[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8368-8398]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 415, S. 
3240.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 415, S. 3240, a bill to 
     reauthorize agriculture programs through 2017, and for other 
     purposes.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Madam President, we are now on the motion to proceed to the 
farm bill.
  I now ask unanimous consent that today at 4 p.m. the Senate proceed 
to executive session to consider Calendar No. 610; that there be 90 
minutes for debate, which will be equally divided in the usual form; 
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote 
on the nomination; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no 
further motions be in order; that any related statements be printed in 
the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Madam President, following my remarks and those of my 
esteemed colleague, the first hour will be equally divided, with the 
Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the 
final half. We hope to reach an agreement to begin consideration of the 
farm bill today.
  Madam President, in a time when too many of the products we buy are 
made overseas, America can be satisfied that most of the food we eat is 
grown right here at home. The American agricultural industry boasted a 
$42 billion trade surplus last year--greater than any other sector in 
our economy. Our farmers are the most productive in the world, 
exporting $136 billion worth of their yield last year.
  It is amazing how States produce agricultural products. The State of 
New York isn't considered by most people to be an agricultural State, 
but it is. The State of Michigan is not considered by most people to be 
an agricultural State, but it is. Even some of the States in the 
western part of the United States produce products that are exported. 
For example, in Nevada, alfalfa is exported. It is very high in 
protein. It is made into pellets, and it is a needed commodity 
overseas. So all over America the farm bill is important.
  Our farmers are the most productive in the world, exporting $136 
billion worth of their yield last year. At a time of economic 
uncertainty, America's agricultural industry supports 16 million much 
needed jobs. So Congress must give farmers the certainty they need to 
keep this industry thriving.
  I commend Senators Stabenow and Roberts, the managers of this bill, 
for crafting a strong bipartisan bill. This measure will create jobs 
and cut subsidies. It includes important reforms that make farm and 
food stamp programs more accountable and more defensible.
  With more farmers seeking global markets for their product more than 
ever before, this bill supports rural farm jobs as well as urban 
manufacturing jobs. It will help new farmers--especially those who 
served their country in the Armed Forces--to build successful 
businesses. This legislation helps local farmers sell their products 
where they grow them--connecting farms, schools, and communities. And 
it saves $23 billion, which we will use to reduce this deficit we have.
  I know there are a number of Democratic and Republican Senators who 
wish to offer amendments to this legislation. I have confidence in the 
leadership of Senators Stabenow and Roberts and look forward to working 
quickly and cooperatively to pass the bill that creates jobs, cuts 
subsidies, and reduces the deficit, while protecting American farmers.


                   Capitol Police Chief Phillip Morse

  Madam President, every day the dedicated officers of the U.S. Capitol 
Police keep members of Congress, our staffs, and millions of visitors 
from around the world who visit the Capitol grounds each year safe. For 
the last 6 years, this department has been led and run by Chief of 
Police Phillip Morse. He spent more than half of his life on the 
Capitol Police Force, and I think it is time for a little down time. 
Today Chief Morse retires after 28 years serving and protecting the 
U.S. Capitol. I thank him for his service and congratulate him on a job 
well done.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.


               68th Anniversary of D-day and Honor Flight

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, today, on the 68th anniversary of D-
day, I am honored to recognize a distinguished group of World War II 
veterans from my State of Kentucky who

[[Page 8369]]

have come to the Nation's Capital to visit the World War II Memorial on 
the Mall that they helped to inspire.
  Thanks to the noble work of the Honor Flight Program and the leaders 
of the Bluegrass Chapter, including Brian Duffy, these brave patriots, 
along with their brothers-in-arms from the Korean war, will see the 
national memorials built in their honor today. Over the years, the 
Honor Flight Bluegrass Chapter has brought some 1,100 veterans--most 
from Kentucky--to Washington, DC, for this purpose. This program 
provides transportation, lodging, and food for the veterans. Without 
Honor Flight, most of these veterans would never be able to visit the 
Capital or see the World War II Memorial.
  I have been privileged to visit with groups of Honor Flight veterans 
before, and I am pleased to report that I will be meeting with today's 
group at their memorial as well. My father served in World War II, and 
it is an honor to shake hands with his contemporaries, hear their 
stories, and thank them for their service.
  America is forever indebted to the heroic members of the U.S. 
military who defended this great Nation and fought for freedom and 
against tyranny in World War II. They have truly earned the title of 
``the greatest generation.''
  I also thank the Honor Flight Program and Brian Duffy for their 
continued commitment to bring Kentucky's World War II and Korean 
veterans to see their memorials. Brian and the Bluegrass Chapter do 
what they do because they have great admiration and respect for our 
military veterans. I know my colleagues join me in saying that this 
Senate shares that admiration and respect, be it for members of ``the 
greatest generation'' or for the current generation of brave volunteers 
who have served in Afghanistan and/or Iraq or are serving today 
elsewhere across the world.
  I wish to recognize each and every World War II and Korean war 
veteran from Kentucky who is visiting the memorial in our Nation's 
Capital today, and I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

List of World War II and Korean War Veterans Brought by Honor Flight to 
 Visit the National Memorials on June 6, 2012--The 68th Anniversary of 
                                 D-Day

       Sam Adams; Louisville, KY
       Clifford Barker; Morehead, KY
       David Braun; Jamestown, KY
       Harry Hughes Bush; Richmond, KY
       Edgar Lewis Casada; Somerset, KY
       Herman Combs; Bronston, KY
       Franklin Delano Coovert; Lexington, KY
       Thomas Alton Curtsinger; Owensboro, KY
       Guy Moorman Deane Jr.; Owensboro, KY
       Earl E. Fort, Owensboro, KY
       Wilburn Gerald Fort; Owensboro, KY
       Sheldon Woodrow Franks; Corydon, IN
       Alfred Stephen Freyling; Evansville, IN
       Ira Wilson Guffey; Owensboro, KY
       John Patrick Lawler; Louisville, KY
       Robert A. Lawton; Central City, KY
       Chester D. Miller; Owensboro, KY
       Alberton Peace; Magnolia, KY
       Kenneth Leonard Pearl; New Albany, IN
       Wilmer Leroy Peck; Franklin, KY
       Walter John Points; Falmouth, KY
       Kenneth Lee Reynolds; Owensboro, KY
       George Thomas Snyder; Owensboro, KY
       William Daniel Stephens; Newburgh, IN
       Murrel Ray Trapp; Seymour, IN
       John Harold Tucker; Evansville, IN
       John Hugh Vaughn; Glasgow, KY
       James Clarence Vaught; Evansville, IN
       Merton Lee Weisert; Louisville, KY

  (The remarks of Mr. McConnell pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 
482 are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.


                           Order of Business

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
  Under the previous order, the following hour will be equally divided 
between the two leaders or their designees, with the Republicans 
controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                     Sequestration Transparency Act

  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
the significant uncertainty surrounding sequestration and its threat to 
our economy. The Congressional Budget Office forecasted that the 
pending fiscal cliff facing this country; that is, the scheduled tax 
increases and across-the-board spending cuts that will result from the 
expiration of current tax policy and the enactment of sequestration, 
could lead to recession. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office said 
repeatedly that if the tax increases and sequestration occur at the end 
of this year, there will be a 1.3-percent economic contraction during 
the first quarter of 2013. I believe that would argue for extending the 
existing tax rates. I think the uncertainty associated with the tax 
rates perhaps expiring at the end of the year and businesses not 
knowing what is going to happen is creating a real problem and a real 
cloud out there in the economy.
  I believe it is important that there be economic certainty for people 
in this country, particularly for investors and small businesses. So it 
seems to me, at least, that getting those tax rates extended would be a 
very important part of the solution.
  Having said that, I also believe we need tax reform for this country. 
We need comprehensive tax reform that will fuel economic growth. I 
think there is enormous potential for economic growth and job creation 
if, in fact, we could get to overhauling our Tax Code in this country, 
making it more simple, more fair, more clear, and obviously lowering 
the rates and broadening the tax base. But until that happens, we need 
certainty, which means we need to get the existing tax rates extended. 
I hope we can do that sooner rather than later because I think the 
longer we wait, the greater we put at risk our economy and what could 
happen if we don't act.
  So that is one component of the fiscal cliff. Obviously, there are 
other components.
  Under the Budget Control Act, the spending authority of most Federal 
departments and agencies is going to be reduced on January 2, 2013, as 
a result of the sequestration. Now, the triggered reduction in spending 
is $1.2 trillion. After accounting for 18 percent in debt service 
savings, the required reductions amount to $984 billion to be 
distributed evenly over 9 years--in other words, $109.3 billion per 
year. So if we look at it year by year, that is $54.7 billion in 
reductions that will be necessary in both the defense and nondefense 
categories of the budget starting on January 2, 2013. It is expected 
that those cuts will range between 7 and 9 percent, but we believe the 
administration needs a plan for implementing sequestration, after a 
number of conflicting statements about how and if it will be carried 
out.
  As one example of the conflicting statements coming out of the Obama 
administration, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta sent a letter to Senator 
McCain last November saying that the sequestration would not impact war 
funding. In April the OMB Controller testified before the House Budget 
Committee that the issue of whether war funding would be reduced by the 
sequester was still being evaluated. Just last week another official 
from the Office of Management and Budget said that war funding would, 
in fact, be impacted by the sequester.
  It has been almost a full year since the Budget Control Act was 
passed, and Congress needs a precise understanding from this 
administration as to the full effects of sequestration on all programs 
and accounts across the Federal Government, including national security 
funding. That is why I have introduced

[[Page 8370]]

a bill, along with Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions, that 
would require the administration to bring some much needed transparency 
to the scheduled across-the-board spending cuts. Our legislation, S. 
3228, the Sequestration Transparency Act, would require the 
administration to submit to Congress a detailed preview of the 
sequestration required by the Budget Control Act. Specifically, this 
bill would require the President to submit a report to Congress by July 
9--next month--of 2012 that includes an estimate of the sequestration 
percentages and amounts necessary to achieve the required reduction for 
each spending category on an account level. The administration's report 
would also be required to include any other data and explanations that 
enhance the public's understanding of a sequester and actions to be 
taken under it.
  This report will assist Congress in its yearend legislative business, 
including fiscal year 2013 appropriations and addressing the deep and 
unbalanced defense budget cuts that are expected under sequestration, 
which are in addition--in addition--to the $487 billion in reductions 
that were carried out last August.
  Of course, we would not be in this situation had the Senate passed a 
serious budget over the last 3 years that addressed tax and entitlement 
reform. The Senate's failure to produce a budget year after year has 
left us with the Budget Control Act. Now the Budget Control Act is the 
law of the land.
  While I am certainly disappointed that the President and the Joint 
Select Committee on Deficit Reduction failed to reach an agreement to 
bring down our deficits in the long term, the cuts to national defense 
that are scheduled to go into effect are particularly troubling. The 
President's own Defense Secretary warned that the sequester would 
``hollow out the force and inflict serious damage to our national 
defense.'' That is from the President's own Defense Secretary. Yet, 
after repeated requests from both the House and the Senate, the 
administration has refused to provide even the most basic details about 
the cuts required by the sequester.
  There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding sequestration and the 
tax increases that would occur the first of next year. At a time when 
our economy continues to grow at a very sluggish pace and unemployment 
remains above 8 percent, the last thing we need coming out of 
Washington is more uncertainty. Job creators are concerned about the 
pending fiscal cliff, and if Congress does not act before the election 
to deal with these issues, the economy will suffer from this 
uncertainty in the coming months.
  The legislation I have introduced, along with Senator Sessions, 
requires the administration to share with Congress and with the 
American people their plan for exactly how the sequestration will be 
carried out. This is straightforward legislation. It is about 
transparency, and it is something where I hope my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will work to ensure that these numbers--this 
sequestration plan--are shared with the Congress and with the American 
people.
  We have, as everybody knows, a big pileup occurring at the end of the 
year with sequestration. The pileup includes tax rate increases which 
will occur on marginal income tax rates, capital gains rates, dividend 
rates, the death taxes, the debt limit increase. All of these things 
happen at a time that will create incredible amounts of uncertainty in 
our economy. The best we can do for the American people, for our job 
creators, for investors, and for our small businesses is to provide as 
much certainty as is possible going into the end of this year. It seems 
to me, at least, that starts with ensuring that we have a plan coming 
out of the administration that specifically clarifies how this 
sequestration would be implemented so that Congress can react 
accordingly, hopefully before the end of the year and hopefully 
sometime in the next few months, perhaps as a part of our 
appropriations process this year.
  With regard to the tax increases, I would make the same argument that 
former President Bill Clinton has been making, which is that we need to 
extend these tax rates. We create too much economic uncertainty out 
there by having this cloud on the horizon, which I think is a real 
warning sign to us, and it is a reminder that we get on a regular 
basis--frankly, for the most part, on a daily basis--when we talk to 
small businesses in our home States about the importance of addressing 
the tax, the regulatory, the spending, and debt issues before the end 
of the year when this big pileup would occur.
  So I would argue for and plead with my colleagues to work together on 
the sequestration issue to ensure that it doesn't have the devastating 
impacts on our national security budget and that, combined with the tax 
increases, it doesn't have the devastating impact on our economy that 
is being predicted by the Congressional Budget Office. They have 
pointed out that if these things all happen at the end of the year, it 
could cost us 1.3 percent of economic growth, which, according to the 
President's own economic advisers, means about 1.3 million jobs for 
American workers. We already have chronic high unemployment now--40 
consecutive months of unemployment above 8 percent. We have a sluggish, 
anemic economy. We shouldn't pile on top of that all this uncertainty 
with regard to taxes, with regard to regulations, with regard to what 
is going to happen regarding sequestration at the end of the year.
  Again, this bill simply does not address in substance how we would 
change that, but it merely requests and requires the administration to 
provide to the Congress and the American people a clear plan about how 
they intend to implement sequestration in hopes that we might be able 
to make some necessary changes to ensure that the defense budget isn't 
gutted and that these adverse impacts on the economy are not felt by 
the American people and by our small businesses. I hope my colleagues 
will support this legislation and that we can get a vote on it very 
soon; that we can get the administration acting in a way that will 
inform not only us as Members of Congress but also the American public.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            A Second Opinion

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, yesterday, Vice President Biden and 
other Obama administration officials hosted presidents and leaders from 
colleges and universities at the White House. Officials promoted this 
event as an opportunity, they said, to highlight the transparency of 
college costs. They said these schools were committed to providing key 
financial information to all of their incoming students starting next 
year.
  Well, once again, transparency took a back seat to politics. In fact, 
the White House failed--failed--to level with college students about 
important financial information, including how the President's health 
care law is going to make it harder for many students in terms of their 
ability to get health insurance through their universities.
  Earlier this week, the real story came out, and I will tell you it is 
discouraging. I continue to come to the floor week after week with a 
doctor's second opinion about the health care law because I think the 
health care law is bad for patients, it is bad for providers--the 
nurses and the doctors who take care of those patients--it is terrible 
for our taxpayers. I do not think I realized at the time I started 
doing these second opinions that it was going to be terrible for 
students going to college.
  Take a look at these unintended consequences that have come out of 
this health care law. But I will tell you, on Monday, national news 
reports showed that the coverage requirements in the President's health 
care law--the mandated requirements in the health care law of a certain 
level of government-

[[Page 8371]]

approved coverage--well, it is causing colleges all across the country 
to drop insurance coverage for their students. I would like to explain 
exactly how this works.
  As Members of this body who voted for this on the other side of the 
aisle will recall, the health care law eliminates annual and lifetime 
benefits for insurance plans. Many colleges offer their students an 
opportunity for limited benefit policies to give students access to 
affordable health insurance coverage that actually is something that a 
college student might need, might benefit from, may be helped with.
  These are the same benefit plans that have been popular with many 
unions across the country. The plans were so popular that the 
administration issued over 1,700 waivers which impacted over 4 million 
Americans. These Washington waivers ensured that people who got their 
insurance through certain corporations and unions would not lose the 
coverage they had in the lead-up to the full implementation of the 
health care law.
  Well, over half of these waivers were granted to individuals who 
received their insurance through their unions so these individuals 
would not lose their coverage during the time when the unions were 
saying: This health care law is too expensive for us. We don't want to 
live under these mandates. We can't afford it.
  Well, the colleges are finding the same situation. But unlike the 
unions, the colleges are not eligible to apply for these special 
administration waivers from the health care law. So students across the 
country are suffering the consequences.
  This year, because of the President's health care law, these students 
are not going to be able to purchase or afford coverage through their 
schools. Schools are faced with two options: One is raise premiums 
dramatically, drastically, or just don't offer the health insurance 
programs students like, parents like, and the universities like to 
provide. The President of the United States and the Democrats who voted 
for this health care law essentially have said: Too bad.
  So let's give an example from New York State. The State University of 
New York in Plattsburgh offered students coverage in the past for $440 
per year. Next year policies will cost anywhere between $1,300 and 
$1,600 per student per year. That is an increase of four times, 400 
percent. Why? Because the students are going to end up paying for a lot 
of insurance they do not need, they do not want, and they possibly 
cannot afford. But yet the President mandates they get this high level 
of insurance coverage even though it is something the people at the 
university think their students do not need. The universities do not 
have a choice. The President makes those decisions, not the president 
of the university but the President of the United States.
  The University of Puget Sound in Washington was able to offer its 
students insurance last year for $165--insurance they believed was 
helpful to the students. Next year, to comply with the President's 
health care law--the mandated high levels of coverage--they estimate a 
policy will now cost between $1,500 and $2,000.
  Since the Obama administration's mandates were so expensive, what is 
the University of Puget Sound going to do? Well, they announced they 
will not be offering any insurance coverage to any students next year--
a decision made by the university.
  It is clear the President's health care law leaves many students with 
two bad choices: They can either be forced to pay vastly increased 
premiums or basically lose access to coverage altogether. This new 
development flies completely in the face of the President's promise. 
The President said: If you like what you have, you can keep it. But 
let's specifically go to the President's exact promise:

       No matter how we reform health care--

  The President of the United States said--

     we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will 
     be able to keep your doctor. Period.

  He went on to say:

       If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep 
     your health care plan. Period.

  He then said:

       No one will take it away. No matter what.

  He said:

       My view is that health care reform should be guided by a 
     simple principle: fix what's broken and build on what works.

  Here we are, over 2 years later, and we continue to witness the Obama 
administration breaking this very specific promise. Now we can add 
college students to the long list of people who found out the reality 
does not match President Obama's rhetoric. At a time when students 
across the Nation face increasing tuition costs and a bleak job market, 
now they have to deal with losing their health insurance.
  Each day it becomes more obvious that the Obama economy, which 
includes the President's health care law, has made life worse for 
millions of Americans. It cannot continue. If the Supreme Court does 
not completely repeal this health care law, Congress needs to do it. 
Republicans are committed to repealing this law and replacing it with 
step-by-step reforms. We will continue to help Americans of all ages 
work to get the care they want from a doctor they choose at a lower 
cost.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. DURBIN. I just left a meeting a few feet away from here with the 
leaders of some of the American colleges and universities. They came to 
brief us on a challenge we face across America that we had better be 
aware of. It is the growing student loan debt.
  Just in October 1 year ago, student loan debt in America surpassed 
credit card debt. It is now $1 trillion. More and more students are 
going more deeply into debt, which many of them can never repay. 
Student loan debt is different than other debt. It is different because 
one cannot discharge it in bankruptcy, which means it is a debt they 
will carry for a lifetime.
  Imagine someone who is 19, 20 years old, that they have been told as 
long as they have been on this Earth education is the key to the 
future, and they are sitting across the table from a financial 
counselor who says they have been accepted at this college. All they 
need to do is sign up right here for a loan.
  What is the natural instinct? Of course, it is to sign on the dotted 
line: I am doing what I was told to do; I am going to the best school I 
can get into; I am going to borrow the money and make it happen and my 
life will be successful and I will pay the money back.
  The formula is right, but there are problems. If they drop out of 
school, they end up with no diploma, just debt. If they go to a bad 
school, they end up with a worthless diploma and debt. If they end up, 
unfortunately, in some aspects of life, occupations and professions, it 
may take decades to pay off a debt. The average student loan debt is 
about $25,000 once someone has completed 4 years of education.
  We have asked students across Illinois and across the Nation to tell 
us their stories and the student loan debts go as high as $100,000 and 
more for 4 years of education. Many of these students are finding 
themselves in an impossible predicament, where they literally cannot 
get on with their lives, cannot find a job and, unfortunately, are 
still stuck with the debt.
  They are lucky, incidentally, if they are dealing with a Federal 
student loan guaranteed debt, so-called Stafford loans, because that is 
3.4 percent interest. There are ways they can have that debt forgiven 
and consolidated. It is a flexible type of debt guaranteed by the 
Federal Government.

[[Page 8372]]

  But if they step over that line of Federal Government debt and get 
into a private student loan, hang on tight. The interest rates go from 
3.4 percent to the heavens, 18-percent credit card rate debts. Interest 
rates are not uncommon when it comes to these private loans. Students 
find themselves being swallowed by debt they cannot repay that is 
unfortunately compounded and just goes from bad to worse, to even 
worse.
  Students I have run into thought they were doing the right thing. 
They went to some of these worthless for-profit schools. They can 
hardly avoid them. If one gets on the Internet and punches in the 
search engine for ``college'' or ``universities,'' hang on tight. They 
are about to be inundated with ads from for-profit schools that tell 
just how easy it is to get a college diploma. All you have to do is 
sign up. They used to run an ad here on one of the television stations 
in Washington. It showed a pretty young girl and she was lounging on 
her bed with her laptop computer and she said: I am going to college in 
my pajamas. That kind of come-on--to suggest you can get a worthy 
college diploma through a for-profit school--unfortunately lures many 
of these kids into a mountain of debt and worthless diplomas from this 
for-profit industry--the most heavily subsidized private business in 
America.
  Ninety percent of the money that for-profit schools have in revenue 
comes right from the Federal Government. Heck, they ought to have their 
employees join a Federal employees union for that matter because 90 
percent of their revenue comes right out of the Federal Treasury. 
Students end up with the debt and a worthless diploma.
  Last week, the quarterly report on household debt of the Federal 
Reserve Bank of New York found that student loan debt hit $904 billion 
in the first quarter of 2012, up from $241 billion just 10 years ago. 
That is a 275-percent increase since the same period in 2003. The 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--which many people on the other 
side of the aisle would like to put out of business--the only leading 
consumer protection bureau in the Federal Government, estimates that 
outstanding student loan debt may be even higher, up to $1 trillion.
  Students continue to pile on the debt, even as America--most 
Americans--cut back on other forms of credit, such as mortgage and 
credit cards. According to a senior economist at the New York Federal 
Reserve Bank:

       It remains the only form of consumer debt to substantially 
     increase since the peak of household debt in 2008.

