a number of the provisions that deal with
agriculture. Some years ago I was in Immokalee, FL, a place that I
suspect has some of the most exploited workers in America. They pick
the tomatoes which go to the fast-food restaurants throughout this
country. I can tell everyone that in the State of Vermont, we have
dairy farms that are now dependent on foreign labor, and it is
important that we treat those workers with dignity and give them legal
status. It is extremely important to have an approach which provides
legal status for agricultural workers.
I obviously support making sure our borders are strong and that we
stop illegal immigration as best we can, and I applaud the committee
for including all of those provisions in the immigration bill that is
going to come to the Senate I expect next week.
What I worry about very much, and have deep concerns about in terms
of the current legislation, is that while we have made a good step
forward in terms of improving our economy as to where it was in the
midst of the financial crisis, we still have a long way to go. The real
unemployment rate in America is not 7.5 percent. That is the official
unemployment rate. The real unemployment rate is closer to 14 percent.
If we include those people who have given up looking for work in high-
unemployment areas and people who are working part time and want to
work full time, the real unemployment rate is closer to 14 percent. In
other words, if we include unemployment among minorities as well as the
young people in this country, we continue to have a very serious
unemployment problem in the United States of America, and it is an
issue with which we have to deal. I have a number of ideas on how to
deal with it. One thing we sure as heck do not want to do is make a bad
situation worse.
It seems to me that in a moment when our middle class continues to
disappear, when millions of workers are working longer hours for lower
wages, when median-family income has gone down by $5,000 since 1999, it
does not make a lot of sense to me that we have an immigration reform
bill which includes a massive increase in temporary guest worker
programs that will allow large multinational corporations to import
hundreds of thousands of temporary blue-collar and white-collar guest
workers.
One of my major concerns is that corporate America is sort of using
immigration reform as a means to continue their effort to lower wages
in the United States of America, and we must not allow that to happen.
We all know we have a serious crisis in terms of the high cost of a
college education, which is another issue we are going to be dealing
with soon on the floor. One thing I can say--and I suspect I speak for
a number of other Members in Congress--is if we didn't come from a
family with a lot of money and we needed to get some financial help in
order to pay for college, we worked in the summertime. I find it
alarming that within this bill we are looking at a situation in which
we are importing a lot of young people from Europe and elsewhere to
fill jobs which young people in this country need in the summertime to
allow them to get going in terms of their careers and allow them to
make a few bucks in order to help them with their college education.
I understand that jobs such as a waiter, waitress, or busboy--and I
did some of that when I was a kid--are not glamorous jobs. But you know
what. They help a little bit as far as paying for college. I know it is
not glamorous to work as a lifeguard, at the front desk of a hotel or
resort, as a ski instructor, as a cook or chef in a kitchen, as a
chambermaid, or as a landscaper. The jobs I just mentioned will not pay
huge amounts of money, but for someone who needs to figure out how to
pay for college in the fall, those jobs help. For someone who needs
some experience in order to get their career off the ground, those jobs
help. I am concerned that kids in this country are going to be looking
for jobs and employers are going to say: Well, actually we don't have
any jobs; the job has been filled by some young person from Eastern
Europe. So I want us to take that issue into account.
Theoretically the J-1 Program is supposed to bring young people into
this country so they can learn about our culture. It is a program to
expose young people from around the world to American culture, and that
is a good thing. I believe in that. I believe young people in America
should have the opportunity to go abroad, and young people from around
the world should have the opportunity to learn about America. It is a
good thing.
I fear this J-1 Program is being exploited by corporations such as
Hershey's and McDonald's in an effort to simply bring students from
abroad to work at low-paying jobs in the United States.
Supporters of the temporary H-2B Guest Worker Program claim there are
not enough Americans willing to do these types of jobs; that in essence
what they are saying is the young American people are too lazy to work
at these jobs. I do not accept that. I truly do not accept it. I think
it is a slap in the face not only to our young people but to the many
working people who do not have much in the way of an education and want
to work so they can earn some money. It is a slap in the face to say to
those people: No, we are going to have to bring people in from abroad
to do those jobs, such as being a waiter, waitress, chambermaid, or
lifeguard. These are not high-tech skilled jobs; these are jobs our
young people can do and need to do.
I have a great concern about the transformation of the J-1 Program
from being a program dealing with American culture to being one where
corporations are exploiting young people from abroad to work in low-
paying jobs in the United States.

[[Page S3930]]

I also find it interesting that instead of raising wages in this
country to attract workers, what many of these companies are doing is
bringing in people from abroad. We know what supply and demand is
about. What we learned in economics 101 in college is that if an
employer cannot find a certain type of worker, the way to entice that
worker is to raise wages. Instead of raising wages, what employers are
saying is: We have huge amounts of cheap labor all over the world.
Instead of raising wages for American workers, we are going to bring in
cheap labor from around the world, and I think that is wrong. I think
as we deal with this legislation, this is an issue we have to address
front and center.

When we talk about H-2B jobs, what we are talking about is people who
may be working as a landscaper, amusement park worker, housekeeper,
waiter, or waitress. Further, during the summer, businesses are using
guest worker programs to hire young people from other countries to be
lifeguards.
Maybe I am mistaken, but I kind of think there are young people in
this country who can work as lifeguards and hold other positions in
some of the resorts all over this country. We are talking jobs such as
being a ski instructor in Vermont. I can tell everyone that in the
State of Vermont, we have a whole lot of young people who are very good
at skiing and can teach skiing. We don't need people from Europe to
take those jobs away from young Americans.
Let me be clear--and I find this to be interesting, if not ironic--
the same corporations and businesses that support a massive expansion
in guest worker programs coincidentally happen to be the same exact
corporations that are opposed to raising the minimum wage. These are
the same corporations that support the outsourcing of American jobs,
not to mention the same corporations which in some cases have reduced
wages and benefits for American workers at a time when corporate
America is making record-breaking profits.
In too many cases the H-2B Program for lower skilled guest workers,
as well as the H-1B Program for high-skilled guest workers, is being
used by employers to drive down the wages and benefits of American
workers and to replace American workers with cheap labor from abroad.
Here is what it comes down to: supply and demand. If the employers of
this country need labor, let them start raising wages for American
workers rather than bringing in cheap labor from all over this world.
The immigration reform bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee
could increase the number of low-skilled--I hear speeches here that we
are going to have these genius high-tech guys who are going to start
companies and create all kinds of jobs. Great. That is not what we are
talking about here. We are talking about an immigration reform bill
from the Judiciary Committee that could increase the number of low-
skilled guest workers by as much as 800 percent over the next 5 years
and could more than triple the number of temporary white-collar guest
workers coming into this country. During the next 5 years, H-1B high-
skilled visas could go from 85,000 to as many as 230,000. The number of
H-2B low-skilled visas could go from 65,000 to as many as 325,000. The
new W visa program for low-skilled workers could go as high as 200,000.
The first question the American people and Members have to ask is, is
unemployment throughout America in States such as Arizona, Oklahoma,
Vermont, Michigan so low right now that we desperately need more and
more foreign workers to fill jobs Americans cannot fill?
The high-tech industry tells us they need the H-1B Program so they
can hire the best and the brightest science, technology, engineering,
and math workers in the world, and that there are not qualified
American workers in these fields. Let me be the first to admit that in
some cases I believe that is true. I have spoken to employers in
Vermont. I suspect it is true all over this country, that there are
areas where companies cannot find the skilled workers they need so they
need employees from abroad, and to the degree that is true, let us
address that issue. But let's also give some facts which suggest that
may not be quite as true as some of the employers and corporations are
saying.
In 2010, 54 percent of H-1B guest workers were employed in entry-
level jobs. So the argument is: Hey, we need all of these brilliant
guys who are going to start companies and create jobs. In 2010, 54
percent of the H-1B guest workers were employed in entry-level jobs and
performed ``routine tasks requiring limited judgment'' according to the
Government Accountability Office.
In 2010 the official U.S. unemployment rate averaged more than 9.6
percent per month. Why couldn't these types of jobs be performed by
Americans?
So, again, the point is--I know some of my friends say: Every one of
these guys is some genius who is going to start a company. I wish that
were the case. Many of these are lower wage, entry-level jobs that
certainly American workers could do.
Further, only 6 percent of H-1B visas were given to workers with
highly specialized skills in 2010. That is the issue I keep hearing
about, highly specialized skills, but only 6 percent of H-1B visas went
to those folks. More than 80 percent of H-1B guest workers are paid
wages that are less than American workers in comparable positions,
according to the Economic Policy Institute. Over 9 million Americans
have degrees in a STEM-related field, but only about 3 million have a
job in that area.
Last year the top 10 employers of H-1B guest workers were all
offshore outsourcing companies. Let me repeat that. One of the great
crises we have faced in the last 30 years is that companies have shut
down in America, moved abroad, and gotten cheap labor abroad. The top
10 employers of H-1B guest workers were all offshore outsourcing
companies. These firms are responsible for shifting huge numbers of
American information technology jobs to India and other countries.
Nearly half of all H-1B visas go to offshore outsourcing firms, while
less than 3 percent of them apply to become permanent residents.
Further, half of all recent college graduates majoring in computer
and information science did not receive jobs in the information
technology sector. In other words, we have large numbers of Americans
who are graduating with degrees who can handle these jobs. Yet we are
bringing in large numbers of people from abroad to do them. It doesn't
make a whole lot of sense to me.
Not only would the Senate immigration bill greatly expand the number
of H-1B guest workers, it also would provide an unlimited number of
green cards to foreign graduates who receive a master's degree or a
Ph.D. in a STEM-related field. If we are going to provide green cards
to every foreign student with an advanced STEM degree, what purpose
does the H-1B program serve other than to suppress the wages of
American workers who are already struggling? At the very least I
believe we should prohibit offshore outsourcing firms from hiring
temporary guest workers.
Under the Senate immigration bill, the number of college-educated H-
1B guest workers and STEM green card holders who are under 30 years of
age will exceed the number of jobs that are available for young
information technology graduates. What message does that send to young
people in our country who are interested in pursuing careers in
information technology?
Making matters even worse, I am very concerned that Senator Hatch was
able to gut the very modest reforms to the H-1B program designed to
prevent companies from replacing American workers with H-1B guest
workers. At a minimum it is essential that these proworker reforms be
put back into the bill before it is passed by the full Senate.
This country was built by immigrants. I am a son of an immigrant, and
many of us are. I believe we are a nation that wants to see
comprehensive immigration reform passed. I certainly do.
Again, I wish to congratulate all of those people who have worked on
this bill because there are a lot of very important and positive
provisions in the bill. But I think we have to improve the bill as it
leaves committee and as it comes to the floor of the Senate. What we
want to make certain of is

[[Page S3931]]

that at a time when this country continues to struggle economically,
when millions of people are working longer hours for lower wages, when
minority unemployment is extraordinarily high, we do not take any
action that lowers wages or increases unemployment for American
workers.
Again, my congratulations to those who worked on this bill, but we
have a whole lot of work to do as the bill reaches the floor, and I
intend to be working with my colleagues to make those improvements.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Vermont that I
appreciate much of what he had to say, and I look forward to working
with him to see how we can best address some of his very legitimate
concerns.
I would point out to my friend from Vermont that there is going to be
a requirement for any of these foreign workers that first the job be
advertised in a variety of ways to make sure there are no American
workers who would take these jobs. I hope that to some degree resolves
some of his concerns. But I paid close attention to his statement, and
I look forward to addressing some of those very legitimate concerns. I
thank the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending
amendment and call up McCain amendment No. 956.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I object. Reserving the right to object,
I have some difficulty with the amendment the Senator from Arizona
wishes to discuss. I have been trying to get a vote on amendment No.
1113 on flood insurance, and one of the Members from the other side is
holding it up. So until we get things worked out--and I hope the
Senator from Arizona will appreciate the predicament we are in. I am
happy for the Senator to discuss his amendment, but to call up an
amendment and to then vote on it, I would have to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Louisiana
allowing me to discuss my amendment. I am deeply appreciative.
This amendment would eliminate a proposed catfish inspection program
within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA. The Government
Accountability Office, GAO, warns that this catfish program will be
``duplicative'' and ``wasteful'' of federal resources. I am grateful
for the support of my colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment:
Senators Shaheen, Crapo, Coburn, Cantwell, Murray, Warner, Ayotte,
Risch, Kirk, Lautenberg, and Inhofe.
Mr. President, I will ask to add the following senators as cosponsors
to this amendment: Senators Whitehouse, Reed, Heller, and Cowan.
When Congress passed the 2008 Farm Bill, a small provision was
quietly added in conference that requires USDA to establish an office
to inspect catfish. Just catfish. According to USDA, setting up the
catfish office will cost taxpayers about $30 million, and then cost
another $15 million a year to operate. At least 95 new government
inspectors would be hired, trained, and placed throughout the United
States to inspect catfish. I support ensuring that our Nation's food
supply is safe--except that USDA is not in the business of inspecting
catfish or any other seafood. USDA is responsible for inspecting meat,
poultry, and egg products. All other food, including seafood, is
inspected and certified by the Food and Drug Administration, FDA.
There is no such thing as ``USDA Grade A seafood.'' So why should we
spend millions in taxpayer dollars every year to inspect catfish? GAO
asked the same question and in 4 different reports concluded that the
catfish office is duplicative of FDA functions and explicitly
recommended that Congress repeal it.
It's ``duplicative'' because we would be wasting tax dollars on
having USDA inspectors doing the same work alongside FDA inspectors.
This would be a burden to any business that stores, processes or
distributes seafood.
According to a GAO report titled ``Actions Needed to Reduce
Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication,'' GAO said: ``We suggest that
Congress repeal the provisions that assigned USDA responsibilities for
examining and inspecting catfish'' because ``USDA plans are essentially
the same as FDA's hazard analysis requirements.''
In another report published in 2011, GAO said the USDA catfish
program ``fragments our food safety system'' and ``splits up seafood
oversight between FDA and USDA, expending scarce resources.''
In another GAO report, simply titled--``Responsibility for Inspecting
Catfish Should Not Be Assigned to USDA,'' GAO said: ``[USDA] uses
outdated and limited information as its scientific bases for catfish
inspection'' and that ``the cost effectiveness of the catfish
inspection program is unclear because USDA would oversee a small
fraction of all seafood imports while FDA, using its enhanced
authorities, could undertake oversight of all imported seafood.''
GAO is not the only critic of the catfish office. The Centers for
Disease Control reports that of the 1.8 billion catfish meals enjoyed
by Americans, only two people get sick a year. FDA requires foreign
producers to abide by the same food safety standards as domestic
facilities and turns away unsafe seafood. In fact, USDA itself says
there is no benefit for having them inspect catfish. A report issued in
2010 by the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service said, ``There is
substantial uncertainty regarding the actual effectiveness of the
catfish inspection program'' and that there is ``no rational
relationship'' between the Catfish Office and human health. That is
probably why the President's Budget for FY2014 proposes to eliminate
the program. If USDA can't justify a catfish inspection program--how
can anyone in Congress?
The USDA catfish does nothing to enhance food safety. GAO says it's a
sham. USDA says it's a sham. FDA says it's a sham. OMB says it's a
sham. So why did Congress propose it in 2008? It turns out there's a
group of domestic catfish farmers in two or three southern States that
are having a difficult time competing against catfish importers. In
classic Farm Bill politics, they worked up some talking points about
how Americans need a whole new government agency to inspect foreign
catfish imports.
Unfortunately, there are grave trade implications if we don't repeal
the catfish program. Trade experts warn that Vietnam and other Asian
exporters of catfish have a strong case that the USDA Catfish Office
would constitute a WTO violation.
I have a letter from former Congressman and WTO appellate judge Jim
Baucus to Congress concerning the WTO risk posed by this catfish
office. He says, ``There was, and still is no meaningful evidence that
catfish, domestic or imported, posed a significant health hazard when
Congress acted in 2008 to shift [catfish] jurisdiction from FDA to
USDA, in essence singling out catfish from all other seafood
products.'' He goes on to say, ``the United States would face a
daunting challenge in defending the catfish rule . . . it will be
giving other nations an opening to enact `copycat legislation' which
will disadvantage our exports.'' This is ``particularly inopportune''
in the face of Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, negations that are
important to American exporters.
The trade concern is that USDA catfish office is a de facto trade
barrier on foreign imports. It is meant to enrich the domestic catfish
industry. The USDA would ban catfish imports for 5-7 years while USDA
duplicates FDA's rules for foreign catfish farms. During that time,
American farmers, dairymen, cattle growers risk WTO retaliation against
a $20 billion export market for American soybean, pork, beef, dairy,
and poultry exports.
Is it worth sacrificing the export markets of our American beef
producers, wheat and soy farmers just because southern catfish farmers
don't want to compete? Absolutely not.
USDA catfish office serves no public health purpose and duplicates
FDA work in inspecting catfish. It wastes millions of tax dollars just
so that southern catfish farmers will have less competition. My
amendment would eliminate the USDA catfish office just as GAO
recommends.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

