[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 79 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3971-S3976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2013
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 954 which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 954) to reauthorize agriculture programs through
2018.
Pending:
Stabenow (for Leahy) amendment No. 998, to establish a
pilot program for gigabit Internet projects in rural areas.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 10 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Student Loans
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, there are only 3 weeks left until interest
rates on new subsidized student loans will double. If we fail to act,
the cost of college will increase for millions of students. There are
strong proposals on the table that would keep interest rates low while
Congress has time to work out a permanent solution. Yet Congress fails
to act. Why? Two issues: Money and values.
First, money. Some have argued we can't afford to keep
interest rates low, but let's be clear. Right now, the
Federal Government is making a profit from our students. Last
month the Congressional Budget Office calculated the
government will make $51 billion this year off student loans.
Think about that: $51 billion--and that is $16 billion higher
than the earlier estimate. We have the money to cut interest
rates if we are willing to reduce the profits we make from
our students.
Unfortunately, Republicans see it differently. Two weeks ago House
Republicans passed a plan that would produce higher profits off the
backs of our college students. And here in the Senate, Senator Coburn
has introduced a similar bill that makes student loans more
profitable--all at the expense of our college students. This is wrong.
We should reject Republican plans to make more profits off our
students.
Senator Coburn talks about how his plan is similar to the low-
interest rate
[[Page S3972]]
banks offer through the Federal Reserve, but he has that wrong. The big
banks borrow at less than 1 percent, but Senator Coburn would charge
students an additional 3 percent on top of the 10-year Treasury rates.
His plan would produce billions more in profits for the government--
money that comes straight out of the pockets of our struggling
students. We have the money to help our students. We don't need to
squeeze them harder.
The second issue is values. Our college students already see that the
system is rigged against them. They watched Wall Street bankers get
bailed out while their parents lost jobs and struggled to hang on to
their homes. They see special subsidies for companies that ship jobs
overseas and exploit tax loopholes while the investment in their
future--in jobs here at home--disappears.
Now Senator Coburn plans to squeeze more profits out of our students.
He is fine with the government handing out loans to big banks at
incredibly low rates, but he wants our students to pay more. That is
not who we are. This does not reflect our values. We see students
drowning in debt and we should be there to help.
Senator Harkin and Senator Reed have shown great leadership on this
issue. They offer simple solutions to prevent interest rates from
doubling. Their plan would maintain the current 3.4-percent interest
rate for 2 more years.
I have also introduced a short-term plan that would cut interest
rates even more by offering the exact same low rates the big banks get
through the Federal Reserve discount window. I introduced this 1-year
deal because we need immediate relief while we develop a long-term
plan.
So I rise today in support of the Reed-Harkin proposal to freeze
interest rates on subsidized loans for 2 more years. Their proposal
prevents the rates from doubling on July 1 and it also gives us time to
develop a plan that aligns with our values and supports our students.
This is about our values. Have we become a people who will support
our big banks with nearly free loans while we crush our kids who are
trying to get an education? The student loan program makes obscene
profits on the backs of our students. This is morally wrong and we must
put a stop to it.
Our students don't have high-paying lobbyists to look out for their
interests, but they do have their voices. Petitions urging Congress to
pass a short-term plan for interest rates to prevent them from doubling
have already collected more than 1 million signatures. Our students and
their families are asking for what is right. They are asking for
something we can easily afford. Let's show them government can work for
them.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me first commend Senator Warren for her
very thoughtful discussion on this increasingly important topic of
student debt and her efforts to assist us in extending the current
interest rate of 3.4 percent while we work on a much longer and much
more thoughtful approach to reform. She will be at the heart of those
efforts.
July 1 is a little more than 3 weeks away. Unless Congress acts, the
interest rate on subsidized student loans will double from 3.4 percent
to 6.8 percent, making college more expensive for more than 7 million
students across the Nation, including more than 42,000 students in my
home State of Rhode Island.