  The hole just gets deeper for students and the families borrowing 
money for higher education. Students are graduating with massive 
amounts of debt and having a very difficult time paying it back. 
Delinquency rates for student loans are higher than rates for mortgages 
or automobile loans.
  Every week, I hear from students drowning in debt, and I don't mean 
just recent graduates. Some of the borrowers are in their thirties and 
forties, even older, and still paying off student loans or paying off 
private student loans they cosigned for their children or 
grandchildren. Student loan debt has serious consequences for families 
and for our economy. In a recent survey of college graduates by Rutgers 
University, 40 percent of the participants said they delayed making a 
major purchase, such as a home or car, because of student debt. More 
than one-quarter of those surveyed put off continuing their education 
or had moved in with relatives to save money to pay their student 
loans.
  Private student loans don't come with the same consumer protections 
and payment plans Federal loans offer. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, 
chairman of our Senate education committee, introduced a bill with me 
to help families understand the difference between the Federal student 
loan and private student loans. We call it the Know Before You Owe 
Private Student Loan Act. It would require private student loan lenders 
to confirm the potential borrower's enrollment status and cost of 
attendance. The bill would also require institutions to counsel 
students about the difference between Federal and private student 
loans. Many students just don't know the difference.
  The come-on is, listen, we have only one sheet of paper you have to 
fill out and you will get a private loan or do you want to go through 
five sheets of paper over here for the Federal Government? This is 
easier. Easier, yes, but a debt that is going to be much more serious 
for you in years to come.
  Last week, the attorneys general from 22 States wrote to Members of 
the House and Senate asking that Congress fix the so-called 90-10 
loophole. The 90-10 rule, as it is currently written, requires for-
profit colleges to receive at least 10 percent of their revenue from 
something other than the Federal Government--10 percent. But current 
law considers Federal sources only those funds from the Department of 
Education's title IV Federal financial aid programs, which includes 
Pell grants and federally guaranteed student loans. Other Federal 
subsidies for students, such as GI bill funds and the Department of 
Defense tuition assistance, aren't counted.
  The attorneys general across America once again are ahead of 
Congress. They recognize that including GI bill and DOD funds will 
eliminate the powerful incentive the for-profit colleges have to 
recruit veterans and Active military in order to comply with the 90-10 
rule.
  Holly Petraeus is the wife of General Petraeus. Her husband is a true 
American hero. She has stood by his side through all his military 
assignments, dearly loves the military and their families. She works 
for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Her specialty is to find 
those rip-off institutions that are going after veterans to try to soak 
up their GI bill benefits for a worthless education.
  How did we reach this point? Why are we, at this moment in time, 
where we are--facing this student loan debt bomb. Years ago, with 
widespread reports of waste, fraud, and abuse in the for-profit college 
sector, Congress created the 85-15 rule to weed out fraudulent fly-by-
night schools that relied almost entirely on taxpayer dollars. The 85-
15 rule said a school could take in no more than 85 percent of its 
revenue from the Federal Government. The other 15 had to come from 
other sources. It worked, and many of the worst schools, fortunately, 
closed.
  In 1998, the rule was loosened to 90-10--90 percent Federal subsidy. 
Now we see we need to return to the original intent of the law and 
crack down on these for-profit schools that are taking advantage of 
veterans, servicemembers, and students across the board.
  In January, Senator Harkin and I introduced the Protect Our Students 
and Taxpayers Act--the POST Act--that will make several changes to the 
90-10 rule. To better protect the students and our taxpayer dollars, 
the POST Act would reinstate the original 85-15 ratio, and the bill 
would change the definition of what is considered Federal revenue.
  This may sound like bureaucratic gobbledygook, but let's get to the 
bottom line. If an institution needs to rely on the Federal Treasury 
for 90 percent of their revenue to exist as a school, there is a 
serious question about whether they are a real school. If the students 
make no contribution--or only 10 percent toward their education--then, 
frankly, what they are doing is just milking the Federal Treasury to 
keep the lights on at their school. I might add, these for-profit 
schools are highly profitable. Some of the biggest investment 
counselors and managers in America invest in these schools because they 
are money machines. They bring their money directly from the Federal 
Government, with no guarantee that students will end up with an 
education.
  The numbers I return to time and again tell the story. Ten percent of 
students finishing high school--10 percent--end up in for-profit 
schools--10 percent. Yet these for-profit schools eat up to 25 percent 
of all Federal aid to education. They are sucking in the Pell grants 
and the Stafford loans and then--hang on--they have a student loan 
default rate almost twice the level of other colleges and universities. 
What does that tell us? They have come up with an economic model which 
reaches

[[Page 8373]]

deep in the Treasury to bring in money to keep the lights on and to pay 
their CEOs very generous salaries. They are also, of course, loaning 
money to students, and those students are defaulting, unable to repay 
their student loans at twice the rate of other colleges and 
universities.
  You might say to yourself: Well, Senator, if that is the case, why 
don't you do something about it? The problem is the for-profit school 
industry in America is one of the most politically wired industries in 
this country. They have friends in high places, and it is very 
difficult to get reform legislation through the House or the Senate 
when they are so politically connected. Yet Senator Harkin and I 
believe it is worth the effort, and we are going to ask our colleagues 
to join us in that effort.
  What is worse is that students are aggressively recruited to attend 
these colleges, lured into taking out massive amounts of debt and may 
not even graduate. Think about that. A study published earlier this 
year by the Education Sector shows that the borrowers who drop out are 
more than four times more likely than those who graduate to default on 
their college loans because they are more likely to be unemployed and 
earn less when they do get a job. The dropout rates rose across all 
kinds of colleges, but the biggest increases were found in the for-
profit 4-year institutions, where a staggering 54 percent of those who 
had borrowed to pursue a bachelor's degree dropped out of school--more 
than half. The study showed 16.8 percent of dropouts defaulted on their 
loans compared with 3.7 percent of those who graduated.
  What difference does it make to these for-profit universities? They 
got their money.
  Alexander Brooks recently contacted my office about his student debt. 
Alexander is from Normal, IL, and graduated in 2006 with a degree in 
computer networking from ITT, a for-profit institution. Alex never got 
a job in his field. He drives a schoolbus to pay his rent, even though 
he has this so-called degree in computer networking. He said he would 
like to get married to his long-time girlfriend, but he doesn't want to 
have her share in the burden of his student loan debt.
  When asked about the quality of education he received from ITT--what 
we will hear being advertised on the television every time we turn it 
on--here is what he said:

       ITT fell short of preparing me for what happens after 
     graduation. Although the school provided me with a degree, 
     the program did not provide any of the necessary 
     certifications needed to get a job in the computer field.

  Alex would like to go back to school, but he can't borrow any more 
money. When he graduated 6 years ago from ITT, a for-profit school, his 
total loan balance was $40,000. That was when he graduated. Six years 
later, his balance is $50,000. Six years of payments, falling further 
and further behind. His private student loans have interest rates up to 
9.25 percent, almost double the Federal student loan rate.
  Alex isn't alone. Many of his fellow students from ITT have the same 
trouble repaying their loan. ITT's 3-year cohort default rate is over 
29 percent. That means that within 3 years of entering repayment 
status, almost one-third of students have already defaulted. In 2009, 
ITT received 85.8 percent of all its revenue--this for-profit school--
from the Federal student aid programs. It was the third largest 
recipient of GI bill funds, receiving $99 million in the school year 
2010-2011. If GI bill funds and other Federal aid were counted, ITT 
would likely be at or close to receiving 100 percent of its revenue 
from the Federal Government--totally federally subsidized.
  Federal student aid money is just about all that keeps this 
institution alive, running, generating profits, and paying handsome 
salaries to those who own it. What do the taxpayers get in return for 
this investment? More Americans with student loan debt they will never 
be able to pay off. That is not a good deal for taxpayers or students.
  High student loan debt is not limited to for-profit college students. 
Students at private nonprofit institutions graduate with an average of 
about $26,000 in debt. Students who graduate from public institutions 
graduated with an average debt of $15,600.
  What I say back home in Illinois I hope some will listen to 
carefully. Education is critical for a student or person to succeed. I 
encourage people to pursue it but go to the low-cost alternative if 
they haven't made up their mind or don't have a clear goal in front of 
them that is reasonable. Go to their community college. Start there. 
Learn to what it means to go to college. They can do it at an 
affordable cost in their neighborhood, in their town, and then progress 
from the community college level to the right place for them. The 
students who sign up for these worthless for-profit schools or sign up 
for a heavy load of debt may find themselves in a terrible situation, 
and it is impossible for them to pursue a higher education.
  We have to do something to control the cost of postsecondary 
education, ease the burden of student debt, and crack down on the 
aggressive recruiting practices used by these for-profit colleges by 
closing the 90 10 loophole. Congress should start by coming to an 
agreement on the student loan interest rate hike that will prevent the 
interest rates on subsidized Federal student loans from doubling.
  Let me close with this because I see my colleague from Rhode Island 
is here. On July 1, the interest rate on Federal loans--Stafford 
loans--will double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. For a student 
borrowing $20,000 over the course of a 4-year education, it means at 
6.8 percent as opposed to 3.4 they will be paying back $24,000 instead 
of $20,000. Why do we want to dig this hole any deeper for students 
across America?
  We have put together an alternative on the floor to keep the interest 
rate low. Unfortunately, the other side has objected. I hope we can 
work out a reasonable bipartisan way to keep interest rates on student 
loans at a lower level. We owe it to these families and to these 
students.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, let me first thank the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois for his determined efforts, as well as my senior 
colleague in this body, Senator Jack Reed, for his determined efforts 
in trying to get to a resolution that will prevent the student loan 
interest rates from doubling.


                            The Highway Bill

  I am here to speak about another problem--something very important to 
ordinary Americans that is also being jammed up as a result of 
obstruction and intransigence--and that is the highway bill.
  We had a March 31 deadline, the House and the Senate, to get a 
highway bill done. The Senate did its job; we got a highway bill done 
by March 31. The House did not do its job; they failed to get a highway 
bill done.
  Let me point out that we have been doing highway bills in Congress 
back since the Eisenhower administration, and this is not rocket 
science. So it is telling that the body at the other end of this 
building could not get a highway and bridge bill done by the March 31 
deadline. So what did they do? They extended it and took us to 
conference on the Senate bill.
  Now, let's say a word about the Senate bill. The Senate bill is very 
hard to criticize. People sometimes criticize bills around here because 
they get jammed through; there isn't enough time; there aren't enough 
amendments; it is not bipartisan. None of those criticisms apply to the 
Senate bill.
  The Senate highway bill came out of my Environment and Public Works 
Committee--thanks to the leadership of Chairman Boxer and Ranking 
Member Inhofe with the unanimous support of every Republican and every 
Democrat. It came to the floor. We had a wide-open process here on the 
floor. I think nearly 40 amendments were accepted either in floor votes 
or by agreement. Everybody had their chance, everybody had their day, 
and the net result was that the bill cleared out of the

[[Page 8374]]

Senate with 75 Senators on record supporting it. That is a pretty 
impressive majority around here.
  So we have a 75-to-22 Senate bill that has the support of the chamber 
of commerce, the Association of Manufacturers, and it has the support 
of labor unions and the environmental community. There is really 
nothing to criticize about it either substantively or in terms of the 
process by which it was adopted, and yet our colleagues on the House 
side won't accept the bipartisan Senate bill. They have it bottled up 
in this conference. And the reason that I am on the floor today is that 
we are being told now that the House is going to ask for another 
extension past the end of June to continue to dawdle and stall the 
bipartisan highway bill. What is the effect of that? What is the effect 
of dawdling and stalling the bipartisan Senate highway bill? The effect 
is loss of jobs.
  The Presiding Officer is from New York, I am from Rhode Island, and 
the distinguished Senator from Utah is here on the floor. All of us 
have a common situation in our State, which is winter. In winter, it is 
really hard to build and repair highways and bridges.
  There is a summer construction season, and as we dawdle and delay and 
as the House jams up the bipartisan Senate highway bill, that summer 
season gets whittled away. We are now to the point where my director of 
transportation in Rhode Island, Mike Lewis, says that he had 97 jobs on 
his roster to be done in this summer construction season, and if we 
can't get this done earlier than when we anticipate doing it now, at 
the end of this month, at the end of June, 40 of those projects will 
drop off the roster and all of the jobs associated with them will be 
lost.
  Rhode Island is a small State. Those numbers are going to echo 
eastward and northward across the country in job losses this summer 
because of the delay of a bipartisan Senate highway bill by the House. 
These are real jobs.
  It is not just me making this observation and it is not just the 
Rhode Island director of transportation. Standard & Poor's Global 
Credit Portal RatingsDirect service has put out a publication: 
``Increasingly Unpredictable Federal Funding Could Stall U.S. 
Transportation Infrastructure Projects.'' They say the following:

       With the March 31st expiration looming, Congress passed on 
     March 29th yet another extension to fund U.S. highway 
     programs. This latest continuing resolution, the ninth, 
     provides funding through June 30, 2012. As construction 
     season begins in the northern half of the country, this 
     continuing uncertainty in funding could force states to delay 
     projects rather than risk funding changes or political 
     gridlock come July.

  That is exactly what we are seeing.
  They said:

       In addition, the political gridlock in Washington, D.C., 
     and the doubt surrounding federal funding are making it 
     difficult for issuers throughout the infrastructure sector to 
     define long-term plans for funding necessary capital 
     projects.

  If we get this turned around, then what happens? Well, according to 
Standard & Poor's, ``Once a long-term authorization is approved, we 
believe it will provide an impetus for transportation agencies to 
reconsider high-priority projects that had been shelved because of lack 
of funding.'' So we can put people to work in this country. We can put 
people to work in this country on roads and bridges and highways--
something every American understands. We can do it under a bipartisan 
Senate bill that has the support of everybody, from the business 
community, to the labor community, to the environmental community, to, 
perhaps obviously, the highway construction community. But the House of 
Representatives, which couldn't pass a highway bill, is jamming us in 
this endless conference. I don't know if it is their intention to knock 
out these jobs in this preelection period. I don't know if they just 
can't get their house in order over there to do the basic legwork of 
passing a highway bill. But as we approach the end of this month, as we 
approach this second deadline--which it looks like they are going to 
miss again--I will urge my colleagues, let's hold their feet to the 
fire. There is no excuse for not passing the bipartisan Senate highway 
bill that is widely supported and that will create or defend nearly 3 
million jobs in this country--2.9 million, to use the exact number that 
has been identified with this bill.
  So I think it is very important that we stick to our guns on this 
one. In Rhode Island, we have projects such as Highway 95, where it 
comes through the city of Providence, it comes through as a bridge. It 
is a raised highway. If you go underneath that bridge to, say, drive 
into the back entrance of the Providence Place Mall or to look where 
the highway goes over the Amtrak rails that connect the Northeast 
Corridor, what do you see? You see wooden planks that have been laid 
between the I-beams so that the highway falling in doesn't land on cars 
underneath, doesn't land on Amtrak trains or train tracks underneath. 
This is a project that needs to be rebuilt. It needs to be rebuilt now. 
It is connected to where State Routes 6 and 10 come in and connect to 
95. If you go under State Route 6 and State Route 10--as Senator Reed 
and I did recently with the mayor of Providence and with the 
transportation director--you see that those highways are propped up by 
wooden supports. You see that pieces of the metal infrastructure have 
crumbled and fallen off onto the ground. This is highway work that 
needs to be done. These are not bridges to nowhere.
  Every American driving across our bumpy roads knows we have work to 
do, and I call on my colleagues in the House to quit dawdling, to let 
this conference go. If they don't have an answer, if they can't pass a 
highway bill, if they can't do the basic legwork of governance to do 
something as simple as a highway bill, then get out of the way. At 
least get out of the way and let the bipartisan, widely supported 
Senate highway bill go.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.


                          Extending Tax Relief

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the bad news keeps coming. Europe is in 
dire straits, with the debt-riddled economies of Greece and now Spain 
threatening the future of the continent's economic union. There is real 
concern that this debt-fueled contagion in Europe will undermine our 
economy as well, and our economy cannot take too many more hits.
  The unemployment rate went back up to 8.2 percent last month. Only 
69,000 net new payroll jobs were created. That is barely keeping up 
with population growth and is hardly the type of robust job growth that 
will be the foundation of a lasting and meaningful economic recovery. 
Now, we should have seen this coming. The minutes of the Federal 
Reserve's most recent monetary policymaking meeting make numerous 
mention of uncertainties surrounding fiscal policy and that those 
uncertainties are a risk to the economic outlook.
  Fed policymakers noted that ``they generally saw the U.S. fiscal 
situation also as a risk to the economic outlook; if agreement is not 
reached on a plan for the federal budget, a sharp fiscal tightening 
could occur at the start of 2013.'' They concluded that ``uncertainty 
about the trajectory of future fiscal policy could lead businesses to 
defer hiring and investing'' and ``uncertainty about the fiscal 
environment could hold back both household spending on durable goods 
and business capital expenditures.''
  Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office reminded us yet again what 
the consequences will be to our economy if we fail to get our debt 
under control. According to one of their analyses, absent serious 
reform of entitlement spending programs, ``Federal debt would grow 
rapidly from its already high level, exceeding 90 percent of GDP in 
2022. After that . . . [d]ebt as a share of GDP would exceed its 
historical peak of 109 percent by 2026, and it would approach 200 
percent in 2037.'' And that is an optimistic view. The impact of this 
multiplying debt will be a gross national product that is reduced by 
4.5 percent in 2027 and 13.5 percent in 2037.
  In other words, unless President Obama and his allies in the Senate 
get to work, Americans face a future of fewer jobs, flat or shrinking 
incomes,

[[Page 8375]]

and loss of opportunity. And the sad truth is, as this chart shows, the 
President's allies have not gotten to work. We have had a hearing on 
tax extenders but none on the AMT patch--the alternative minimum tax 
patch--and none on tax reform. We did have a hearing on the 2013 tax 
cuts. But we have had no markups on any of those, and we have had no 
floor consideration of any of those. Yet these are all extremely 
important matters.
  It was no surprise, therefore, when former President Clinton stated 
yesterday that we are still in a recession. Economists might say that 
is not technically accurate, but it is certainly how most Americans 
feel. What did come as a surprise, however, was President Clinton's 
remarks on taxmageddon, the fiscal cliff the Nation faces at the end of 
this year. At least yesterday, it sounded as though his view was that 
we should do a complete 180 and race away from this cliff, extending in 
full the tax relief enacted by President Bush and extended by President 
Obama in 2010. Several weeks ago, 41 Senate Republicans made a similar 
request of the Senate's majority leader, Senator Reid. This fiscal 
cliff is unquestionably contributing to our fiscal crisis and slowing 
the economy by creating enormous uncertainty for taxpayers and 
businesses.
  Absent action to extend this tax relief, Americans will be hit with a 
$310 billion tax increase next year alone; 26 million middle-income 
families will owe $92 billion in alternative minimum tax when filing 
their returns 1 year from now; a family of four earning $50,000 will 
get hit with a $2,183 tax hike; a small business owner will face a top 
marginal tax rate hike of 17 percent. That is catastrophic. The number 
of farmers who will face the death tax will rise by 2,220 percent. The 
number of small business owners who will face the death tax will rise 
by 900 percent. There should be no higher priority for the President 
and the Congress than addressing these tax increases.
  Yesterday, President Clinton seemed to agree, arguing that we should 
act now, not after the elections, to avoid the fiscal cliff. At a 
minimum, he concluded that a temporary extension of current tax relief 
is in order. To quote former President Clinton:

       They will probably have to put everything off until early 
     next year. That's probably the best thing to do right now.

  I understand that the minority leader of the Senate and the Speaker 
of the House have now called for a 1-year extension, during which time 
we should do tax reform. That makes sense. And I am committed, as the 
ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, to do tax reform and 
hopefully bring both sides together, for once in a long time, to do 
what is in the best interest of this country.
  President Clinton further argued:

       What I think we need to do is to find some way to avoid the 
     fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the 
     economy now, and then deal with what's necessary in the long-
     term debt-reduction plan as soon as they can, which 
     presumably will be after the election.

  Now, channeling Gilda Radner, and presumably following a dressing 
down by President Obama's campaign team, President Clinton tells us, 
``Never mind.''
  But President Clinton knew what he was saying. One thing I can say, 
knowing him as well as I do, President Clinton is a very smart man. He 
was making an elementary point, one that the President, President 
Obama, seemed to agree with when he was not running for election on a 
platform that single-mindedly obsesses over raising taxes on families 
with incomes over $250,000.
  President Clinton, not wanting to further undermine our economy, 
recommended a short-term extension of all the tax relief. That is 
precisely what President Obama agreed to at the end of 2010. Given our 
tepid economic growth and job creation and the threat from Europe, 
common sense would dictate a similar course today--certainly, if the 
alternative is a $310 billion tax increase.
  But today President Obama is running for reelection, and tax relief 
for the so-called rich would undermine his message of wealth 
redistribution. Failure to extend this tax relief, though, is not an 
option.
  Just this morning another Obama supporter, a former Director for the 
National Economic Council, Larry Summers, said:

       The real risk to this economy is on the side of slowdown . 
     . . and that means we've got to make sure that we don't take 
     gasoline out of the tank at the end of this year. That's 
     gotta be the top priority.

  The former Director of President Obama's Office of Management and 
Budget concluded that what he estimates to be a $500 billion tax 
increase would be so large that ``the economy could be thrown back into 
a recession.''
  According to the magazine, The Economist, the Congressional Budget 
Office has found that the combined effects of the sequester and the 
expiring tax relief would add up to 3.6 percent of GDP in fiscal year 
2013. In a $15 trillion economy, that would be a hit to GDP of $540 
billion, which would surely tip us toward recession and even more job 
losses.
  The question the people of Utah and citizens around the country are 
asking themselves is, What is the holdup? If extending this tax relief 
is essential to providing families and businesses with the certainty 
and security necessary for economic growth, why are Senate Democrats 
refusing to take it up? Why is the President not pushing for immediate 
action to avoid this fiscal cliff?
  Let me suggest an answer. The President wants to drag this out until 
after this election. Even if that means months of additional pain for 
America's families and a real hit to our economy, it will serve his 
long-term goal, a goal that he dares not announce until after the 
election. President Obama does not want the precedent of extending this 
tax relief for everyone because, ultimately, his liberal base does not 
want it extended for anyone.
  The President and his advisers know our debt is unsustainable. Their 
base will not allow for any serious changes to spending policy, and tax 
increases on the wealthy alone are not adequate to get our fiscal house 
in order. The only solution, one that Hyde Park and Pennsylvania Avenue 
are loathe to discuss openly, are tax increases on everybody.
  This is Matt Bai, writing last year in the New York Times:

       If Democrats are serious about reversing the policy of the 
     Bush years, then they will probably have to be willing to 
     make a case for eliminating all the tax cuts, not just those 
     for the wealthiest Americans. And they may have to come up 
     with some kind of more comprehensive plan for modernizing the 
     entire tax code, in order to persuade voters that even if 
     some taxes go up, they might still come out ahead.

  Ezra Klein, the liberal blogger at the Washington Post, put it this 
way:

       We cannot fund anything close to the government's 
     commitments if we don't raise taxes, or if we let only the 
     Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000 expire.

  Though he is now persona non grata in President Obama's camp, just a 
few weeks ago President Clinton was echoing this recommendation of tax 
increases for all.
  This is President Clinton:

       This is just me now, I'm not speaking for the White House--
     I think you could tax me at 100 percent and you wouldn't 
     balance the budget. We are all going to have to contribute to 
     this, and if middle class people's wages were going up again, 
     and we had some growth to the economy, I don't think they 
     would object to going back to tax rates [from] when I was 
     president.