[[Page S3932]]

I also wish to say to the distinguished managers of the bill that
there are a number of amendments--my colleague from Oklahoma has them--
and it is going to be regrettable if we are not able to take up and
address these amendments. It is not really what we had agreed to when
we took up the bill. So I hope there will be another opportunity.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I do not like at all objecting to the
McCain amendment, but I am compelled to because I have been literally
trying for several weeks now--not just on this bill but the previous
bill--to get a vote, just a vote. I will even take a 60-vote threshold.
I am not asking for a 53-vote threshold; I will accept a 60-vote
threshold on an amendment that will make it clear that we could
grandfather in flood insurance rates until an affordability study that
was supposed to be done is done.
The interesting thing about this is that my amendment has no score.
It wouldn't cost the Federal Government anything if this amendment were
to pass. It is a zero score. It simply delays for 3 years a certain
category of flood insurance premium until an affordability study can be
conducted. It is a zero score.
Unfortunately, the Senator from Pennsylvania, to my knowledge, is
still holding up this amendment. So I know there are other Republicans
who would like to offer amendments, but I am going to object to the
offering or voting on any Republican amendments until the Senator from
Pennsylvania allows me to have a vote on my amendment.
I hate to be here because I don't like being in this position, but I
have no choice because I can't even get the Republicans to vote on the
flood insurance amendment. They can vote no. The amendment may not
pass. I think I have the 60 votes to pass it. I hope it will. We have
explained it. It is important not just to Louisiana but to New York,
California, New Jersey, and even Virginia has some issues.
Please understand, because I have a lot of respect for Senator
Coburn--he and I work together on the Homeland Security Committee. I
know this program has to be self-sustaining over time. No one depends
on it to be self-sustaining more than the people in Florida and
Louisiana and California. But there is a right way to get it self-
sustaining and there is a wrong way. The wrong way is going to blow up
the dreams of people who built their homes according to official flood
maps, who did everything they were supposed to do under the official
flood maps, and then when those maps changed, their rates then can go
up 25 percent, compounded for the next 5 years, not only pricing them
out of the market but making their homes unsellable, and it affects
banks in these communities.
This is not just a Louisiana issue. I am proud to advocate so much
for my State that when people come here and see me, they say: Oh, there
she goes again, advocating for Louisiana. I wear that as a badge of
honor. Let me be clear. My State has the 32 lowest kinds of rates of
insurance on these claims. I am not even in the top three. This is
affecting States--and I read them out earlier. Let me just say for the
record that the top 10 States affected are Rhode Island, Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Alaska, New Hampshire, Illinois, Michigan, West Virginia, Missouri,
Indiana, Iowa, California, and Ohio. These are the States with the
highest premiums now, and they could double or triple--actually almost
triple--in the next 5 years.
Maybe some of these rates need to go up. Interestingly, when the
recalculations are done, some of the rates around the country will go
down. I am not disagreeing with that. What I am disagreeing with is the
rapid rate in which it is going to happen, and it is going to have
catastrophic effects on many communities--not all but many--and I
happen to represent some of those on which it will. So my realtors have
asked me to stand up for this. My homebuilders have called with
concerns. My community bankers are very concerned.
I wish to thank the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from
Mississippi. I know they are doing their very best job to move this
bill forward. I think they have been quite fair, giving people on both
sides an opportunity for amendments. I have been very patient. I have
not objected to many amendments. The irony of this is that even the
Toomey amendment--the Senator from Pennsylvania, my friend, who was
going to end a program that was vitally important to my State, I even
allowed him to have a vote on that. I mean, it is a terrible amendment
for Louisiana. We were happy we beat the amendment, but I even allowed
him to have a debate. I could have stopped it. I am one Senator here.
One Senator can stop anything. But I am not trying to stop this, I am
just trying to advance a vote on flood insurance.
So maybe Senator Coburn and Senator McCain can be more convincing to
their colleague from Pennsylvania than I have been. But I will just say
for the record that if I have to stay on the floor until the end of the
week, I will have to stay here, but I will object to any Republican
amendment until we get a vote on the Landrieu-Vitter, et al., Schumer,
Gillibrand, Menendez--and our good friend Senator Lautenberg who just
passed was also a supporter. I would like to keep his name on it, if I
could.
I yield the floor, and I am very sorry, I say to my colleague from
Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I somewhat associate myself with the
remarks of the Senator from Louisiana. We have unwound because we don't
want to have real debates and real votes. We just fixed the flood
insurance program. We didn't fix it well enough, and if Senator
Landrieu is allowed her amendment, I will vote against it, but I think
she ought to be able to have her amendment.
The reason the Senate isn't working is because we want to use a
procedure that has never before been used except in the last 2 or 3
years in this body, and that is to limit the rights of Senators to
offer amendments.
The fact is that Senator Landrieu may, in fact, win her amendment,
but there is another chance. The House may not go along with it. There
will be a conference committee. It may not go anywhere. She didn't win
this when we fixed the flood insurance. She wasn't for us raising it to
the extent we did. We didn't raise it nearly enough to make it healthy
yet. And delaying the 3 years will markedly hurt the Flood Insurance
Program, which is operated through FEMA, and I am the ranking member on
that subcommittee. But the fact is that she ought to be able to offer
her amendment. I agree with that.
So what I am going to do is painfully go through and talk about every
amendment I have for the farm bill. I understand there will be
objections. If there are objections to mine--and even if the Landrieu
amendment gets cleared, I am going to object to everybody else's until
mine are cleared.
So we can either keep going around in this circle or we can start
acting like grownups and have debate. Even if a Member doesn't like an
amendment, we can vote on it. And if a Member is not capable of
defending their vote on any issue, they don't have any business being
here in the first place.
But to not vote, to not allow the managers of the bill to operate the
bill the way they want to operate it and put it on the table--because
the majority leader is going to file cloture, and so all of these
amendments are going to fall, which may be pleasing to the managers--I
don't know--and only the germane amendments are going to be available,
and they are going to be under a time constraint. So the American
people are actually going to get cheated out of a full and rigorous
debate on what ought to be changed in this bill.

So I am going to act as though the amendments are approved even
though they are not, and I am going to debate the amendments. I am
going to propose every one of them, and I am going to let the Senator
from Louisiana object, and then she can explain to her constituents the
dysfunction of the Senate. It does not just happen on the Republican
side, I would remind my colleague from Louisiana. There are plenty of
unilateral objections on the other side. And if we are going to operate
this way, then nothing is going to happen in the Senate.

[[Page S3933]]

With that, I will begin.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend. Before the Senator
proceeds with his unanimous consent request, I would ask the Senator if
he would agree that when we brought the farm bill to the floor the last
time, we had 73 votes and it was done in a large agreement, but we
worked through every one of them. I agree. My preference is--as I know
our distinguished ranking member's preference is--to be able to work
through amendments and to have votes and so on. Would the Senator agree
that process worked last time--and I know my friend did not end up
voting for the final bill, but we did work through a process of 73
votes; it was a very long day or 2 days, I think, actually--and that
would be a good way to proceed on this bill?
Mr. COBURN. I agree.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I certainly yield back to my friend, but
I just want to indicate that is what we have been working on doing, and
we do, in fact, have objections from various Members for various
reasons. But we have been spending our time hoping to come up with--
even postcloture it would be our desire to come up with a finite list
of amendments that we could then move forward and get an agreement to
vote on because I am very happy to have additional votes on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and Coburn amendment No. 1003 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am going to talk about this amendment.
This is an amendment that prohibits--let me set the stage for it. We
are going to have somewhere between a $500 billion and $700 billion
deficit. We have $17.5 trillion worth of debt today. What this
amendment does is it prohibits people who are tax evaders from
receiving government assistance, including grants, contracts, loans,
and tax credits provided in the farm bill, with the exception of SNAP.
So we are still going to take care of the food provision. Even if they
refuse to pay their taxes, we are going to still provide them food. But
we are not going to allow them, with this amendment, to take advantage
of other programs within the farm bill or any other area that is
associated with direct grants or associated with the Agriculture bill.
The most critical issues facing our country today--and everybody
knows how to solve it. We know what has to be done to save Medicare. We
know what has to be done to save Social Security. We know we need to
reform the Tax Code so we generate more jobs, we generate more income
to the Federal Government. We know all that. But we have billions of
dollars that are owed--it is not being contested; it is owed--and then
we turn around to those same people who owe us billions of dollars and
give them programs and benefits. Whether it be conservation payments or
whether it be crop insurance or whatever it is, we turn around and give
them money. I think the average tax-paying American does not agree with
that.
Part of being a responsible citizen is paying the taxes you owe. We
are not talking about things that are in dispute. We are talking about
settled agreements that are not paid, and they continue to not be paid,
and it is billions of dollars.
This provision would not apply if the individual is currently paying
the taxes, interest, and penalties that are owed to the IRS: if the
individual and the IRS have worked out a compromise on the amount of
taxes, interest, and penalties and it is in the process of being
repaid; if the individual has not exhausted his or her right to due
process under the law; if the individual has filed a joint return and
successfully contends that he or she should not be fully liable for the
taxes in a joint return because of something the other party to the
return did or did not do. Further, this provision would not apply to
SNAP payments provided in the bill.
Farm income is subject to very little scrutiny and reporting
requirements. In fact, there was a 78-percent reporting gap in farm
income reported to the IRS just last year--a 78-percent gap. This is by
far the largest gap in individual income reporting to the IRS.
In a time of strict budgets and when many in Washington are calling
for an increase in revenue, it is inappropriate for us to continue to
provide funding to individuals who owe back taxes and are not in
compliance with their obligations. Total taxes owed in the United
States in 2006 were $2.66 trillion. The gross tax gap for that year--
taxes owed but not collected--was $450 billion. The net tax gap in
2006--taxes still not paid after late payments enforced--was still $385
billion. Now the President wants another $600 billion or $800 billion.
What we have to do is start figuring out ways to collect the taxes that
are owed.
According to the Internal Revenue Service, the difference between the
amount legally owed in taxes and the amount actually collected was this
$385 billion. That is the most recent year the IRS can give us--5-year-
old data. Mr. President, $28 billion that was owed was because people
failed to file. Underpayment was $46 billion, and intentional
underreporting of income was $376 billion.
So what this amendment does is it just puts a prohibition in place.
It says: You cannot have this money if you owe X money and it is
settled, it is not under dispute. So it is not about not giving people
their rights. It has already been adjudicated. Why would we not want to
do that with the farm bill? Can you think of a reason why we would not
want the people who owe taxes, who already have agreed they owe the
taxes--that we are going to give them money, and they are not going to
pay the taxes they owe the Federal Government?

It is a commonsense amendment. We are not going to get a vote on
that, and we are not going to get a vote on it because we have cowardly
Members of the Senate--and I am not talking about the Senator from
Louisiana--who refuse to come down here and voice their objections to
bills and refuse to debate why they will not allow an amendment that
does something for the future, that actually will make a difference in
a kid's life in the future, that will actually increase some income so
we can afford the Flood Insurance Program we have. They will not come
down and debate it and express an opinion why they will not allow a
vote on it. It dishonors the Senate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
set aside and amendment No. 1004 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I object to that as well, but I know the
Senator wants to speak about it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this amendment ends conservation payments
to millionaires--people who make a million bucks a year.
We have a rule at the USDA that says people making $1 million a year
are not supposed to get these payments. But guess what the USDA does.
They waive the rule. What this amendment would do is say you cannot
waive the rule.
If you, again, are talking about our debt, the very well-heeled, the
very well-connected are getting a majority of the conservation payments
in this country. They are the ones most capable of doing conservation
on their own land, and do, but now they do it with the assistance of my
or the President pro tempore's grandchildren because what we are
actually doing is paying them dollars that our grandkids are going to
have to pay back. What we are doing with this program is incentivizing
people to do what they are already going to do in their best interests.
All I am saying is, enforce the rule, the law today. Do not give the
Department of Agriculture the ability to waive. If somebody is making
$1 million a year, they do not need our help right now. Our kids need
that help, our grandkids need that help, our schools need that help.
They do not need that help.

[[Page S3934]]

