a senator: madam president, i would ask that we suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you. the presiding officer: the snoer from michigan. ms. stabenow: today we have before us the agriculture reform and food bill of 2010, the 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 than most other committees in congress. our committee room doesn't have a raised dias. 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. and so 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 today in the senate. it's 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. and so we're 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. and the farm bill is critically important for those families as well. so as we begin our debate here in the senate on the farm bill, let us remember the families all across the country who are counting on us to get this rig

right. i want my colleagues to also remember that the farm bill is a jobs bill. 16 million jobs. 16 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 work hard every day to fight pests and diseases that threaten our food supply. and throughout this recession, as those 16 million can attest, agriculture has been one of the truly bright spots in our economy.

that's why we made such an important effort, such an important bipartisan effort in this farm bill to support beginning farmers as well. we're giving them additional support for training, mentoring and outreach to ensure the success of our next generation of farmers. in addition, we're giving opportunities to veterans who are interested in pursuing a career in agriculture, and we're 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 that the majority of them, over half of them are coming from small towns and rural communities and they're coming home. and one of the ways to provide opportunities for jobs is to support them coming back to

their community having the opportunity to go into agriculture. one of the brightest spots in agriculture's been in exports. this chart shows the incredible growth of agricultural exports over the last number of years. and, in fact, the total agricultural exports in 2011 alone reached $136 billion. so it's a 200 -- it's a 270% increase just in the last 10 years, really an explosion as we reach out in american agriculture -- and american agriculture is looked to and depended upon to feed the families of the world. our trade surplus is $42.5 billion. and let me repeat that. we have a significant trade surplus in agriculture. we can't say that, mr. president, in much of any

other place in our economy. but in agriculture, we're growing it here at home -- the jobs are here at home -- and we're exporting it overseas, which is what i'd like to see in every one of our industries. it's one of the few areas where we have that kind of success. and we know that for every $1 billion in agricultural exports that we are creating 8,400 american jobs. 8,400 american jobs for every $1 billion in exports. and so the investments we make in market development, in access for our agricultural products overseas will ton create jobs here at home -- will continue to create jobs here at home. as we're writing the farm bill, we also did something that families all across 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, mr. president, went through every page of farm policy and agricultural spending through usda. and this bill represents major reform that will help us focus fewer dollars on the things that create -- fewer resources on things that -- i'm sorry. it will allow us to focus fewer resources on the things that create jobs and make the biggest difference. so, in other words, we are refocusing, we are cutting the things that aren't important and refocusing on the things that are and the things that create jobs. the agricultural 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're creating a new approach, a new program that only helps farmers when there is a loss and only for crops that they have actually planted. we're strengthening payment limits. we are ending more than 100 programs and authorizations that are no longer needed. and we're doing all of this in order to be able to cut the deficit by $23 billion. the most fundamental reform in the agricultural reform, food and jobs act, is the shift away from direct payments and towards risk management for farmers. throughout this process, we've been focused on principles, not programs, and the number-one principle is risk management. so we are repealing direct payments. we know that farmers face unique risks unlike those in other businesses, and let me stress

that again. i don't know of any business that has the same kind of risks in market volatility, in weather volatility than our farmers and ranchers do and we are very fortunate that we have people that still want to stay in that people given all the risks. weather and market conditions outside of producers' control can have devastating effects and we know that, but current system focused around direct and countercyclical payments doesn't focus on actual risks and is no longer defensible or sustainab 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's why we are eliminating those programs and instead strengthening crop insurance as the centerpiece of risk management in the farm bill. this is is the number-one issue

that we heard from every farmer that's testified before the committee, whether it was in michigan or in kansas or across the country, every region of the country we've heard the same thing loudly and clearly -- the basic foundation of support for producers today is crop insurance. we're expanding crop insurance in the bill to include specialty crops and others as well because we know that while crop insurance is the foundation, it doesn't work the same, it's not available for every commodity and that's a commitment that we've made to expand crop insurance. including specialty crops, which are essentially the kinds of crops that you'd like to -- that you'll find in the produce aisle of your supermarket or at the local farmers market, fruits, vegetables, nuts 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've made revisions to crop insurance to better help those new farmers by reducing their crop insurance premiums and providing additional support when disasters strike. to supplement crop insurance, this bill creates a single simple market oriented and risk-based program we're called arc, agricultural risk coverage. arc represents significant and historic reform in agricultural policy. for years congress has struggled to balance the needs of different commodities, different programs and 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 not or whether the individual is farming or not. and i say "certain people" because many farmers don't qualify for the help today as well. so direct and countercyclical payments are made using what's called base acres -- that's the current system -- to determine the payments. base acres were set using what was planted on the farms back in the 1980's. so these base acres have little relevance to what is actually happening on many farms today. this change also very important for new farmers. we've been told beginning farmers, that this is a very important way to support them. arc, on the other hand, the program we have developed in this bill, uses only the acres that a farmer actually plants so it's able to adapt to free market forces and the decisions