  With due respect to our former President, I do think he was speaking 
for the White House, and I do think most Americans would object to a 
tax hike. That is why President Obama has decided to lay low rather 
than lead. The American people are not going to accept this. We live in 
a republic, and it is fundamentally illegitimate, on an issue of this 
magnitude, for a person running for President of the United States to 
put these decisions off until a lameduck session of Congress when he 
can no longer be held to account by the American people.
  It is not only an economic imperative that we extend this tax relief, 
it is demanded by our constitutional commitment to representative 
democracy. To borrow from Justice Scalia:

       The American people love democracy and the American people 
     are not fools.

  If the President and his campaign team think they can punt this issue

[[Page 8376]]

into the fall, they are sorely mistaken. The American people will voice 
their displeasure with this failure to lead in November. President 
Clinton got it right the first time yesterday. The fiscal cliff must be 
addressed now. We cannot wait until later in the year. Our economy is 
struggling. American families are treading water. We have tried it 
their way for almost 4 years.
  We have tried a $850 billion stimulus. We have tried ObamaCare, which 
was also supposed to be a jobs program. We have tried Dodd-Frank. It is 
time to try something else.
  There is no greater jobs program that Congress and the President 
could pursue than a permanent extension of the tax relief signed by 
Presidents Bush and Obama. It would provide enormous confidence to 
America's businesses and families at a time when confidence is sorely 
needed. This issue is not going away. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to pass tax relief for all Americans sometime this summer.
  We all realize we are in election mode. Maybe I realize that more 
than most. The fact is, we cannot punt this anymore. We cannot kick it 
down the road. We are going to have to find a means and a way whereby 
we extend this tax relief and then spend the next year working on tax 
reform and hopefully a bipartisan tax reform bill that everybody here 
can support.
  So far this year just about everything the majority leader has 
brought up for and on behalf of Democrats is to protect the sitting 23 
Democrats who are up for reelection this year. I don't blame the leader 
for wanting to protect his fellow Democrats. That is, after all, maybe 
part of the job of the leader. On the other hand, there are things that 
are even more important, such as the future welfare of our country, 
such as jobs that are not being created. They are not being created 
because we have no creators in the White House. It takes a President to 
lead on these issues.
  I suggest to President Obama he would have a much better chance of 
reelection if he would lead on some of these issues and if he would go 
along with putting off these tax increases and committing Democrats and 
Republicans to coming up with a bipartisan reform of this awful, 
despicable, unworkable Tax Code. It might be one of the few ways we can 
bring people together. It might be one of the few ways we can turn this 
country around in the short term.
  I think the minority leader and the Speaker of the House have 
something here. We ought to do this and make it the main focal point of 
our existence as Members of the Senate and Members of the House of 
Representatives. If we do this, we might even find that we can get 
along again. We might even find that we can work together. And we might 
even find the President can lead for a change, which would be a 
pleasant change from what I have seen over the last number of years.
  I happen to like the President. I do not agree with him. Yes, I would 
like to replace him. But I like him personally. I believe if the 
President would lead here and would make this a focal point he would 
have a better chance in this election. Not that I want him to be 
successful, but at least he would have a better chance.
  Deep down the American people believe nothing is being done by the 
White House, by this body, and throughout the country. I yearn for the 
day when Democrats and Republicans can get along with each other again, 
when we really put the country first rather than reelection first, when 
we really look at each other and say: You know, I like him or her. I 
think I can work with them. It would be wonderful if we would do that.
  This is a pretty fair suggestion: Keep the tax cuts alive until we 
reform the tax system--this bloated, unworkable, stupid Tax Code. I 
actually believe it could be a way of making us all work together and 
making us all do so in the best interests of our country. Wouldn't that 
be wonderful?
  I hope my colleagues on both sides will go along with doing something 
that makes sense--like this. I believe in these suggestions we have the 
makings of something that would not only help our country but help all 
of us to get along with each other and work in the best interests of 
our country.
  But I will make a final point; that is, it takes Presidential 
leadership to make major changes like this, and we do not have that 
right now.
  Mr. President, in remarks a few minutes ago, I stated the following:

       If extending this tax relief is essential to providing 
     families and businesses with the certainty and security 
     necessary for economic growth, why are Senate Democrats 
     refusing to take it up? And why is the President not pushing 
     for immediate action to avoid this fiscal cliff?
       Let me suggest an answer.
       The President wants to drag this out until after the 
     elections. Even if that means months of additional pain for 
     America's families and a real hit to our economy, it will 
     serve his long-term goal--a goal that he dare not announce 
     until after the election.
       President Obama does not want the precedent of extending 
     this tax relief for everyone, because ultimately his liberal 
     base does not want it extended for anyone.
       The President and his advisers know that our debt is 
     unsustainable. Their base will not allow for any serious 
     changes to spending policy, and tax increases on the wealthy 
     alone are not adequate to get our fiscal house in order.

  As support for my theory that the President could be dragging out 
this tax hike fight, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record an article from the blog, ``Talking Points Memo,'' dated 
November 22, 2011. That blog's authors certainly are allies of 
President Obama and rarely does ``Talking Points Memo'' contain 
anything sympathetic to Republican policy positions. When it is 
critical of President Obama, the blog's criticisms tend to spring from 
the far left of the political spectrum. I ask my colleagues to ask 
themselves the question above: ``Why is the President not pushing for 
immediate action to avoid this fiscal cliff?'' and then read the 
article.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Obama Issues Veto Threat on Bush Tax Cuts

                           (By Brian Beutler)

       President Obama has threatened to veto any legislation that 
     attempts to eliminate the automatic penalties for Super 
     Committee failure. But on January 1, 2013--the same day the 
     automatic, across the board spending cuts are scheduled to 
     take effect--all of the Bush tax cuts are set to expire. And 
     the White House plans to use the threat of full expiration 
     the exact same way they're using the threat of 
     sequestration--to force Republicans to accept a higher tax 
     burden on wealthy Americans.
       ``He won't sign a full extension,'' said one Senior 
     Administration Official at a White House background briefing 
     for reporters on the Super Committee.
       ``I think if you look at everything that happens in January 
     2013, it is a compelling argument that there's a need to make 
     real policy,'' said another Senior Administration Official. 
     ``And I think the fact the sequester will hit in January 2013 
     and the expiration of the tax cuts hits in 2013, the right 
     thing to do is tax reform that has both positive impact on 
     the economy and is fair in terms of distribution of the tax 
     burden, and then balanced savings that share the burden 
     amongst all the different parts of the budget from the very 
     rich to people on Medicare and Medicaid.''
       If you despise government indiscriminately, the Super 
     Committee's inaction doesn't really matter on it's own--it 
     just means more spending cuts. ``Super Committee could not 
     agree how to cut $1.2 Trillion,'' tweeted anti-tax crusader 
     Grover Norquist. ``So now we `sequester' (french for ``cut'') 
     $1.2 Trillion. This is failing, how?''
       True enough. But unless the White House changes its tune, 
     members of Congress won't just have a choice between lower 
     spending and higher taxes. If Republicans dig in their heels 
     and refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy, then taxes will go 
     up automatically. Democrats proved in the Super Committee 
     negotiations that they have the nerve to hold out on spending 
     cuts until Republicans toss Norquist and his fellow 
     conservative activists under the bus. Unless that changes, 
     it's a powerful incentive for Republicans to change their 
     strategy--and their orthodoxy.

  Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Would the Senator withhold the 
request.
  Mr. HATCH. I withhold. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

[[Page 8377]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.


                    World War II Prayer Act of 2012

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy for 15 minutes with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator 
Lieberman, about the new legislation we just introduced, S. 3078, the 
World War II Prayer Act of 2012.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam Portman, this bill will lead to the placement of a 
plaque or inscription at the National World War II Memorial in 
Washington, DC, with a prayer that Franklin Delano Roosevelt shared 
with the Nation by radio address 68 years ago today. The occasion was 
D-day, June 6, 1944.
  On D-day American troops, joined by allied forces, carried out an 
amphibious and airborne landing on five beaches on the heavily 
fortified coast of France's Normandy region. Some have termed those 
Normandy landings as the beginning of the end of the war in Europe. I 
believe that is true because courageous Americans were willing to risk 
their lives on the coast of France that day. Thousands made the 
ultimate sacrifice that day.
  With the invasion underway, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked 
our Nation to come together in prayer for the men who were engaged in 
this dangerous but very important battle. His powerful and ecumenical 
prayer, drawing on our Nation's rich Judeo-Christian heritage and 
values, brought strength and inspiration to many during what was a 
challenging time for our country.
  Today I have the honor, along with Senator Lieberman, to introduce 
this legislation to commemorate that prayer and that day. His words, of 
course, brought comfort to the many families and friends of the brave 
men who were killed in action. Those words of Franklin Roosevelt are 
etched in our history and in our minds, and we hope soon in stone. Our 
bill ensures that the prayer becomes a permanent reminder of the 
sacrifice of those who fought in World War II and in the power of 
prayer through difficult times.
  We worked closely with the National Park Service to ensure that the 
plaque or inscription does not disrupt the World War II Memorial or 
bypass the Commemorative Works Act process, which governs monuments in 
Washington. The placement and design of the plaque would be assigned to 
a commemorative works approval and review process, which makes it 
consistent with legislation that was passed by previous Congresses.
  It is adding some historical context to this beautiful memorial--
adding a layer of commemoration, not taking anything away from the 
memorial that is already in place.
  My friend in the House of Representatives, Congressman Bill Johnson 
of Ohio, introduced a House companion bill to this legislation, which 
has passed the House earlier this year with an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote of 386 to 26.
  Today, on the 68th anniversary of this historic battle known as D-
day, we hope to inspire the Senate to follow suit and tell the story of 
this powerful prayer that moved the Nation in honor of heroes by 
placing a marker with the prayer at the World War II Memorial.
  Madam President, I would like to now turn things over to Senator 
Lieberman, my cosponsor of this legislation, and a leader in the Senate 
and in our country for his thoughts. After that we will join to recite 
parts of this incredibly powerful extraordinary Presidential prayer 
from World War II.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Ohio for 
taking the lead on what I call a noble project, and I am confident that 
all of our colleagues will join us in this to include FDR's national 
prayer at the World War II Memorial.
  It is very important to remember that D-day, which was 68 years ago 
today, turned out to be a pivotal moment in the war in Europe. FDR 
chose not to give a speech announcing the landing at Normandy but to 
offer a national prayer. I think in doing so, he went to a very proud, 
not only tradition in America but one of our great assets where we have 
had the ability to bring faith and God in a very inclusive and 
nondiscriminatory way into our public life to the great benefit of our 
Nation.
  As he delivered these words of prayer in a historic radio broadcast, 
which of course is the way it was done in those days, the success of 
the bold and dangerous D-day plan was far from assured. But with the 
eloquent faithfulness of his words and with his steady Presidential 
leadership, I believe the brave American men and women in uniform who 
landed at Normandy were strengthened by the conviction of our national 
values, the virtue and righteousness of their cause, and, of course, 
with confidence that they would benefit from the guiding grace of God.
  I remember words by President Reagan on another Normandy anniversary 
when he said:

       The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was 
     right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a 
     just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead, or on the 
     next.

  Indeed, I think adding FDR'S prayer to the grandness of the World War 
II Memorial will even elevate it, and it will rightly remind all who 
visit of the essential role that faith in God played at that pivotal 
moment of world history. It will also remind us that faith in God has 
played a pivotal role in American history every day since the 
Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, when our Founders declared 
that they were forming our new government to secure the rights of life, 
liberty, and happiness that each of us receive as an endowment from our 
creator.
  All of this is expressed in the wonderful idea that Senator Portman 
has had and would be accomplished by this project.
  I yield back to my friend from Ohio for the beginning of President 
Roosevelt's prayer.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague from Connecticut. As he said so 
well, the power of prayer in this case, as was true in our Nation's 
great history, is a comfort and inspiration to the country.
  As I noted earlier, we would like to recite the prayer. I would ask 
those in the gallery and on the floor today to join us in this prayer. 
I will start by reading the first half, including some words that 
President Roosevelt said prior to the prayer, and then Senator 
Lieberman will read the second half.
  Franklin Roosevelt started off by saying:

       My fellow Americans: Last night when I spoke with you about 
     the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the 
     United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in 
     another and greater operation. It has come to pass with 
     success thus far.
       And so in this poignant hour, I ask you to join me in 
     prayer.
       Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have 
     set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our 
     Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free 
     a suffering humanity.
       Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, 
     stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
       They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and 
     hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. 
     Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return 
     again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the 
     righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
       They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without 
     rest--until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by 
     noise and flame. Men's souls will be shaken with the 
     violences of war.
       For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They 
     fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end 
     conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice 
     arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They 
     yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the 
     haven of home.
       Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive 
     them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

  I would now like to turn to Senator Lieberman to read the second half 
of the prayer.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I continue with Roosevelt's prayer.

       And for us at home--fathers, mothers, children, wives, 
     sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas--whose thoughts 
     and prayers are ever with them--help us, Almighty God, to 
     rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of 
     great sacrifice.
       Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single 
     day of special prayer. But

[[Page 8378]]

     because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that 
     our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As 
     we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, 
     let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our 
     efforts.
       Give us strength, too--strength in our daily tasks, to 
     redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the 
     material support of our armed forces.
       And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, 
     to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our 
     sons wheresoever they may be.
       And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee. Faith in 
     our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. 
     Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not 
     the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but 
     fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable 
     purpose.
       With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces 
     of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and 
     racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and 
     with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a 
     sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy 
     men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, 
     reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
       Thy will be done, Almighty God.
       Amen.

  Madam President, as we know, many lives were lost on D-day and what 
followed, but it led to the defeat of--if I may use President 
Roosevelt's words--``the unholy forces of our enemy,'' and of a 
remarkable period of peace and prosperity in America and certainly in 
Europe.
  If I might add briefly, although the circumstances and challenges we 
face at this moment in our Nation's history are much less greater than 
America faced on June 6, 1944, nonetheless, there is a certain absence 
of hopefulness and confidence today. I would respectfully suggest that 
one of the great sources of hopefulness and confidence that we all 
could benefit from today is exactly the faith in God in a very 
inclusive way such as President Roosevelt spoke on that fateful day of 
June 6, 1944.
  Again, with thanks to my friend from Ohio for this idea and for his 
generosity of spirit in inviting me to join both in sponsoring this 
proposal and in reading this prayer today, I yield the floor back to 
the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend. I tell the Senator 
that I am proud to stand by his side in this small effort to 
commemorate what happened 68 years ago today, which was the President 
calling the Nation in prayer and invoking the Almighty to help protect 
our sons and daughters in battle.
  I just came back from Afghanistan yesterday morning, and I would 
agree with my friend from Connecticut that so much of what we are 
facing today would also be relevant to these words. I think, 
particularly, these words in the prayer:

       For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They 
     fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end 
     conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight for tolerance 
     and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end 
     of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

  That certainly describes our great young men and women in uniform who 
are in Afghanistan protecting us and encouraging tolerance, goodwill, 
and justice not just for us but for that country and, indeed, for the 
world.
  I thank my colleague again for his being willing to join me in this 
effort. I hope my other colleagues will join us in encouraging that 
this important, extraordinary prayer and this example of the power of 
faith in our Nation's history be added to the World War II Memorial.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today we have before us the Agriculture 
Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012. It is more commonly known as the 
farm bill. It is critically important for America's farmers and 
ranchers. But it might also be known as the conservation bill, as the 
food bill, and, even better, the kitchen table bill because this bill 
affects every one of us.
  The Agriculture Committee is different from most other committees in 
Congress. Our committee room does not have a raised dais. Instead, we 
sit around a table just like families across the country do and just 
like farmers and ranchers do after a long day of work in the fields. To 
write this farm bill, we sat down around our table and we talked to 
each other and we listened to each other and we worked in a bipartisan 
way to craft a bill that creates jobs while cutting subsidies and 
reducing the deficit.
  The result of that effort is what is before us in the Senate. It is a 
bill that affects every family across the country. The farm bill makes 
it possible for many families to come together around their own kitchen 
tables to enjoy the bounty of the world's safest, most abundant, and 
most affordable food supply.
  We are also aware, especially in this very tough economy, that many 
of our neighbors, many of our friends, many of our family members are 
struggling to put food on their own tables. The farm bill is critically 
important to those families as well. As we begin our debate in the 
Senate on the farm bill, let us remember the families all across the 
country who are counting on us to get this right.
  I want my colleagues to also remember that the farm bill is a jobs 
bill--16 million jobs. Sixteen million jobs in this country rely on the 
continued strength of American agriculture. They are the people doing 
the work it takes to put the food on our kitchen tables, not just those 
on the farm but those who manufacture, sell farm equipment, the people 
who ship the crops from one place to another, the people who have the 
farmers markets and local food hubs, the people who work in food 
processing and crop protection and crop fertility, not to mention the 
researchers and the scientists who worked hard every day to fight pests 
and diseases that threaten our food supply.
  Throughout this recession, as those 16 million people can attest, 
agriculture has been one of the truly bright spots in our economy. That 
is why we made such an important effort, such an important bipartisan 
effort in this farm bill to support beginning farmers as well. We are 
giving them additional support for training, mentoring, and outreach to 
ensure the success of our next generation of farmers.
  In addition, we are giving opportunities for U.S. veterans who are 
interested in pursuing a career in agriculture, and we are creating a 
military veterans agricultural liaison within the Department of 
Agriculture to educate veterans about farming and connecting them with 
beginning farmer training programs. I would also remind my colleagues 
that for those who have served and are serving us in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the majority of them--over half of them--are coming from 
small towns and rural communities and they are coming home. One of the 
ways to provide opportunities for jobs is to support them coming back 
to their community by having the opportunity to go into agriculture.
  One of the brightest spots in agriculture has been in exports. This 
chart shows the incredible growth of agricultural exports over the last 
number of years. In fact, total agricultural exports in 2011 alone 
reached $136 billion. It is a 270-percent increase just in the last 10 
years, an explosion, as we reach out. American agriculture is looked to 
and depended upon to feed the families of the world.
  Our trade surplus is $42.5 billion. Let me repeat that. We have a 
significant trade surplus in agriculture. We cannot say that in much of 
any other place in our economy. But in agriculture we are growing it 
here at home. The jobs are here at home, and we are exporting it 
overseas, which is what I would like to see in every one of our 
industries. It is one of the few areas where we have that kind of 
success.
  We know that for every $1 billion in agricultural exports, we are 
creating 8,400 American jobs--8,400 American jobs for every $1 billion 
in exports. The investments we make in market development, in access 
for our agricultural

[[Page 8379]]

products overseas, will continue to create jobs here at home.
  As we were writing the farm bill, we also did something that families 
all cross the country are doing during these very hard times. We went 
through everything we are spending, everything we are spending money 
on, and we looked at how we could do more for less. We literally went 
through every page of farm policy and agriculture spending through 
USDA. This bill represents major reforms that will allow us to focus 
fewer resources on the things that create jobs and make the biggest 
difference. In other words, we are refocusing. We are cutting the 
things that are not important and refocusing on the things that are and 
the things that create jobs.
  The Agriculture Reform Food and Jobs Act is about cutting subsidies 
and creating jobs in America. The reforms in this bill start on page 1 
with the repeal of direct payments, countercyclical payments, and the 
Average Crop Revenue Election, which has been called the ACRE Program.
  We are creating a new approach, a new program that only helps farmers 
when there is a loss and only for crops they have actually planted, and 
we are strengthening payment limits. We are ending more than 100 
programs and authorizations that are no longer needed, and we are doing 
all of this in order to be able to cut the deficit by $23 billion.
  The most fundamental reform in the Agriculture Reform Food and Jobs 
Act is the shift away from direct payments and toward risk management 
for farmers. Throughout this process, we have been focused on 
principles, not programs, and the No. 1 principle is risk management. 
So we are repealing direct payments. We know farmers face unique risks 
unlike those in other businesses.
  Let me stress that again. I do not know of any business that has the 
same kind of risks in market volatility, in weather volatility than our 
farmers and ranchers do. It is very fortunate we still have people who 
want to stay in that business, given all the risks, weather and market 
conditions, which are out of producers' control. They can have 
devastating effects. We know that. But the current system focused 
around direct and countercyclical payments does not focus on actual 
risk and it is no longer defensible or sustainable.
  In this current fiscal and political environment, these programs 
actually jeopardize our ability to have a real safety net for farmers 
and the jobs that depend on them. That is why we are eliminating those 
programs and instead strengthening crop insurance as the centerpiece of 
risk management in the farm bill.
  This is the No. 1 issue we heard from every farmer who has testified 
before the committee, whether it was in Michigan or in Kansas or across 
the country. Every region of the country we have heard the same thing 
loudly and clearly.
  The basic foundation of support for producers is crop insurance. We 
are expanding crop insurance in the bill to include specialty crops and 
others as well. Because while we know crop insurance is the foundation, 
it does not work the same. It is not available for every commodity. 
That is a commitment we have made to expand crop insurance, including 
specialty crops, which are essentially the kinds of crops we are likely 
to find in the produce aisle of our supermarket or at the local farmers 
market: nuts, vegetables, fruits, and other products.
  This is an extremely diverse group of crops, and the bill recognizes 
the unique crop insurance needs of specialty crop growers. We are also 
taking strides to help young and beginning farmers get started and 
succeed in farming. We have made revisions to crop insurance to better 
help those new farmers by reducing their crop insurance premiums and 
providing additional support when disasters strike.
  Supplement crop insurance. This bill creates a simple market-oriented 
and risk-based program we are calling ARC, Agricultural Risk Coverage. 
ARC represents a significant and historic reform in agriculture policy. 
For years, Congress has struggled to balance the needs of different 
commodities, different programs. This is solved with the new ARC 
Program, which uses the market as a guide and treats every commodity 
the same.
  The current system essentially amounts to an income transfer from the 
Federal Treasury to only certain people, certain farmers, because 
payments are made every year without regard to whether the farmer had a 
successful year or whether the individual is farming. I say ``certain 
people'' because many farmers do not qualify for the help today as 
well.
  Direct and countercyclical payments are made using what is called 
base acres. That is the current system to determine the payments. Base 
acres were set using what was planted on the farms back in 1980s. So 
these base acres have little relevance to what is actually happening on 
many farms today. This change is also very important for new farmers. 
We have told beginning farmers this is a very important way to support 
them.
  Our ARC, on the other hand, the program we have developed in this 
bill, uses only the acres a farmer actually plants. It is able to adapt 
to free market forces and the decisions made being made on the farm 
without interference from those business decisions a farmer makes. We 
want the marketplace making the decisions, not the government.
  ARC is market oriented. Farmers only get help when the market moves 
in the opposite direction from historic price trends farmers use to 
plan their business and make planning decisions. The payment amount is 
based on actual historic numbers from the marketplace, not from the 
Halls of Congress.
  Finally, too many current program payments are being made to people 
who do not actually farm or already have large incomes. The farm bill 
fixes this. Under current law, we say farm payments can only go to 
people who are actively engaged in farming. This requirement contained 
a loophole, however, known as the management loophole that lets a farm 
operation designate managers who are not actually farming, but because 
they are listed as managers, they can still get a payment from the 
government, and it can allow them to get around the payment limits.
  That does not make any sense. Thanks to Senator Grassley, Senator Tim 
Johnson, who has legislation in this area--and Senator Grassley is a 
member of our committee who has been such a champion on this issue--we 
have eliminated that loophole and made sure the payments are going to 
people who are actually farming.
  This farm bill also reforms the adjusted gross income eligibility 
requirement, lowers it substantially, eliminating any payment to 
millionaires. Current law includes two AGI calculations, one for farm 
income, one for nonfarm income, which is confusing and difficult to 
administer. It may allow some people to split their income in a way 
that they are eligible for payments they otherwise would not be 
eligible for. We close this loophole. We use a single, simple AGI 
calculation and restrict the eligibility to those who have less than 
$750,000 in AGI.
  Finally, the farm bill caps payments at $50,000, less than half of 
what a farmer can currently receive. Coupled with closing the 
management loophole, the farm bill contains the tightest and strongest 
payment limit reforms ever, while maintaining and strengthening the 
farm safety net for farmers who really need it. And this is very 
important. This is not about eliminating options, it is about focusing 
on those who have the most risk and have the most need.
  In dairy, we also reform our Nation's dairy policies, replacing the 
dairy programs with new, market-oriented programs that allow farmers to 
manage their own risk in a manner that works best for them. The dairy 
industry suffered serious hardship in 2009, as many of us know--and 
certainly the Presiding Officer knows we in Michigan have the same 
thing--when milk prices dropped substantially, wiping out many small 
and medium-sized dairies. Despite spending $1.3 billion that year, our 
current dairy programs weren't able to help many of the farmers in 
crisis. In some cases, dairy farms that had