This will hit low- and moderate-income families the hardest. Indeed,
60 percent of dependent subsidized loan borrowers come from families
with incomes of less than $60,000, while 80 percent of independent
subsidized loan borrowers come from families with incomes below
$40,000.
There is no reason to allow this rate to double, and there is no
reason to rush to a long-term solution that would actually make the
problem worse.
There are several long-term proposals on the table, with substantial
differences. The House passed a bill that, according to an analysis by
the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, would leave students
worse off than letting the rate double. The President has, in fact,
said he would veto this legislation, but if the House bill went into
effect it would be worse than doing nothing, which I think is a strong
argument to do something other than the House bill.
My Republican colleagues in this body have proposed a long-term
solution that would expose students to unchecked interest rates in the
future, there would be no cap, and their proposal would have students
pay $15.6 billion more in interest payments for deficit reduction. I
don't believe student loan borrowers should pay higher interest to
reduce the deficit, nor do I think the Federal Government should be
generating Federal revenue from student loan programs. We should not be
profiting on the backs of these students, particularly as student debt
explodes.
I have proposed setting interest rates based on the actual cost of
providing the loans with a cap to protect students during periods of
high interest rates.
Any long-term solution for student loans should leave students better
off in the long run. The Republican proposals do not pass this test.
According to a recent analysis by the Institute for College Access
and Success, the Senate Republican proposal would cost students
entering college this fall and graduating in 2017 $2,200 more in
interest payments. For a freshman starting in the fall of 2018 and
graduating 4 years later, the increased interest payment would balloon
to $6,700.
Make no mistake, the ``savings'' generated from the Senate Republican
proposal means students pay more.
As I have come to the floor to discuss many times, with student loan
debt eclipsing credit card debt and auto loan debt, we should take the
time to thoughtfully and comprehensively address student debt and
college costs.
How we set student loan interest rates is only one part of the
solution. We need to address rising college costs as well. If we do
not, even with grants and loans, families will be priced out of a
college education and out of the middle class.
We need to ask more from States and from colleges and universities. I
will be introducing legislation to revitalize the Federal-State
partnership for higher education and to make sure colleges and
universities have more skin in the game when it comes to student loans.
These are big, complex issues, and we should work together to develop
bipartisan solutions. But that work--that careful work, that thoughtful
work, that thorough work--will take time--more than the 25 days we have
between now and July 1.
Right now we can and we must take action to reassure students and
families who rely on need-based loans to pay for college that the rate
will not double on July 1.
I have worked with Chairman Harkin, Senator Warren, Leader Reid, and
many of my colleagues to develop a fully offset 2-year extension of the
current student loan interest rate. Instead of charging low- and
moderate-income students more for their loans, the Student Loan
Affordability Act will keep rates steady while closing loopholes in the
Federal Tax Code.
Specifically, the bill would limit the use of tax-deferred retirement
accounts as a complicated estate planning tool, close a corporate
offshore tax loophole by restricting what is called earnings stripping
by expatriated entities, and close an oil and gas industry tax loophole
by treating oil from tar sands the same as other petroleum products.
These are sensible measures in and of themselves, but when they will
allow us to stabilize the student interest rate, they take on even more
relevance and I think more importance. We should not be collecting
additional revenue from students when we cannot or will not eliminate
wasteful spending in the Tax Code, and we should not allow interest
rates to double on July 1.
I hope all of my colleagues will support this commonsense 2-year
extension that is fair to students and taxpayers, and I urge my
colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed to S. 953, the Student
Loan Affordability Act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I am here to say to my colleagues that
although we are going to go through a very expedited process of voting
on two options
[[Page S3973]]
on student loans, I want to urge my colleagues to take this seriously.
This has a huge financial impact on families across this country, and I
say ``families'' because we are focused on the students, and in many
cases it is the parents taking out loans, and the truth is that under
one option today parents are left out.
You see, the debate on this floor today is over two bills--one
offered by my friends in the majority, which would extend the 3.4-
percent interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans. That is 39 percent
of all the student loans taken out. It does not speak to the 61 percent
that is still under the 6.8 percent rate. It is parents, it is students
who take out unsubsidized Stafford loans. They are still at 6.8
percent.