made -- being made on the farm without interference from those business decisions that a farmer needs to make. we want the farmer, 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 businesses and make planting decisions. the payment amount is based on actual historic numbers from the marketplace, not from the halls of congress. and, finally, too many current program payments are being made to people who don't actually farm or have -- already have large incomes. the farm bill fixes this. under current law, we say that farm payments can only go to people who are actively engaged in farming. this requirement contains 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 doesn't make any sense. and thanks to senator grassley, senator tim johnson who had legislation in this area -- and senator grassley is a member of our committee, has been such a champion on this issue -- we have eliminated this loophole and made sure that the payments are going to people who are actually farming. this farm bill also reforms the adjusted gross income eligibility requirement, lowers and substantially eliminating any payment to millionaires. it includes two a.g.i. calculations, one for farm income, one for nonfarm income, which is confusing and difficult to administer. they would allow some to split

their payments they otherwise would not be eligible for. we close this loophole. we use a simple a.g.i. calculation and restrict the eligibility to those who have less than $75,000 in a.g.i. and finally, the farm bill caps payments at $50,000, less than half of what a farmer can currently receive. doubled with closing the management loophole -- 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's 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 president -- the presiding officer knows we in michigan had the same thing when milk prices dropped substantially, wiping out many small and medium-sized dairies. despite spending $1.3 billion this year, our current dairy programs weren't able to help many of the farmers that were in crisis. in some cases, dairy farms that had 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 create programs that can be customized by each dairy, and we allow individual dairies to determine whether or not to participate in the program at all. two programs will now comprise

the dairy risk management system -- 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 cost, and this is important, but it will allow them to manage their risk on more of their production at higher protection levels. we're providing a discounted premium for the first four million pounds of milk marketed for each producer, which is somewhere around 200, 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, seconds 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 operations 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're trying to figure out cuts in their own budget. we went through every program again, looked at what was working, what wasn't, what looked to duplication and waste, and we prowfd 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 -- quote -- enhance and protect our natural resource base is a crop insurance program for the nation, and i would agree. with growing global population, it's 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 four 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 assistance, financial assistance to farmers and ranchers, 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 programs which allows private landowners to get added benefits from their lands by opening them up to hunting and fishing and birdwatching and other kinds of outdoor recreation. we made these programs more flexible -- and this is very, very important. we added a focus on wildlife habitat and made them easier for farmers to take advantage of.

the second area is the conservation reserve program. very, very important. it removes highly erodeable land from production to benefit soil and water quality as well as wildlife habitat. parts of the southwest and certainly my friend and colleague from kansas has experienced record droughts this year. it's stunning what has happened. it's the worst since the dust bowl era of the 1930's. but soil, while it was dry, it stayed on the ground because the conservation reserve program was a part of that change, protecting soil and air. our conservation efforts are actually working and we're seeing changes even in the worst of times as it relates to the droughts. c.r.p. has also been critical in our efforts to rebuild wildlife

populations and to reduce pollution in our streams and our rivers and our lakes. we also continued an important transition in the incentives program to help older farmers transition their land to beginning farmers. third, we focus 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, private landowners to support improvements to soil health, water quality and quantity and wildlife habitat. certainly important to me in the great lakes, and i know the presiding officer cares about that as well. it's also critical for the chesapeake bay, and i want to thank our colleagues from the bay, certainly senator cardin, senator casey on the committee, senator warner, members all across the bay who have been deeply involved in making sure we get this right.