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for actually a
question and a clarification?
Mr. COBURN. Absolutely.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. I have good news for the Senator. On page 309 of the
bill, based on the fact that we took the amendments from last time, his
language is in the bill. It was part of the 73 amendments that were
offered. As I indicated earlier, we included everything that was, in
fact, passed by the Senate on the floor last time so that people would
know that their amendments were included in the bill. There was one
exception to that, which was the Coburn-Durbin amendment, which was, in
fact, revoted on and is now a part of the bill. But I refer the Senator
to page 309, section 2610, ``Adjusted Gross Income Limitation For
Conservation Programs.'' So the Senator is correct. It was passed last
time. And the good news is that it is in the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Well, Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the
committee. I will double-check that with my staff. This excludes
something that was in the bill, so I will have to look at what the old
bill said to be able to concur with that. If that is the case, then
there should not be any problem with accepting this amendment if, in
fact, it is not complete because it is the intent of the authors--both
the chair and the ranking member--that this limitation be a part of
this farm bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might, I say to the Senator, we
will work with you and look at the intent, and it is the intent. I
would also just in passing indicate that hopefully we will have an
opportunity, as we come to a universe of amendments, as we did last
year, to have the Senator's previous amendment that he talked about,
which is also one that I support.
So as we work through this, again, what we need to do is what we did
last time: to come up with a universe--it can be large or small--and in
the interest of time make sure a variety of Senators have the
opportunity to offer different amendments as well--not just one or two
Senators but that a number of Senators have the opportunity to--and
hopefully Members will be willing to come together and put together a
list that includes Senator Landrieu's flood insurance amendment, which
is absolutely critical. We have other amendments. Senator Grassley has
an amendment we have been working on to pair with Senator Landrieu's
that we would like very much to put together. I would be very
interested in including Senator Coburn's amendment No. 1003, which he
talked about previously, because I think it makes sense.
So right now we are at a point where we just have to get people
positively working together on a list that we can move through
together. But the good news is, I say to Senator Coburn, the one you
are speaking about, I believe, is as you had offered it last time. But
we will be happy to work with the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairman of the committee.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
set aside and amendment No. 1005 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, 3\1/2\ years ago, with the debt limit
increase, my colleagues and I overwhelmingly voted to ask the GAO to
study duplicative programs in the Federal Government. This last April
they gave the third in what will be a continuing rollout of the
programs in the Federal Government.
I will say that the Director of the OMB followed another amendment
that I offered directing that all the programs of the Federal
Government be published. They made their first stab at that. This was
last week. Director Burwell, in whom I have the utmost confidence at
OMB--a stellar individual--made the first attempt. The problem is, what
is a program in the Federal Government? There is no definition. So we
have a rough start in an attempt to do that.
But what the GAO has done--and they are magnificent employees--over
the last 3\1/2\ years is identified at least $250 billion of waste and
duplication that we ought to be getting rid of.
Here is an amendment that is not highly prescriptive but recognizes
what GAO told us about food assistance programs--domestic food
assistance programs. We did not make any attempt in this bill to
streamline those or consolidate them or put metrics on them. So this
amendment tries to bring that together through the USDA to put, No. 1,
metrics on them; and, No. 2, combine the ones that are duplicative so
we can actually be effective in what we intend them to be, but also be
efficient.
Those are two words that hardly ever happen in Washington,
``efficiency'' and ``effectiveness.'' GAO found signs of overlap and
inefficient use of the resources within the 18 different programs. Now,
we have 18 different programs. Three of them are outside of the
Department of Agriculture. One of them is in Homeland Security.
First of all, there should not be a food assistance program in the
Department of Homeland Security. Two of them are at HHS. We should not
have duplicative bureaucracies in those other two departments when we
have a bureaucracy in Agriculture. But of those 18 programs, what they
found was the following: In 11 of the 18 programs, there was not enough
research to even determine whether the programs were effective.
We do not know if what we are doing is working because never when we
pass these programs do we require a metric or some type of method to
assess their effectiveness. So that is one of the things this amendment
will do. It allows the Department of Agriculture to do that. As a
matter of fact, it mandates it. Is it effective? What parameters are
you using to say it is effective? In other words, if the American
taxpayers are going to spend money on this program, ought they to know
whether it works? I mean, only in Washington do we do programs and not
know whether they work and not ask whether they work.
So in 11 of the 18 programs there is not enough knowledge even at the
Department of Agriculture to know whether they are working. This
amendment requires the Department of Agriculture to evaluate the
following 10 programs: Child and Adult Care Food Program, the Community
Food Projects Competitive Grant Program, the Emergency Food and Shelter
National Board Program, the Grants to the American Indian, Alaska
Native, and Native Hawaiian Program, the Organizations for Nutrition
and Support Services Program, the Food Distribution Program on Indian
Reservations, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Program, the Senior Farmer
Market Nutrition Program, the Summer Food Service Program, the
Emergency Food Assistance Program, and the WIC Farmers Nutritional
Program.
Now, let me just mention one of these. The Summer Food Service
Program, as announced by KOTV in Tulsa, OK, just last night, no matter
who you are they are going to feed you two meals a day in the summer,
whether you make $100,000 a year or whether you are in need of a meal.
So, first of all, we have a problem with that program. We ought to be
supplying food for people who need food, not for people who do not need
food. Smart people are going to take advantage of that and say: Man, I
can get two meals a day. I am not in need, but since it is free I am
going to take it.
Last summer we served 180,000 meals in Tulsa. A large proportion of
those were not people in need. So I have no objection to helping people
who have need, but here is a program that has no limits on it and no
metrics on it. It is a wide open program--well intentioned, but there
is not a metric and there is not a limitation.
So here is all we are saying with this amendment: Here are 10
programs, Department of Agriculture. Determine whether they are
effective. And, by the way, how did you determine that? What were the
parameters you used to do that?
That is just common sense. Why would we not want to know if the
programs are working? Why would we not want to know if they are
efficient and

[[Page S3935]]

effective? Why shouldn't we look at it when we are running--we are down
to 24 cents on the dollar that we are just borrowing against our kids'
future from 48. That is because of the economy growing last year to the
tune of $360 billion coming in, and $620 billion over the next 10 years
in tax increases on the very wealthy in this country. So we are down to
24 cents, but we are still borrowing 24 cents out of every dollar we
spend. Why would we not want to spend the time to make sure these
programs are effective and efficient?
It is very straightforward. This amendment also eliminates one
program, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and moves any
incomplete or ongoing projects to the appropriate USDA programs. USDA
proposed eliminating this program which targets low-income pregnant
women, children, persons age 60 or over, but Congress continued to fund
the program. The reason they wanted to get rid of it is because there
are already programs that duplicate this one. Yet here we find it is
still going to get funded. It is going to get authorized. Even USDA
says we do not need this program.
It is the only program we have--in 2012, the program was funded at
$177 million, and it duplicates SNAP, Grants to Native Americans, the
Home Delivered Nutrition Program. In other words, USDA already
recognizes it is a duplicative program. They have asked for it to be
eliminated. We did not eliminate it. So this amendment would eliminate
it.
This amendment also eliminates the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition
Program and moves the nonduplicate function to the WIC Farmers
Nutrition Program. Both of these programs do exactly the same thing.
They provide grants to participating States to offer vouchers and
coupons and electronic benefit cards to low-income participants that
may be used in farmers' markets, roadside stands, and other approved
venues to purchase fresh produce.
They provide exactly the same assistance to women, children, and
seniors and should be combined. GAO says they should be combined. USDA
says they should be combined. But they are not combined in the bill.
All cost savings from the elimination of those consolidations and three
eliminations are directed toward providing food assistance. In other
words, none of the money comes back out. It goes back into programs
that have proven to be effective.
This amendment also directs the USDA to coordinate with the Health
and Human Services Administration on Aging to identify and address
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication between the programs providing
food services on Indian reservations where we have a real need. So we
are not just looking for duplication, we are looking for gaps in
service.
It also requires them to report their recommendations back to
Congress. Since I do not want to use my big slides today I will use my
small slides.
Here are the food assistance programs, all 18 of them. Fifteen are
run at the Department of Agriculture, two are run through HHS, and one
through Homeland Security. Yet GAO says we can collapse these 18 into
10 and be more effective and get better nutrition to the people in at-
risk groups. We have not done it. So it is like we asked GAO to do all
of this work, and then we did not pay any attention to it.
I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 1006
be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. I object. May I say something? First of all----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator yield?
Mr. COBURN. I will yield for a question, but I will not yield the
floor. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I would ask the Senator, does he know that some of us
are very sympathetic with the amendments he is offering, and does he
know some of us would actually really like to vote on some of those
amendments? I am sure he is aware. Is he aware that I am sorry that I
have to object, but it is the only way I can get my amendment up.
Mr. COBURN. I would respond to the Senator from Louisiana, I have no
ill will toward her objection. I stated it plainly before. I believe
the Senate ought to have any and all amendments prior to cloture. I
think Senators have the right to offer anything they think is pertinent
to this country on any bill that is going through here. I used that
tactic for the first 3 years I was in the Senate. Nobody objected. Now
that we have become so partisan and so cowardly that we are afraid to
vote on issues, and that we abuse the rights in the Senate to the
detriment of the whole body, I hold no ill will against the Senator for
objecting.
The point is, is the country worse off for it? I am sure some of my
colleagues do not want to have to vote on some of my amendments. I
understand that. There are amendments I do not like voting on either,
but I have no problem going home and taking a stand. The fact is we can
figure out what we are for and what we are against. You know, the fact
is, when it goes through here it does not mean it is law. What it means
is it has to be conferenced with the House. We ought to let it roll. We
ought to open the spigot and let things roll in the Senate, have the
votes.
We used to have 10 and 12 votes at a time. We used to do bills. Come
down and all morning long we would be offering amendments. We would
have committee hearings and other things in the afternoon. At 4 o'clock
we would come down and vote, 9, 10, 8 amendments. The next day we would
do the same thing. The next day we would do the same thing.
So the fact is, if we really want to get our country back, if we
really want the confidence of the American people to return to those
who represent them in Washington, we have to start saying, you know,
you cannot win everything. I am going to try. If I lose, I lose. But I
tried hard. That is how we ought to play the game.
The fact that we have people abusing the process on both sides, not
just one side--I will never forget, former Senator Akaka, one of the
loveliest men I have ever met in my life, when I first came to the
Senate and offered an amendment that was not germane, he objected to
it. One of my colleagues stood up and said: Senator Akaka, do you
really mean that? You have to understand where that starts. If you
object to his amendment, that means in the future I am going to be
objecting to your amendment, and we have not done that. What we
actually want is a free-wheeling, open amendment process so people can
be heard.
The fact is I represent 4 million people. The Senators from
California represent 37 million. Everybody's voice ought to be heard.
We each ought to be able to have our voice heard. We each ought to be
able to offer amendments. We ought to be able to get votes on those
amendments. What are we afraid of? Is the next election really that
important that we do not want to allow people to offer their ideas, in
what used to be the greatest deliberative body? It certainly is not
now. It is not anywhere close. Do we really not want ideas to be
offered and debated and the American people to understand what is at
stake?
I mean, what I have offered today maybe not everybody would agree
with, but you cannot disagree that it does not make sense; that it is
not common sense; that we should not be more efficient and more
effective; that we should worry about the future as we worry about the
present; that we ought not to be spending 24 cents out of every dollar
by borrowing it from other people in the world or having Ben Bernanke
print it at the Federal Reserve.
We can solve these problems. The grown-ups need to stand and say we
are going to have debate, we are going to have amendments, even if we
do not like them.
So I have no ill will toward the Senator from Louisiana. I have ill
will for the process that has devolved. I think the shame is that the
American people are being shortchanged by the lack of debate and lack
of votes.
I think this amendment, even though objected to, is another critical
area where we do not have our eye on the ball. This is an amendment
that relates to the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. What it does is
in this bill it has been increased, the amount of money has been
increased to $70 million a year. It was at $55 million in 2012. There
is nothing wrong with having this block grant program, but I want to
show you how we can save $75 million over the next 5 years. And $75
million is not chump change, it is $75 million.

[[Page S3936]]

The amendment freezes spending for the specialty crop block grant at
$55 million authorized by the bill. The amendment prioritizes food
safety and access to affordable foods for schoolchildren and low-income
families. One-third of the projects funded by the Specialty Crop Block
Grant Program last year were for marketing and promotion. They were not
for kids, they were not for seniors, they were spending money to
promote.
Let me show you who got the money. Let's see. We spent money to
promote the emotional benefits of real flowers and plants in the home.
That has to be a priority right now; is it not? We are going to borrow
$500 billion this year. We are going to spend money to make sure
everyone in America knows the emotional value of having real flowers
and plants in the home. That is a priority right now. How about grant
funds for floats that travel to fairs and festivals and encourage
people to eat more fruits and vegetables? That has to be a priority. We
are going to pay for a float that goes around to all these festivals so
we can promote eating. People know about eating properly. Could we
spend that dollar in a better way and get a better effect?

How about wine receptions and tasting? By the way, the Market Access
Program already covers it, but we take money from this block grant
program and promote wines in China and in Taiwan. We do it also with
the Market Access Program. Here is an absolute direct duplication. We
are spending millions of dollars promoting something that another
program is designed to promote, and we didn't do anything about that.
How about a short video showcasing pear growers and promoting State
wines in Mexico and in India? Again, duplication of what the Market
Access Program does, but we take from the Specialty Crop Block Grant
Program. We have one program for market access and promotion and then
we take a different program and use it for exactly the same thing.
Specifically, the amendment requires that no less than 80 percent of
the total funding appropriated for the Specialty Crop Block Grant
Program be spent on the following: increasing access, availability and
affordability of specialty crops for children, youth, families and
others at risk, including but not limited to specialty crops for meals
served at schools and food banks; ensuring food safety; protecting
crops from plant pests and disease; and production of specialty crops.
That is what it was originally set up for, by the way. It wasn't set
up to promote wines in India or China or Taiwan or Brazil or Mexico. So
part of it is the way we wrote the bill that allows USDA to give grants
that go outside the original purposes of it. Funds could still be spent
on marketing promotion but not at the expense of crops and consumers.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and
Coburn amendment No. 1007 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, may I ask the good
Senator from Oklahoma, since he has talked about three amendments, may
I ask unanimous consent for my amendment, to see if anybody would
object to it?
Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to yield a limited time for the Senator
to ask for unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Louisiana
is recognized.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I will try to do this in less than 3 minutes.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and
the following amendments be made pending en bloc: Landrieu No. 1113,
Johnson No. 1117, Cardin No. 1159, and Grassley No. 1097; that the time
until 5 p.m. today be equally divided and controlled in the usual form
and that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote on the amendments listed;
that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to each vote; that no second-
degree amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to the
votes and that the amendments be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote
threshold.
I would also like to add that I would not object personally to having
one of Senator Coburn's amendments added to this list, but this is the
list I was given to ask unanimous consent for--just four amendments,
two on flood insurance and the Grassley amendment on freedom of
information regarding EPA.
So we would have votes, all of them requiring a 60-vote threshold,
with both sides having a side-by-side, which we sometimes do in this
body so if someone wants to vote no they can then have something to
vote yes for. This is the most reasonable way I could present this list
to help us get a vote on flood insurance and another important
amendment to Senator Grassley, a Republican. I am a Democrat, Senator
Grassley is a Republican, so it is very balanced on each side.
So I am asking unanimous consent to try to get a vote this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator
from Louisiana is proposing an amendment that I strongly disagree with
the substance on. Despite that, I don't object to her having a vote on
her amendment. What I object to is the fact there are only four
Senators who get to have amendments.
We have a list of maybe a dozen, maybe it is 15 amendments, that
Senators from our side have been requesting to have considered and they
have been objected to all week long. Now we are told that soon we can
expect the majority leader to file a cloture motion on the bill which
will lead to shutting off this bill entirely. This seems to me a clear
strategy to block amendments.
So far we have had 10 rollcall votes on amendments on this bill. Of
those, three have been Republican. Last year, the farm bill had 42
rollcall votes. What I would like to do is work this out right now, and
we can do that, as far as I am concerned, if these amendments could be
made in order. Maybe there are others on your side, and I would welcome
them.
I have no objection to the Senator from Louisiana having a vote on
her amendment, but I don't think we should be doing just these four or
some subset thereof and continuing to shut out all the other Senators
who have been trying to get their amendments agreed to.
So, for that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would respond to the Senator from
Pennsylvania, then I will relinquish the floor to the managers of the
bill because it is their responsibility and they have been doing a
great job trying to help us get through the farm bill.
I wish to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania because this is real
progress. He said he will not object to a vote on our amendment on
flood insurance. I appreciate that because I know he has strong
objections to it. I may not win the vote, but the people in my State
have asked me to do everything I can to fight for them. This is a very
serious issue in the State of Louisiana, in Texas, in Florida, in Rhode
Island, in Maine, in Massachusetts, in Vermont, and even in
Pennsylvania.