But more importantly, you need to look at the financial
sustainability of the program. When this was originally enacted in
2006, the campaign rhetoric was, we are going to drastically cut
student loans for everybody--until they realized how much it was going
to cost. Then they limited it to subsidized Stafford loans. When the
authorization for that runs out, we have this debate about whether we
are going to extend the 3.4-percent student loan rate. We just forget
to tell everybody it is for a subsection of everybody who is taking out
student loans.
So let me suggest that the other option today will be to put student
loans on a financially firm footing, something we can certify for the
future is financially sustainable not just for the students and for
their parents but for the American taxpayer. They should have a voice
in this.
So what Ranking Member Alexander and Senator Coburn and I have
introduced is a comprehensive piece of legislation that ties the rate
of student loan borrowing to the rate of the 10-year bond in May of
that year.
So this past month we would take the rate of the 10-year bond--which
was about 1.79 percent--we would add 3 percent to it, and for the next
year the rate for everybody taking out student loans would be 4.79
percent. Some Members of the Senate cannot add. And for the next 12
months anybody who took out a student loan would be at 4.79 percent--
not some at 3.4 percent, not the rest at 6.8 percent. That 4.79 percent
would be a fixed rate for the life of the loan. It would not go away in
12 months and have to be renegotiated based upon what the will of
Congress was and the legislative mandate of what the interest rate was
going to be. Every year that somebody went--whether it was a parent,
whether it was for a nonsubsidized Stafford loan or a subsidized
Stafford loan--whatever that May establishment of the 10-year bond rate
was, you would add 3 percent to it. It would be very predictable. You
would not be at the whim of, is Congress going to extend this?
Let me predict to you. I know what we are going to do. We are going
to have two options up today, and neither one of them is going to get
60 votes. That means it is not going to pass. And the day before or 2
days before the expiration of the 3.4-percent rate, people are going to
rush to the floor and say: We cannot let this happen.
We have an opportunity to fix it, to fix it on a permanent basis, to
say to parents, to say to those with the nonsubsidized Stafford loans
and, yes, to those with the subsidized Stafford loans: We are putting
this on financially sound ground, and we are going to do it in a
transparent way that lets you know every May exactly what you can
borrow money for for your college education.
Some might conclude, well, if you borrow every year for 4 years, you
are going to have different rates. You are right. The reality is that
in this bill you have an option, at any point you choose to do it, to
consolidate those loans at a guaranteed 8.5 percent. So if it is more
attractive to have four different packages of loans with lower interest
rates or the blend of them might be higher, you can consolidate them
and take a guaranteed rate.
I heard my good friend quote the Congressional Research Service. They
came out with an analysis of the two pieces of legislation last night,
and they came to this conclusion: that for the subsidized Stafford
loans, the Alexander-Burr-Coburn proposal was not very different from
what my friends on the other side presented, but for everybody else--
for the 61 percent--it saved them $80 a month.
Let me say that again. For everybody else who is not in the
subsidized Stafford loans, the Congressional Research Service said our
bill saves parents and students--those who are in the nonsubsidized
student loan program--$80 a month. That is almost $1,000 a year. This
is real money. This is what Congress should pay attention to.
Let me suggest this. Congress should not be sitting in Washington
deciding with a dartboard: Here is what the student loan rate is going
to be this year. Should the price of money in the marketplace not have
some impact on it? What we are simply saying is, tie it to a very
predictable, transparent number--the 10-year cost of borrowing money,
plus 3 percent.
You see, unlike throughout the 1990s and half of the 2000s, we do not
have private sector competition against the government model. We
decided that having financial institutions come in and offer more
attractive interest rates or waiving origination fees or the
administration fees of a student loan--no, no, no, we did not want that
to happen even though in many cases it saved students money. We said we
want to centralize this in the Federal Government. We want to take over
the whole thing. And then the Congress decided: Do you know what, we
want to set the rates.