[[Page 8380]]

been passed down from generation to generation went bankrupt and, 
sadly, some farmers even took their own lives.
  Dairy operations across the country are extremely diverse, and the 
dairy policies we are setting in this bill recognize that diversity. We 
created programs that can be customized by each dairy, and we allow 
individual dairies to determine whether to participate in the programs 
at all. Two programs will now comprise the dairy risk management 
system: the Dairy Production Margin Protection Program and the Dairy 
Market Stabilization Program.
  The first provides support based on margin--that is, the difference 
between the milk price and the feed input costs. This is important 
because rising grain prices, coupled with dropping milk prices, can 
have a devastating impact on America's dairies. Producers will have to 
share in the program's costs--and this is important--but it will allow 
them to manage their risk on more of their production at higher 
protection levels. We are providing a discounted premium for the first 
4 million pounds of milk marketed for each producer--which is somewhere 
around 200 to 250 cows--to make sure that small and medium-sized 
operations will be able to participate and that all farms will be 
eligible.
  The second program, the Market Stabilization Program, sends clear 
market signals to producers that indicate when they are oversupplying 
the market. Dairy is a unique commodity in that it is produced 365 days 
a year, cows must be milked daily, the raw product requires further 
handling and processing, and there are significant regional differences 
in management and marketing. By temporarily reducing a participating 
operation's payment for milk marketed by a small percentage when there 
is too much supply, the margin program removes the incentive for 
dairies to overproduce during times of low margins. The program also 
includes a suspension trigger based on world prices that ensures U.S. 
dairies are competitive in the global market.
  Conservation. Throughout this farm bill, we took the same approach as 
a family sitting around the table would when they are trying to figure 
out cuts in their own budget. We went through every program, again 
looked at what was working, what wasn't, looked for duplication and 
waste, and we focused on principles, not programs. An excellent example 
of that really is conservation.
  Farming is measured in generations. Farms are passed down from 
children to grandchildren. But a farm can only be successful if it has 
quality soil and clean water. One of the farmers who testified before 
our committee told us that conservation programs which ``enhance and 
protect our natural resource base is a crop insurance program for the 
nation.'' I would agree. With a growing global population, it is even 
more important than ever that we conserve water and conserve soil 
resources. Advances in technology and farm practices have helped our 
farmers be more productive than ever before, but no amount of 
technology can overcome degraded soils, poor water quality, or a lack 
of water.
  The farm bill is actually our Nation's single biggest investment in 
land and water conservation on private lands in our country. As we went 
through every program, we focused on making them more flexible and 
easier to use. We have been able to focus 23 different programs into 
13. We have reduced it to 13 and put them in 4 primary functions, with 
a lot more flexibility for the users.
  The first function is working lands--giving farmers and ranchers the 
tools they need to be better stewards of the land. The Environmental 
Quality Incentive Program--or EQIP--is one of the most important 
conservation programs for working lands, providing technical and 
financial assistance to farmers, ranchers, and private forest owners to 
help them conserve soil and water. This function also includes the 
Conservation Stewardship Program, which encourages higher levels of 
conservation and the adoption of emerging conservation technologies.
  We also continued the conservation innovation grants and the 
Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, which allows 
private landowners to get added benefits from their lands by opening 
them up to hunting, fishing, bird watching, and other kinds of outdoor 
recreation. We made these programs more flexible--and this is very 
important--and we added a focus on wildlife habitats and made them 
easier for farmers to take advantage of.
  The second area is the Conservation Reserve Program--very important. 
It removes highly erodible land from production to benefit soil and 
water quality as well as wildlife habitat. Parts of the Southwest--
certainly my friend and colleague from Kansas knows this--have 
experienced record droughts this year. It is stunning what has 
happened, and it is the worst since the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s. But 
the soil, while it was dry, stayed on the ground because the 
Conservation Reserve Program was a part of that change protecting the 
soil and air. Our conservation efforts are actually working, and we are 
seeing changes even in the worst of times as it relates to the 
droughts.
  CRP has also been critical in our efforts to rebuild wildlife 
populations and to reduce pollution in our streams, our rivers, and our 
lakes. We also continued an important transition incentives program to 
help older farmers transition their land to beginning farmers.
  Third, we focused on regional partnerships. We consolidated four 
different programs into one that will provide competitive, merit-based 
grants to regional partnerships comprised of conservation groups, 
universities, farmers, ranchers, and private landowners to support 
improvements to soil health, water quality and quantity, and wildlife 
habitat. That is certainly important to me for the Great Lakes--and I 
know the Presiding Officer cares about that as well--but it is also 
critical for the Chesapeake Bay. And I want to thank our colleagues 
from the bay area, certainly Senator Cardin and Senator Casey, who are 
on the committee, but also Senator Warner and Members all across the 
bay who have been deeply involved in making sure we get this right. It 
is also there for other critical areas around the country that have 
large-scale regional challenges around conservation.
  Finally, I am really proud of the work that was done around 
easements. Easements allow landowners to voluntarily enter into an 
agreement to preserve wetlands and farmland to protect against 
development and sprawl. This year, funding for both the Wetlands 
Reserve Program and the Grasslands Reserve Program were was out. So we 
streamlined and consolidated to establish an easement program with a 
permanent baseline going forward to protect agricultural lands from 
development.
  This bill also includes a bipartisan sodsaver provision, and I wish 
to thank Senators Thune, Johanns, and Sherrod Brown for bringing it 
forward, authoring it, and working with us. This provision helps 
prevent the plowing up of native prairie. Sodsaver is aimed at 
protecting grasslands at high risk of being converted to cropland. This 
is not only good for conservation, it saves taxpayers $200 million over 
10 years, and it is tied to crop insurance.
  I should also say that while the conservation title in the farm bill 
is a big win for conservation of our environment, I am proud to say we 
have continued to link the commodity title, which I described earlier, 
to conservation.
  In crop insurance, the sodsaver program creates a penalty if, in 
fact, someone is plowing up native prairie. They would lose part of 
their discount under crop insurance if they did that. So it is tied 
there, and that is very important.
  I am very proud of the fact that we received support for our approach 
from 643 different conservation and environmental groups in all 50 
States. I think that says loudly and clearly that it is possible to 
make smart cuts that increase flexibility without sacrificing 
effectiveness.
  Another area in which we have made significant strides is nutrition 
and

[[Page 8381]]

healthy foods. For too long our Nation's farm bill ignored the 
diversity of agriculture and the kinds of healthy foods, such as fruits 
and vegetables, that families in America want to put on their kitchen 
tables as well. We made significant progress on this front in the 2008 
farm bill, with the first-ever specialty crops title, and we have 
continued the progress in the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act.
  As I said earlier, as I go to every part of Michigan, I meet people 
who have worked all their lives, paid taxes, and never imagined they 
would be put in a position where they would need help putting food on 
the table for their families. Because of this recession, which has been 
way too long in Michigan--it is getting better, but we have been hit 
harder, deeper, and longer than anywhere--a lot of families have had to 
ask for temporary help. And when they need it, whether it is food 
assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which 
used to be called food stamps and is now called SNAP, or whether it is 
help from a food bank, those families are grateful, and we should be 
there when they need that temporary help.
  We all expect those programs to have integrity. And as someone whose 
State has been hit harder than anyone else's, I want to make absolutely 
sure these programs are in place for families who need it, and that 
means making absolutely sure every dollar goes to only the families who 
need it. That is why we are closing loopholes that allowed lottery 
winners--and, unbelievably, we have had at least two instances of this 
in Michigan, where someone won the lottery and was able to continue on 
food assistance. It is shameful that so many American children go to 
bed hungry at night and outrageous that people who have won millions of 
dollars in the lottery would be able to continue food assistance. So we 
made it absolutely clear that those individuals would be removed from 
SNAP immediately.
  We are also cracking down on the trafficking of food assistance 
benefits. Right now, thanks to the efforts of the last farm bill, fraud 
is at an alltime low, but we can do even more. We are giving additional 
resources to monitor and prevent benefit trafficking, as well as 
cracking down on liquor and tobacco stores that are currently allowed 
to participate in the program.
  We are making sure that only people returning to school for career 
and technical training are eligible for food assistance, not college 
students who are currently at home or being supported by their parents.
  Again, with so many families and so many children in need, we can't 
afford to divert funds in a way that just shouldn't be there.
  We must also ensure that the standards Congress created for SNAP are 
followed by the States. We are eliminating a gap in standards that has 
allowed 16 States, including Michigan, to give just $1 to people in the 
form of energy assistance to help them automatically qualify for 
additional SNAP benefits. We know families in parts of the country with 
high energy bills are often those who are most food insecure, and that 
is why we created the link between food assistance and LIHEAP. But it 
is clear Congress never intended for State governments to use this in a 
way that could jeopardize additional assistance for families with the 
highest utility bills.
  Just like with commodity programs, we need to make sure the work we 
are doing has integrity and is defensible in our current budget 
climate, and we do this in a very careful way to make sure we do not 
inadvertently hurt families who truly do have significant energy costs.
  In addition to increasing accountability, we are building on the 
success of programs that reduce hunger and improve access to healthy 
fruits and vegetables. We increase assistance for food banks through 
the Emergency Food Assistance Program. In 2010 more than 5 million 
people visited a food bank, and as we recover from this recession, it 
is absolutely critical that these organizations have food in stock to 
help those in need.
  We are streamlining the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which 
provides food to low-income individuals, to focus on seniors, and we 
are moving women and children into the WIC Program, where they can be 
better served.
  We are continuing the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which was 
authored originally by Senator Harkin when he was chairing the 
committee, and I was very proud to work with him on that. It provides 
free and healthy snacks to schools with a high number of low-income 
children, and it has been incredibly successful.
  This bill triples our support for farmers markets and gives them 
resources to develop local infrastructure such as food hubs. And we are 
continuing an effort to give low-income seniors access to healthy 
fruits and vegetables at farmers markets and roadside stands.
  We are increasing funding for innovative projects such as community 
gardens and urban greenhouse initiatives and protecting funding for 
programs that improve people's health.
  I should say that all of these are done with small amounts of 
dollars, but they are very effective.
  We are creating a national pilot modeled after Michigan's successful 
Double Up Food Bucks, which gives families relying on SNAP the 
opportunity to truly be able to buy fresh fruits and vegetables for 
their families. We are also authorizing the Healthy Food Financing 
Initiative to offer loans and grants to help address the problem of 
food deserts in underserved communities.
  We increased funding for several organic programs, which, by the way, 
is the fastest growing segment of American agriculture. We increased 
support for organic research and extension, and we nearly doubled 
funding for the organic cost-share program that supports farmers.
  This farm bill is a jobs bill, but it is also a food bill, and the 
2012 farm bill goes a long way toward making sure every mom and dad can 
put healthy, nutritious food on the table for their children.
  As we worked through the farm bill around our table in the 
Agriculture Committee, we focused on streamlining and consolidating 
programs to get the best possible results. I think that is what people 
want us to do. I certainly know that is what people in Michigan want us 
to do. We certainly see that in conservation, but we also approached 
this in every part of the farm bill.
  In farm credit and rural development, we are streamlining the 
existing laws, removing unused provisions, and making authorizations 
more effective and the administration more effective so that when we 
have a part-time mayor who is trying to figure out rural development 
programs, they can actually do it and they actually use what have been 
extremely effective programs for rural communities.
  In our research title, we eliminated dozens of unused or indefensible 
authorizations but continued the most important research components and 
functions, while streamlining operations, improving accountability in 
the use of Federal research funds, and creating an innovative, new 
research foundation that matches private dollars and leverages Federal 
research dollars to get more innovative food and agricultural research. 
And I wish to thank my friend from Kansas, Senator Roberts, for his 
important leadership in this as well.
  We funded important energy programs, invested in specialty crops and 
organic farming, as I mentioned, and we have done all of this while 
saving the Federal taxpayers $23 billion. We did it around our table in 
the ag room, in a bipartisan fashion, working out differences and 
arriving at real solutions.
  In the coming days, as we get to debate on the farm bill, we will 
talk more about specifics, and I will join my colleagues from the 
committee in further explaining various aspects of the bill, and we 
will continue to work with all of our colleagues to find additional 
solutions and to improve the bill so that our farm programs work best 
for all of our regions and all of our States.
  While I will do everything I can to work out issues with our 
colleagues, I wish to stress the important balance

[[Page 8382]]

we have struck in a bipartisan effort, the reforms we have undertaken, 
and the work we put into making real reforms without hurting families 
and without hurting farmers, who are so important to our economic 
recovery.
  I am very proud of the work we have been able to accomplish--it has 
been a lot of hard work--and the way we saved American taxpayers $23 
billion through these reforms. I would encourage colleagues to look 
closely at the work we have done in the bill, to find a way to support 
it, to help us send a strong message to all Americans that this 
Congress, this Senate can make tough, smart decisions that cut 
spending, invest in America, and that we can do it together.
  Speaking of doing it together, I could not have done this without my 
friend and my partner, Senator Roberts, the ranking member from Kansas. 
This has been a long and difficult process, but frankly there is nobody 
I would rather have had sitting across the table from me as we worked 
out this bill. Too many people look at Washington and only see 
dysfunction and partisanship and divisiveness. Yet we on the 
Agriculture Committee have found a way to work together for the good of 
the country, for 16 million people who depend on agriculture for their 
livelihood. That couldn't have happened without Senator Roberts' 
leadership and support, and I thank him as we move forward on this 
bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan for her very kind remarks. This has 
been a team effort. She has been a very strong leader to try to put 
together a bill. I thank her for her very detailed summary, title by 
title, of the farm bill--something a lot of us probably couldn't do, 
but at any rate, she has done that, and it is in the Congressional 
Record. I urge my colleagues to really take a look at what the 
distinguished chairwoman has said today because she has literally gone 
down every title in the farm bill. So if anybody has any questions, it 
is right there, and, as she has indicated, if anybody has questions of 
either of us, please be in contact with either us or our very able 
staff.
  I rise today in strong support of the Agriculture Reform, Food and 
Jobs Act of 2012, the farm bill, and I am privileged to stand here 
today with Chairwoman Stabenow, who led this reform legislation through 
the Agriculture Committee. It has truly been a bipartisan and a team 
effort. It represents the final product of numerous hearings and months 
of discussions as we worked to write a new farm bill during the most 
difficult budget climate in our Nation's recent history.
  I am proud to say that we have put together a bipartisan bill that 
strengthens and preserves the safety net for our farmers and ranchers 
in rural America, while providing $23.6 billion--$24 billion, as a 
politician's counting--in deficit reduction under this bill reported by 
the committee on a bipartisan vote of 16 to 5.
  Let me repeat that. The Senate Agriculture Committee voluntarily 
wrote and reported a bill that provides $23.6 billion in deficit 
reduction. It is a bill that represents real reform. We are the first 
authorizing committee to produce those kinds of mandatory budget 
savings, and it was voluntary.
  We all remember the supercommittee that tried very hard to achieve 
deficit reduction. The supercommittee was really not that super--not 
because of those people individually but because of the circumstances. 
Well, we are a supercommittee. We came up with $23.6 billion. I don't 
know of anybody over on the House side--perhaps I am wrong, but in the 
Senate we are the only folks who have really come up with real budget 
savings.
  It also represents, as I have indicated and as the chairwoman 
indicated, real reform. Just listen to this. We have eliminated four 
commodity programs that caused farmers untold hours of preparation--go 
down to the Farm Service Agency and talk to the folks down there, who 
are hard-pressed anyway, and ask: ``Which program do I sign up for? How 
can I plan down the road?'' We rolled all of these commodity programs 
into one, while saving approximately $15 billion from the farm safety 
net programs. That is truly remarkable.
  Twenty-three conservation programs are streamlined into 13, while 
saving nearly $6.4 billion. Approximately $4 billion is saved in the 
nutrition title, while at the same time expanding our efforts to root 
out fraud and abuse. Sixteen program authorizations are eliminated in 
the rural development title, eliminating over $1 billion of authorized 
spending over 10 years on top of the mandatory. Two programs are 
combined and another two eliminated in specialty crops. Over $200 
million less in mandatory money is provided in the energy title 
compared to the 2008 farm bill. Five programs are eliminated in the 
forestry title, reducing authorizations by at least $20 million. Over 
60 authorizations are eliminated from the research title, reducing 
authorizations by at least $770 million over 5 years. Again, that is 
$23.6 billion in tough mandatory savings, at least $1.8 billion in 
reduced discretionary authorizations, and at least 100 programs or 
authorizations that have been eliminated.
  This is a reform bill. No other committee in the House or Senate has 
voluntarily undertaken programmatic and funding reforms at this level 
in this budget climate--no other committee. Believe me, it would have 
been much easier to write a baseline bill with no change in CBO 
spending projections. We could have fulfilled everyone's request on the 
committee and in the Senate, but we would not have performed the duty 
that we were elected to perform and that our constituents expect in 
this budget climate and that farmers and ranchers expect and their 
lenders expect and all up and down Main Street throughout rural and 
smalltown America or, for that matter, any taxpayer or any citizen of 
the United States. We have reduced spending, and we have reformed 
programs. That is what they want, and they want us to work together, 
and that is what we have done. At the same time, it is a bill that 
strengthens and preserves our farm risk management, conservation, 
research, and rural community programs.
  We have strengthened and preserved the Crop Insurance Program--as 
pointed out by the distinguished chairwoman, the No. 1 priority of 
virtually every producer who testified before our committee. Why? 
Because their banker or their lenders say: You have to have crop 
insurance, and you have to strengthen it, and you have to improve it. 
In the past, we have been using crop insurance as a bank. No, we are 
not going to do that anymore given the circumstances our farmers face 
even today in Kansas as we go through another dry spell, and also in 
Texas, Oklahoma, and the High Plains.
  We have streamlined our commodity programs, while reducing the 
complexity for the producers. We have updated the acreage upon which 
support is based to reflect more recent cropping patterns. That is a 
point I wish to discuss just a little bit more.
  In recent days and weeks, it has seemed there has been just a little 
bit of confusion here in the Capitol region. It seems that some think 
we should write a farm safety net program and allocate their funding by 
commodity group or organization, sort of like a pie chart. If all you 
did was listen to these groups, you would think we were robbing Peter 
to pay Paul.
  I understand that the elimination of direct payments is a big deal to 
many commodities. If anybody should understand that, it should be me. 
As a key feature of the 1996 act, I originally authored the program at 
that time. One of the biggest beneficiaries of the program has been 
wheat, especially in Kansas. But the taxpayers have been clear in this 
budget climate: Why should Congress continue and defend a program based 
on planting acreages established over 25 years ago? That doesn't make 
any sense.
  Yes, the elimination of direct payments means the end of many wheat 
payments in Kansas, but that does not mean Kansas producers will no 
longer have a farm safety net--quite the contrary. They will have a 
strong risk