So I thank the Senator. Let me yield the floor back to the chairman
of the committee to see what could potentially be worked out, but I am
so happy the Senator will not object to a flood insurance amendment if
we can ever get to one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
Does the Senator from Oklahoma yield?
Mr. COBURN. I yield to the chairman of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. I realize the Senator from Oklahoma has the floor and
he wishes to continue with his amendments.
I wish to speak to all the Members who are on the floor as well as
those who are in their offices, because, as everyone knows--again, to
hearken back to the last time around we did this--we had 73 amendments.
Not all of them took a recorded vote, but we did come up with a finite
list. It was 73. It was a big list, but we came up with a list.
That is what we are trying to do now. We have been working with
colleagues. We want that list. No one wants that more than I and
Senator Cochran--to come up with a group of amendments,

[[Page S3937]]

so everyone knows what we will be voting on so we can begin to move
through that.
I indicated we had included in the bill the amendments we had voted
on the floor the last time. I did make one error that my staff reminded
me of. There was one we did vote on that is not in here, which was the
amendment of Senator McCain on catfish. That was not included, in
deference to those who had objected. But everything else that was of
substance, as I understand, is in the underlying bill.
I also do want to note the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma did
have a significant amendment that came very early in this process. In
fact, it was one I did not support, but he won his amendment. We could
have blocked it. I could have objected, because I don't support the
policy, but I did not do that. So the Senator's amendment did pass,
even though I voted no and do not support it. So from my perspective,
as the chair of the committee, I am happy to have debate. I am happier
when I win than when I lose, but I am happy to have debate.
We want to put together a universe of amendments. Right now we don't,
at this point, have time to go through 150 amendments. So we have to
find out what is a priority for everyone, put together a finite list,
and we are going to continue to work on that. If the majority leader
files cloture, we can still continue to do that. We can put together a
finite list, vitiate the cloture vote, and move to a vote on a group of
amendments.
That would be my preference. I know it would be the preference of
Senator Cochran as well. So we are going to continue to work on that,
whether cloture is filed or not--see if we can't come together with a
group of amendments and, hopefully, we will be able to get that done.
That is my preference on how to do a bill. We will continue to attempt
to make that happen.
I appreciate the time allotted, with the Senator from Oklahoma
yielding to me, and we will continue to work with him as well as all
Members to move to a place where we can have an opportunity for
amendments to be offered in a timely manner to get the bill done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Oklahoma to set aside the pending amendment?
Ms. STABENOW. On behalf of Senator Landrieu, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I think I am starting to hear the Senate
starting to work the way it should, and so I am going to offer a
unanimous consent request that the list she presently has, with the
ranking member, the Senator from Mississippi, of a large number of
amendments be considered as read and in order; that the list the
Senator proffered, which went through both cloakrooms this afternoon, I
ask unanimous consent that be agreed to and those be filed and
considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. STABENOW. Reserving the right to object, that is, unfortunately,
an unrealistic motion from my perspective. We have to work with
Members. Many Members, including the Senator who is speaking, have
multiple amendments and we need to get a list of priorities from people
so we have a smaller list we can work with to get this done in a timely
manner.
So I object at this point. I would like very much to see us get
together a list but to do this in a way where some Members have many
amendments and others have very few----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Since objection is heard, it was my understanding the
Senator from Michigan had an agreed-upon list that was sent to both
cloakrooms.
Ms. STABENOW. No. I wish I did.
Mr. COBURN. Failing that, what I would propose, based on what I have
heard out here this afternoon, is that the chairman put it together and
let's try it and let's ask unanimous consent.
The fact is the chairman and ranking member of this committee have
worked hard to get this bill. We can do this bill. But one thing the
Senator said in her statement is she wants a finite list. That is fine.
What we want to do is have an open amendment process. So as the Senator
considers that, let's move it.
Here is what will happen, and here is what used to happen in the
Senate, for my colleagues who are new. People file all sorts of
amendments, including me, and about half of them we wouldn't bring up.
So we don't know in this universe of 150 how many are truly serious,
how many are done filing an amendment and made a statement, such as I
did on one amendment changing the name of SNAP. I have no intention of
calling that up, but I wished to make a statement about whether it is
really nutrition--the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program. So I would
suggest the chairman and ranking member put that out there. Give it to
me and let me offer a unanimous consent request on the floor live. We
have had a great debate. We understand what the problems are. Let's
start voting. Let's start debating and voting.
When we consider all the time huddled in a group of staffers, we
don't do anything. We don't debate the bill, we don't vote the bill,
and so, consequently, the American people get shortchanged. So I will
offer that unanimous consent request. I will not even participate in
what is in the mix. I believe the process ought to move forward,
whether I win or not. The fact is it is selfishness on the part of our
colleagues, because they do not want to vote on something, that keeps
us from doing the country's work.
I believe we are at a seminal moment right now in the Senate where we
can change what is happening in this body if, in fact, we will lead in
doing that. I know the President pro tempore wants to see that happen.
I believe my colleague from Michigan wants to see that happen. I know
the ranking member has had that philosophy for years in the Senate. He
taught it to me. I learned that from him.
I offered a lot of amendments that he opposed and didn't like, some
of them affecting Mississippi, and he beat me every time. But he never
said, You can't offer the amendment.
I think we are at a seminal moment. Let's start moving things. What I
will do is call on the ranking member and the chairman: Give me that
list. Let me go fight for it. Let's break this beaver dam in the
Senate, and let's start acting like grownups here.
Ms. STABENOW. Would the Senator be willing to yield?
Mr. COBURN. I would be willing to yield for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Let me first say that if I am hearing the Senator
right, he will work with us to move forward on a unanimous consent
request on a list of amendments. I certainly would welcome his doing
that.
I also do need to indicate we spent last week and this week moving
amendments. We started moving amendments. The Senator's was one of the
very first ones we did vote on. We have been working together today,
trying to move in small groups amendments to be able to get things
moving, now facing objections as we do that. But we did have the
opportunity to do a number of amendments last week and have moved
forward to vote on some. We will continue to do that with colleagues.
That is our intent.
Again, if my friend will remember, this is the second time around for
us. We have already done this once. We are back doing it again. We want
to get it done. We want to have the opportunity for people to offer
more amendments.
Mr. COBURN. I know there is a question in there somewhere.
Ms. STABENOW. Yes, there is a question. If I might say to my friend I
am hearing that he is desiring to work with us in order to get together
a list. Is that correct?
Mr. COBURN. That is correct.
Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent, and I want to preface this
unanimous consent. There are 150 amendments, I think the chairman said,
or thereabouts. A lot of those aren't going to require votes; some are.
I ask unanimous consent that every amendment that has been filed at
this point be considered as read and considered debatable and votable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. STABENOW. There is objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. If an objection is heard--I retain my time.

[[Page S3938]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. I would appreciate my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
Mr. COBURN. Let me make this point. If the Senator from Michigan
wouldn't have objected, we could start voting tonight, we could vote
tomorrow, we could get through those. Half of those will be pulled, and
we would be almost to the same number of votes you would have had, that
you did have, the last time the bill came to the floor. So do we really
want to break this logjam? Let me offer it again. We can move this
thing. Let's just do it. Let's go out and vote. Let's take the tough
votes. Some of us are going to get bruised. Big deal. We are all
grownups. Let's have the votes. Let's move amendments. Let's debate in
the Senate. Let's do the country's business. Instead, we are not going
to do it.
There is a compromise. More than half of those will be withdrawn. My
colleagues know that. Let's put them all in order. Let's vote them,
let's take care of it, and let's be grown up and get the Senate back to
where it is supposed to be.
I am going to offer my unanimous consent one more time, that every
amendment that has been filed today as of now be considered as read and
pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. STABENOW. Reserving the right to object, let me indicate, as the
manager of this bill, I appreciate the advice we are receiving from the
Senator from Oklahoma, and we will certainly look forward to working
with him and receiving his advice. We are managing the bill on the
floor. We appreciate very much the efforts of the Senator to come down
and move things in the direction he wishes. We will continue to manage
this bill in a way that is fair and open and work with all of our
colleagues and look forward to getting this done.
I would--also reserving the right to object--indicate we have a bill
in front of us that affects 16 million people and their jobs. We have a
bill that is $24 billion in deficit reduction, unlike any other bill
that has come before us in bipartisan deficit reduction. We have a bill
in front of us that has eliminated 100 different authorizations or
programs because of duplication, which I know is near and dear to the
heart of the Senator from Oklahoma.
We have a bill right now worthy of voting on and passing. We will
continue to work with all of our colleagues to move this forward to get
this done on behalf of the 16 million men and women who work in
agriculture. We will certainly take his ideas under consideration as we
move forward to manage this bill.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, fair and balanced consideration to our
colleagues is allowing them to have amendments, and the Senator just
objected to that. So that is where we are. That doesn't keep her from
managing the bill. The Senator still gets to set the priorities of what
comes up when. But here lies the problem in the Senate: There are
obviously some amendments in there they don't want to vote on;
otherwise, we would not have heard an objection. So it is not just
Senator Toomey, who has now said he would not object to Senator
Landrieu's amendment, it is other objections of people who won't come
down here to the floor and show their constituency what they are
objecting to. In other words, it is darkness. It is not light, it is
not transparency, it is not of good character, it is not of good moral
fiber. What it is, is the least of these, the lowest of these, who
refuse to participate in an open and honest debate about what is going
to happen in our country.
I call on all my colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike. We know
what has to happen to open the Senate. Let's vote. Let's vote. For my
colleagues on the Republican side objecting, I disagree. Go ahead and
vote. For my colleagues on the Democratic side, let's vote. Let the
chips fall. The American people decide who is to come up here. Gaming
this system by hiding behind an anonymous objection, putting it through
the chairman--I am proud to see the Senator from Louisiana. She came
down here, she showed courage and said, Here is why I am doing it. She
spoke honestly to her constituents back home and also to the Members of
this body. We don't have enough of that.
We had an opportunity just then to move this bill, restore the Senate
to the way it should function, and we chose not to do it. The American
people have got to be shaking their head right now in disgust, because
had the time been spent, instead of figuring out what is OK and what is
not OK, actually debating and then voting amendments, we could have
voted 30 or 40 amendments by now on this bill. But we chose not to do
it. Some of us chose not to do it.
Kindergarten is out around most of the rest of the country, except in
the Senate, and it is still in session here. We ought to be disgusted
with ourselves, and the American people ought to be disgusted with us
as well, because we are not allowing this body to do what our Founders
intended it to do. I am going to spend a minute talking about that.
This place is very different than the House. No matter who is in
charge, the tendency is to overuse the power of the majority. But what
our Founders intended was the Senate to be totally different than the
House. The reason 6-year terms were put there was so you wouldn't be
susceptible to the political influence of reelection, so you would
become a long-term thinker, and that your motivation would be primarily
a motivation for the best will of this country and not your State or
your political career.
The assessment of the Senate today is that we have lost our focus. It
is about politics, not our country. It is about the short term, not the
long term. It is about anything but the best interests of the country.
Here we have commonsense amendments. I appreciate the fact that the
chairman and ranking member have included some of mine in what they
were proffering, but let's include them all. What is so bad about
voting on a stupid amendment? If it is really stupid, they are either
going to withdraw it or lose big. If it is really controversial, the
American people want to see us debate and vote on controversial topics.
They do not want to see us duck our responsibilities.
We have met the enemy. The enemy is us.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, since I have an objection to that
amendment 1007, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1008 be
called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I would
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, even though the amendment has been
objected to, I am going to talk about it.
The amendment is to require the Rural Utilities Service of the
Department of Agriculture to ensure that the grants and loans it makes
to provide access to broadband telecommunications services in rural
areas are made to rural areas that don't already have access to
broadband.
Wait a minute. Why would we want an amendment to do that? This is an
amendment to tell them to do what they are supposed to be doing.
Over the years, the rural broadband program has seen a large amount
of Federal funding. In 2009, the Department of Agriculture broadband
program received $2.5 billion from the stimulus bill. The inspector
general examined the Rural Utilities Service broadband loan and
guarantee program, and what he found was that a large majority of the
funds went to areas that already had broadband services. In other
words, they didn't spend the money where we don't have broadband; they
spent the money where we already do.
Specifically, this inspector general found that 148 communities that
received broadband service funded by this program were within 30 miles
of cities with more than 200,000 people--including the cities of
Chicago and Las Vegas.
Some of the Federal funds going to broadband programs originate from
the Department of Commerce as well. So we have the Department of
Agriculture

[[Page S3939]]

and the Department of Commerce both doing the same thing.
The issue is highlighted by the problems with the broadband program
that occurred in West Virginia, the President pro tempore's State.
Specifically, the State could not handle nor had the use for the
routers that were delivered to them. Put simply, the libraries and
schools didn't have the need for the powerful stuff that was sent to
them. So we wasted the money. It was a $24 million error.
You get to $1 billion $1 million at a time, and you get to $1
trillion $1 billion at a time.
What this amendment does is make them spend the money where we don't
have broadband, not where we do. In other words, it prioritizes--which
most of us would agree to--that broadband funds through this grant
program go to areas that don't have broadband rather than areas that
already do. So let's wire the whole country first before we upgrade
everybody else.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
set aside, and amendment No. 1010 be brought up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. STABENOW. There is objection. On behalf of Senator Landrieu, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this amendment is very controversial, I
know, amongst my colleagues. But I have practiced medicine for 25
years, and before that I ran a pretty successful business.
The Department of Health and Human Services delayed the
implementation of ICD-10. Let me explain what that is. ICD-10 is a new
diagnostic code book. Why is that important? Well, we use ICD-9 now,
which helps us write the diagnostic codes. Whether you are in a
hospital, a clinic, a doctor's office, an outpatient surgery center, a
home health, whatever it is, those diagnostic codes categorize what we
actually did for you. Well-intentioned public health experts thought we
aren't broad enough in what we do with the ICD-9, International
Classification of Diseases, so as a part of the Affordable Care Act,
ICD-10 was implemented.
There is nothing wrong with updating it, but let me explain to you
what we did. We went from 18,000 codes of diseases to 140,000 codes,
the cost of which, at a minimum, in the health care system under
various studies will be at least $5 billion a year in added costs.
Will there be some benefit? Yes, to the public health experts who
study disease patterns there will be some limited benefit. The question
we have to ask is, What is our biggest problem with health care? Our
biggest problem with health care is it costs too much. What we have
done with ICD-10 is, just the implementation--I am talking $5 billion a
year from here on. The implementation is going to cost $10 to $15
billion to put it in. What this amendment would do is make a
significant delay in the implementation of ICD-10.
The implementation of the Affordable Care Act is going to cost enough
as it is. This would refocus us on what is important. It is important
that providers spend time with patients, not spend time trying to
figure out how they fill out a disease code. For any of you who doubt
the significance of this now, if there are 18,000 codes now--most
doctors write the disease code. They don't have a staff to do that.
When you go from 18,000 to 140,000, what are your doctors going to be
doing? They are not going to take care of you, they are going to be
spending time looking at a book that has 140,000 diagnostic codes and
listing that. So we are going to take time away from patient care.
Why is it important that the doctors get it right? Because the
penalties under Medicare for mislabeling are severe and the sanctions
are severe--penalties of 1 percent to 2 percent payment per year on
your total billing to Medicare or Medicaid. So the costs associated
with ICD-10 are enormous. So it is not only hard and costly to
implement it, but it takes people away, the very doctors we want
spending time with patients. It limits that because they are going to
be spending more time filling out paperwork for the Federal Government.
The other thing it will do is it will not improve health care
outcomes at all. It does nothing to improve health care outcomes. It
will not improve the first patient, so there is no positive benefit in
the short run or medium term to the patient. The only limited benefit
would be to long-term studies of public health.
Let me give some diagnostic codes to think about how foolish this is.
The new codes account for injury sites ranging from opera houses to
chicken coops to squash courts. Not only do you have to list what an
injury was, you then have to go through this book and find out where it
was. Was it on a ranch? Was it in the coral? Was it in the chicken
coop? If you mislabel it, you are under threat of penalty from CMS.
How about nine different codes where you got hurt around a mobile
home? How about a burn due to water skis? How about walking into a lamp
post? If you hit your head it is important for public health officials
to know that you walked into a lamp post.
It includes 300 different codes related to every different animal. So
if you got a bite from a rat or a chipmunk or a squirrel, there are 312
different codes around each one of those animals.
It has 72 codes pertaining to birds. You got pooped on, you got
pecked at, you got bit--72 separate codes.
How about bitten by a turtle or, the second one, struck by a turtle?
Or walked on a turtle? Or kicked a turtle? That is how much foolishness
is in ICD-10. We are going to ask our doctors to spend time figuring
out 160,000 different codes, disease related, when 18,000 does it just
fine right now. What this would do would forego the implementation of
ICD-10.
I ask the present amendment be set aside and amendment No. 1076 be
called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. STABENOW. On behalf of Senator Landrieu, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. I understand the objection. I have no ill will toward my
chairman or ranking member for their objection.
What this amendment does is during sequester, it prohibits
performance awards in the Senior Executive Service. We are paying
performance bonuses right now during sequester. The Office of
Management and Budget has ordered a freeze on most bonuses for Federal
workers during sequestration, but the current law provides an exemption
for members of the Senior Executive Service who are among the most
highly paid Federal Government employees. This amendment closes that
exemption loophole. If we are all going to suffer, everybody is going
to suffer. Just because you work in the Senior Executive Service
doesn't mean you should not have to participate and lead on the
sacrifice this country is going to have to be making and is making.
This treats SES personnel just like every other Federal employee.
I ask the pending amendment be set aside--actually, I think I will
stop with that--one other.
Mr. President, I ask amendment No. 1152 be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. STABENOW. Reserving the right to object, I will object, Mr.
President, but I would like to ask my friend, given all the amendments,
if we were able to accept all of his amendments would he be supporting
the bill?
Mr. COBURN. I have not made that decision.
Ms. STABENOW. I object on behalf of Senator Landrieu.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. I will tell you how I go through looking at the farm
bill. I believe farmers ought to farm. I don't believe they ought to
farm the government. I think you all, over the last few years, have
done a good job changing that scenario.
I believe food security is an important part of what America can do
for both our country and our world. I also know our farmers are some of
our hardest working people.
Having said all of that, there are a ton of programs in here that do
not directly benefit food security in this country or the American
public. When we still have the well-heeled, well-connected in this
country taking advantage of farm programs, from pro athletes to
everything else, who use the

[[Page S3940]]

farm program as a method, as a tax hedge, and use the supplemental
systems, by eliminating direct payments, you have done a great deal.
I am all for crop insurance. I think it ought to be a little more
costly and spread around. I think crop insurance in terms of the
commissions paid to the people who sell it are a little too rich. There
are a lot of people who would like to have that book of business for a
whole lot less money. We have not done that. It will be a balance to me
as I look at improvements.
I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for making progress on
the farm bill. We have a long way to go. This amendment relates to one
of those, which is how do we I make sure, if we are going to take
taxpayer money and help people with their needs under the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, how do we make sure we are doing it in a
way that actually gives them nutritious food?