Let me suggest to my colleagues that this is nothing more than a
political tool right now. The last people we are trying to look at are
the students or their families who actually need loans to send their
kids to college.
Today's vote is a defining moment. If we take advantage of passing
one that structures this to where the rates we set are out of
congressional control and set by the marketplace in a predictable,
transparent way, then this is sustainable. If it is not, this will be
the subject of every 2 years and campaign rhetoric, where some win and
some lose.
I did not come here to pick winners and losers. I came here to give
equal opportunity and unlimited opportunity to the next generation and
the generation after that. To suggest that only people who qualify for
subsidized Stafford loans are the ones we should give favorable
treatment to is ludicrous. What we would like to do is to provide a
predictable mechanism to set rates but one that does not pick winners
and losers, one that treats everybody who is in the student loan need
category the same.
I see the ranking member is here, and I am going to yield to him. But
I do want to say to my colleagues that this is not just another 15-
minute vote. You should not feel good if you vote for one and vote
against another and nothing passes because we are going to be back here
before July 1, and the likelihood is that it is going to be presented
to us in a way where we are not going to have the option of doing the
right thing. They are just going to say: Do you want to suffer the
political consequences of letting the rates go from 3.4 percent to 6.8
percent on 39 percent of the American people? I would tell you that a
parent borrowing money for their children today is just as vulnerable
as a student who is qualified and borrows under a subsidized Stafford
loan.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the
Senator from North Carolina for his proposal. The two votes we are
having today are like the opening act at the circus, and hopefully the
main event will attract some Senators who are willing to conduct this
in a grownup way. We do not really have a disagreement here; we have a
serious issue. We have students graduating all over the country from
high school at about this time, and about 70 percent of them will go to
college next year. The taxpayers want to encourage that. We spend about
$35 billion in Pell grants to help pay for that. Then three out of four
of those students who go to college will go to public colleges and
universities--like the Universities of Michigan or Mississippi or North
Carolina or Tennessee--the taxpayer helps foot the bill for that. Then
the taxpayer is going to loan $133 billion this year in student loans
to students of all kinds.
What the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Oklahoma
[[Page S3974]]
have suggested--and I have joined them--is that we take advantage of
today's low rates and that we lower rates on all the new loans to
something below 5 percent, fix that rate for those students who get
their loans this year, and allow them to participate in the income
repayment program so when they take a job they will not have to spend
too much of their money repaying back the loan. In some cases, it can
ultimately be forgiven. There is also a cap on a consolidated loan, if
they choose to do that, which many do.
If we had a real disagreement about that, it would be one thing, but
we do not have a real disagreement. The House of Representatives, which
is Republican, has passed a bill based on the same idea. The President
of the United States, President Obama, presented a budget to the Senate
two months ago based on the same idea.
The idea is very simple. If we are going to loan $133 billion this
year, let's loan the money to students at exactly what it costs the
government, which today is at about 1.75 percent, and let's add 3
percent to that--all of which goes back to the Department of Education
for the cost of collections, defaults, administration, so there is no
profit on the students.
Then, let's fix that loan rate. We say that if it is 4.75 today, it
is 4.75 next year and 4.75 the next year for that loan. If the rates go
up, the rates on new loans next year will reflect that increase. So it
is fair to the students, and it is fair to the taxpayers. It is a
permanent solution. It is the same idea the House has already passed.
It is the same idea the President has recommended. Yet our friends on
the other side are so intent on playing political games that they want
to have two votes today. If I may say so, they should hire somebody to
come up with a better idea than they came up with. This is one of their
weakest attempts at a political game I have seen in 10 years.
We have a permanent solution supported by the President, supported by
the House Republicans--all the same idea. Senate Democrats have come up
with a short-term fix for 40 percent of the loans. They leave 60
percent hanging high and dry. They raise taxes to do it. It is
unconstitutional for them to do it because it originates a revenue bill
in the Senate instead of the House. That is their weak idea.