and it's also there for other critical areas around the country that have large-scale regional challenges around conservation. finally, i'm really proud of the work that was done around easements. easements allow landowners to voluntarily enter into an agreement to we've wetlands and farm land to protect against development and sprawl. this year, funding for both the wetlands reserve program and the grasslands reserve program were zeroed out, so we streamlined, consolidated to establish an easement program with a permanent baseline going forward to protect agricultural lands from development. this bill also includes a bipartisan sod-saver provision. i want to thank senators thune, johanns and sherrod brown for bringing forward and working with us on this, authoring this that helps prevent the plowing

up of native prairie. sod saver is aimed at protecting grasslands at high risk of being converted to crop land. this is not only good for conservation, it saves taxpayers $200 million over ten years. it's tied to crop insurance. and so -- and i should also say that while the conservation title in the farm bill is a big win for conservation -- conservation of our environment, i'm proud to say we have linked and continue to link the commodity title that i described earlier to conservation and in crop insurance, the sod saver 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. it's tied there and it's very important. i'm very proud of the fact that

we receive support for our approach from 643 different conservation and environmental groups in all 50 states. mr. president, i think that says loudly and clearly that it is possible to make smart cuts that increase flexibility without sacrificing effectiveness. another area where we have made significant strides is in nutrition and healthy foods. for too long, our nation's farm bill ignored the diversity of agriculture and the kinds of healthy foods like fruits and vegetables that families in america want to put on their kitchen table as well. we made significant progress on this front in the 2008 farm bill with the first-ever specialty crop title. we continued the progress in the agricultural 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, never imagined they would be put in a

position where they would need help putting food on the table for their families, and because of this recession which has been way too long in michigan -- it's getting better but we have been hit harder, deeper longer than anywhere -- a lot of families have had to ask for temporary help. when they need it, whether it's food assistance through the supplemental nutritional assistance program which used to be called food stamps, it's now called snap, or whether it's help from a good 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, i want to make absolutely sure that these programs are in place for families who need it, and that means making absolutely sure that every dollar goes to only the families that need it. and that's why we're closing

loopholes that allow lottery -- believe it or not, we have had lottery winners in two instances where they won and was able to continue on food assistance. it's a shame that so many american people go to bed hungry at night. it's absolutely outrageous that people who have won millions of dollars in the lottery would be able to continue getting food assistance. so we make it absolutely clear that those individuals would be removed from snap immediately. we're also cracking down on trafficking of food assistance benefits. right now, thanks to the efforts from the last farm bill, fraud is at an all-time low, but we can do even more, and we're 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're 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. and again, with so many families and so many children in need, we can't afford to divert funds in a way that shouldn't -- that shouldn't be there. we must also ensure that the standards congress created for snap are followed by the states. we're eliminating a gap in standards that has allowed 16 states, including michigan, now to give just one dollar to people in the form of energy assistance to help them automatically qualify for additional snap benefits. we know that families in parts of the country with high energy bills are often those who are most food insecure, and that's why we created the link between food assistance and liheap, but it's clear that congress never intended for state governments to use this in a way that could jeopardize additional assistance for farmers -- for families, excuse me, with the highest utility bills. just like with commodity programs, we need to make sure

that 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. information to increasing accountable, we're building on the success of programs that reduce hunger and improve access to healthy fruits and vegetables. we include assistance to food banks. in 2010, more than 5 million people visited a food bank -- 5 million people. as we recover from this recession, it is absolutely critical that these organizations have food in stock to help those in need. we're streamlining the commodity supplemental food program, which provides food to low-income individuals to focus on seniors, and we are working -- we are moving women and children into the w.i.c. program, where they

can be better-servinged. we're continuing the fresh fruits and vegetable program authored originally by senator harkin, when he was chairing the committee, and i was very proud to work with him on that. this provides fee an free and hy snacks to low-income children. this bill triples our support for farmers markets, gives them resources to develop local infrastructure, and we're continuing an effort to give low-income seniors access to healthy fruits and vegetables at farmers markets and roadside stands. we're increasing funding for unnovative projects like -- innovative projects like urban greenhouse initiatives. i should say that all of these are done with small amounts of dollars, mr. president, but they are very, very effective. we're creating a national pilot modeled after michigan's successful double-up food box

which gives families relying on snap the opportunity to truly be able to buy fresh fruits and vegetables for their families. and we're also authorizing the healthy food financing initiative to offer loans and grants to help address the problem of food deserts in underserved communities. and we increase funding for several organic programs, which is the fastest-growing sector of american agriculture. we increase funding for organic research, double funding for the organic cost-sharing program that supports farmers. mr. president, this farm bill is a jobs bill, but its also a food bill -- but it's also a food bill. the 2012 farm bill goes a long way towards making sure every mom and dad can get healthy, nutritious food on table for their chin. as we work through the farm bill, we focus on sphrea streamg