As a physician who has cared for obesity and heart disease and cancer
and high blood pressure for years, diet is a big factor on that.
Senator Harkin and I have an amendment together, this amendment, which
would create a pilot project in two States to allow States to use a
nutrition assessment for setting what can be brought with SNAP. That is
what this amendment does.
A lot of the companies do not like it. A lot of people say: How can
you do that? But I remind our colleagues, for many of the people who do
not buy nutritious food when we are helping them, we are paying for it
twice. That is because when they make poor choices with our money to
buy their food, they are creating disease categories that we are going
to pay for in the future, with our money, for their disease.
So the idea of trying a pilot project in two States where they use
nutritional value to make a determination of what food products are
eligible and what are not for the SNAP program, this is a try that most
people out in the country would like to see.
Most Americans want to help anybody who needs help, but I hear it all
the time when people say: I see people buying stuff I don't buy or I
can't afford to buy with their SNAP card.
There is no good way to do that other than do it on a nutritional
basis. That is the only way we should look at that. If we are going to
help somebody we ought to help them.
There is a great book by Marvin Olasky. It is called ``The Tragedy of
American Compassion.'' He talks about how to help people. You do not
help people by giving them a blank check. You help people in short
term. You help them as long as they have a need. But you help them in a
way that they get to help themselves and by that they get to help
themselves and get their dignity back.
Senator Harkin and I have agreed that this is a pilot project that
will have to be evaluated at the end of 2 years. All the costs of it
have to be borne by the States. We have checked out all the computer
companies. There is no problem in putting limitations on UPC codes or
anything on all the checkout items. It is not an issue. We have done
all the homework on it.
It would be interesting to see, once we do a nutritional evaluation
and a limitation on SNAP products, what would happen to the health of
the people we are helping. That is the amendment he and I have worked
on together. We would love to see it go. We think it is time for that
to happen. It certainty will be good.
The key is, can we help people get back to being self-reliant? I
don't want us to be a big brother, but I also want to make sure the
money we are stealing from our kids, from their future, actually does
help somebody and doesn't hurt them.
With that, I again congratulate both the chairman and ranking member
for the bill they brought. It has marked improvements. I thank them for
their patience dealing with me today on the floor. I very much regret
that you have objected to a way to move this bill forward because it
doesn't just have implications for this bill. The courage to stand up
and say let's do that will have great implications for how this body
functions for the next 16 months. I think we are going to miss a big
opportunity if we do not do that.
I would love to see the Senate go back to operating the way it did
when I first came here. My hopes were dashed, however, with that
objection.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Remembering Frank R. Lautenberg

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have been listening to this debate
with my colleagues, but I came to share a few thoughts about the
passing of our dear friend Senator Frank Lautenberg. He was a dear
friend, a colleague. When I originally sat in the Senate, he sat right
behind me. We shared seats together on the Commerce Committee. I can
tell you Frank's wit was as quick as his downhill slalom skiing. He
always had something funny to say.
We knew him as somebody who had been in one of the largest computer
services companies, ADP, and helped get that company started, and as
somebody who represented veterans as one of the last World War II
veterans in this body. He served here for almost 30 years.
What always amazed me about Frank is that he brought that business
attitude to the Senate when it came to legislating; that is, results
matter. Because of that, he had a long list of legislative
accomplishments.
I don't know if everybody, because of the turnover in the Senate,
realized how many things Frank accomplished: banning smoking on
airplanes, lowering the threshold for drunk driving, better protection
against toxic chemicals, helping to improve the everyday safety of
Americans, improving the quality of our environmental laws in the
United States. He also had an amendment that helped allow for better
refugee status, for members of historically persecuted groups to easily
get refugee status in the United States.
He did many different things while he was in the Senate, and he
worked very hard because of that experience in World War II and being a
veteran and going to school on the GI bill--somebody who lost his
father at a very early age. He used that GI bill to get the education
he needed to do these incredible things.
When Frank had a victory, he didn't stop at that victory, he kept
going. After he and Dick Durbin helped ban smoking on commercial
flights, he followed that with a provision to the Transportation
appropriations bill that extended the ban to include all Federal
buildings.
In the same kind of fervor, once he helped make our drunk driving
laws stronger, he continued to try to implement stronger measures as a
key player in establishing a national blood alcohol level at 0.08
percent. At the time, many States decided to do otherwise, but Frank
worked to try to champion this at the Federal level, and as a result he
helped to save tens of thousands of lives.
He was also a huge champion of our environment. He championed ocean
acidification issues before they were probably really known by a lot of
people in America. He understood that this was a looming disaster and
that we needed to do more research for marine life, our economy, and
our way of life.
He also knew and understood that Americans needed protection from
toxic pollutants. Well, that is something most of us would say: Yes, we
don't like toxic pollutants. Back in 1986 he wrote a bill that created
a public database about toxins released in the United States. That was
certainly brave for somebody from New Jersey because it was a leading
chemical-producing State. The fact that Frank took that on showed a lot
of tenacity and a lot of courage, and just as he did on the other
things, he followed that up.
Recently, he introduced the Safe Chemicals Act to improve the
understanding and reporting of chemicals found in products that make
their way into the hands of Americans every single day.
He also championed improving our transportation system. I asked him:
Frank, how did you already get a train station named for you on the
Jersey line? Anyone who has taken the Amtrak up to New York has had a
chance to see that one of the stops in Secaucus is named the Frank R.
Lautenberg Station. He had been a great champion for Amtrak, but he was
also a great champion for freight and freight mobility. He knew it was
important to New Jersey as a major port in our country, and he wanted
to make sure that not

[[Page S3941]]

only people but products got to where they needed to go and got there
on time.
We all like to think we are remembered by the American people for the
accomplishments we have, and I am not sure whether they will remember
all of the things Frank Lautenberg did to contribute to their way of
life. One thing I can say is that when I think about his advocacy for a
modernized GI bill or banning smoking on planes, he touched the lives
of millions of Americans.
He also had tenacity. He had the tenacity once to help a boy from New
Jersey who had been involved in a domestic dispute where the father had
lost custody. The young boy at that time, Sean Goldman, who was from
New Jersey, had been taken by a family member and was in Brazil. His
father tried going through the Brazilian courts for years to get him
back. He really wasn't successful until Frank Lautenberg joined the
fight. Frank brought the same tenacity he had shown in the past and
held up a generalized system of preferences bill--which remove tariffs
on $2.7 billion worth of Brazilian goods--here in the Senate. He knew
that threatening to hold up that bill would get their attention, and he
was right. He literally got them to do something and return this young
boy, Sean Goldman, to his father. Frank really cared about results. He
knew it was important to get that father and son reunited, and he knew
the importance of getting results for his constituency in New Jersey.
We will miss Frank. We will miss all of his legislative actions, his
standing on the Senate floor and giving a speech or, as he would say,
giving heck to somebody. Oftentimes it was somebody on the other side
or somebody he thought was a big giant doing too many things that
needed to be challenged. He will be remembered as part of a great
generation of Americans who were successful in so many ways. He lived
the American dream, came to the Senate and was a contributor. He will
be remembered for his tenacity and standing and fighting for people.
We are going to miss you, Frank.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Iran Elections

Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak about S. Res. 154. S.
Res. 154 is a resolution I submitted last month with Senator
Blumenthal. It calls for fair and free elections in Iran and points out
that the Iranian regime is fundamentally illegitimate.
Americans believe in the power of elections. We believe voting means
something. The rest of the world also understands and respects that
elections are powerful events. Most countries that hold elections want
to channel the will of their people into the governing of their
country.
The Supreme Leader of Iran believes in the power of elections too,
but he does not respect them. He himself has never been elected, and he
knows a free election might threaten his power base. So he ensures that
a truly free election is impossible for the Iranian people.
In past elections fraud has been rampant. The government has cracked
down on public dissent and moved against media sources that are not
officially sanctioned.
But most of all, Iran's Supreme Leader has developed the unfortunate
habit of selecting which candidates may be permitted to run for office.
Hundreds of candidates were prohibited from running for Parliament
last year and hundreds more were denied the right to run for President
this year. Apparently, the Supreme Leader believes there is too much at
stake to risk anyone other than a handpicked candidate to prevail at
the voting booth.
The restrictions on candidates are so strict it almost seems it would
be easier for the Supreme Leader to cancel the elections altogether and
just appoint a President. But the Supreme Leader wants the legitimacy
conferred by elections as badly as he wants to retain full control of
the Iranian regime.
There are lots of analysts in the United States and elsewhere who
attempt to understand which way Iran is going based on which candidates
stand for election and which ones prevail. Some candidates are judged
to be reformers, others conservatives, and so forth.
But this analysis gives the Iranian regime more legitimacy than it
deserves. Because dissent is stifled, because candidates are blocked
for political reasons, and, most of all, because the Supreme Leader
holds all of the levers of power, Iran's regime cannot be seen to have
legitimacy.
Consider that the current Supreme Leader came to power in 1989. He
has never been held accountable to the people of Iran, but he is in
full control of the country. He controls the defense and foreign policy
outright.
He has the power to veto anything that comes from Parliament. He vets
candidates for Parliament, and he helps choose the members of the
Assembly of Experts and the Guardian Council--the very governing bodies
that formally oversee the Supreme Leader. Simply put, power in Iran
begins and ends with the Supreme Leader.
On June 14, Iran will elect a new President. While much will be said
about who wins that election, we already know what the outcome will be.
The Supreme Leader will continue to dominate Iran, run roughshod over
the rights of the people of Iran, and deny the Iranian people the
ability to chart their own future.
For this reason I urge my colleagues to join Senator Blumenthal and
myself in supporting S. Res. 154. Our resolution points out, first,
that Iran has a terrible track record of fraudulent and illegitimate
elections; two, that Iran crushes the right to free speech and to a
free press; and, three, that true power in Iran remains firmly in the
grip of the Supreme Leader.
Our resolution calls on Iran to correct these injustices. It makes
clear that the United States will not view Iran's regime as a
legitimate expression of the will of its people unless and until its
elections are free and truly fair, until those at the highest level of
power are made accountable.
Holding autocracy responsible is important not only to the Iranian
people but to the people of the world at large.
We face an enormous challenge in trying to get Iran to abandon its
nuclear program, and we would be dangerously mistaken if we believed
that the winner of the June 14 election will somehow represent the
Iranian people.
We must remember--and remind the world--that if Iran continues to
work toward a nuclear weapon, it will be because that is the course
plotted and pursued by the Supreme Leader. The June 14 elections,
unfortunately, will not change that reality.
I hope my colleagues will join us in standing with the Iranian people
and against an unelected and illegitimate regime bent on a dangerous
course of action.
I hope we can adopt this resolution to demonstrate that we are not
fooled by elections that give voters false choices and install leaders
determined to threaten the security of other nations.
Only true and fair elections that hold Iran's leaders accountable to
the Iranian people will produce a government that deserves to be seen
by the world as legitimate. I call on my Senate colleagues to send that
message loud and clear to Tehran.
I now yield the floor to my esteemed colleague from the State of
Connecticut who is joining me in this resolution, Senator Blumenthal. I
wish to thank him for his support of this resolution and for his
willingness to not only speak up but to stand up for the people of
Iran.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I thank my colleague Senator Hoeven
for his leadership on this issue, for his dedication to this cause, his
perseverance and persistence in support of democracy.
This resolution, in fact, is all about democracy in a land that has
been deprived of it for far too long. Unless Americans think this cause
of democracy is far removed and inconsequential to their lives,
Americans know elections have consequences. In this instance, the
consequences have ramifications across the world because it is

[[Page S3942]]

the authoritarian, undemocratic regime of Iran that is pursuing nuclear
weapons without regard to the well-being of its people.
If it does not answer to its people, if it is undemocratic and
authoritarian, it can continue to pursue this nonsensical, thoughtless,
lawless course of seeking to arm itself with nuclear weapons. That is
bad not only for the Iranian people but for the American people and for
the people of the world.
I rise today in support of the Hoeven-Blumenthal resolution calling
for free and fair elections in Iran and condemning the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran for its ongoing violation of human rights.
On June 14, Iran will hold what looks to be yet another round of
elections that are not fair, not free, and certainly not democratic--a
sham, a charade that demeans even the pretense of democracy. On June 14
Iranians will elect a new president, but they will do so in an
environment filled with systematic fraud and manipulation. They will be
faced with a ballot hand-selected by the Supreme Leader, because he and
his aides have prohibited literally hundreds of candidates from
running. They have accepted only eight candidates for this election.
They are doing so in a country with severe restrictions on freedom of
expression and assembly and without media freedom. We ought to note
and, as my colleague Senator Hoeven says so well, remind the world that
the real power in Iran continues to rest with the Supreme Leader who
controls foreign policy and defense and can veto any decision made by
the President or the Parliament. The Supreme Leader has been in power
since 1989. He has never been subject to an election or popular
referendum of any kind. That is why Senator Hoeven and I are again
offering this resolution supporting political reform and freedom in
Iran, and strongly siding with the Iranian people on behalf of the
American people in the struggle for democracy. I thank Senator Hoeven
and so many of my colleagues who worked with us before when we
sponsored a similar resolution last year condemning the 2012 elections
which were neither free nor fair.
We rise again to speak this truth to power. The Iranian people are
denied basic and fundamental universal human rights and continue to
suffer a repressive leadership that denies the validity of their views.
As a global leader on human rights and a beacon to the world on
democratic values, this body has an obligation to stand with the people
of Iran and demand accountability from their leaders.
Other countries around the world are struggling for democracy, and
our ally in the Middle East, Israel, exemplifies it as a shining model.
I am reminded of how many people in that region are denied rights and
freedoms. But we should reaffirm at every opportunity our commitment to
democracy and urge the Iranian Government to hold free elections, end
arbitrary detentions, stop harassing people who fight for basic rights
and freedoms, and reform their political process.
I also want to commend President Obama for tightening sanctions on
Iran's currency and auto industry, which should prevent the government
from procuring some equipment used in nuclear programs. I support
continuing efforts to show Iran that we are serious when we say they
must halt their nuclear weapons development program. People look to the
United States for democracy and freedom. They watch what we do and what
we say on this floor of the greatest deliberative body in the world.
We must be unequivocal and remind the world how important it is to
stand with the people of Iran, which is what the Hoeven-Blumenthal
resolution does. I thank again my colleague Senator Hoeven.
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. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, speak after me for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Health Care

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I come to the floor today as millions
of students in high school and colleges across the country have
recently graduated. I had an opportunity to attend a number of
commencements across Wyoming to speak to a number of students who were
graduating. I note that President Obama has also been out giving
graduation speeches this year. At Ohio State University, the President
criticized those of us who warn that government does not always have
the best answer. The President suggested that anyone who thinks
Washington has grown too inefficient or too ineffective is somehow
opposed to democracy entirely. That is what President Obama told new
college graduates. It is absurd, but that is exactly what he had to
say. He told them he wants to give everyone, as he says, ``a fair
shake.'' What he did not tell these young people, these young men and
woman, is that his policies--the policies he has been promoting and
passing--have actually been hurting them and millions of other young
Americans.
He made no mention of the heavy burdens he has heaped on their backs,
or the damage his policies have done to our economy. President Obama
did not say anything about it, but those graduates are actually going
to figure it out very quickly. They are going to see what they are
getting from President Obama is not at all a fair shake.
The first thing they will notice is how difficult it is for them to
find a good job in the Obama economy. One of the things the Wall Street
Journal had to say in an article by Dan Henninger:

In Campaign 2012, Barack Obama promised the youth vote a
rose garden. What they've got instead, as far as the eye can
see, is an employment wasteland.