Why are they not following the example of the Senator from Michigan
and the Senator from Mississippi and working in a bipartisan way to get
a result? Why are they not following the same idea of the Senator from
California and the Senator from Louisiana on the water resources bill
and working in a bipartisan way to get a result? Why are they not
following the same idea the four Republicans and four Democrats did on
the immigration bill and working to get a result? Instead, they hold a
political stunt at the White House. They now hold another political
stunt on the Senate floor at a time when students are graduating from
high school, looking forward to college, and would like to have a
permanent solution on interest rates by July 1, which we can easily do.
I guess it is inevitable that the opening acts of the circus are
sometimes going to be like this, but I regret it. I really did not come
to the Senate to engage in this kind of thing. I would much rather sit
down with my Democratic colleagues, which I believe we can do, and I
would much rather sit down with the White House officials, which I
believe we can do, and with the House of Representatives and spend the
next 3 weeks saying: Look, we all have the same idea. We have a serious
issue. It affects millions of students.
So let's work together and show the country we can do this. It would
be a nice prelude to the immigration debate to show that we can not
only pass a water resources development bill and a farm bill but that
we can also solve the student loan problem on a bipartisan basis. Then,
we can take up this more difficult immigration question where we have
some real differences of opinion and really need to have a debate.
I am here to congratulate the Senator from North Carolina and the
Senator from Oklahoma for their suggestion and to fully support it. I
will conclude by saying that there are two aspects to their bill that I
believe are preferable to the version of this idea that passed the
House and the version of this idea that was proposed by the President.
Remember, it is the same idea in all three places--the President's
budget, the House of Representatives bill, and the Burr and Coburn
proposal.
The first thing that Burr and Coburn propose is to have a single
interest rate for all student loans.
There are three types of student loans. It is very confusing even for
those of us who have been around this issue for a long time. Let's
assume there is a single student rate and you are graduating from
Maryville High School. What is the cost of money? Right now, if you get
a loan of any kind, it is going to be 4.75 percent. It is whatever it
costs the government to borrow the money plus 3 percent to cover the
Department of Education's costs. I like that proposal.
Then the second thing they propose that I would suggest is preferable
to the House of Representatives bill is that if you get a loan at 4.75
percent in 2013, it is still set at 4.75 percent in 2014, 2015, 2016,
and 2017. It does not change over the life of the loan. The House bill
would have the interest rate on a loan going up each year. I do not
like that idea. I do not think many students would.
But I wish all of our serious issues opened with proposals from the
President and the House of Representatives and Senate Republicans that
were as close together as we are on this issue. If we cannot come to an
agreement on this issue before July 1, based on these three major
centers of influence all making the same proposals, then we ought to go
back to seventh grade civics class. I do not think we all need to do
that. I think we know how to do our jobs.
This is the opening act of the circus. It will not take too long. It
will be a little embarrassing that we have to go through it, but after
we go through it, maybe we can sit down and a Senate full of grownups
will say: Let's take the President's idea and the House idea and the
idea suggested by Senators Burr and Coburn, let's put it together,
let's congratulate all of those students who are going to colleges, and
let's encourage them and hope it is a ticket to the middle class. Let's
show that our country supports those students as they seek to advance
their higher education.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an op-ed from
the New York Times yesterday written by Senator Coburn and Senator Burr
and me.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, June 4, 2013]
Playing Politics With Student Debt
(By Lamar Alexander, Tom Coburn and Richard Burr)
Washington.--This summer, more than nine million
undergraduates will take out an average of $6,700 each in
federal loans to pay for college next year. They will borrow,
on average, $24,803 to earn their degrees. While this
continues to be one of the smartest investments they will
ever make, Congress should take one step toward making it an
even smarter one.
We have introduced a proposal that would get rid of the
confusing and arbitrary way interest rates are determined on
federal student loans, and instead allow rates to be set by
the market. We commend President Obama for introducing a
similar proposal in his budget, and the House of
Representatives for recently passing similar legislation, on
a bipartisan basis, that offers a long-term, market-based
solution.