[[Page 8383]]

management program. It will just be for different crops. Why? Because 
when base acres were established over 25 years ago, Kansas planted over 
2.8 million acres of corn, 4.2 million acres of sorghum, 1.6 million 
acres of soybeans, and 12.1 million acres of wheat.
  Now, in the most recent 3-year period, Kansas farmers planted 4.6 
million acres of corn, 2.6 million acres of sorghum, 4 million acres of 
soybeans, and 8.8 million acres of wheat. Why? That is 4.9 million 
fewer acres of wheat and sorghum and 4.2 million more acres of corn and 
soybeans.
  Why did that happen? Why did these acreage shifts in Kansas and all 
over the country change like that? It occurred because farmers made 
those decisions, not Washington. Our producers have planted for the 
domestic and international market, and we have done so in a way that we 
do not encourage a WTO challenge. The cropping changes are much the 
same all throughout the Nation, especially among States represented on 
the Agriculture Committee.
  Money is shifting among commodities because farmers are farming 
differently. They are becoming much more diversified throughout the 
States on this committee and the Nation. It is not shifting because we 
in Washington are intentionally picking winners and losers.
  I understand some are frustrated with the decisions and changes we 
have in this bill. That takes place in any farm bill. Quite honestly, 
there are things that, if we had the funds available, the chairwoman 
and I both would have preferred to have done differently. But let's be 
blunt. This is not the 2002 or 2008 farm bill, and we do not have extra 
funds available.
  This is not my first trip to the farm bill rodeo. I have written 
bills in times of budget surpluses and extra spending, and I have 
written farm bills in the middle of deficit cutting exercises--seven of 
them. Make no mistake about it, it is much easier to write a bill when 
we are adding money to the baseline--a whole heck-of-a-lot easier.
  Nutrition groups, conservation organizations, our commodity groups, 
our Members of Congress want to stand by you and take the bows when you 
are adding money to the programs. But when it comes time to make 
difficult decisions and do what is right for the country by reducing 
spending and reforming programs, sometimes they are just not even in 
the same room. They are hiding in the weeds.
  American agriculture today is a modern-day miracle. Every American 
farmer feeds you, Mr. President, and 150 other people. In America today 
our consumers spend less of their disposable income on food--and their 
market basket, OK?--than any other Nation in the world. America's 
farmers and ranchers provide us with the most abundant and affordable 
and safest food supply on the planet. That is a speech every farm 
organization and commodity group and farmers and ranchers have heard 
over and over, but it is a speech that deserves repeating to all my 
colleagues over and over so they get it.
  They feed our Nation. Our producers feed our country. They feed the 
world, a troubled and hungry world. They provide food for the food aid 
programs that help countries around the world send young girls to 
school. Sending those girls to school helps feed hope and a belief in 
our American ideals rather than hatred and radicalism toward our 
Nation. The American farmer and rancher do provide stability in a 
chaotic world, and in doing so national security as well.
  Show me a country that can't sustain itself in terms of food supply, 
I will show you chaos. Read about the Mideast, Syria, Libya and what is 
going on over in that part of the world. So the farm program is not 
only a farm program, it is a program to achieve stability in the world 
because of the productivity of the American farmer, and our ability to 
do it is also a national security program.
  Every year America's farmers produce more on less land using less 
water and fewer inputs with ever-stronger conservation practices. It is 
truly a modern-day miracle what the agricultural sector in America does 
today.
  I understand some are unhappy with some of the proposals put forward 
in this bill. It is a farm bill. I wouldn't expect it to be any 
different. But I can assure you, however, if I thought we were in any 
way writing a bill that would make it more difficult for my State of 
Kansas or for the State of Michigan or any American producer to feed 
this Nation and this world, a bill that eliminated their safety net 
which destroyed their ability to protect our natural resources while 
also feeding the most needy in our country, I would not be standing 
here today supporting it. I would not do that.
  If I thought it in any way could keep us from feeding 9 billion 
people--note that, 9 billion people who will walk this Earth in just a 
couple of short decades--I would oppose this bill. We are going to have 
to double our agricultural production to help in a humanitarian way and 
prevent chaos all around the world, 9 billion people.
  Agriculture is the backbone of the Kansas economy, employing more 
than one in five Kansans. More than 65,000 farms dot the Kansas 
landscape with an average land size of 705 acres. These farmers and 
ranchers do a tremendous job of feeding a troubled and hungry world. In 
fact, Kansas ranks No. 1 in the Nation in the production of wheat and 
grain sorghum, second in cattle farms, and third in sunflowers 
produced. We expect that, being the Sunflower State. Cash receipts from 
farm marketings were greater than $12 billion, and farm product exports 
were in excess of $4.8 billion.
  Farmers and ranchers in my State truly help feed--what we have said 
again and again--a troubled and hungry world, which is why I am proud 
of this legislation. We have worked hard to put this together. It may 
not be the best possible bill, but it is the best bill possible given 
the circumstances we face. We have performed our duty to taxpayers by 
cutting deficit spending while at the same time strengthening and 
preserving the programs so important to agriculture and rural America.
  Again, we have cut mandatory spending by $23.6 billion. We have 
reformed, eliminated, and streamlined USDA programs to the tune of more 
than 100 programs and authorizations eliminated. And we have done it on 
a voluntary basis because in rural America you make the tough 
decisions. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and you do 
what is right when it needs to be done. When we have done it in a 
bipartisan fashion, that is the best way to do it.
  How many times have we heard this: What on Earth is wrong back there? 
Why can't you join together and work together and do what is right for 
America and for the people? This is what this committee has done under 
the leadership of the chairwoman.
  So I thank the chairwoman for bringing us to this point today, and 
let's pass this farm bill. It is good for the country, it is good for 
the world, it is a good bill, and we need to proceed.
  I hope every Member could vote for the motion to proceed. If they 
have amendments they are interested in, please come to us. It is like 
Bob Barker said: Come on down. Come on down and talk to us. If you have 
a problem with the bill, we will work with you. Just let us know. OK.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the distinguished Senator from 
Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, be recognized for 10 minutes when he appears 
on the floor. I thought he would be here by this time but he is not. At 
the appropriate time, I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. STABENOW. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 8384]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I want to begin by taking this opportunity to thank 
the chairwoman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee for 
their very strong efforts in getting this bill to the floor today. 
Their steady hand of leadership has made vast improvements for 
America's agricultural community and our economy as a whole. I know the 
tireless effort of our chairwoman and her staff undoubtedly leave 
America's farm policy in a stronger position than when she found it, 
and I know she has worked with a forward-looking vision for a thriving 
agricultural economy and rural community.
  I also thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for working with 
me and all the members of our committee throughout the process that got 
us here today. Because of this strong work, I am urging my colleagues 
to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill.
  When I first came to the Senate 3 years ago, I became the first 
member from my State of New York to serve on the Senate Agriculture 
Committee in almost four decades. It is a responsibility I not only 
honor but I take incredibly seriously. For those 3 years I traveled all 
across our great State. I met with our farmers in their communities, 
listened to their concerns, and I understand their needs and 
priorities.
  New York is not home to the corporate megafarms. We are home to small 
dairy farms, specialty crops, orchards, and vineyards. As we have been 
shaping and debating this farm bill, those are the farms, the small 
businesses I have been fighting for.
  I am very grateful this bill will help our specialty crop growers by 
providing them with a dedicated funding stream as well as a better way 
to protect against disasters. I am also very proud of the good work 
with broadband investments to make sure our rural communities have 
access to the Internet. We also worked hard on trying to guarantee more 
transparency and accountability on how we price milk in this country.
  But we cannot forget this bill is much more than a number of esoteric 
figures. What this farm bill should be about is how we protect and 
create a growing economy for small businesses, agricultural businesses, 
the middle class, and those families who are desperately trying to get 
there.
  The farm bill is about the health of the agriculture industry. It is 
about the health of our families with nutritious food that is actually 
within reach of the children who need it.
  As a mother, I am very concerned this current farm bill cuts $4.5 
billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP--
better known as food stamps--over the next 10 years. I am incredibly 
disappointed, and even troubled, that my Republican colleagues are 
seeking to cut food stamps even more from those cuts.
  Under this bill families in New York who are already struggling will 
lose $90 a month of food that goes on their tables. Think of food for a 
family for a long month. It is basically the last week that a family 
will not have enough food to feed their children. Now, $90 a month may 
not seem like a lot of money to some people, but I can say for those 
parents who are trying to protect their children and feed them good, 
wholesome, nutritious foods, it means everything in the world.
  I don't know for any parents who are watching today whether they 
personally ever heard their child say: Mommy, I am still hungry. Well, 
imagine not being able to help your own child or future child. Imagine 
that your child says this every single day. That is what we are faced 
with here.
  I have heard stories from New Yorkers who never dreamed they would 
need food stamps in their lifetime, who never imagined they would have 
no choice but to apply for this kind of Federal assistance. I heard 
from one single mom in Queens. She had a job in a supermarket, but she 
still struggled to make ends meet. She broke down in tears one day when 
her son came home from school with his school lunch in his hand and 
said: Mommy, I brought this home for us for dinner, and I asked my 
friend for his sandwich.
  Another woman in Brooklyn, incredibly well educated, went to a 
prestigious university, but lost her job. She said:

       I never thought I would be getting food stamps. But 
     suddenly I was jobless and did not know where my next meal 
     would come from. Food stamps played a big role during make-
     or-break moments in my life. They are not a handout. I worked 
     all my life, paid my taxes and food stamps helped me get back 
     on my feet again.

  As a mother, as a lawmaker, watching a child go hungry is something I 
will not stand for. In this day and age, in a country as rich as 
America, it is unacceptable and should not be tolerated and should 
certainly not be advocated. I know not every State in this country has 
as many people as we have in New York. We have 20 million people in our 
great State. So with these cuts, it is going to affect 300,000 
families. Imagine 300,000 families in your State or any State going 
hungry at night. These kinds of cuts hurt children and families. They 
hurt seniors who are homebound and don't know where their next meal is 
going to come from.
  We are asking these 300,000 families to take a disproportionate 
amount of the burden. They were not the cause of the financial 
collapse. They were not the cause of this terrible economy, but we are 
asking them to bear the burden.
  We know food stamps are actually a very effective investment. For 
every dollar we put into the Food Stamp Program, we get $1.71 of 
spending back into the economy. World famous economist Mark Zandi said:

       The fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through 
     expanding the SNAP/food stamp program.

  This money pays the salary of grocery clerks and truckers who bring 
food to a store from the farm. The USDA estimates that 16 cents of 
every one of these food stamp dollars goes right back to our farmers. 
Despite widespread myths and inaccuracies, there is so little fraud in 
SNAP. It is less than 1 percent. That is a penny on a dollar.
  I take our Nation's debt and deficit as seriously as anyone else in 
this Chamber. I applaud the chairwoman and the ranking member for being 
able to curb spending, but families who are living in poverty, who are 
just trying to figure out how to keep the lights on and put food on the 
table did not spend this Nation into debt, and we should not be trying 
to balance the budget on their backs. Subsidies for large corporations 
that don't need it--including companies based in Bermuda, Australia, 
Switzerland--is not the right priority for America. We should be 
helping the most needy among us, our children, our seniors, and our 
families at risk.
  So today I am introducing an amendment to restore the $4.5 billion in 
cuts because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do 
for our families, our seniors, and our kids. It is the right thing to 
do for our economy. It invests $500 million over 10 years in a fresh 
fruits and vegetables snack program, which connects our kids to our 
farmers. It gives the authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to make 
additional purchases as part of the Emergency Food Assistance Program. 
It is useful when we have an all-time high rate of hunger and 
unemployment that puts unbelievable demands on these emergency feeding 
organizations.
  To pay for these investments in our children's health and the health 
of the economy, my amendment makes a modest reduction in government 
subsidies to some of the most highly profitable companies. My amendment 
lowers the subsidies to companies from billions per year to hundreds of 
millions per year. Anyone who argues that these companies will struggle 
from this shift needs to meet a family who is dependent on food stamps 
to feed their children.
  As I said earlier, this farm bill, like all legislation, is about our 
priorities. It is a reflection of our values. So I am asking my 
colleagues, let's agree children deserve healthy meals so they can live 
healthy lives and learn and grow and reach their God-given potential. 
Let's agree it is a worthwhile investment in our future to make sure 
children do not go hungry in this country.
  I yield back my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 8385]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Abraham Lincoln was no stranger to 
agriculture. He spent most of his early years on farms. Many years 
later, he signed into law legislation that created the Department of 
Agriculture, which just recently celebrated its 150th anniversary. 
President Lincoln understood American agriculture.
  He said:

       The man who produces a good full crop will scarcely let any 
     part of it go to waste. He will keep up the enclosure about 
     it, and allow neither man nor beast to trespass upon it. He 
     will gather it in due season and store it in perfect 
     security. Thus he labors with satisfaction, and saves himself 
     the whole fruit of his labor.

  Those timeless words ring true today, and they will ring true 
tomorrow. American farmers and ranchers are the most productive and 
efficient in the world. Their hard work creates good-paying jobs in 
Montana and across the Nation. In fact, one in five Montana jobs is 
tied to agriculture.
  But President Lincoln's observations also apply to many other walks 
of life, including work in the Senate. Under the leadership of 
Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts, we have cultivated a 
farm bill for tomorrow. We must not let that hard work go to waste. 
They have worked very hard, very closely together, cooperating. It is a 
good farm bill.
  This legislation achieves what many thought impossible: It creates a 
market-oriented safety net that works for American farmers, strengthens 
crop insurance, and streamlines conservation programs, while still 
contributing $23.6 billion to deficit reduction. That is right. This 
reduces the deficit by about $23.6 billion. That is over 10 years.
  Direct payments have their place in farm program history, but in 
light of necessary spending reductions, it was clear we could not 
continue with the status quo. So the Senate Agriculture Committee 
worked closely with farmers and ranchers across the country to create a 
program for a real safety net--one that only pays farmers who actually 
experience a loss.
  Farming is an extremely capital-intensive industry, and our farmers 
often work with paper-thin profit margins. Even the best farmer is left 
at the mercy of chance--historic droughts, catastrophic floods, price 
collapses, and so much more. This new revenue program will make sure 
there is stability and predictability for our farmers from year to 
year.
  Our comprehensive farm policy contributes to overall security in 
American agriculture. That is why we spend less on food than any other 
country in the world. Americans spend less than 7 percent of their 
disposable income to feed their families--7 percent--compared with 
almost 25 percent in 1930.
  But it is more than just food security. As a net exporter of 
agricultural products, Montana farmers and ranchers create good-paying 
jobs and quite literally grow wealth and prosperity from our fertile 
soils.
  The shallow-loss revenue program, combined with the same crop 
insurance products we have fine-tuned over the decades, creates a 
fiscally sound safety net. This is the fruit of our labor, and we must 
keep this intact.
  We improved much more than just the commodity title. We saved $6 
billion in the conservation title without compromising the policy. We 
did this by consolidating 23 existing programs--consolidating them all 
together--creating a tight network of efficient and streamlined 
conservation programs.
  I made sure we protected the working lands programs, which contribute 
to substantial conservation improvements but still allow for productive 
use of the land.
  For livestock, I made sure we extended and made permanent the 
livestock disaster programs that I worked hard to include in the last 
farm bill. Since they were created in 2008, the three livestock 
programs have helped over 100,000 ranchers across the country.
  Right now, we are experiencing historic droughts in regions of the 
United States that also produce much of our beef. The livestock 
disaster programs will help those ranchers stay in business until the 
rain starts falling again.
  In the forestry title, we permanently authorized stewardship 
contracting. This is very important. This will help the timber industry 
sustainably harvest more trees. This permanent authority is critical 
for reducing wildfire risk and maintaining resilient landscapes and 
communities throughout our country. As I advocated prior to markup, 
these returns are well worth the small investment. It can keep 
companies such as F.H. Stoltze, which is celebrating 100 years in 
operation in Columbia Falls, MT, in business for another 100 years.
  I also was pleased with the inclusion of a workable approach to the 
bark beetle epidemic spreading throughout Montana and the West. My 
colleague from Montana, Senator Tester, has also worked to remedy this 
epidemic.
  Our loggers and small timber mills in Montana are facing the second 
worst beetle kill in the lower 48, a Forest Service tied up in 
lawsuits, and a housing market that continues to drag. Sawmills such as 
those owned by R-Y Timber in Townsend and Livingston will benefit from 
the approach we take in this farm bill.
  I was also very proud of the work the committee did for veteran 
farmers and ranchers. Not only did the committee accept my amendment to 
expand access to conservation programs to veterans, but it also will 
direct USDA to set up a military liaison position.
  These strides to extend assistance to veteran farmers and ranchers 
are vital to our returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who hope to 
return to rural America and become involved in agriculture. Forty-five 
percent of those who serve in the military come from rural communities.
  The farm bill provision makes it clear that both efficient 
authorities and adequate resources are crucial for this effort, and I 
am committed to enacting legislation that enables the decisive and 
responsible action that is urgently needed.
  There is a lot of talk on Capitol Hill about creating jobs and 
cutting debt. The farm bill is our jobs bill. It is also responsible to 
taxpayers. If we Senators were farmers, I would say we have produced a 
pretty good crop with this bill. But that is not the final step. All 
farmers know there is a time for harvest.
  Now is harvest time. It is time to pass this farm bill. If we wait 
too long, we run the risk of compromising the stability of American 
agriculture and our food supply.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         America's Fiscal Cliff

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me speak today about two recent CBO 
reports and what they portend for the economy and for policy that we 
might want to make in the Congress. CBO, of course, is the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office, and from time to time it looks at economic 
conditions and presents studies or issues reports about the state of 
our economy based upon legislation the Congress has adopted.
  There are two recent reports that I think suggest some very dire news 
for this country unless we in the Congress are willing to take some 
action. The first was a couple of weeks ago, and it dealt with the so-
called fiscal cliff, the problem that will occur with the combination 
of two things automatically happening unless Congress and the President 
act.
  The first is the automatic across-the-board cuts or sequestration 
that will affect both defense and nondefense

[[Page 8386]]

spending to the tune of $109 billion next year, something which the 
Secretary of Defense has said would be ``devastating'' and 
``catastrophic'' for our national security. That is the first problem. 
The Congressional Budget office said the combination of the 
sequestration with the second item, which is the automatic tax 
increase, which is a $4.5 trillion tax increase that begins on January 
1, the combination of those two will put this country back into 
recession.
  CBO projected the growth rate next year to be only about one-half of 
1 percent. That, of course, is devastating for not just the economy but 
for job creation, for businesses, for families and the like.
  The second recent report of the CBO just came out. It is a report 
that talks about the surging debt of the United States Government and 
talks about the probability of sudden fiscal crisis. So we have a 
combination of the potential for going back into recession, combined 
with the probability of sudden fiscal crisis because of the amount of 
debt the Federal Government is taking on.
  Because this second report just came out, let me refer to some things 
that have been said about that, primarily in the Wall Street Journal in 
a piece on June 5 called ``Obama's Debt Boom.'' I will just quote a few 
lines from this editorial in the Wall Street Journal. It says:

       The CBO's long-term budget outlook notes that Federal debt 
     held by the public--

  That is the part we have to pay back--

     will surge to 70 percent of the economy by the end of this 
     year.

  Which is the highest in the history of the country except during 
World War II.
  I think that is about $49,000 or $50,000 for every man, woman, and 
child in the United States. They point out that under the present trend 
the debt will hit 90 percent of GDP by 2022. Then it balloons to 109 
percent by 2026.
  What does this mean in practical terms? Here is a quotation from the 
Wall Street Journal about the CBO projection:

       We have never been deficit scolds, preferring to focus on 
     the more important policy priorities of economic growth and 
     spending restraint. But the Obama era is taking America to a 
     place it has never been. Inside of a decade the country will 
     have a debt-to-GDP ratio well into the 90 percent to 100 
     percent danger zone where economists say the economy begins 
     to slow and risks mount.
       CBO notes . . . that this level of debt increase increases 
     the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which 
     investors would lose confidence in the government's ability 
     to manage its budget and the government would thereby lose 
     its ability to borrow at affordable rates.
       How bad is it? In the absolute worst-case scenario, CBO 
     says debt would exceed 250 percent of GDP in 2035. At that 
     point, CBO's economic model breaks, because so much debt is 
     so far outside ``historical experience'' and the CBO's 
     ``assumptions might no longer be valid.''

  That is where we are headed if we don't do something about it.
  Interestingly, what CBO assumed in order to reach these conclusions 
is that tax collections would continue to hold to the post-1972 
historical average of 18 percent of GDP. The point is we are not 
talking about raising taxes in order to effect this. They are assuming 
we will have revenues of a historical level of 18 percent of GDP. The 
problem is not the tax collections; in other words, the problem is the 
excess spending. They point out that, of course, excess spending is 
primarily a factor of the entitlement programs--Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid. They point out that the biggest of all those is 
in Medicare.
  Then the Wall Street Journal concludes this way:

       This is where the tax burden comes in, and on that score 
     CBO admits that ``to the extent that additional tax revenues 
     were generated by boosting marginal tax rates--

  This is what President Obama proposed, remember--

     those ``higher tax rates would discourage people from working 
     and saving, further reducing output and income.'' So even the 
     Keynesians who dominate CBO admit that there are costs in 
     lower growth . . .

  If they raise tax rates as the President has proposed.
  This is, in effect, the most predictable crisis in history. So we 
have the combination of the CBO report talking about the fiscal cliff--
what happens if both the sequestration and the automatic tax increases 
go into effect--combined with the most recent report about the debt, 
and we can see the United States is headed for a disaster without 
intervention by the Congress and the President.
  Just one thing. The Director of CBO put it this way:

       The explosive path of Federal debt . . . underscores the 
     need for large and timely policy changes to put the Federal 
     Government on a sustainable fiscal course.

  What has the President and the Democratic majority in the Senate 
suggested? We turned to Jay Carney, who had a press conference Monday. 
He is the spokesman for the President. He said that ``the President is 
continuing to work with his team on potential new ideas.''
  I would like for him to work with the Congress because we have had a 
lot of ideas. The House of Representatives passed almost 30 bills that 
deal with this, and they range all the way from the Keystone Pipeline, 
which immediately puts 20,000 people to work, easing environmental 
regulations, offshore oil exploration, and so on. So we would love to 
have him work with the Congress, rather than this anemic to-do list he 
has proposed, which, obviously, would not provide any relief.
  The bottom line is that as was reported in a story by the Associated 
Press, by Andrew Taylor, I think. As he said, after talking about the 
bills passed by the House of Representatives: ``Democrats will try to 
stop Republicans from forcing a vote on it in the Senate.''
  What he is talking about is the vote the House of Representatives 
intends to have before long that would extend the current Tax Code, so 
there is certainty in tax rates, and businesses and families don't have 
to worry about this $4.5 trillion tax increase. The Democrats will try 
to stop Republicans from forcing a vote on it in the Senate.
  Why would the Democratic leader not want to have a vote on whether to 
extend the current tax rates as opposed to having an increase in taxes 
of $4.5 trillion? Actually, there are a lot of folks--leaders in the 
President's party, people who have worked with him--who have said it 
would be a good idea to extend those tax cuts. In fact, the President 
himself said so when he extended them for 2 years, along with the 
support from Congress, on December 1 year ago. He said not to do so 
would harm economic growth. He was exactly right then, and he is right 
now.
  As a matter of fact, we had a better GDP growth back then than we do 
now. If that would have been harmful then, it would be more harmful 
now. His belief then is adhered to by people who have worked with him 
and former leaders. For example, former Democratic President Bill 
Clinton suggested Tuesday--yesterday--that Congress temporarily extend 
all the Bush-era tax cuts. That includes the tax cuts for the wealthy. 
Remember, the Bush tax cuts applied across the board. They applied to 
everybody. The President has said that is fine but not for the wealthy.
  What President Clinton said is, no, the best thing would be for all 
of those tax cuts to be extended. I will quote what the former 
President said:

       What I think we need to do is to find some way to avoid the 
     fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the 
     economy now.

  He was asked if that meant extending tax cuts, and he said:

       They will probably have to put everything off until early 
     next year. That's probably the best thing to do right now.

  Then the President's former adviser, who is an economics professor, 
Larry Summers, said today that Congress should temporarily extend the 
Bush-era tax cuts. He said:

       The real risk to this economy is on the side of slowdown . 
     . . and that means we've got to make sure that we don't take 
     gasoline out of the tank at the end of this year.

  He said that on MSNBC's ``Morning Joe'' program. He said: ``That's 
gotta be the top priority.''
  So here you have Larry Summers, former adviser to President Clinton 
on economic matters, and former President Bill Clinton, both of whom 
have

[[Page 8387]]

said we need to extend these tax policies today in order to avoid 
further damage to our economy tomorrow--exactly what the President 
himself said when these tax rates were extended a year and a half ago.
  I just note this from another Associated Press story regarding the 
comments by President Clinton. As they say:

       The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and others have 
     warned that letting both events occur--

  That is to say, the sequestration and the automatic tax increases--

     would suck so much out of the economy that it could spark a 
     renewed recession next year.

  That is when they refer to the statement of President Clinton that we 
need to find a way to avoid that fiscal cliff and that would include 
extending the tax cuts.
  The reality is we have somewhat of a consensus beginning to develop 
that it would be a wise thing for the country to retain current tax 
policies and not allow this big tax increase, to avoid the sequester or 
the across-the-board cuts that otherwise would affect both defense and 
nondefense; and if we don't do those things, according to CBO, the 
nonpartisan office that advises the Congress, we are likely to go back 
into a recession with growth that would be only one-half of 1 percent 
of our GDP next year.
  Let me conclude by referring to another article in the Wall Street 
Journal, dated June 5, entitled ``Defense Chiefs Signal Job Cuts.''
  Here we are talking about the employers of people in the defense 
industries that are predicting that if we don't do something about 
sequester, they are going to have to begin laying off people. The 
article begins with this quotation:

       U.S. defense contractors are preparing to disclose mass job 
     cutbacks ahead of November elections if Congress fails to 
     reach a deficit-reduction deal by then, industry officials 
     said.

  One of the people quoted is Robert Stevens, chairman of Lockheed 
Martin, a big contractor with the Defense Department. He said:

       It is quite possible that we will need to notify employees 
     in the September and October timeframe that they may or may 
     not have a job in January, depending upon whether 
     sequestration does or doesn't take effect.