According to a report by the Center for American Progress, the
unemployment rate for Americans under age 24 is 16.2 percent. Their
study estimated that even when this group eventually starts earning a
paycheck, these young Americans, they will collectively suffer reduced
earnings of about $20 billion over the next decade. It works out to
about $22,000 for each one of those young men and young women.
The Center for American Progress, which did this study and did this
report, is actually a very liberal think tank. Here is what else they
said: ``Employment prospects for young Americans are dismal.'' This is
what the liberal think tank is saying. ``The employment prospects for
young Americans are dismal by both historical and by international
comparisons.''
We know young people who do find jobs are often stuck with part-time
work. What they are looking for is a career. It has been nearly 4 years
since the recession ended. Since then we have had a much weaker
economic recovery than we should have. In the first quarter of this
year alone, the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.4 percent. Wages
have continued to stagnate. The average work week continues to shrink.
Why would that be? Why would we see wages stagnating? Why would the
average work week shrink? Why are employment prospects so dismal for
young Americans? One big reason is the weight of government regulations
on our economy. Businesses want to grow. They want to hire. But they
have been buried under a mountain of new rules and Washington mandates.
So far in 2013, the Obama administration has released more than
32,000 pages of new regulations. All of that new redtape is strangling
our economy and making it tougher for businesses to create jobs for
these young graduates.
One part of this--and I have warned about it before--is the new
mandate in the President's health care law. It says businesses with 50
or more full-time workers have to provide expensive government-approved
health insurance. The law does not say ``expensive'' government-
approved health insurance, but the government-approved health insurance
is turning out to be expensive.
A lot of us on this side of the aisle predicted the President's
mandates

[[Page S3943]]

were going to do terrible things to the economy. Well, that is exactly
what happened. That is exactly what happened. It is one of the reasons
we have had such weak job creation. The new jobs we do get, well, they
are concentrated in businesses that basically use hourly workers.

I have come to the floor and talked about one small business after
another that is saying they are keeping workers to less than 30 hours.
That usually hits people without work experience. It hits people like
new graduates, just starting out, especially hard. Of course, the
President didn't mention any of that at his graduation speeches.
There is another thing the President hasn't told young people. It has
to do with the sticker shock a lot of them are going to have when they
try to buy health insurance. One reason is because the health care law
forces young healthy people to pay more so that older sicker people can
pay less. Another reason is because the Obama administration has come
up with a long list of things insurance policies have to cover.
Remember, none of these extras is free; they are just prepaid at higher
premiums. Young people won't be able to just get the insurance they
want that is right for them or that they can afford. No. Now they will
have to pay for the Obama administration mandated and approved health
insurance. It is going to be much more expensive, and it may actually
do them no medical good.
Why should Washington tell a single 23-year-old woman she has to pay
for prostate cancer screening? Why should a 22-year-old man with no
children have to pay for a plan that covers pediatric eye exams? Young
people don't need many of these mandated services, they do not want
them, and they don't want to pay for them. Yet they are mandated to buy
them. Again, President Obama is making young people pay more for health
insurance so that someone else might pay less.
How much more are they going to have to pay? Well, according to one
survey of insurance companies, younger and healthier people can expect
average premium increases of 169 percent next year. While some people
are going to get government subsidies to help cover part of this extra
cost, not everyone will. Even with the subsidies, a lot of young people
are still going to pay much more than they would have without the
President's health care law. We haven't heard the President talk much
about that during his graduation speeches.
Young people and future generations have already been saddled with $6
trillion in new debt since President Obama took office. Washington's
debt is now more than $53,000 for every man, woman, and child in the
United States. These are people who will end up spending the rest of
their lives paying higher taxes to cover that debt and the interest on
the debt. President Obama's latest budget called for young people to
pay even more by increasing the debt another $7 trillion over the next
decade. That is something else he didn't happen to tell young people
during his graduation speeches.
That doesn't mean Washington Democrats are keeping quiet. According
to an article by Bloomberg, they are trying hard to sell the
President's health care law. Here is how they put it in the article by
Bloomberg:

The White House has told all cabinet members and senior
officials to use commencement speeches to drive home for
graduating college students and their parents the benefits
they gain from a provision of the law that allows young
adults to stay on their families' insurance plans until they
turn 26.

Other Democrats are trying to say the same thing. Nancy Pelosi sent
out a 78-page booklet telling Democrats in the House how to spin this
unpopular health care law. I have a copy of it here. It is astonishing.
Roll Call wrote about it the other day. The article is entitled
``Democrats Unleash a Binder Full of Obamacare Messaging.'' One of the
suggestions was to find one or two young adults in your district who
are now on their parents' plan because of the new law. That is what
Nancy Pelosi is recommending to the Democrats. That is the sales pitch.
The President wants young people to believe they are getting free
insurance. He doesn't want them to see all the ways the health care law
is going to hurt them. That is what the President is telling young
people. That is his message. That is what he wants other Washington
Democrats to tell everyone too.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is leading the
cheers. She says she plans to travel around the country to spread the
word about enrollment. The enrollment she is talking about is trying to
get people to sign up for the health care law's insurance exchanges.
She especially needs young healthy people to sign up for the exchanges,
such as these new graduates. In the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Ezekiel
Emanuel spelled out why in an op-ed. Remember, he was one of the
President's top advisers in creating the health care law. He is also
the brother of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. This is
what he had to say. He wrote that young people ``are bewildered about
the health care reform in general and exchanges in particular.'' The
title is ``Health Care Exchanges Will Need the Young Invincibles.''
Just yesterday the Los Angeles Times front page read ``Young adults a
hurdle for health act.'' Dr. Emanuel is concerned these young people
won't see the Obama exchanges as being in their best interest. Well, of
course they won't see it as being in their best interest, and that is
because the exchanges are not in their best interest. That is why the
Los Angeles Times is right--``Young adults a hurdle for health act.''
The solution, Ezekiel Emanuel writes, is that ``every commencement
address by an administration official should encourage young graduates
to get health insurance.''
That is not going to be an easy sell for this administration. A
recent Harvard poll of 18-to-24-year-old college students found that
only 42 percent approve of how the President has handled health care.
Young people are skeptical about the health care law. They are being
told they have to buy expensive insurance that they may not need or may
not want and that is not right for them because if they do not, the
only people in the exchanges will be the old and the sick, and the
whole thing will collapse under its own weight. For the President, that
would be a terrible political disaster, and apparently this
administration is willing to do whatever it takes to avoid that
disaster.
According to the Washington Post, Secretary Sebelius is now going hat
in hand to health industry officials asking them to donate to nonprofit
groups in trying to enroll more people in the exchanges. At best, the
Sebelius shakedown is a conflict of interest. And this latest scandal
will only make young people more skeptical of the President's sales job
on his health care law.
Young people understand they will have to pay more for health
coverage so that older people will pay less. Young people understand
they are being told to do something that is not in their best interest,
and the reason they are being told to do it is to give the President a
political win--not because they will get better health care but to give
the President a political win. They understand the President's bad
economy means they may not find a job, but they are supposed to be OK
with that because mom and dad are allowed to pay their bills for a
couple more years. Young people know a Cabinet Secretary shouldn't
pressure businesses to support organizations that share the President's
political agenda. They understand all of that even if the President
won't say it to them during commencement speeches. If the President
really wants to give young people a speech they will remember, he will
tell them the truth about how terrible these policies are for them.
The President should leave the spin for the campaign trail and then
come back to Washington and be ready to sit down and work with
Republicans on policies that work for our economy, that work for young
people, that work for future generations, and that work for all
Americans.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his unanimous consent
request, and I ask unanimous consent that after I conclude my remarks,
the Senator from Rhode Island Mr. Whitehouse be recognized for up to 15
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3944]]

U.S.-China Trade Deficit

Mr. BROWN. Madam President, today new U.S.-China trade deficit
figures from April show a 34-percent increase since March. Last month
our trade deficit with the world's second largest economy was more than
$24 billion. I remember about a dozen years ago when the Senate and the
House approved PNTR--permanent normal trade relations--with China.
Around that time the bilateral yearly trade deficit with China was
barely $10 billion. Today, just for last month, it was $24 billion. It
has persistently and consistently been over $200 billion a year in
recent history.
This kind of trade deficit keeps our domestic companies on the
defensive. It means workers in Ohio, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
throughout the Midwest, and across America are prevented from unlocking
their potential. Our manufacturers are still the most productive in the
world. Our workers are the most skilled and the most productive in the
world. Their productivity continues to go up and up and up, in part
because of globalization; however, their wages have been stagnant. That
is part of the price our country has paid for globalization.
Our workers can't compete when China cheats. How can we win the
future when our manufacturers can't win contracts because China doesn't
play fair? In many ways China and so many of our trading partners
practice trade according to their national interest. Yet we in the
United States practice trade according to some economics textbook that
has been out of print for the last 20 years.
Despite universal agreement that China continues to manipulate its
currency to gain an artificial advantage over American-made goods, no
action has been taken down the hall by the House of Representatives and
no action has been taken down the street at the White House. No action
has been taken by the House despite widespread support for legislation
this Chamber passed in October 2011. That legislation, worked on by
many of my colleagues, would establish new criteria for the Treasury
Department to identify countries that misalign their currency. The bill
would trigger tough consequences for those countries which engage in
such unfair trade practices. It would allow for industries harmed by
currency manipulation to seek relief, the way they do for other export
subsidies, which several industries in my State have sought, such as
steel pipe producers in Lorain, where I visited last week, in
Youngstown.
We can solve this problem. The major reason there have been new
investments in the Lorain U.S. Steel plant, at V&M Star in Youngstown,
at Wheatland Tube, also in the Mahoning Valley, stabilization in jobs,
and growth in jobs is because we have enforced trade laws. We can solve
this problem further with currency reform. That is why Senator
Sessions, a Republican from Alabama, and I will join our colleagues,
including Senators Schumer, Collins, Stabenow, and Burr, tomorrow when
we reintroduce this bill. Why? Because more nations are engaged in this
practice, and it is clear we don't have the tools to address it.
It is no longer just China manipulating its currency. There are a
number of other countries--especially in East Asia--that are engaging
in this practice, and, as I said, we don't have the tools to address
it.
In 2009, as nations were seeking to restore stability to financial
markets and respond to the global financial crisis, G-20 leaders met in
Pittsburgh to set a framework that would better promote more evenly
balanced trade. Among the steps to be taken would be a more market-
oriented exchange rate--something China obviously isn't familiar with--
and a move away from the practice of adopting artificial, manipulated
exchange rates not based on market forces.
While this appeared to be a step in the right direction, there has
been too little to show for the good intentions stated back in 2009.
Here is what we know. Workers and manufacturers still face an unfair
advantage from currency manipulation. By keeping the value of the RMB--
the Chinese currency--artificially low, China drives foreign
corporations to shift production there because it makes exports to
China more expensive and it makes Chinese exports back into the United
States cheaper.
It has only been in recent history that business after business after
business, as we have seen in the United States, has developed a
business plan that involves shutting down production in Lima, OH, move
that production to Beijing, and then sell back to the United States of
America. Never really in history has that been a widely adopted
business plan in a country--shut down production in Springfield, MA, or
Springfield, OH, move that production to Shihan, China, or Wuhan,
China, get tax breaks for doing it, and then sell those products back
into the United States. Part of the reason for that is currency
manipulation.
This continued undervaluation has caused serious harm for this
economy. It has cost American jobs. The first President Bush said in
the 1980s that $1 billion in trade surplus or trade deficit could
translate into some 12,000 jobs--meaning that if there is a trade
deficit with a country, it costs this country 12,000 jobs. Multiply
that by a $500 billion, $600 billion, or $700 billion trade deficit,
and see what we get.
A December 2012 report by the Peterson Institute for International
Economics found that currency manipulation by foreign governments had
cost the U.S. from 1 to 5 million jobs and increased the U.S. trade
deficit by $200 billion to $500 billion per year.
Think of that. By addressing currency manipulation now, we could
create up to 5 million jobs and reduce our trade deficit by tens of
billions of dollars, and doing so wouldn't cost taxpayers a cent.
But let's look for a moment beyond the numbers. Workers in my home
State who work hard and play by the rules at Titan Tire in Bryan, OH,
American Aluminum Extrusions in Stark County, Wheatland Tube in
Trumbull County, the people who make coated paper and lightweight
thermal paper in southern Ohio, the Ohioans who forge steel into
products we all use--these women and men deserve a chance to earn a
living without companies in other countries illegally dumping goods--or
legally if we don't do anything about currency--on our markets. We
can't afford to sit idly by while our trade deficit grows and our
domestic manufacturing base erodes.
By addressing currency manipulation and other unfair trade practices,
we create American jobs and position ourselves to meet the challenges
and opportunities of globalization.
I look forward to continued debate and action on finally penalizing
the countries that cheat on trade.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to
my friend Senator Blunt and then reclaim the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUNT. I appreciate my good friend Senator Whitehouse yielding
the time for me.