But we are worried that Senate Democrats, who could vote on
the issue as early as this week, will oppose a permanent
solution for 100 percent of loans and instead will merely
extend the existing, arbitrary rate for a minority of loans,
and for just two years--a politically easy move that will
only hurt students in the long run.
Over the past four years, the Federal Reserve has kept
interest rates at record-low levels, allowing banks to borrow
money from the federal government at nearly zero percent
interest and, in turn, offer low rates to individuals
borrowing money for the purchase of a home or a car or to
start a business.
But if you're a college student who has taken out a federal
loan during that time, you've seen no benefit at all from the
dirt-cheap borrowing costs. Instead, your interest rate was
set by Congress, which temporarily set some rates at 3.4
percent for low-income students but left most rates at either
6.8 percent or 7.9 percent.
In other words, you could borrow money to buy a used car to
drive yourself to college and pay about 3 percent interest
over five years, while at the same time you could be paying
nearly 7 or 8 percent interest on the cost of your education.
[[Page S3975]]
That is, except on your federally subsidized Stafford
loans. Last year Congress extended a temporary provision,
first passed in 2007, to lower the 6.8 percent interest rate
on newly issued Stafford loans for low-income undergraduate
borrowers to 3.4 percent, for one year. The government pays
the interest for these loans while the borrower is in school.
Congress extended the interest rates for a year not because
it was good policy, or because 3.4 percent is some ideal rate
for loans, but largely because student debt had become a
political issue in the presidential campaign. In the end, the
one-year extension cost taxpayers nearly $6 billion, but
saved a mere $9 a month in future repayments for the 40
percent of student borrowers who receive subsidized Stafford
loans.
Congress is now approaching the end of that temporary
``fix.'' On July 1, those rates will return to 6.8 percent--
which is why it is important for the Senate to make the right
fix, right now.
Student debt shouldn't be grist for the political mill.
Congress must provide certainty and stability to student
borrowers.
Our legislation would tie all federal student-loan interest
rates to the 10-year Treasury rate (currently 1.75 percent),
plus 3 percentage points to cover the costs of collections,
defaults and other risk factors. That would benefit students
and families by cutting rates on almost all federal student
loans to a little under 5 percent for the coming school year.
Under our proposal, interest rates will remain the same
over the lifetime of a loan, but the rate on a loan taken out
in 2013 might differ from one taken out in 2014, because
market rates vary.
One big advantage of our proposal is consistency: the
confusion over differing rates on Stafford loans and
unsubsidized federal PLUS loans would end, since one rate
formula would be used for all federal education loans.
Our plan would also protect students by using the existing
income-based repayment program, which allows borrowers to
reduce their monthly payments based on a capped percentage of
their discretionary income and ultimately have those loans
forgiven after a period of time. This is a better solution
than capping future increases in interest rates, and one that
the president's own budget proposal endorses.
Taxpayers would be protected, too. When the economy
recovers and interest rates return to historical norms,
taxpayers will no longer be subsidizing artificially low
interest rates.
Our proposal has some differences from the president's plan
and the House-passed bill--for example, the president
proposes three different interest rates for different types
of loans, while ours has just one interest rate for all
direct federal student loans, and the House bill applies a
variable interest rate that resets each year, while our
interest rate remains the same for the life of the loan.
But all of us embrace the same idea: we should stop playing
politics with student loan debt and move to a simpler and
fairer system, one that will immediately lower borrowing
costs for all students while protecting taxpayers and
providing certainty for the future. We hope Senate Democrats
will agree.
Lamar Alexander, Tom Coburn and Richard Burr are Republican
senators from Tennessee, Oklahoma and North Carolina,
respectively.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2
minutes equally divided between the votes scheduled for 10 a.m. and
that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as we come to our vote now on cloture on
the bill--what we have dubbed the farm bill, the Agriculture Reform,
Food and Jobs Act--I first wish to thank my ranking member, the
distinguished Senator from Mississippi, for a wonderful working
relationship as we have moved to this point. He and his staff have been
working diligently, as has my staff. We are proud of all of our staffs,
who I think are terrific and have done a wonderful job to get us to
this point.