  One of the reasons is a Federal law that requires employers to 
provide this notice--the Worker Adjustment and Retaining and 
Notification Act, known as the WARN Act, which requires companies to 
notify employees in advance of mass layoffs or plant closings--if they 
have more than 50 or more employees, for example. One thing Mr. Stevens 
said is that it doesn't just affect the big companies such as his but 
also all these suppliers, people who have to provide the pieces or 
components of products that they end up putting together. They would 
have to be notified because they are not going to have subcontracts 
next year.
  One of the industry officials said sequestration is already here. 
What he meant by that was the reality is that businesses are having to 
make decisions now. This talk in the Senate about we will somehow be 
able to deal with this in the lameduck session after the election is 
simply not true. I suggest to my colleagues in the House and in the 
Senate that if we try to wait until after the election, I think our 
constituents, knowing what is happening--some of whom will probably 
have gotten job notices that they may be subject to termination because 
of the automatic across-the-board cuts, known as sequester--I think 
they may be sending a message to us this fall and, therefore, it 
behooves us to act before rather than after the fact.
  There has been talk today about what the Wisconsin recall election 
meant. I think one thing it must have meant is that people may complain 
about some of the decisions that are made when there are tough 
decisions, but they want people who are elected to do something about 
the problems, to act, have some courage, tackle the tough problems. 
Even if they don't totally agree with the solutions, I think they 
respect political leaders who are willing to do that. Scott Walker, the 
Governor of Wisconsin, took a lot of heat, but he took the bull by the 
horns and tried to solve a problem and, as a result of the things they 
were able to do, the fiscal situation in Wisconsin is much better than 
had they not taken those actions.
  That is what we in Congress need to learn. The people understand we 
have a big debt crisis facing us, which is confirmed by the 
Congressional Budget Office. They understand there is a huge risk of 
another recession because of the twin problems of the biggest tax 
increase in the history of the country coming our way January 1 and 
this sequestration that also occurs on January 1. They would like us to 
do something about that. I think what they resent is politicians saying 
after the election we will take it up and begin thinking about it. 
First of all, that is too late for a lot of people whose jobs depend 
upon it, and it makes for a very inefficient way of running the 
government.
  Secondly, I think political leaders owe their constituents the ideas 
they would like to put into effect. We don't wait and hide the ball 
from our constituents, refusing to tell them what we think until after 
the election. The idea of a democratic republic is people stand for 
office by saying: This is what I would do to solve our problems. Do you 
like it or not? If the voters say, yes, we think that is a good idea, 
they elect us and expect us to follow through on it. If they don't like 
our ideas, they elect the other person. But if we hide the ball and say 
we are not going to take votes in the Senate because we don't want to 
put Members on record because then the voters might know what they are 
thinking and they might not like it and not elect them, that is 
obviously a lack of political courage. It also runs counter to what the 
fundamental concept of elections is all about.
  I suggest that what we ought to do is tackle these two issues now, 
not wait until after the election. Legislation has been introduced in 
both the House and the Senate to find a way to save the $109 billion 
that needs to be saved in order to avoid the sequester for next year. 
This process will have to be undergone, undertaken, every year for the 
next 10 years because we have promised the voters we would save a total 
of $1.2 trillion.
  So how will we do it next year? Well, there are any number of ways. 
Senators McCain, Ayotte, myself, Chambliss, Graham, and Cornyn, and 
some others have introduced legislation that says, well, here is a way 
you can save the $109 billion next year: Get half of it by simply 
extending the President's own pay freeze for many Federal employees 
through the middle of 2014, and the other half, instead of replacing 
every single Federal worker who retires or leaves the Federal 
workforce, only replace two out of the three.
  Everybody talks about how wonderful the recommendations of the 
Simpson-Bowles Commission were. Well, the Simpson-Bowles Commission 
recommended hiring one new Federal employee for every three who leave 
the workplace. We double that. We say, well, let's hire two of the 
three back. The combination of just those two things would result in 
saving $109 billion.
  If you don't like that way to save money, there are many other ways 
to do so, and there are revenues from the sale of Federal property, for 
example, that could also be put on the table. So there are many ways to 
do this. But let's get about it.
  Why aren't we doing it? Well, the majority leader and the President 
say the only way they would consider doing this is if we also raise a 
bunch of taxes, and their wonderful idea about raising taxes is a tax 
on millionaires. Here is the problem with that. The very people we want 
to create the jobs are the businesspeople who pay these taxes.
  According to President Obama's Secretary of the Treasury, that 
Department says 80 percent of the people who would be subject to this 
millionaires' tax are business owners--the very people who need the 
money to hire the workers to put the economy back in good shape.
  When Senator Lindsey Graham asked Defense Secretary Panetta: Wouldn't 
sequestration be like shooting ourselves in the foot, he said: No,

[[Page 8388]]

Senator, it would be like shooting ourselves in the head.
  I submit that raising taxes on the exact people to whom we are 
looking to create jobs is the same thing. That is the reason 
Republicans have said that is the wrong way to come up with this $109 
billion.
  The whole idea of the Budget Control Act was to control spending, not 
to raise taxes. Since there are so many ways in which this government's 
$3 trillion-plus budget can save money, I don't think we have to turn 
to something that would itself have a negative impact on economic 
growth; namely, raising taxes. So that has been the reason this hasn't 
been taken up.
  One side insists we have to raise taxes in order to deal with this 
sequestration problem. The other side says: No, we don't have to do 
that at all. Let's sit down and work together and find a resolution for 
this problem, and let's get it done before the end of the year. At that 
point it is too late for a lot of people who will have lost their jobs.
  By the way, some of these industry people have told us some of the 
sole-source suppliers or subcontractors would probably end up taking 
bankruptcy because their orders could not be filled due to the 
uncertainty that a contract was there. So we could have a great deal of 
damage to the economy.
  In fact, the estimate is--if sequestration or across-the-board cuts 
occur--in the Defense industry alone we are talking about 1 million 
jobs lost. Remember how many jobs were created last month? I think it 
was 69,000 jobs were created last month. Compare that to losing 1 
million jobs, and you can see the significance of what the 
Congressional Budget Office was talking about. This is a fiscal cliff.
  We cannot allow sequestration to occur, and we cannot allow these big 
tax increases to occur without understanding the damage that will do to 
the economy. They said it is going to put us back in a recession. That 
is before the report they just released on the increasing debt burden 
of this country.
  So, Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, the evidence is here. 
Leaders such as former President Clinton and economist Larry Summers 
and, of course, many other economists have said the best thing to do is 
to keep the tax rates where they are. Don't raise them. Resolve this 
sequestration issue so we don't have that hanging over our heads, and 
then look for other ways to boost job growth and economic productivity. 
That is the way to get out of the recession. That is the way to help 
families. Ironically, at the end of the day, a growing economy, 
producing more wealth, produces more tax revenues for the Federal 
Government, and that helps us deal with the big debt we have 
accumulated.
  So I think everybody agrees economic growth is ultimately the best 
way to get out of the government's fiscal problem. But it also, of 
course, is precisely the way for businesses and families to prosper.
  I hope colleagues in both the House and Senate--both Democrats and 
Republicans--can see their way clear to respond to this crisis--this 
utterly predictable crisis--and to deal with this problem sooner rather 
than later, exercising the courage our constituents would like to have 
us exercise and thereby representing them in the way they deserve to be 
represented.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the 2012 
farm bill and the importance of moving forward with this important 
legislation.
  First, I wish to acknowledge the incredibly hard work of Chairwoman 
Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts and their commitment to producing a 
bipartisan bill that cleared the Agriculture Committee this April with 
a strong bipartisan vote.
  The Agriculture Committee is a successful model of how we can work 
across the aisle on tough problems to get work done. It always has 
been. This cooperative effort was not on a small or merely symbolic 
issue but on a major piece of legislation that impacts every single 
American. Throughout the process, this committee has faced 
unprecedented budget challenges, as has our country, but under 
Chairwoman Stabenow's leadership, the committee has worked together on 
a bill that makes tough choices, works within a budget to provide $23 
billion in deficit reduction, and preserves the core programs that are 
important for Minnesota and other States across the country.
  I believe this carefully crafted bill finds a good balance between a 
number of priorities, and I urge Members of the Senate to continue to 
work together in the same spirit that was exemplified in the 
Agriculture Committee to complete work on this bill as quickly as 
possible.
  I have spent the last year going all around our State; I have talked 
to farmers and businesses across Minnesota. No matter where I go, I am 
always reminded of the critical role farming plays in our State's 
economy. We are 21st in the country for population, but we are 6th in 
the country for agriculture. It is our State's leading export, 
accounting for $75 billion in economic activity and supporting more 
than 300,000 jobs. It is one of the major reasons our unemployment rate 
is at 5.6 percent--significantly better than the national average--and 
that is because we have had consistent farm policy coming out of this 
Chamber, out of Washington, DC--and you can't say that in every area of 
industry--consistent policy coming from the government over the last 
decade. That must continue because it doesn't just help our farmers on 
the front line, it feeds into many industries, and it certainly feeds 
into agricultural exports.
  Our State is No. 1 in turkeys in the United States of America--a fact 
you might not have known. We are No. 1 for green peas and sugar beets. 
We are also home to Jennie-O turkey and Del Monte vegetable processing 
facilities, just to name a few. We are No. 1 in spring wheat and also 
home to a rich tradition of milling. We are No. 3 in hogs and soybeans 
and also home to pork processors and biodiesel plants. We are No. 4 in 
the country for corn and also home to 21 ethanol plants that produce 
over 1 billion gallons of ethanol every single year, and that is one of 
the major reasons our country has reduced our dependency on foreign oil 
from something like 60 percent 5 years ago to the mid-40s now. That is 
an incredible record. It has to do with oil drilling in North Dakota, 
it has to do with better gas mileage in our cars and trucks, but it 
also has to do with biofuels.
  Minnesotans in rural communities and larger cities all benefit from a 
strong farm economy that provides jobs on the farms, in mills, and 
processing plants, equipment manufacturers--another key export for the 
United States of America--and a diverse range of high-tech jobs in 
today's modern agriculture. That is why there is so much at stake in 
this 2012 farm bill and why it is so important for us to finish with a 
strong and effective bill that gets the job done for America's farmers 
and for our rural economy.
  It is no secret that during each step of the process, we have been 
working within a tough budget climate, but that doesn't mean the goal 
of maintaining a strong farm safety net or a safe, nutritious, and 
abundant food supply is any less critical. The last thing we want to do 
is be dependent on foreign food the way we are dependent on foreign 
oil--even though we have seen improvement. We do not want that to 
happen with foreign food.
  How have we done this to get $23 billion in cuts? The first thing 
that is important for people to understand who are not from rural 
areas, who are from metro areas--my State has both--or States that are 
more urban focused is that only 14 percent of this farm bill is farm 
programs. It could have had a different name, but a lot of people call 
it

[[Page 8389]]

the farm bill. It is only 14 percent. The rest is conservation, 
nutrition programs, school lunches--you name it. While only 14 percent 
of the farm bill is farm programs, nearly two-thirds of the cuts over 
last year are on that 14 percent. Nearly two-thirds of the $23 billion 
in cuts--nearly $16 billion--is cut from farm programs, which are only 
14 percent of the farm bill.
  I heard from many producers in Minnesota as we dealt with how we are 
going to get rid of direct payments I have long advocated. We had huge 
floor fights last time on some reform to the farm payment system. I 
thought we needed to make some changes there and get that number down 
in terms of the money that can be spent in the income, but now we have 
actually eliminated direct payments. So that is why the crop insurance 
part of this bill becomes even more important.
  The bill also continues the Sugar Program, which is important to our 
country--tens of thousands of jobs across the country, tens of 
thousands of jobs in the Red River Valley in Minnesota and North 
Dakota--and also helps to ensure that we have a strong domestic sugar 
industry.
  The bill also simplifies the commodity programs by eliminating a 
number of programs and replacing them with the Agriculture Risk 
Coverage Program which complements crop insurance by providing 
protection against multiyear price declines.
  The bill also protects the conservation programs we need. It helps 
our agricultural producers keep our soil healthy and our water clean. 
Our State is No. 5 in the Conservation Reserve Program, No. 3 in the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and No. 1 in the Conservation 
Stewardship Program. Specifically, I have worked to ensure that local 
communities also have the tools they need to address conservation 
challenges. Conservation groups, from Ducks Unlimited to Pheasants 
Forever, know how important the farm bill is, and that is why over 640 
conservation groups are supporting the committee's work on the farm 
bill.
  The committee-passed farm bill also preserves the essential nutrition 
programs that millions of families and children rely on every day. 
Importantly, this bill avoids the radical cuts to nutrition programs 
and school lunches that would have been proposed in other budgets.
  This bill also includes a number of amendments that I authored, 
including an amendment that will help beginning farmers and ranchers 
better manage their risk and access land as they get a start in 
agriculture. We need to make sure that we have a next generation of 
farmers and ranchers, that it just does not end here.
  Beginning farmers face big obstacles, including limited access to 
credit and technical assistance and, of course, the high price of land. 
During committee markup, I introduced an amendment with Senator Baucus 
that helps beginning farmers purchase crop insurance by increasing 
their help 10 percent for the first 5 years. I believe that people who 
grow our food deserve to know their livelihoods cannot be swept away in 
the blink of an eye, either by market failures or by natural disaster. 
That is why strengthening crop insurance for our beginning farmers is a 
priority.
  I also worked to include an amendment--with Senators Johanns, Baucus, 
and Hoeven--to allow beginning producers to use CRP acres for grazing 
without a penalty. I believe this will go a long way, again, in 
building the next generation of farmers.
  As an original cosponsor of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher 
Opportunity Act, which was introduced by Senator Harkin, I also fought 
for the mentoring and outreach provisions for new farmers and training 
in business planning and credit-building--the skills they need to 
succeed and stay on the land.
  Homegrown renewable fuels have helped us reduce our share of 
dependence on liquid fuels. I believe we can continue this trend. As I 
mentioned, we have seen an enormous shift in our dependence on foreign 
oil. Much of that has to do with biofuels, now 10 percent of our fuel 
supply in this country, as we work to make it more and more fuel 
efficient, use less water, transition to cellulosic. What we do know is 
that we should be focusing on the workers and the farmers of the 
Midwest and not the cartels of the Mideast. That is what helped reduce 
our foreign oil dependency in the last few years, as well as the 
drilling I mentioned before.
  I also cosponsored the amendment introduced by Senators Conrad and 
Lugar to provide funding for the energy title. This is key in this farm 
bill.
  I know we have all heard from farmers and ranchers in our States 
about the importance of passing a 5-year farm bill. Think about the 
work that is done in Congress. Every business says: We need a longer 
time period, we need consistency for our tax credits, and we need to 
know what is happening. This is one area where we have actually done 
it. We have done this with the farm bill over the last decade. The last 
two farm bills with 5-year windows have been fairly consistent. We have 
an opportunity to do it again and still save $23 billion on the budget, 
still make sure those nutrition programs are there for our kids, still 
make sure the most vulnerable among us can be fed and not go hungry, 
and still make sure those vital conservation programs are there for 
this country.
  There is a reason agriculture has been able to keep its head above 
water in these difficult times. A lot of it has to do with consistent 
policies. That is one of my main messages to my colleagues. We have one 
of the stars in terms of exports coming out of this farm bill. That is 
one of the main reasons it is so important, because we not only are 
growing food for the people of this country, we are feeding the world, 
and we are keeping the jobs in America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.


                            U.S. Innovation

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, it was a pleasure to hear the Senator 
from Minnesota speak on the farm bill. I congratulate Senator Roberts 
and Senator Stabenow for their hard work, as well as the Senator from 
Minnesota. I would like to take 10 minutes to speak on a related 
matter.
  American agriculture is an area where we lead the world with 
innovation. I want to talk about innovation of a different type, and I 
want to refer specifically to a May 20th column in the New York Times 
by Thomas Friedman that caught my attention.
  I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Mr. Friedman's 
column be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Friedman said he had just returned from Seattle, 
where he saw a stunning amount of innovation. He said it filled him 
both with exhilaration and with dread. The question is, Is the United 
States prepared to deal with the innovation we may be seeing around the 
world over the next decade?
  Yesterday I heard Robert Zoellick, the retiring President of the 
World Bank, brief a number of us about the problems we are going to 
have at the end of the year and whether the U.S. Congress and President 
can rise to the challenge of governing so we can show the rest of the 
world we are capable of that. Mr. Zoellick says he travels a lot--that 
is an understatement given his reputation and the jobs he's held over 
the last 20 years--and he said that two-thirds of global growth over 
the last 10 years has come from developing countries and that advanced 
countries, such as Japan, and Europe and, to some extent, the United 
States have been stagnant or drifting. Mr. Friedman's column says that 
we should try to remember the things that made us great and preserve as 
many of those as we can. He said we need a plan, and then he suggested 
what he called a magic combination: No. 1, immigration of high-IQ risk-
takers, as he called them; No. 2, government-funded research; and No. 
3, cutting-edge higher education. That was the plan. That was the magic 
combination.
  He said:

       This is not a call to ignore hard budget choices we have to 
     make. It's a call to make

[[Page 8390]]

     sure that we give education, immigration and research their 
     proper place in the discussion.

  My purpose as a Senator, as a Republican Senator, is to say that I 
believe he is exactly right. No. 1, I believe that is the right plan--
or at least the beginning of it; No. 2, I believe there is more going 
on in the direction that he recommended than most people know; and No. 
3, I believe that finishing the work on what needs to be done to 
implement the plan he outlined is perfectly obvious and well within our 
grasp. Let's take the ideas one by one.
  First, the idea, as he called it, of immigration of high-IQ risk-
takers--we call this ``pin the green card on the STEM graduate.'' This 
idea is supported, I would judge, by most Members of the Senate. Each 
year 50,000 of the brightest students in the world are attracted to our 
great universities' graduate programs in science, technology, 
engineering and mathematics, and then each year we send 17,000 of those 
graduates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics back 
home. We make them go home so they can create jobs in the countries 
they came from rather than in the United States.
  A number of us have introduced legislation to change that. It came 
from a recommendation from legislation called America COMPETES, which 
passed first in 2007 and was reauthorized in 2010. This was legislation 
sponsored by the Democratic and Republican leaders that had 35 
Republican sponsors and 35 Democratic sponsors, and it included the 20 
things a distinguished group told us we should do as a Congress to help 
America compete in the next generation. We have done two-thirds of 
them. One of the priorities was to double the federal funding for 
general scientific research over 10 years, and we've made some good 
progress in that direction.
  Part of the unfinished agenda is the idea in America COMPETES of 
pinning a green card on the science, technology, engineering, and 
management graduate. There are at least six proposals before the Senate 
today--one sponsored by Senator Coons and myself, one by Senator 
Cornyn, one by Senator Coons and Senator Rubio, another by Senators 
Warner and Moran. Senators Coons, Rubio, Warner, and Moran have another 
one. Senator Bennet has yet another one. Many of us say: Let's go ahead 
and pin the green card on the high-IQ risk-taker and let those men and 
women create jobs here in the United States when they graduate.
  What should we do about it? Stop insisting that we need to pass every 
single aspect of the immigration law at one time and go ahead and pass 
this one bill; realize that we can do some things better in the Senate 
step by step.
  The second idea, advanced research--it is hard to think of a major 
innovation in the biology or sciences that doesn't have some aspect--
has not had some support from government-sponsored research since World 
War II. Nobel laureate economist Robert Solow tells us that half our 
economic growth since World War II has come from these technological 
advances. Maybe one of the best examples is unconventional gas--we call 
it shale gas. It has been around for a century. A lot of people have 
been trying to do it, but even Mitchell Energy, the people who stuck it 
out in advanced shale gas, said it couldn't have happened without the 
Department of Energy and it could not have happened without the 
invention of 3 D drilling from Sandia National Laboratory.
  Yesterday I visited with the head of what we call ARPA-E. Most of us 
know about a little organization called DARPA, which has been around 
for 50 years in the Department of Defense. Out of it has come such 
things as the Internet, stealth technology--a whole series of major 
innovations that affect the lives of people every day. So the idea was, 
let's try that in the Department of Energy. That came out of America 
COMPETES as well. ARPA-E takes promising ideas, brings them into the 
government, funds them for 3 years, and then spits them out again into 
the marketplace to see if they can survive. In other words, it is the 
kind of government-applied research that most of us can support. It had 
the support of 35 Democrats and 35 Republicans.
  Yesterday I was briefed on just three of their innovations.
  One company has doubled the density of a battery, a lithium battery. 
That means an electric car, for example, could go twice as far with a 
battery or it could go the same distance with a battery that costs half 
as much and weighs half as much.
  A second idea was a laser drill for geothermal. The laser drilling 
precedes the normal drill and can do remarkable things, which will 
probably make a massive difference in exploration for oil and gas over 
time. Then a third, which I would describe as the holy grail of energy 
advanced research, is the idea of taking carbon, such as that which 
comes from coal plants, and turning it into something that can be used 
commercially. Think of the difference that could make for our country 
if we were able to find a way to do that.
  There is a promising way to do that in ARPA-E, which is to take what 
they call ``bugs,'' a biologic solution, apply it to electrodes, and 
turn it into oil. So this may work or it may not work in a commercial 
sense, but this is the kind of amazing research they are doing.
  What do we do about that? I would suggest that all we have to do is 
double clean energy research, a sort of Manhattan Project for these 
kinds of ideas, and pay for it by reducing the permanent subsidies for 
other energy programs, whether they are Big Oil or Big Wind.
  Finally, the third idea of Mr. Friedman is one I have talked about 
for years, and that has to do with the effect of Medicaid mandates on 
public higher education. He puts it this way, that the State 
governments ``medicate, educate, and incarcerate.'' The courts tell the 
States they have to spend this much on prisons, and we in the Federal 
Government tell the States they have to spend this much on Medicaid. 
There is nothing left for education, and the various orders to States 
today are ruining public higher education by driving up tuition, 
driving up loans, and hurting what I believe is America's secret weapon 
in our technological future.
  What to do about that? End the Medicaid mandates. Let the Governors 
and legislators decide how to spend money. I guarantee if they do, they 
will come closer than when I was Governor of Tennessee and we paid 70 
percent of the cost of a student's education and the student paid 30 
percent. Today it is the reverse. The State pays 30 percent and the 
student pays 70 percent.
  The students are protesting at the University of California because 
the State has cut $1 billion from what is probably the greatest public 
university in the world over the last 3 or 4 years. They probably have 
no idea the reason for that is Medicaid mandates from Washington that 
soak up the money that otherwise would go to keep tuition low and the 
quality high at the University of California.
  My purpose in coming to the Senate floor is simply to say, first, 
that I think Mr. Friedman is right. He is right on the money. Second, I 
think more is going on than meets eye; and, third, finishing the job is 
well within our grasp.
  We can pass the green card bill and pin the green card on the STEM 
graduate. There are six different versions before us in the Senate. We 
can double energy research and pay for it by reducing wasteful 
subsidies, and we can end Medicaid mandates and give our colleges and 
universities and community colleges a chance to prosper again and 
create the kind of future we want. That is the plan for the kind of 
innovation we need in America.
  I salute Mr. Friedman for suggesting it, but I hope the rest of the 
country will recognize that in all three cases the Senate is headed in 
exactly that direction with legislation that we have already passed or 
introduced. I hope that on both sides of the aisle we will work 
together to finish the job.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following Mr. Friedman's 
article, an article I wrote in the Wall

[[Page 8391]]

Street Journal, which was published on Wednesday, May 16, 2012, and 
talks about the damaging effects of Washington mandates for Medicaid on 
State governments and how it is damaging public higher education, be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, May 19, 2012]

                    Do You Want the Good News First?