Remembering Frank R. Lautenberg

Mr. BLUNT. I would like to talk for a few minutes about Senator
Lautenberg and what he brought to this body and what he brought to
public service.
I represent Missouri in the Senate, and in the House I represented
southwest Missouri. Many times in the last 2\1/2\ years, Senator
Lautenberg wanted to talk about going to basic training at Camp Crowder
near Neosho, MO, as a young man barely on the edge of his twenties--I
am not sure which edge of his twenties it was, but he was serving in
World War II, first as a teenager and then as a man barely in his
twenties--and what it was like to be surrounded by small communities,
all of which were smaller than the camp at which the enlisted men were
training, and what it was like when they had some free time and could
go to any of these communities where they probably outnumbered the
community. He always remembered that part of his training with some
pleasure. The story was always different from the story before, but I
am sure all the stories happened.
But what he was really talking about to me every time was that
commitment to service that particularly our World War II veterans
brought to this body. And we all know, after the reflections of the
last 2 days, that he was the

[[Page S3945]]

last of the World War II veterans to serve here and likely to be the
last of the World War II veterans to ever serve here, and the spirit of
service they all brought was reflected in Senator Lautenberg in lots of
ways.
All you would have to do is look at our voting record to know there
were lots of areas at the end of the day we didn't agree on, but
somehow we managed to do that and still appreciate the commitment to
public service that he reflected, and I think he appreciated that in
me.
One of the chances I missed here was the opportunity to serve with
him on the surface subcommittee in Commerce. He was going to be the
chairman of that committee for this Congress, and I was going to be the
leading Republican and was looking forward to that because this was one
area where I thought we were going to find and would have found a lot
of common ground. Senator Lautenberg's understanding of transportation,
his understanding beyond most of us of the importance of passenger rail
and rail generally and how you need to integrate this system so that it
works the best and the most efficiently, was clearly one of the areas
where he had spent a lot of time over the years.
Remember, Senator Lautenberg was here as a Senator, and then he
decided to retire and then called back into public service. At a time
when most people would have made that decision and moved on, he came
back and served here, as it turned out, for the rest of his life of
service.
It was an honor for us to get to serve with him. It was an honor for
me to get to serve with him. It is a disappointment for me that I
didn't get to learn more about this issue he and I were about to join
hands on together.
But there is a lot we should learn from his service and the service
of that World War II generation. I hope that is one of the things we
will be reflecting on over the next few days as we reflect on his
career of service and that whole generation of service. We really do
see that moment pass with Senator Inouye and Senator Lautenberg and
others who have served here just in recent years, all gone. But if we
could look at the times they could come together in that spirit of
World War II to make things happen, we would all learn an important
lesson.
I join his family and his friends and his colleagues in missing him
and missing his service.
I am pleased to yield the time back to my good friend Mr. Whitehouse,
who gave me the time to say these words.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.

Gaspee Days

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, American summertime is when we
celebrate and commemorate the patriots who fought to establish and
protect this great Republic. From Memorial Day through Independence Day
and on to Veterans Day, communities across this country turn out star-
spangled bunting and gather for parades, cookouts, and wreath layings
to reflect on the heroes and events that embody our Nation's great
spirit.
June in Rhode Island is marked by the annual celebration of Gaspee
Days, when we recognize and celebrate one of the earliest acts of
defiance against the British Crown in our American struggle for
independence. Most Americans remember and I know the Presiding Senator
from Massachusetts certainly is well aware of the Boston Tea Party
when, in fact, literally spirited Bostonians clamored onto the decks of
the East India Company's ships and dumped tea bags into Boston Harbor
to protest British taxation without representation.
I am sure throwing tea bags into the harbor is a very big deal, but
there was another milestone in the path to the Revolutionary War that
is too often overlooked. It is the story of 60 brave Rhode Islanders
who, more than a year before the Tea Party in Boston, risked their
lives in defiance of oppression more than 240 years ago and drew the
first blood in what became the revolutionary conflict.
In the years before the Revolutionary War, one of the most notorious
of the armed customs vessels patrolling Rhode Island's Narragansett
Bay, imposing the authority of the British Crown, was Her Majesty's
ship Gaspee. The ship and its captain, Lieutenant William Dudingston,
were known for destroying fishing vessels, seizing cargo, and flagging
down ships only to harass, humiliate, and interrogate the colonials.
A 100-year-old report says:

This unprincipled ruffian had ruthlessly ravaged the Rhode
Island coast for several months, destroying unoffending
fishing vessels, and confiscating everything he could lay
hands on. The attack on the ``Gaspe' '' caused the first
bloodshed in the struggle for American independence, and was
the first resistance to the British navy.

How did it come about? Well, on June 9, 1772, Rhode Island ship
captain Benjamin Lindsey was en route to Providence from Newport,
sailing in his packet sloop the Hannah, when he was accosted and
ordered to yield for inspection by the Gaspee. Captain Lindsey had had
enough of the Gaspee. He ignored the command and raced up Narragansett
Bay, ignoring warning shots fired at him by the Gaspee. As the Gaspee
gave chase, Captain Lindsey--who was a wily Rhode Island ship captain--
realized that his ship was lighter and drew less water than the Gaspee,
so he sped north toward Pawtuxet Cove, toward the shallows off of
Namquid Point. The Hannah shot over these shallows, but the heavier
Gaspee grounded and stuck firm. The British ship and her crew were
caught stranded in a falling tide and would need to wait many hours for
a rising tide to free the hulking Gaspee.
Captain Lindsey continued on his way to Providence and rallied a
group of Rhode Island patriots at Sabin's Tavern. Together, the group
resolved to put an end to the Gaspee's menace to Rhode Island waters.
They may have shared one thing with their Boston compatriots: They may
have been spirited themselves.
That night the men embarked down Narragansett Bay in eight longboats
with muffled oars. They encircled the stranded Gaspee and called on
Lieutenant Dudingston to surrender his ship. Dudingston refused and
ordered his men to fire on anyone who tried to board. The Rhode
Islanders forced their way onto the Gaspee's deck, and in the struggle
Lieutenant Dudingston was wounded, shot with a musket ball. Right there
in the waters off Warwick, RI, the very first blood in the conflict
that was to become the American Revolution thus was drawn.
The brave patriots took the captive Englishmen ashore and returned to
the Gaspee to rid Narragansett Bay of her noxious presence once and for
all. Near daylight on June 10, they set her afire. The blaze spread to
the ship's powder magazine, and the resulting blast echoed across
Narragansett Bay as airborne fragments of this former ship splashed
down into the water.
The incident prompted a special commission instructed by King George
III to deliver any persons indicted in the burning of the Gaspee to the
Royal Navy for transport to England for trial and execution.
Samuel Adams, in a letter published in the Newport Mercury on
December 21, 1772, and reprinted in the Providence Gazette on December
26, called it ``a court of inquisition, more horrid than that of Spain
or Portugal. The persons who are the commissioners of this new-fangled
court are vested with most exorbitant and unconstitutional power.'' A
few days later he wrote that ``an Attack upon the Liberties of one
Colony is an Attack upon the Liberties of all; and therefore in this
Instance all should be ready to yield Assistance to Rhode Island.''
In a letter to a friend in Rhode Island, John Adams, the future
President, summed up the tension felt across the Colonies:

``We are all in a fury here about . . . the Commission for
trying the Rhode Islanders for Burning the Gaspee. I wonder
how your Colony happens to sleep so securely in a whole skin,
when her sisters are so worried and tormented.''

King George III offered a handsome reward for information leading to
the arrest of those responsible for the burning and destruction of his
revenue cutter. But Rhode Islanders are a loyal bunch--the reward went
unclaimed.
The site of Rhode Island's opening salvo in the American Revolution
is now named Gaspee Point. The annual Gaspee Days celebration has grown
to span several weeks each June and includes an arts and crafts
festival, a walking tour with students playing the roles of
Colonialists, an encampment of local militia, a parade down
Narragansett Parkway in Warwick, and, of

[[Page S3946]]

course, a mock burning of the HMS Gaspee.
My friend, State Representative Joe McNamara, and the Gaspee Days
Committee work each year to make these events the best they can be and
to remind our State and Nation of the bravery of those few dozen souls.
Indeed, this year another Rhode Islander Mark Tracy, a pediatric
neurologist at Hasbro Children's Hospital, was able to acquire original
news stories from 1772 that related this incident and gave them to the
Gaspee Committee. I will note that he was able to get them rather
inexpensively because ``the auction house concentrated on describing
the batches of newspapers--from the estate of an unnamed Providence
collector--in terms of the coming Boston Tea Party and other events,''
paying no attention to the fact that Rhode Island's greater act and
prior act was actually enclosed and described in these newspapers.
This summer will also mark another historic anniversary for Rhode
Island because it was in July of 1663--350 years ago this summer--that
King Charles II granted a royal charter establishing the Colony of
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
``To hold forth a lively experiment,'' it declared ``that a most
flourishing civil state may stand and best be maintained . . . with a
full liberty in religious concernments.''
This charter provided in Rhode Island the world's first formal
establishment of freedom of religion, distinguishing us from the rigid
theocracy of Massachusetts, I am sorry to say, where ideological
conformity was enforced by the gallows and the lash.
This charter has been called America's Magna Carta, for it is the
first formal document in all of history granting the separation of
church and state, along with extraordinary freedoms of speech, to a
political entity. This ``lively experiment'' in Rhode Island blazed a
path for American freedom of religion, one of our greatest national
blessings. And, more practically, this liberty also allowed trading
networks of Quakers and Baptists and Jews to connect in Newport and
created their abundant wealth and commerce.
That freedom of religion, that freedom of conscience was the great
legacy of Rhode Island's founder Roger Williams, who had been banished
from Massachusetts for his beliefs about religious tolerance. Williams
established his new colony as ``a shelter for persons,'' as he said,
``distressed for conscience.'' His battle for freedom of conscience,
won and reflected in the King Charles Charter, is the reason his statue
stands right out there, outside the Chamber of the Senate.
I know these events and the patriots whose efforts allowed for their
success are not forgotten in my home State. This summer we will gather
in these ways to celebrate Rhode Island's independent streak. We will
recall the courage and zeal of these men and women who embodied those
most American values--freedom of conscience and freedom from tyranny,
values that ignited a revolution in the summer of 1776.
I yield the floor.
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. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with Senator Stabenow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Monsanto Protection Act

Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to talk about an issue that is
important to many Oregonians, section 735 of the continuing resolution,
also known as the Monsanto Protection Act. I appreciate this
opportunity to engage in a dialog about it with Senator Stabenow, who,
as the chair of the committee, is doing a magnificent job of guiding
this farm bill through the Senate.
The Monsanto Protection Act refers to a policy rider the House
slipped into the recently passed continuing resolution and sent over to
the Senate. Because of the time-urgent consideration of this must-pass
legislation--necessary to avert a government shutdown--this policy
rider slipped through without examination or debate.
That outcome is unfortunate and unacceptable because the content of
the policy rider is nothing short of astounding. It allows the
unrestricted sale and planting of new variants of genetically modified
seeds that a court ruled have not been properly examined for their
effect on other farmers, the environment, and human health.
The impact on other farmers can be significant. The current situation
in Oregon of GMO wheat escaping a field test--resulting in several
nations suspending the import of white wheat from the United States--
underscores the fact that poorly regulated GMO cultivation can pose a
significant threat to farmers who are not cultivating GMO crops.
Equally troubling to the policy rider's allowance of unrestricted
sale and planting of GMO seeds is the fact that the Monsanto Protection
Act instructs the seed producers to ignore a ruling of the court,
thereby raising profound questions about the constitutional separation
of powers and the ability of our courts to hold agencies accountable.
Moreover, while there is undoubtedly some difference in this
legislative body on the wisdom of the core policy, there should be
outrage on all sides about the manner in which this policy rider was
adopted. I have certainly heard that outrage from my constituents in
Oregon. They have come to my townhalls to protest, and more than 2,200
have written to me.
In an accountable and transparent legislative system, the Monsanto
Protection Act would have had to be considered by the Agriculture
Committee, complete with testimony by relevant parties. If the
committee had approved the act, there would have been a subsequent
opportunity to debate it on the floor of this Chamber. Complete
transparency with a full opportunity for the public to weigh in is
essential.
Since these features of an accountable and transparent legislative
system were not honored and because I think the policy itself is
unacceptable, I have offered an amendment to the farm bill which would
repeal this rider in its entirety. To this point, my efforts to
introduce that amendment have been objected to, and it takes unanimous
consent. This type of rider has no place in an appropriations bill to
fund the Federal Government, and a bill that interferes with our system
of checks and balances should never have become law.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I absolutely understand Senator
Merkley's concerns about the issue and the concerns of many people
about this issue. There has been a long-running understanding that we
should not be legislating on appropriations, and I share the concern of
my colleague that the Agriculture Committee and other appropriate
committees didn't have an opportunity to engage in this debate.
As the Senator from Oregon knows, this language was included in the
continuing resolution, the bill that funds the government, and that
bill will expire on September 30 of this year. I agree with my
colleague; we should not extend that provision through the
appropriations process. We should have the same type of full and
transparent process that both Senator Merkley and I have talked about
today.
I wish to assure my friend that I think it would be inappropriate for
that language to be adopted in a conference committee or otherwise
adopted in a manner designed to bypass open debate in the relevant
committees and this Chamber.
I will do my best to oppose any effort to add this kind of extension
in the conference committee on this farm bill or to otherwise extend it
without appropriate legislative examination.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I thank Senator Stabenow. I deeply
appreciate the commitment of my colleague to ensure that the Monsanto
Protection Act is not tucked into subsequent legislation in a manner
that bypasses full committee examination and Senate debate.
The farm bill is extremely important to our Nation. The Senator from
Michigan has worked with me to incorporate a number of provisions that
are important to the farmers in Oregon, including disaster programs,
responding to forest fires, specialty crop research

[[Page S3947]]

programs, improvements in insurance for organic farmers, and low-cost
loans offered through rural electrical co-ops for energy-saving home
and business renovations.
It has been a real pleasure to work with Senator Stabenow on those
provisions and, again, I thank the Senator for her support for them and
for advocating responsible legislative examination of measures such as
the Monsanto Protection Act.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for
his advocacy on so many important policies in this legislation. We
worked together closely on forest fires. Senator Merkley and I have
been on the phone many times. He wanted to make sure I was aware of
what has happened to farmers, homeowners, and landowners in Oregon.
We share a great interest in so many areas as it relates to our
organic growers and rural development as well as what is happening in
terms of energy efficiency, and, as my friend mentioned, rural electric
co-ops.
I thank Senator Merkley for his leadership in many areas, and I look
forward to working with the Senator from Oregon as we bring the farm
bill to a final vote.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, again, I thank the chair for her
leadership. I know how much she looks forward to the conclusion of this
process as we try to enable folks to have various amendments which are
appropriate for the farm bill debated on the floor.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes
as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Climate Change