I wish to remind my colleagues that the vote we are about to take
affects 16 million jobs. I have said that so many times, but it is
important to say again. I do not think there will be a single bill on
this floor that affects more jobs for Americans than the one on which
we are about to vote--16 million jobs in America. That is how many
people depend on agriculture and the food industry for their jobs. They
are watching us today. They are hoping that once again this body on a
bipartisan basis will do what is right and provide the leadership to
move this bill forward.
This particular bill includes 38 amendments that were passed on the
floor during our debate last year, as we considered 73 amendments just
a few months ago, and another 14 amendments that we added to the bill
this year. So I appreciate the input colleagues have had to make this a
strong farm bill with major reforms and real deficit reduction. This is
an opportunity to cut spending by more than $24 billion. We in
Agriculture have done more than any other part of the Federal budget to
not only meet what are the across-the-board sequester numbers but
provide deficit reduction that is four times more than that while
streamlining and providing effective policy for agriculture,
conservation, nutrition, and the other parts of this bill.
So we are not only standing with 16 million people whose jobs depend
on agriculture, we are doing it in a responsible way that cuts the
deficit. We are eliminating direct payments, moving toward a market-
based risk management system for our farmers. We are strengthening
conservation to protect our soil and water resources for generations to
come, with a streamlined conservation title and a new historic
agreement between conservation and farm groups. We are focusing on
beginning farmers to get more people into farming. We all have a stake
in making sure that happens.
We are helping our veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan to
get started in agriculture as well. I am very proud of this portion of
the bill which will reach out to those coming home, most from small
communities around our country, to help them be able to get started in
farming and keep us with the most affordable, most abundant, and safest
food supply in the world.
Agriculture is truly one of the brightest spots of our economy. It is
one of the few areas in which we actually have a trade surplus. The
policies in this legislation are a big part of that. That is why more
than 100 groups representing agriculture, conservation, nutrition, and
every part of the economy represented by this bill have called on the
Senate this morning to vote yes on cloture.
I would ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter we
received be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
June 5, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sen. Reid: The undersigned organizations are writing
to strongly urge you to vote for cloture tomorrow on the
consideration of S. 954, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and
Jobs Act of 2013.
This bill was crafted in a bipartisan fashion and reported
out of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry by a vote of 15-5. It contains major reforms as well
as spending cuts to be used to reduce the Federal budget
deficit.
This bill affects 16 million Americans whose livelihoods
depend on agriculture. We must pass a farm bill this year to
provide certainty to those individuals. We must cut
unnecessary spending. We must ensure that consumers will
continue to have a safe, healthy and affordable food supply.
We must provide an effective farm and natural resource safety
net. We must invest in initiatives that boost exports, and
spur innovations in new industries.
It is vitally important that the Senate support the cloture
motion and finish the farm bill in the next few days.
Sincerely,
Advocates for Better Children's Diets; AGP; AgFirst;
AgriBank; AgStar Financial Services; American Association of
Crop Insurers; American Beekeeping Federation; American Farm
Bureau Federation; American Farmland Trust; American Feed
Industry Association; American Malting Barley Association;
American Pulse Association; American Society of Agronomy;
American Society of Farm Manager and Rural Appraisers;
American Soybean Association; American Sugar Alliance;
American Veterinary Medical Association; Apple Processors
Association; Associated Milk Producers Inc.; Association of
Equipment Manufacturers; Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies; American Sheep Industry Association; American
Soybean Association; Audubon; Blue Diamond Growers;
California Association of Winegrape Growers; California
Avocado Commission; California Canning Peach Association;
California Date Commission; California Dried Plum Board;
California Fig Advisory Board; California Strawberry
Commission; California Walnut Commission.