                        (By Thomas L. Friedman)

       I've spent the last week traveling to two of America's 
     greatest innovation hubs--Silicon Valley and Seattle--and the 
     trip left me feeling a combination of exhilaration and dread. 
     The excitement comes from not only seeing the stunning amount 
     of innovation emerging from the ground up, but from seeing 
     the new tools coming on stream that are, as Amazon.com's 
     founder, Jeff Bezos, put it to me, ``eliminating all the 
     gatekeepers''--making it easier and cheaper than ever to 
     publish your own book, start your own company and chase your 
     own dream. Never have individuals been more empowered, and 
     we're still just at the start of this trend.
       ``I see the elimination of gatekeepers everywhere,'' said 
     Bezos. Thanks to cloud computing for the masses, anyone 
     anywhere can for a tiny hourly fee now rent the most powerful 
     computing and storage facilities on Amazon's ``cloud'' to 
     test any algorithm or start any company or publish any book. 
     Start-ups can even send all their inventory to Amazon, and it 
     will do all the fulfillment and delivery--and even gift wrap 
     your invention before shipping it to your customers.
       This is leading to an explosion of new firms and voices. 
     ``Sixteen of the top 100 best sellers on Kindle today were 
     self-published,'' said Bezos. That means no agent, no 
     publisher, no paper--just an author, who gets most of the 
     royalties, and Amazon and the reader. It is why, Bezos adds, 
     the job of the company leader now is changing fast: ``You 
     have to think of yourself not as a designer but as a 
     gardener'' seeding, nurturing, inspiring, cultivating the 
     ideas coming from below, and then making sure people execute 
     them.
       The leading companies driving this trend--Amazon, Facebook, 
     Microsoft, Google, Apple, LinkedIn, Zynga and Twitter--are 
     all headquartered and listed in America. Facebook, which 
     didn't exist nine years ago, just went public at a valuation 
     of nearly $105 billion--two weeks after buying a company for 
     $1 billion, Instagram, which didn't exist 18 months ago. So 
     why any dread?
       It's because we're leaving an era of some 50 years' 
     duration in which to be a president, a governor, a mayor or a 
     college president was, on balance, to give things away to 
     people; and we're entering an era--no one knows for how 
     long--in which to be a president, a governor, a mayor or a 
     college president will be, on balance, to take things away 
     from people. And if we don't make this transition in a really 
     smart way--by saying, ``Here are the things that made us 
     great, that spawned all these dynamic companies''--and make 
     sure that we're preserving as much of that as we can, this 
     trend will not spread as it should. Maybe we could grow as a 
     country without a plan. But we dare not cut without a plan. 
     We can really do damage. I can lose weight quickly if I cut 
     off both arms, but it will surely reduce my job prospects.
       What we must preserve is that magic combination of cutting-
     edge higher education, government-funded research and 
     immigration of high-I.Q. risk-takers. They are, in 
     combination, America's golden goose, laying all these eggs in 
     Seattle and Silicon Valley. China has it easy right now. It 
     just needs to do the jobs that we have already invented, just 
     more cheaply. America has to invent the new jobs--and that 
     requires preserving the goose.
       Microsoft still does more than 80 percent of its research 
     work in America. But that is becoming harder and harder to 
     sustain when deadlock on Capitol Hill prevents it from 
     acquiring sufficient visas for the knowledge workers it needs 
     that America's universities are not producing enough of. The 
     number of filled jobs at Microsoft went up this year from 
     40,000 to 40,500 at its campus outside Seattle, yet its list 
     of unfilled jobs went from 4,000 to almost 5,000. Eventually, 
     it will have no choice but to shift more research to other 
     countries.
       It is terrifying to see how budget-cutting in California is 
     slowly reducing what was once one of the crown jewels of 
     American education--the University of California system--to a 
     shadow of its old self. And I fear the cutting is just 
     beginning. As one community leader in Seattle remarked to me, 
     governments basically do three things: ``Medicate, educate 
     and incarcerate.'' And various federal and state mandates 
     outlaw cuts in medicating and incarcerating, so much of the 
     money is coming out of educating. Unfortunately, even to 
     self-publish, you still need to know how to write. The same 
     is happening to research. A new report just found that 
     federal investment in biomedical research through the 
     National Institutes of Health has decreased almost every year 
     since 2003.
       When we shrink investments in higher education and 
     research, ``we shoot ourselves in both feet,'' remarked K.R. 
     Sridhar, founder of Bloom Energy, the Silicon Valley fuel-
     cell company. ``Our people become less skilled, so you are 
     shooting yourself in one foot. And the smartest people from 
     around the world have less reason to come here for the 
     quality education, so you are shooting yourself in the other 
     foot.''
       The Labor Department reported two weeks ago that even with 
     our high national unemployment rate, employers advertised 
     3.74 million job openings in March. That is, in part, about a 
     skills mismatch. In an effort to overcome that, and help fill 
     in the financing gap for higher education in Washington 
     State, Boeing and Microsoft recently supported a plan whereby 
     the state, which was cutting funding to state universities 
     but also not letting them raise tuition, would allow the 
     colleges to gradually raise rates and the two big companies 
     would each kick in $25 million for scholarships for students 
     wanting to study science and technology or health care to 
     ensure that they have the workers they need.
       This is not a call to ignore the hard budget choices we 
     have to make. It's a call to make sure that we give 
     education, immigration and research their proper place in the 
     discussion.
       ``Empowering the individual and underinvesting in the 
     collective is our great macro danger as a society,'' said the 
     pollster Craig Charney. Indeed, it is. Investment in our 
     collective institutions and opportunities is the only way to 
     mitigate the staggering income inequalities that can arise 
     from a world where Facebook employees can become billionaires 
     overnight, while the universities that produce them are asked 
     to slash billions overnight. As I've said, nations that don't 
     invest in the future tend not to do well there.

                               Exhibit 2

       [From the Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2012]

                Time for a Medicaid-Education Grand Swap

                          (By Lamar Alexander)

       Staring down steep tuition hikes, students at the 
     University of California have taken to carrying picket signs. 
     As far as I can tell, though, none has demanded that 
     President Barack Obama accept a Grand Swap that could protect 
     their education while saving them money. Allow me to explain.
       When I was governor of Tennessee in the early 1980s, I 
     traveled to meet with President Ronald Reagan in the Oval 
     Office and offer that Grand Swap: Medicaid for K-12 
     education. The federal government would take over 100% of 
     Medicaid, the federal healthcare program mainly for low-
     income Americans, and states would assume all responsibility 
     for the nation's 100,000 public schools. Reagan liked the 
     idea, but it went nowhere.
       If we had made that swap in 1981, states would have come 
     out ahead, keeping $13.2 billion in Medicaid spending and 
     giving $8.7 billion in education spending back to Washington. 
     Today, states would have about $92 billion a year in extra 
     funds, as they'd keep the $149 billion they're now spending 
     on Medicaid and give back to Washington the $57 billion that 
     the federal government spends per year on schools.
       This trade would get at the heart of the problem with 
     today's rising cost of college education: the policies that 
     Washington has dreamed up and then handed off to the states 
     to implement, costs and all. Chief among them: Medicaid.
       When I was governor and we were allotting state tax money 
     for roads, schools, state agencies and the like, we'd have to 
     choose between spending on Medicaid or public higher 
     education. When states are forced to spend more of their 
     limited tax dollars on Medicaid, that usually means they 
     spend less on education.
       Last year in Tennessee, Medicaid funding was up 16% while 
     state support for higher education was down 15%. As a result, 
     tuition and fees at public four-year universities rose more 
     than 7%.
       At Tennessee Tech University, state funding has dropped 30% 
     over the last three years--and the picture is not much 
     different at other universities and community colleges 
     throughout the nation.
       In addition to saving states money, this Grand Swap could 
     help improve the quality of education, both in colleges and 
     K-12.
       Because of the funding crunch, the quality of many of our 
     higher education institutions is in serious jeopardy, and 
     that's putting our nation's future in jeopardy. America's 
     secret weapons in creating jobs since World War II have been 
     innovation, technology and a trained workforce. We not only 
     have the best colleges and universities in the world, we have 
     nearly all of the best.
       At the K-12 level, federal involvement has done little to 
     improve quality. Federal funding for elementary and secondary 
     education programs has increased by 73% over the past nine 
     years, while student achievement has stayed relatively flat.
       State and local leaders know best how to create an 
     environment in which students can learn what they need to 
     know to succeed in college and in careers. Decisions on 
     whether schools and teachers are succeeding or failing should 
     be taken away from Washington and given back to state and 
     local governments. While Washington has provided some

[[Page 8392]]

     important advocacy and requirements for better reporting of 
     test scores, most of the initiative for higher standards, 
     better tests, more accountability and more parental choice 
     has come from the states.
       Then there's the Grand Swap's potential for strengthening 
     Medicaid: A single manager, even if it is the federal 
     government, would operate Medicaid more efficiently because 
     it would be forced to implement the mandates it crafts.
       So, how about it, Mr. President--a single Grand Swap for 
     the long-term stability of tuition rates, student-loan rates, 
     Medicaid and K-12 education?

  Mr. ALEXANDER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Kentucky.


                            Aid to Pakistan

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I think most Americans remember where they 
were on 9/11/2001. I was doing eye surgery in Bowling Green, KY. When I 
came out of surgery, I walked into the patient's room and on the 
television set were the planes crashing into the buildings. My first 
thought was horror. My second thought was concern for my father who was 
in Washington and is a Congressman and lives near the Pentagon. As I 
thought about this, it struck me as so bizarre and hard to believe. But 
I know exactly where I was and remember it vividly today.
  I think Lucky Penny remembers where she was. Lucky Penny was one of 
the first female F-16 pilots. She was here in Washington at one of the 
bases, and she was asked to scramble her F-16. After the first two 
planes crashed, she was asked to intercept United Flight 93, which was 
coming in from Pennsylvania and thought to be headed toward the White 
House. She was asked to scramble a fighter jet with no armaments. They 
didn't have time to load the armaments and at that time we were not 
prepared and did not have jets already prearmed.
  Her mission was to take down the plane however she could, which 
probably meant ramming her jet into the commercial airliner and 
bringing it down. Can you imagine being given this task? She took it 
upon herself and quickly scrambled her jet. The jet had to be scrambled 
in such a fast fashion that there were still things attached to it. 
People were trying to dismantle and pull out the gas hose and all the 
appendages to the plane as she was taxiing down the runway. I think she 
will never forget where she was on 9/11.
  When SEAL Team 6 infiltrated bin Laden's compound, I think Americans 
were proud of SEAL Team 6 and proud of our military and proud of what 
they did to finally get this mass murderer. What happened in the weeks 
leading up to that attack and the attack on the compound by SEAL Team 6 
was a doctor in Pakistan who helped us. His name is Dr. Shakil Afridi. 
He is about the same age as I, and I have a lot of sympathy for him and 
for his bravery. Doctors are not soldiers. We are taught to heal and to 
help, but he thought it was important enough and that bin Laden was a 
bad enough person that he would help America get bin Laden.
  He set up a vaccination clinic, and they did DNA testing to try to 
prove that bin Laden was in the compound. He risked his life to get 
this mass murderer. As a consequence though, Pakistan has not treated 
him very well. The Pakistan Government has put him in prison for 33 
years. I find it incredibly insulting that this is coming from an 
ostensible ally.
  I find it troubling that this man who is a hero and should be praised 
and congratulated and rewarded has been sentenced to prison for 33 
years. He has been in prison for the last year without trial and 
probably being tortured. He has lost a significant amount of weight and 
now he is told he will go to prison for the rest of his life for 
helping America to catch the mass murderer bin Laden.
  What I find particularly troubling is that the United States 
continues to fund and give money to Pakistan. Over $1 billion of U.S. 
taxpayer money is sent to Pakistan. It troubles me that we are sending 
$1 billion to a country that imprisons the gentleman, the physician, 
who was brave enough to help us get bin Laden. It makes no sense.
  Recently, a committee proposed reducing our foreign aid--the $1 
billion--by $33 million. It is 3 percent. I think they will laugh at us 
and keep doing what they are doing. They only understand negotiation 
from strength. So what I am proposing, and what I will insist upon in 
the next few days, is a vote on ending aid to Pakistan unless they free 
Dr. Afridi. I think that is the very least they can do. I am also 
asking the U.S. Government to grant him emergency citizenship and to 
help his family get over here from Pakistan and to provide them safe 
passage. I think it is the least we can do.
  We shouldn't reward bad behavior. That is what we have done with 
foreign aid for so many years. It is one thing to talk about aiding or 
assisting your allies, but it is another to aid and assist the people 
who persistently persecute their own people--people who continue with 
human rights abuses.
  In Pakistan there is a woman named Asia Bibi. She has been accused of 
saying something about the prophet. She said she didn't do it. It is 
gossip. She is set to be executed in Pakistan.
  I think Americans should be outraged that 1 billion of your taxpayer 
dollars is being sent to Pakistan, a country that is imprisoning the 
guy who helped us get bin Laden, that is imprisoning a Christian for 
saying she said some sort of religious blasphemy, and the accusation is 
basically gossip. I think we should be insulted, not to mention the 
fact that I don't think it works.
  Look at the examples throughout the last 30, 40 years of the 
different dictators we have given money to. We gave over $60 billion to 
Mubarak, the military dictator of Egypt. He stole a lot of it. He was 
one of the richest men in the world. He had some of the largest palaces 
in the world. His kids were enriched also at our expense.
  Look at Mobutu in Congo. He was given billions of dollars and 
entertained by American leaders. At one time he had seven of the 
largest palaces in the world, mansions in the United States, mansions 
in Paris that were all paid for with our money. What did his people 
have? His people didn't have running water or electricity. Even if we 
believe in the humanitarian nature of giving money to these countries, 
it is not going to them. We are making rich autocrats richer in Third 
World countries, and it is not going to the people of the country. It 
is stolen and skimmed off the top.
  Look at Mugabe. Mugabe in Zimbabwe tortures his opposition, has 
confiscated land, has basically run his country into the ground, and we 
have given him billions of dollars. We can't buy better behavior and we 
shouldn't reward autocrats. Let's not reward folks who torture their 
people. For goodness' sake, we should not send $1 billion to Pakistan 
when they are imprisoning a hero who helped us get bin Laden.
  My amendment will call for an immediate halt to all aid to Pakistan 
now. I am asking President Obama not to send one penny to Pakistan 
until Dr. Afridi is freed. I am asking that no more money goes there in 
the future until Dr. Afridi is freed. I think this is the least we can 
do. I plan on demanding a vote in the Senate, and I hope the American 
people will pay attention to how their representatives vote. They are 
voting to send money we don't even have. We are $1 trillion in debt. We 
borrow the money from China and send it to Pakistan. It makes no sense. 
Our infrastructure is crumbling. We have had two bridges collapse in 
Kentucky this year. We are struggling for money to pay for our own 
infrastructure, and we are sending $1 billion to a country that 
imprisons Christians for their beliefs.
  It has to come to an end. It is going to come to an end one way or 
another. What I ask is that the Senate step up and support ending this 
money being sent to Pakistan and, at the very least, not send any more 
until Dr. Afridi is freed.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield back my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 8393]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Chair remind me of the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the motion to proceed 
to Calendar No. 415, S. 3240.
  Mr. DURBIN. The farm bill; is that correct? The Agriculture bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I was advised of that, and I wanted to double-check.
  Three weeks ago we passed a milestone in U.S. agriculture. The U.S. 
Department of Agriculture celebrated its 150th birthday. I take some 
pride in that coming from Illinois because it was President Abraham 
Lincoln who created the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He called it 
the people's department. Among other things, it became a launch pad for 
the development of the United States. It was during that same period of 
the Lincoln Presidency that they started the land-grant college system 
as well as the Transcontinental Railroad. These things literally 
settled and united our great Nation.
  Since its inception, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has played an 
important role supporting farmers, investing in rural communities, 
researching crops, diseases, production practices, increasing energy 
production, and helping to fight poverty.
  Now the Senate is turning to the debate on the 2012 farm bill that 
will carry forward the vision of our government's role in agriculture 
for the next 5 years.
  While much of the rest of the country has been struggling through a 
recession, agriculture in America has really remained a bright spot. We 
have seen record prices and record income in the farm sector.
  Last year farm revenues reached $98.1 billion. Times are good, but we 
cannot afford to forget for a moment that there is inherent risk in 
farming--risks that many other business do not face. Droughts, floods, 
wind damage, rain, and pests are just a few of the risks farmers must 
cope with on a year-to-year basis. Because of the nature of these risks 
associated with farming and the important role farmers play in food 
production, the Federal Government, since the days of President 
Franklin Roosevelt, has long provided a safety net to help farmers in 
the worst of times. But the need for a safety net must be balanced 
every time we have a farm bill with the realistic appraisal of the risk 
facing farmers and acknowledging the resources available from the 
Federal Government.
  The Agriculture Committee, under the leadership of Chairwoman Debbie 
Stabenow of Michigan, who has done an extraordinary job with Senator 
Roberts, the ranking Republican, in bringing this bill to the floor, 
and the broader agriculture community deserve credit for stepping up to 
find savings in this farm bill, to cut subsidies, and to make sure 
those savings are dedicated toward good programs and deficit reduction. 
They make real reforms in agricultural programs. The bill on the floor 
is a huge step forward in putting our agriculture policy on the right 
track in light of the fiscal challenges we face. It reforms several 
titles to help producers better manage their risk, makes key 
investments in energy and research, ensures programs are in place to 
help our rural communities grow, and assists those who need to put food 
on the table. It does all this, and, to the credit of the Agriculture 
Committee, it still manages to save $23 billion over the next 10 years 
against what we had projected spending before this bill was introduced.
  Gone are the outdated direct payments that went to farmers even when 
they were having record positive income years. To replace direct 
payments, the Agriculture Committee has proposed the new Agriculture 
Risk Coverage Program, known as ARC. ARC is a market-oriented program 
to build on the principles of the ACRE Program that I authored in the 
last farm bill and was expanded on in the Aggregate Risk and Revenue 
Management Act I joined along in with Senator Sherrod Brown, Senator 
Thune, and Senator Lugar last year.
  The biggest change introduced by the ARC Program is that to get a 
payment, you have to have an actual loss. That may sound odd to people 
who are observing this from the outside, but this is a fundamental 
shift in agricultural policy and I think a very wise one. ARC does not 
guarantee a profit, and it does not make the farmer completely whole, 
but it smoothes out the downturns and provides the producer time to 
shift to a new market condition.
  Crop insurance protects farmers within any given year. The ARC 
Program is designed to help manage risk when there are repeated years 
of low prices or low yields. In other words, it makes the payments when 
they are needed. And even better, the shift to ARC saves the Federal 
Government about $15 billion. I congratulate Senator Stabenow for this 
extraordinary savings as well as many other changes within the bill.
  Other portions of the bill make long-term investments that will help 
strengthen agriculture. The bill increases mandatory spending and 
reauthorizes and expands several programs in agricultural research. It 
is a small part of the Agriculture bill but a critically important part 
of expanding agriculture in America.
  This bill creates the new Foundation for Food and Agriculture 
Research, which leverages public dollars to generate private 
investment. These investments are going to be important to Illinois 
producers and major research institutions such as the University of 
Illinois, Southern Illinois University, and the Peoria Agriculture Lab, 
as well as several other universities across our State.
  The energy title includes mandatory funding for programs to expand 
bio-based manufacturing, advanced biofuels, and renewable energy. These 
programs are going to help companies in my State, such as Archer 
Daniels Midland and Patriot Renewable Fuels. They are going to be able 
to process and manufacture products in rural America. There are many 
examples in Illinois of new markets being developed and new jobs being 
created in rural areas because of the growth of the bio-based industry.
  The bill reforms the conservation title to streamline programs and 
finds additional savings by limiting the number of acres that can 
participate in the CRP or Conservation Reserve Program.
  I have some concerns with these cuts and believe our most 
environmentally sensitive lands need to stay out of production, but I 
understand that the committee had a tough assignment to balance our 
policies with the need to reduce the deficit. This also holds true when 
it comes to nutrition, and I would like to say a word about the 
nutrition programs in this bill.
  You can almost argue that this is a nutrition and agriculture bill. 
But it is the farm bill, and it includes many critical nutrition 
programs.
  SNAP is the old Food Stamp Program. It helps those most impacted by 
the current recession continue to feed their families. You cannot 
really improve your situation in life if you are hungry. The committee 
bill takes some steps to reduce fraud in SNAP, and I heartily endorse 
that. We cannot really argue against those. But I am concerned about 
rumblings from other Members considering amendments to cut the program 
more fundamentally and alter the way SNAP works.
  Let's be clear. We should not be cutting food assistance at a time 
when we are setting record poverty levels. In 2010 the United States 
set a new record with 15.1 percent of the population living in poverty. 
That is over 46 million people in our country. For them, SNAP, or the 
Food Stamp Program, is a lifeline.
  I invite my colleagues who are anxious to cut these programs to go 
visit the local pantry, whether it is run by the church or whether it 
is a food bank in your area, and watch the people coming through the 
door. Some of them are very poor. Some of them are very elderly. Some 
of them are coming from work or going to work; they just do not make 
enough money to feed their families. Now is not the time to

[[Page 8394]]

 cut food assistance for American families. If you need more savings, I 
encourage my colleagues to look somewhere else in this bill.
  While the Agriculture Committee bill makes major reforms, there is 
still more that can be done. The bill makes no changes to the Sugar 
Program that forces consumers in America to pay higher prices at the 
store and costs us jobs in America. I plan to support an effort from 
several of my colleagues to make some relatively minor changes that 
will benefit both consumers and businesses.
  There is another area that needs further reform. It is the area of 
crop insurance. Crop Insurance Program costs have risen dramatically 
over the last several years, even when farm income was rising 
dramatically. Just last year the Federal Government spent more than 
$7.4 billion in crop insurance premium support. This does not even 
account for the amount sent to crop insurance companies--the companies 
that actually sell the crop insurance--to simply sell the policies. 
Incidentally, by selling those policies, they get a 14-percent return--
not a bad deal.
  However, the crop insurance title sees the largest single expansion 
of any title in the farm bill, without making major efforts to rein in 
the costs. We can do better. I have joined with my Republican 
colleague, Senator Tom Coburn, to find additional savings in this 
title. In our opinion, it is not unreasonable to ask the wealthiest and 
most prosperous farmers in America to pay a little more for their crop 
insurance. Right now the Federal Government is subsidizing 62 percent 
of premium costs for crop insurance. For those who are making over 
$750,000 a year, a slight reduction in that Federal subsidy is not hard 
to explain, at least from where I am standing.
  I commend my colleagues on the Agriculture Committee for sending us 
this bipartisan bill. It is a safety net for producers, makes 
investments in rural America, research, and energy development, 
protects nutrition programs, and actually cuts spending.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion 
to debate and pass the 2012 farm bill. I hope they will all join us in 
voting for the motion to proceed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy with my Senate colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Startup Act 2.0