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, the last week we were here, I gave
my weekly ``Time To Wake Up'' speech, as usual. It is a speech I wrote
well earlier. In a truly and, unfortunately, almost eerie coincidence,
in my speech last week I spoke about a variety of natural disasters,
including--and I will quote my own speech--``cyclones in Oklahoma.'' I
said that in the same hour the cyclone touched down in Moore, OK.
When people are suffering in the wake of a calamity such as that,
they need to hear one thing from Washington; that is, how can we help.
That is all they need to hear. No one likes to be chided when what they
need is help and comfort.
J.E. Reynolds of the Daily Oklahoman wrote: ``Victims and survivors
need help, not a sermon in the first hours following a storm.'' I
agree. I agree very much. My thoughts are with the victims of those
Oklahoma storms and with everyone who is working to pick up the pieces.
Far from seeking to exploit their tragedy, I had no idea of the
weather in Oklahoma that was happening virtually at the time I gave the
speech, mentioning Oklahoma cyclones among other examples of extreme
weather. But the eerie timing was what it was, and it did not send that
single simple message: How can we help? So I am sorry. I have
apologized to my Oklahoma colleagues for the unfortunate coincidence of
timing of my earlier remarks, and I, of course, stand ready to help
them speed relief to their State.
It is, of course, impossible to say that any single weather event is
caused by climate change, and that is not something I have ever said.
What is true is that climate change is altering weather patterns.
Scientists have studied these changes in weather patterns, and they
have modeled what is to come. Most are convinced that increases in the
frequency and intensity of extreme weather will be a result of the
megatons of carbon pollution we continue to emit.
The way I have described it is that climate change ``loads the dice''
for extreme weather. We might not know which roll is caused by the
loaded dice. We are going to get a 6 or a 7 or a 12 or a 2 sooner or
later anyway, but the extreme weather will come more often because of
this. We cannot pretend this isn't happening. We just hit 400 parts per
million of carbon in the atmosphere, measured at the NOAA observatory
on Mauna Loa in Hawaii.
What does 400 parts per million mean? Well, look at it this way: For
at least 800,000 years, and perhaps millions, we have been in a range
on Earth between 170 and 300 parts per million of carbon in our
atmosphere--800,000 years, minimum. Homo sapiens as a species have only
been around for about 200,000 years, but just since the industrial
revolution and the ``Great Carbon Dump'' began, we have blown out of
the 170- to 300-parts-per-million range and have now hit 400.
This is very serious. We already see the effects. In Alaska,
permafrost is melting and native villages once protected by winter ice
are being eroded into the sea. In the Carolinas, roads to the Outer
Banks have to be raised as seas rise and storms worsen. Coral reefs are
fading off in Florida and in the Caribbean. In Rhode Island, we have
measured almost 10 inches of sea level rise since the 1930s. Rhode
Island fishermen going out to sea from Point Judith are reporting
``real anomalies . . . things just aren't making sense.''
All of these effects from climate change hit our farmers too. Since
before the founding of this Republic, our farmers have relied on the
Sun, the rain, and the land to provide us their bounty. In 2011,
farming and the industries that rely directly on agriculture accounted
for almost 5 percent of the entire U.S. economy. But growing conditions
in the United States are changing. More and more of our rainfall is
coming in heavy downpours. Since 1991, the amount of rain falling in
what scientists call ``extreme precipitation events''--the amount of
rain falling in extreme precipitation events has been above the 1901-
to-1960 average in every region of the country.
In the Northeast where I am from extreme precipitation has increased
74 percent just between 1958 and 2010. That matters to our farmers. The
very seasons are shifting. During the last two decades, the average
frost-free season was about 10 days longer than during that period
between 1901 and 1960. In the Southwest it is an astonishing 3 weeks
longer. That matters to our farmers.
Average temperature in the contiguous United States has increased by
about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since records began in 1895. Most of that
increase occurred since the 1980s, and 2012 was the warmest year ever.
That matters to our farmers.
This chart shows the extent of the U.S. drought in August of 2012.
The red and the dark areas indicate extreme and exceptional drought.
These conditions lasted most of the year. That matters to our farmers.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Chief Economist Joseph Glauber
testified before the Agriculture Committee that ``the heat and rainfall
deficit conditions that characterized the summer of 2012 were well
outside the range of normal weather variation.'' That is precisely what
scientists mean when they say climate change ``loads the dice'' for
extreme weather.
Climate change doesn't cause specific heat waves but the average
temperature shifts to warmer weather and the extremes move with it.
The New York Botanical Garden has seen apricot trees blossom in
February. The Audubon Society of Rhode Island has reported cherry trees
in Providence blooming as early as December. This could affect farmers
too.
Jeff Send, a Michigan cherry farmer, explained to the Agriculture
Committee that the record warm March temperatures brought his region's
cherry trees out of dormancy early and exposed them to later freezes.
In Michigan he said:

We have the capacity to produce 275 million pounds of tart
cherries. In 2012, our total was 11.6 million pounds.

A potential of 275 million pounds; actual crop, 11.6 million pounds,
less than one-twentieth, all because of that early warming and that
early bloom and the freezes that then killed them.
These changes I keep speaking about will continue if we go on
polluting our atmosphere with greenhouse gases. As the harmful effects
of climate change become more prevalent, our agricultural policies
should reflect the threat

[[Page S3948]]

posed to farming and food production by these changes. Yet in the farm
bill climate change and extreme weather are not mentioned once.
Well, let me correct myself. They are mentioned once. The bill makes
reference to an earlier law from 1990, and in the title of that 1990
law the words ``climate change'' appear. So by referring to the 1990
law, the farm bill once mentions climate change. But with all of this
going on, that is the only reference. And the reason is that our
Republican colleagues will oppose legislation if it even mentions the
words ``climate change.''
We can't get around using the name of a statute that passed 20-plus
years ago, if ``climate change'' is in the name, so that one had to go
in. But, otherwise, climate change is not mentioned in the farm bill,
despite all of this activity and effect on farming.
It is not that there aren't things we could do. The Bicameral Task
Force on Climate Change, which I cochair with Representative Waxman,
Senator Cardin, and Representative Markey, asked stakeholders in the
agriculture economy about carbon pollution and our resiliency to
climate change.
The National Farmers Union, which represents more than 200,000 family
farmers, ranchers, and rural members, responded--this is the National
Farmers Union:

Mitigating and adapting to climate change is of significant
concern to our membership and will be a defining trend that
shapes the world.

That is the National Farmers Union on climate change. It will be ``a
defining trend that shapes the world.''
Cap-and-trade legislation, the Farmers Union said, would provide a
boon to farming and forest lands that take the lead on reducing
greenhouse gases. The National Sustainable Agricultural Coalition
encouraged a comprehensive approach. An effective policy to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, wrote the group, ``should have as its
cornerstone the support and promotion of sustainable organic cultural
systems throughout USDA's programs and initiatives.''
Even the American Farm Bureau Federation, which has at times opposed
climate change legislation, expressed clear support for farming
practices that keep carbon out of the atmosphere and for investments in
biofuels and in renewable energy.
We are grateful to all of the scientific and industry leaders who
have shared their ideas with the Bicameral Task Force on Climate
Change. We need active and willing partners in the effort to ensure our
farms can meet the needs of a strong nation.
They are not alone. Responsible people across the spectrum want us to
act on carbon and climate. Responsible people such as the Joint Chiefs
of Staff of the United States of America, the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops, and dozens of major scientific societies--virtually
every major one--and the folks in the corporate sector who run Apple
and Ford and Nike and Coca Cola--get it. Republicans such as Ronald
Reagan's Secretary of State George Schultz, former House Science
Committee chair Sherry Boehlert, former Utah Governor and GOP
Presidential candidate John Huntsman--responsible people across the
spectrum get it. The scientists at NASA get it, and they are telling us
to get serious. They are the ones who took a robot the size of an SUV
and sent it millions of miles to Mars where they landed it safely on
the surface of Mars and now they are driving it around. Do we think
they might know what they are talking about? They get it. All across
the spectrum, people get it. They are on one side getting something
done about climate change.
On the other side are the polluters with their familiar retinue of
cranks, extremists, and front organizations. That is basically it. And
for some reason, the Republican Party--the great American Republican
Party--has chosen to hitch its wagon to the polluters. I do not get it.
I do not see how that works out for them.

Every day the pollution gets worse, and every day the evidence that
this is serious gets stronger. I do not know why the Republican Party
of Theodore Roosevelt wants to paint itself as the party that went with
the polluters and not the scientists; that went with the fringe extreme
against the responsible center. It has to be a bad bet. It is a crazy
bet.
To make that bet you have to believe God will intervene and perform
some magic, in violation of His own laws of physics and chemistry. Is
that a bet you want to take? You have to believe that the market will
work, even though the market is flagrantly skewed. Is that a bet you
want to make? And you have to believe the people who have a vested
interest to lie and disbelieve the people who have no conflict of
interest, unless you are prepared to think that the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the Catholic bishops and all the major scientific
organizations all have a conflict of interest. Does that sound very
sensible? Does that sound like where you want to hitch the wagon of one
of America's great political parties?
Let me close, as we talk about climate change in the context of the
farm bill, by quoting our friend Senator Tester, who recently spelled
out the crisis facing our farmers in an op-ed in USA Today.
I ask unanimous consent that op-ed be printed at the conclusion of my
remarks.
Senator Tester and his wife Sharla have been farming for almost 40
years--the same land that his grandparents homesteaded. This is how our
friend from Montana described the changes he sees:

When I was younger, frequent bone-chilling winds whipped
snow off the Rocky Mountain Front and brought bitterly cold
days that reached -30 degrees. Today, we have only a handful
of days that even reach 0 degrees. Changes in the weather are
forcing Sharla and I to change how we operate our farm. It's
now more difficult to know when to plant to take advantage of
the rains.
Some might say the end of bitter winters will be a boon for
Montana's economy. But with milder winters, we've seen the
sawfly come out earlier to destroy our crops before they can
be harvested. Montana's deep freezes also used to kill off
the pine bark beetle, which today kills millions of acres of
trees across the American West.

He writes:

Montanans already understand that climate change is
affecting our daily lives. The argument isn't whether the
world is changing, it's how to respond.

I will say, once again, it is time--it is well past time--for us in
Congress to wake up to the urgent challenge of our time. There is a lot
at stake. There is a lot at stake for all of us. There is a lot at
stake for every State, and there is a lot at stake for every
generation, particularly for the generations that are to follow.
So often I hear my Republican colleagues expressing concern about
what our debt will do to future generations. Fine. What will a ruined
climate do to future generations? What will acidified seas do to future
generations? What will worse extreme weather and rising seas do to
future generations?
There is indeed a lot at stake, and it is time to wake up. It is time
to take action.
I yield the floor.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From USA Today, Apr. 5, 2013]

Climate Change Already Felt by Farmers

Montanans already understand that climate change is
affecting our daily lives. The argument isn't whether the
world is changing, it's how to respond.
I am a third-generation farmer from north-central Montana.
My wife, Sharla, and I farm the same land homesteaded by my
grandparents a century ago, continuing a Montana tradition of
making a living off the land. We've farmed this land for
nearly 40 years.
For the average American, particularly those of us from
rural America, the political conversation about climate
change seems worlds away. For us, warmer winters and extreme
weather events are already presenting new challenges for our
way of life.
It's an experience with climate change that too often goes
unreported and overlooked. But as a nation we must start
paying attention, because the experiences of America's
farmers, ranchers, and sportsmen and women will change the
debate if policymakers start listening.
Scientists tell us that climate change will bring shorter,
warmer and drier winters to Montana. I see it every time I
get on my tractor.
When I was younger, frequent bone-chilling winds whipped
snow off the Rocky Mountain Front and brought bitterly cold
days that reached -30 degrees. Today, we have only a handful
of days that even reach 0 degrees. Changes in the weather are
forcing Sharla and I to change how we operate our farm. It's
now more difficult to know when to plant to take advantage of
the rains.
Some might say the end of bitter winters will be a boon for
Montana's economy. But

[[Page S3949]]

with milder winters, we've seen the sawfly come out earlier
to destroy our crops before they can be harvested. Montana's
deep freezes also used to kill off the pine bark beetle,
which today kills millions of acres of trees across the
American West.
Those dead trees--many of which litter our National
Forests--combined with historic drought to make 2012's
record-setting wildfires possible. Last year's blazes, which
burned Colorado suburbs, National Parks and more than 1
million acres in Montana, will become commonplace as the West
continues to heat up. And I fear that epic droughts and
floods will continue to be regular stories in the national
news.
Montana's economy depends in part on the natural beauty of
our state. Our outdoor economy generates nearly $6 billion
each year. But decimated forests, wildfires and lost wildlife
habitat put our outdoor economy at risk.
Our economy also depends on our state's number one
industry: agriculture. Montana's farmers and ranchers feed
our state and our nation, but back-to-back years of record
flooding and drought are testing even the hardiest of our
producers.
Montanans already understand that climate change is
affecting our daily lives. The argument isn't whether the
world is changing, it's how to respond.
History will judge us based on what we do next. In the
Senate, I am pushing to develop more sources of renewable
energy. I still fill up my tractor with diesel fuel because
there are no better options available, but by encouraging the
development of wind, water, next-generation biofuels and
other renewables, we will create new jobs as we cut the
emissions that warm our planet and increase our energy
options. That's why I introduced my Public Lands Renewable
Energy Development Act (http://www.wildlifemanagement
institute.org/index.php?option=com_content
&view=article&id=562:bipartisan-senate-bill-
would-establish-renewable-energy-leasing-
process&catid=34:ONB%20Articles<emid
=54) to streamline the permitting for renewable energy
projects on public lands.
I've also proposed my Forest Jobs and Recreation Act
(http://www.tester.senate.gov
/?p=issue&id=70). For decades, conservationists and loggers
fought to control Montana's forests while our trees became
fodder for fire and infestation. My bill brought Montanans
together to set aside some lands for recreation while
requiring logging in others. By better taking care of our
forests, we will reduce the growing threat of wildfire.
These are important steps, but achieving a comprehensive
solution to climate change and energy development and use
will require all Americans to work together before it's too
late. Last year was the hottest year on record (http://
articles.washingtonpost.com/
2013-01-08/national/36207396_1_noaa-analysis-
climate-change-thomas-r-karl) in the United States. We are
increasingly victims of strong and frequent natural disasters
that leave us struggling to pay for both prevention and
recovery efforts.
Folks in rural America are already adapting to the new
realities brought by climate change. For farmers like me, it
means erratic weather is putting my ability to make a living
off the land and produce food at risk.
But for folks devastated by Hurricane Sandy or picking up
the pieces from last year's wildfires, the ongoing political
debate over climate change is even more frustrating. They
know action is needed. They're calling for change. The only
question is when we are going to listen.
Jon Tester is the junior Senator from Montana. He and his
wife, Sharla, still farm the 1,800 acres his grandparents
homesteaded in 1912.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend leaves the floor, I
appreciate very much him doing his utmost to keep our eye on the
problem we have facing this country. We have no more important issue in
the world than this issue, period. So I appreciate very much the
Senator from Rhode Island keeping us focused on this.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I thank the majority leader.

Cloture Motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have a cloture motion at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 954, a bill to
reauthorize agricultural programs through 2018.
Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, Amy Klobuchar, Christopher
A. Coons, Sherrod Brown, Tom Harkin, Benjamin L.
Cardin, Heidi Heitkamp, Patrick J. Leahy, Michael F.
Bennet, Joe Donnelly, Al Franken, Max Baucus, Patty
Murray, Tim Johnson, Mark Udall, Jon Tester.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 1003 and S. 953

Cloture Motions

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be
considered as if the following motions to proceed were made: motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 76, S. 1003, and motion to proceed to Calendar
No. 74, S. 953; further, that the cloture motions, which are at the
desk, be reported in the order the motions were considered made;
finally, that the mandatory quorum required under rule XXII be waived
for these cloture motions and the cloture motion for S. 954.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The cloture motions having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair
directs the clerk to read the motions.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 1003, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act
of 1965 to reset interest rates for new student loans.
Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Lamar Alexander, Kelly
Ayotte, David Vitter, Thad Cochran, Orrin G. Hatch,
John Thune, Rob Portman, Lisa Murkowski, Michael B.
Enzi, John Barrasso, John McCain, Roger F. Wicker, Roy
Blunt, Johnny Isakson, Daniel Coats.

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 74, S. 953, a bill to amend the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the reduced interest
rate for undergraduate Federal Direct Stafford Loans, to
modify required distribution rules for pensions plans, to
limit earnings stripping by expatriated entities, to provide
for modifications related to the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Jack Reed, Tom Harkin, Richard J. Durbin,
Patty Murray, Benjamin L. Cardin, Al Franken, Amy
Klobuchar, Jeff Merkley, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown,
Barbara A. Mikulski, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Elizabeth
Warren, Charles E. Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara
Boxer.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. on
Thursday, June 6, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke
cloture on S. 954; that upon the conclusion of that vote and
notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, if invoked, the Senate
then proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 76, S. 1003; that upon the conclusion of the
vote and notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, if invoked, the
Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 74, S. 953; that upon the conclusion of the
vote and notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, if invoked, the
Senate resume consideration of S. 954, postcloture, if cloture was
invoked on the bill; that upon disposition of S. 954, if cloture had
been invoked on one of the motions to proceed, the Senate then resume
that motion to proceed postcloture; further, if cloture was invoked on
both motions to proceed, the Senate consider the motions, postcloture,
in the order in which cloture was invoked; finally, if the motion to
proceed to S. 1003 is agreed to, and notwithstanding cloture having
been invoked on the other motion to proceed to S. 953, the Senate
resume the following motion to proceed, postcloture, upon disposition
of S. 1003.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________