Ceres Solutions LLP; CHS; CoBank; Continental Dairy
Products; Cooperative Network; Crop Insurance Professionals
Association; Crop Science Society of America; CropLife
America; Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.; Dairy Farmers
Working Together; Dairy Producers of New Mexico; Dairylea
Cooperative Inc.; Ducks Unlimited; Farm Credit Bank of Texas;
Farm Credit Council; Farm Credit East; Farm Credit West;
FarmFirst
[[Page S3976]]
Dairy Cooperative; Farmer Mac; Florida Fruit and Vegetable
Association; Growth Energy; GROWMARK; Holstein Association
USA, Inc.; Idaho Dairymen's Association; Irrigation
Association; Iowa State Dairy Association; Izaak Walton
League of America; Kansas Cooperative Council; Land O'Lakes,
Inc.; Land Improvement Contractors of America; Land Trust
Alliance; Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative
Association, Inc.; Michigan Milk Producers Association;
Midwest Dairy Coalition Milk Producers Council; Missouri
Dairy Association; Montana Stockgrowers Association; National
Association of Conservation Districts; National Association
of RC&D Councils; National Association of Wheat Growers;
National Barley Growers Association; National Cattlemen's
Beef Association; National Conservation District Employees
Association; National Corn Growers Association; National
Cotton Council; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives;
National Farmers Union.
National Grape Cooperative Association Inc.; National Milk
Producers Federation; National Pork Producers Council;
National Sorghum Producers; National Sunflower Association;
National Turkey Federation; National Wildlife Federation;
Nebraska Cooperative Council; North American Blueberry
Council; Northwest Dairy Association/Darigold; Oregon Cherry
Growers, Inc.; Oregon Dairy Farmers Association; Pheasants
Forever; Plains Cotton Cooperative Association; Public Lands
Council; Quails Forever; Select Milk Producers, Inc.; Soil
and Water Conservation Society; Soil Science Society of
America; South Dakota Wheat Growers; South East Dairy Farmers
Association; Southern Peanut Farmers Federation; Southern
States; Southwest Council of Agribusiness; Sunkist Growers;
Sunsweet Growers Inc.; The Nature Conservancy; The Trust for
Public Land; Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; US
Cattlemen's Association; US Canola Association; US Dry Bean
Council; USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council; USA Rice Federation;
US Rice Producers Association; United Dairymen of Arizona;
Valley Fig Growers Virginia State Dairymen's Association;
Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative; Western Growers; Western
Peanut Growers Association; Yankee Farm Credit.
Ms. STABENOW. I would ask colleagues once again to come together and
vote yes on the 16 million jobs that agriculture and the food industry
support. I would ask colleagues to vote yes on major reforms. We have
eliminated over 100 authorizations and programs that were duplicative,
did not work anymore, and were not the right thing to do from a
taxpayer standpoint. We have consolidated in a way that has not been
done, I would argue, for decades in this area of policy. We have
reduced the deficit by more than the last bill--$24 billion.
I would ask colleagues to come together to keep this bill moving and
to keep agriculture growing our economy and creating jobs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished
Senator from Michigan in urging the Senate to move forward with this
compromise bill that has been developed by the Committee on Agriculture
and is now before the Senate for a cloture vote. We need to pass this
bill. It provides a framework to help farmers and ranchers in all
regions of the country manage their risks more effectively. It
consolidates 23 conservation programs into 13. It contains improvements
to nutrition programs. It addresses fraud and abuse. It also reduces
the cost of covered programs by $24 billion.
This bill reflects a real sense of fiscal responsibility but still
provides a strong safety net for producers. I thank and congratulate
the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the chair of our committee,
for her hard work and her strong leadership. She has managed the
legislation with skill and a commitment to meet the needs of
agriculture producers as well as American consumers.
I urge the Senate to approve the motion to invoke cloture.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, how much time remains prior to the
vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes remaining.
(The remarks of Mr. ALEXANDER pertaining to the introduction of S.
1101 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 954,
a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2018, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs.
McCaskill) is necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. Coats).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 75, nays 22, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]
YEAS--75
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--22
Ayotte
Burr
Coburn
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Flake
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Paul
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
NOT VOTING--2
Coats
McCaskill
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 75, the nays are
22. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. STABENOW. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________