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, entrepreneurs and new businesses are vital 
to the strength of the U.S. economy. We need to be a competitive 
country in which we have great success in creating jobs in America.
  Between 1980 and 2005, startup companies--less than 5 years old--
accounted for nearly all the net new jobs created in our country. New 
firms create an average of approximately 3 million jobs each year. In 
order to create jobs for Americans, we need to create an environment 
where entrepreneurs are free to pursue their ideas, start businesses, 
and hire American workers.
  Now, why is this important? This is important, obviously, for the 
purpose of creating the opportunity for all Americans to pursue the 
American dream. It is important for us to have the ability to put food 
on our families' tables and save for our kids' education and save for 
our own retirement. And it is important because at a time in our Nation 
in which the fiscal condition of the Federal Government is so serious, 
so much out of balance--we are spending so many more dollars than we 
take in--the deficit is holding back the growth of our country. These 
facts are important because at this point in time, because of our 
country's fiscal condition, we have an inability to grow the economy, 
and we have seen little evidence that the administration and Congress 
are willing to address our fiscal issues.
  I raise these facts because we have to act now in order to create 
jobs in this country. The way to do that is to create an 
entrepreneurial and innovation environment in which people--Americans--
who have ideas want to take a product to market. In the process of 
pursuing their success, they put other Americans to work. We need to 
create the environment in which that can happen. In the process of 
creating the benefits of new jobs in America, we will have a better 
fiscal condition than the one we find ourselves in today and avoid the 
chances that the United States will become another Greece or other 
southern European country.
  A number of us in the Senate who believe we can work together to 
accomplish this have come together and entered into negotiations and 
created legislation based upon information provided by the Kauffman 
Foundation on entrepreneurship in Kansas City, as well as the 
President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. On the floor with me 
today are several of those colleagues. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. 
Warner, and I gathered together our thoughts several months ago and 
introduced legislation called the Startup Act. Also on the floor this 
afternoon is Senator Coons of Delaware. He and the Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Rubio, introduced the AGREE Act, designed to put some 
things in place that most Members of Congress agreed upon to grow 
technology and create jobs. The four of us then came together with an 
idea and have now introduced Startup Act 2.0.
  Today, Members of the House of Representatives introduced companion 
legislation--this morning--in a bipartisan effort. So we now have a 
bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that we believe is important 
to the country. We believe it is important to individual citizens, and 
we believe it is important in the ability for us to have the economic 
growth necessary to begin the process of making our country fiscally 
sound again.
  This legislation has a number of components related to the Tax Code, 
related to the regulatory environment, related to the global battle for 
talent, related to the ability for us to take the money we spend--the 
taxpayer dollars at universities in conducting research--and to 
encourage that money be spent in a way for research that is able to be 
used in bringing new products to market, in commercialization, and to 
create an environment in which States across the country can 
demonstrate their interest and willingness in pursuing an 
entrepreneurial environment so that entrepreneurs and innovators find a 
place to build their companies.
  It is an honor to be here this afternoon to highlight this 
legislation, to encourage our other colleagues to join us, and to 
approach this in a way that says we believe this is something more than 
just introducing a bill, it is something that is important not just as 
a symbol that we are working together, but we are of the belief that 
this is legislation that can follow the JOBS Act that was passed by 
this Congress and signed by this President several months ago, that we 
can follow on with legislation that will increase the chances that 
entrepreneurship is alive and well and America retains its competitive 
place in a global economy.
  Let me ask my colleagues if they would like to join in this 
discussion. I would yield to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to thank my friend, the 
Senator from Kansas, for his leadership on this issue. This is 
something on which he and I spent a lot of time working, as have, I 
know, the Senators from Delaware, from Florida, and we are joined now 
by the Senator from Missouri as well. We are all new Senators.
  We said before when we unveiled this we did not get the memo that we 
should take Presidential election years off. We still think the needs 
of our country ought to trump election-year politicking. We think this 
is one of those spaces where we can find that common ground.
  I spent 20 years as an entrepreneur and a funder of startup 
businesses, and everything in my experience validates what Senator 
Moran has talked about. But, candidly, the facts show 80 percent of all 
of the new jobs created in America in the last 20 years came from 
startup businesses. They are not all tech businesses. I think of Under 
Armour, which is right up the road in

[[Page 8395]]

Maryland, close to our friend from Delaware.
  There are certain key things that every startup business needs: They 
need access to capital, they need access to talent, they need access to 
new ideas. We need to make sure we have a stable regulatory environment 
that is not overly burdensome in each way we move the ball in this 
legislation, both that we passed and that we are working on right now.
  Senator Moran mentioned the JOBS Act, which looked at access to 
capital issues, how we can perhaps allow companies access to the public 
markets in a cleaner way. I want to commend the Presiding Officer as 
well. He took the lead on a whole new area of fundraising around 
crowdfunding, crowdsourcing, and using the tools of the Internet, in 
effect, democratizing the ability to raise capital.
  In this legislation, Startup 2.0, we take on a series of other 
issues. One of the issues is the question of talent. Every country in 
the world competes for talent. We attract some of the best talent in 
the world to come to our world-class universities. Oftentimes, we then 
train them in science, technology, engineering, and math with graduate 
degrees. I wish we could fill all of those slots in American 
universities with native-born Americans. But we do not have enough.
  Consequently, we train the best and brightest in the world, then send 
them home to start their businesses. I can tell you, in Virginia, where 
we are proud to have a vibrant high-tech community, an entrepreneurial 
community, literally one-third of all of our high-tech firms in 
Northern Virginia, the founders are first-generation Americans. If we 
had the same immigration policies 20 years ago that we have today, we 
would not have had that kind of explosive growth particularly all 
across America in the nineties from technology.
  So I want to turn to my colleague, the Senator from Delaware, a State 
that punches above its weight, a small State but a State with great 
universities, a State which has a rich entrepreneurial climate as well, 
what got the Senator involved--I know he has a background in business 
as well--on this issue. I know the Senator wants to share as well some 
of the aspects of Startup 2.0.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I am honored to join with the good Senator 
from Kansas, the Senator from Missouri, and my friend from Virginia in 
speaking today in a bipartisan colloquy that is also part of a 
bicameral process that is trying to send a signal to the American 
people, to our markets, and to our competitors, that we understand that 
just because we happen to be in an election year does not mean our 
competitors in China, in India, and Russia, in Europe and other parts 
of world--in Africa and in other places where there are emerging 
markets or in places where we have well-developed competitors--we do 
not take this year off.
  The American people expect since we are still drawing a salary, we 
should still be making progress. We should still be trying to meet the 
needs of a growing economy that needs to grow faster. So as Senator 
Moran referenced previously, last November Senator Rubio of Florida and 
I came together to put a package called the AGREE Act before the 
Senate.
  We were pleased that a number of the provisions in that first AGREE 
Act actually have subsequently become law: One, to ease the path for 
IPOs, initial public offerings, for high-potential, high-growth 
companies; another through Executive order to strengthen intellectual 
property protection. We are hopeful the Senate will consider another 
provision that dealt with bonus depreciation, which is another way to 
help make investments in equipment for small businesses.
  On top of that, Senator Rubio and I have now teamed up with Senator 
Moran and Senator Warner to take some of the remaining provisions of 
the AGREE Act and add them in with your Startup Act and now make an 
improved and broader and stronger Startup 2.0.
  The pieces that we brought to the party were eliminating the per-
country caps for employment-based immigrant visas and making permanent 
the exemption of certain capital gains so investors can provide 
financial stability to qualified startups. There are a lot of good 
ideas in this bill. There are a lot of different ways in which it 
tackles the issues that my colleagues have already spoken to: 
immigration; retaining high-promise, entrepreneurial folks who come and 
learn in the United States; moving the inventions and innovations on 
American college campuses to the marketplace more predictably, more 
swiftly; providing tax incentives for startup businesses and putting 
provisions in the Tax Code that strengthen our welcoming environment 
for entrepreneurship and regulatory relief.
  Senator Moran took the lead in making possible a provision in this 
bill that provides some regulatory relief for startup businesses. In 
all I think these provisions make for a terrific package, thus the 
moniker ``2.0.'' It has already attracted some other folks to join us.
  Before I hand the floor over to the Senator from Missouri, I just 
want to comment on what I think that means.
  There are trillions of dollars in capital sitting on the sidelines. 
American corporations have more money sitting on their balance sheets, 
not invested and moving our economy forward, than at almost anytime in 
modern history. That is because they are not sure this body, the 
Congress of the United States, can tackle the very real financial and 
competitiveness challenges in front of us.
  There is something about the symbolism of what is on the Senate floor 
today: the Agriculture bill, the farm bill, and a bill we took up and 
passed just a few weeks ago, the Transportation bill. I think that is 
at times lost. The average American sees in the news the fighting, the 
disagreement, the inability to come together, when, in fact, two fairly 
broad, strong important bills--the farm bill and the Transportation 
bill--were passed through committee by strong votes.
  Senator Boxer of California, Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma, Senator 
Stabenow of Michigan, and Senator Roberts of Kansas--these are folks 
from both parties with significant differences in their views. But they 
managed to hammer out these bills, the Transportation and farm bills.
  I want to thank Senators Moran and Warner and Rubio for joining with 
me and the four of us being able to put this together and putting it on 
the floor of the Senate today.
  To the good Senator from Missouri, a freshman in the Senate but a man 
of great seasoning and experience in the House and in public service, 
we are grateful he has joined us as a cosponsor of this bill. I welcome 
him to speak for a few minutes about how he sees this contributing to 
positive progress for our recovery.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I do think there are those things that we 
can agree on. I am glad to join the three of you and Senator Rubio as 
one of the cosponsors of this bill that you all crafted and put 
together. Good energy policy, good tax policy, good regulatory policy 
are important to the future. But there are things we can do right now 
even outside of these bigger debates we need to have that are in this 
bill.
  Who would have thought--Senator Moran brought this poster to the 
floor--Great Britain would become a real competitor for us as a better 
place to do business? I have talked to more than one American business 
lately that has actually changed their worldwide headquarters and their 
corporate structure to Britain instead of the United States of America.
  Then we have another--this poster is ``Entrepreneurs are Great 
Britain.'' I think entrepreneurs are still the United States of 
America. But this ad would suggest otherwise.
  ``Your next big idea. Canada.'' Canada is a great trading partner. 
They are a neighbor of ours. They are a friend of ours. But I do not 
think we would have thought a decade ago that these countries would be 
repositioning themselves, and that has happened. Also, I think we have 
not kept up like we should and we could have with things such as the 
Startup Act.

[[Page 8396]]

  These countries are putting themselves in a position where they 
understand that private sector job growth is critical, that government 
can do some things to encourage that, but government does not create 
very many private sector jobs.
  One of the reasons I decided to cosponsor the Startup Act 2.0, the 
second version of the Startup Act, is I think it does some of what we 
need to begin to do. Seventy-five percent of all U.S. engineering and 
technology firms in the last decade, the decade we have good numbers 
on, the one that ended just a few--that ended really--the numbers I 
have are 1995 to 2005--75 percent of the engineering and technology 
startups were started by people who were born in another country.
  This bill simply creates a visa program that allows entrepreneurs who 
have good ideas and, frankly, have some money to go along with these 
good ideas, to come to the United States of America and start these 
jobs, to take advantage of our great workforce, to take advantage of 
the position we have to be able to send products all over the world, 
and to do that here.
  This act also requires that we have a true cost-benefit analysis of 
rules and regulations. Last year the Federal Government--of the 66 
rules which cost more than $100 million, only 18 of them had what one 
could describe as a cost-benefit analysis. There are lots of things 
that would be fine to do, but if the cost to the economy, the cost to 
jobs, and the cost to families is greater than the benefit, we should 
not do them.
  So this bill says let's go ahead. Let's not let the cost of something 
overwhelm the benefit to the economy or become a negative impact on the 
economy. Long-term investment in this act with startups would have some 
exemption from the capital gains. People are risking a lot of money 
with a startup. This is saying: We want to raise the reward quotient of 
that risk so we encourage people to take the risk.
  If someone is doing a startup, the odds are pretty high that money 
may not ever come back. So we need to do whatever we can to encourage 
that money be put on the table and those jobs be created. In 2009, 651 
startups were created with university research involved as a component. 
This further opens the door for grant dollars that are already 
available, of Federal research and development funds to be even more 
open to a university partner as part of that private sector effort. So 
I think we have to be focused on the opportunity for families, the 
opportunity for individuals.
  Who creates the jobs in America? Small business creates the jobs in 
America. Startups create the jobs in America. I am pleased to be here 
standing with Senator Moran.
  The next big idea is the biggest idea of the last couple hundred 
years, which is the United States of America intends to be a 
competitive leader in the world. What do we need to do as Members of 
the Senate to see that happen?
  I am glad he and Senator Warner, Senator Coons, and Senator Rubio are 
leading this effort. I am glad to join in it and glad to be here on the 
floor today.
  Mr. MORAN. I very much appreciate the remark of the Senator from 
Missouri and his cosponsorship of this legislation.
  Let me highlight something he pointed out, which is in the short time 
that those of us on the floor today have been in the Senate, about 14 
months, seven countries have adopted new laws to attract entrepreneurs. 
We have not.
  Listen to this fact. A recent report from the World Bank shows that 
America has slipped in the rankings in terms of startup friendliness 
from first to thirteenth. There are provisions in here about visas for 
those who were foreign born. This is very much about American jobs. 
This is about the opportunity for someone to start a company here and 
hire Americans. If they happen to be someone who is foreign born but 
highly educated in science, technology, engineering and entrepreneurial 
with money and they want to invest in the U.S. economy and agree to put 
people to work, we are saying the doors of the United States of America 
are open for business for purposes of hiring U.S. citizens.
  It is an important component. We do not want to lose this battle. As 
we see, these are ads from U.S. publications in which entrepreneurs are 
being lured to places outside the United States to start their 
companies. When I visited with an entrepreneur recently, they said: We 
could not get the person we needed to hire to work at our company 
because they could not get a visa. They were foreign born. So we hired 
them, but we put them in our plant in Canada. We put them in our 
facility in Dublin.
  The fear is, the concern, there is more than just those number of 
jobs that we are out to create in the United States. It means people 
who are entrepreneurial are now in Dublin and in Toronto where they are 
making decisions not just about what they have to do today for a check, 
but when they have an idea about starting a business, they are outside 
of the United States and we lose the benefit of that job growth.
  Let me also say something else about this legislation. An 
entrepreneurial engineer told me to get a plane to fly, there are two 
forces at work: thrust and drag. Too many times, in my view, Congress 
spends its efforts in creating new laws, more spending, it promotes the 
thrust. What we are doing is reducing the drag, increasing the chances 
that a new business will succeed.
  Before our time expires, let me again return to the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I commend the Senator from Kansas for his comments. I am 
fond of Canada. My mom's family is from Canada. It is remarkable. 
Canada, over the last 3 years, has aggressively sought out worldwide 
talent.
  I ask the Senator from Kansas whether he thinks it is good policy in 
what we do now--and, once again, I make very clear, this is about 
growing American jobs because we have more job openings in the advanced 
fields of science, technology, engineering, and math than there are 
American citizens applying for those jobs.
  I ask the Senator from Kansas whether it would make sense--if we 
thought about this from a national security standpoint, would it make 
sense for us to take, for example, a Chinese lieutenant and send him to 
West Point and expose him to everything we have in terms of our 
national security ideas and then send him home?
  I guess I ask the Senator whether he thought that would be good 
national security policy. Does it affect our current national 
immigration policy on an equally important front, in terms of job 
creation and economic activity?
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, the answer to that in Kansas is that it 
doesn't make any sense at all. There is no good judgment there. That is 
a point I would make in a more broad way. The provisions of Startup 2.0 
are mostly about common sense, things that would make sense to the 
people of my State and to the people of the State of Virginia who, if 
you looked at a problem said how can you solve it and grow the economy, 
they would say these things make common sense. That is what this 
legislation is about.
  In my view, I guess 80 percent of our colleagues in the Senate at 
least would be supportive of the provisions of this legislation. I 
think the Senators on the floor this afternoon and others are out to 
prove that when there is broad support for commonsense ideas, we are 
still in a legislative body that can accomplish much and that, as the 
Senator from Virginia is fond of saying, we didn't get the memo that 
says we don't work during an election year. The American people expect 
us to make the necessary accomplishments to grow the economy, to put 
Americans to work, and to get our fiscal house in order.
  Again, I ask if the Senator has any items to close with.
  Mr. WARNER. No. I hope we can get a number of our colleagues to join 
us. This doesn't fall under a traditional Democratic versus Republican 
lexicon. This is more about future versus past. This is the future of 
global competition for talent, for ideas, and for capital. This is 
where job creation will come from. I look forward to working with the 
Senator and our other colleagues to make sure we get the support here 
and in the House and get this bill

[[Page 8397]]

passed. I thank my friend, the Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the Senator, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senate is about to turn its attention 
to one of the most significant legislative issues on our agenda this 
year, consideration of the 2012 farm bill. I would first like to thank 
the chairwoman, Senator Stabenow, and ranking member, Senator Roberts, 
for working together in a bipartisan way to advance a farm bill--the 
Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012--that can pass the 
Senate and become law this year. As a former chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, and having worked closely with Senator Lugar on 
many bipartisan farm bills, I know how difficult the task can be of 
forging a comprehensive bill that addresses many competing needs.
  Some Senators may be scratching their heads trying to understand the 
urgency of passing this bill and why it matters to constituents in all 
of our States. The current farm bill expires at the end of September. 
We also have a serious problem with dairy policy that must be addressed 
before August 31; our dairy farmers will be left without a vital safety 
net if we do not act before then.
  I recognize that not every Senator comes from farm country or hears 
from many farmers in their State like I do. But this is a bill that 
affects every State and touches the lives of every American, through 
the healthy food on our kitchen tables or in our children classrooms; 
the clean water that is a result of critical conservation programs; 
rural businesses on Main Street receiving assistance from USDA; new 
energy products resulting from research supported by this bill; and the 
benefits we all receive from our local farms and food systems that 
benefit from this bill. The farm bill also has a reach far beyond our 
borders with the international food aid that provides lifesaving 
support around the globe.
  Make no mistake: Farming is part of our national security. Imagine 
what it would be like if we had to depend on imported food, the way we 
depend on imported oil. Keeping American agriculture strong and vibrant 
is at the core of this bill, but this bill does much more. It will also 
help keep our rural communities strong, and will support those 
Americans who are struggling to put food on the table.
  Every Senator should know that this farm bill makes real reforms, and 
nets real savings. This bill makes long-overdue reforms to agriculture 
policy, and consolidates and streamlines USDA programs, all the while 
cutting $23 billion in mandatory spending. The bill before the Senate 
today proves that when Democrats and Republicans sit down and work in a 
bipartisan manner we can make progress and accomplish something real, 
and do so with fiscal restraint.
  Is this the farm bill that I, or any individual Senator, would have 
drafted? Of course not. There are conservation and energy programs that 
farmers in Vermont would like to see strengthened, many nutrition 
programs that are vital in keeping food on the tables of millions of 
Americans, and a wide array of rural development programs that do not 
have mandatory funding in this bill. But I recognize that this bill is 
a compromise, and I will continue to work with the chairwoman and 
ranking member to make this the best farm bill possible.
  I am especially pleased that the farm bill includes a major dairy 
reform proposal that I know will help both our producers and consumers 
move away from the dangerous roller coaster of price swings. For our 
farmers in Vermont, these dairy reforms are the key to our 
consideration of a farm bill. I regularly hear from Vermont farmers 
about this. We simply must free our dairy farmers from this destructive 
cycle of volatile price changes.
  The current Federal safety net provides no protection for dairy 
farmers from this roller coaster of price volatility. The 2012 farm 
bill scraps outdated price supports and the Milk Income Loss Contract 
Program. It establishes a new risk management plan that protects farm 
income when margins shrink dangerously, and a stabilization program to 
allow farmers to take a proactive role in easing the instability in our 
dairy markets.
  And it accomplishes this at a lower cost than the program that it 
replaces and contributes to the savings in this bill. It is a voluntary 
program and can be tailored by the farmer to fit the farmer's 
individual needs.
  These reforms have the support of dairy farmers across the country, 
and they have been developed to move us away from the regional dairy 
fights and the constant policy conflicts between small and large farms. 
The 2009 dairy crisis brought plummeting milk prices and sky-high feed 
costs that combined to force far too many U.S. dairy farmers out of 
business, and saddled thousands more with losses and debt from which it 
will take years to recover. After those dark days in 2009, dairy 
farmers from across the country came together for a solution that will 
help them and consumers move away from these volatile price swings.
  Dairy is Vermont's single most important agricultural commodity, and 
dairy products account for upward of 83 percent--or 90 percent, 
depending on market prices--of Vermont's agricultural products sales. 
If any Senator has questions about the dairy reforms in this bill, I 
would welcome discussing what this farm bill does for dairy farms. 
There has been a lot of misinformation about these provisions, and I 
welcome the opportunity to eliminate any confusion.
  I have tried to be supportive of programs which do not directly 
benefit Vermont, and I intend to vote to help farmers in other 
regions--just as I hope other Senators will join me in supporting dairy 
farmers in Vermont, and throughout the Nation. Just like corn, wheat, 
soybean, sugar, cotton and the many other types of farmers in our 
country, our dairy farmers work extremely hard for a living. Dairy 
farmers deserve a voice in the crafting of this farm bill, and I have 
been proud to ensure that their voices are being heard in shaping this 
bill.
  While listening to our farmers in writing this bill, we also need to 
hear the voices of the millions of Americans struggling every day to 
put food on the table. The nutrition assistance and emergency feeding 
programs in this farm bill are needed now more than ever. Because of 
the greater need for services, these programs currently do not satisfy 
demand. The numbers are staggering even for a State the size of 
Vermont. In 2010 alone, an average of more than 87,000 Vermonters 
received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, benefits each 
month. On top of that, nearly 86,000 Vermonters accessed food from our 
State's food pantries and soup kitchens. Sadly, those numbers have 
continued to rise in Vermont and across the country, and they reflect 
how critically important the nutrition title of the farm bill is to so 
many States.
  Ensuring these programs can continue to serve Vermonters and all 
Americans in need is a key part of enacting a strong farm bill for this 
country.
  Calls to reduce food assistance as a way to solve our Nation's 
deficit problems are misguided and shortsighted. Axing tens of billions 
of dollars from the SNAP program would eliminate food assistance for 
millions of Americans and deny hundreds of thousands of American 
children school meals. I am disappointed that this bill includes $4.5 
billion in cuts to the SNAP program, cuts that will predominately come 
from Northeastern States.
  Despite these cuts, the farm bill does make significant improvements 
to nutrition programs, including important funding for emergency food 
assistance and initiatives to encourage better health through improved 
access to local foods, and better nutrition for our children and 
seniors. I am pleased that this bill also makes great advances to 
support self-sufficiency and food security in our low-income 
communities, helping to correct the ``food deserts'' that we experience 
in both urban and rural communities. At a time when more Americans than 
ever before are at risk of going hungry, and food pantry shelves across 
the country are bare, I am committed to working with the

[[Page 8398]]

chairwoman and ranking member to find ways to make these nutrition 
programs even stronger in order to help the people who need it most.
  I hope that the full Senate can now come together in a bipartisan 
way, just as we did in the Agriculture Committee, to pass this bill, 
which will have a tremendous impact on our farms, our rural 
communities, our kitchen tables, and our economic recovery.
  This farm bill represents an investment in American agriculture that 
will benefit our producers, our rural communities, our Main Street 
businesses, taxpayers, and consumers, and particularly the neediest 
among us. It deserves the Senate's full and focused attention, and it 
deserves the support of every Senator.

                          ____________________