and consolidating programs to get the best possible results. i know that's what people want us to do. we certainly see that in conservation, but we also approach this in every part of the farm bill. in farm credit and rural development we're streamlining existing larks removing unused provisions, making authorizations more effective and the administration more effective so when we have a part-time mayor that is trying to figure out rural development programs, they can actually do it, can actually use of what been extremely effective programs for rural communities. in our research title, we eliminated dozens of unused and indefensible authorizations but continued the most important research components and functions while streamlining operations, improving accountability for federal research funds, and creating innovative, new research foundation that matches private

dollars and leverages federal research dollars to get more innovative food and agriculture research. i want 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've 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 the debate on the farm bill, we'll talk more about specifics, and i will join my colleagues from the committee in further explaining various aspects of the bill, and we'll 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. i will do everything i can to work out issues with our colleagues. i want to stress the important balance we have struck in a bipartisan effort, reforms we have undertaken, and the work we put in to making real reforms without hurting families and without hurting farmers, who are so important to our economic recovery. mr. president, i am very proud of the work that we've been able to accomplish, and a lot of hard work and the way we have saved the american taxpayers $23 billion through these reforms. i would encourage colleagues to look closely at the work that 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, mr. president, 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 there frankly is nobody i would rather have sittin sitting across the e 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 ag 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 want to thank him as we move forward on this bill. thank you, mr. president. i would yield the floor. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, first of all, i want to thank the distinguished senator from

michigan for her very kind remarks. this has been a team effort. she has been a leader, a very strong leader to fry to put -- y to put together a bill. i want to thank her for her very detailed summary, title by title, of the farm bill, something that a lot of us probably couldn't do. but, at any rate, she has done that, and it is for the record. it is in the "congressional record" fl i urge my colleagues to really take a look at what the distinguished chairman -- chairwoman, pardon me, has said today. because she has literally gone down every title in the farm bill. so if anybody has any question, it is right there. as she has indicated, if they have questions of either of under thus,please be in contactr of us or any of our very cable staff. i rise today in strong support of the agriculture reform and food act of 2012 rkt the farm

bill. irm pleased to stand here with chairwoman stabenow who led this legislation through the agriculture committee. it has truly been a bipartisan and team effort. it represents the final product of numerous hearings, months of discussions that we've worked to write a new farm bill during the most difficult budget climate in our nation's recent hoamplet i'm 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 -- i think the chairwoman said $23 billion. i'm going to say $23.6 billion -- i wil almost $24 billion. 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 that kind of mandatory budget savings, and it was voluntary. we all remember the supercommittee that tried very, very hard to achieve deficit reduction. the srp supercommittee was not really that super, not because of the people involved but because of the circumstances. circumstances well, we're a supercommittee. we're the only premium -- i don't know of any people on the house side but in the senate we are the only folks who have come up with real budget savings. and it also represents, as i've indicated and as the chairwoman vs indicated, real reform. listen to this.

we've eliminated four commodity programs, four commodity programs that caused farmers untold hours of preparation and to go down to the farm service agency and to talk to the folks down there who are hardpressed anyway, which program do i sign up for, how can i plan down the road -- all of these exrodty programs -- and roll them into one while savings approximately $15 billion from the farm safety net programs. that's truly remarkable. 23 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. 16 program authorizations are eliminated in the rural development title, eliminating over $1 billion of authorized spending over ten 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. and over 60 authorizations are eliminated from the research title reducing authorizations by at least $770 million over five years. mr. president, again, that is $23.6 billion in tough, mandatory savings. at least $1.8 billion in radio n 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. mr. president, believe me, it would have been much easier to write a baseline bill, with no change in c.b.o. spending projections. we could have fulfilled everyone's quses in the committee and in the senate but we would not have performed the duty that we were elected to do and which our constituents expect in this budget comiement climate and that farmers expect and that ranchers expect and their lenders expect and all up and down main street throughout rurld and small-town america or for that matter any taxpayer, any citizen of the united states. we have reduced spending and we have reformed programs. that's what they want, and we want -- and they want us to work together, and that is what we have dofnl done. at the same time, it is a bill that strengthens and preserves our farm risk management -- risk management, and research,

conservation, and rural development programs. we have strengthened and preserved the crop insurance program, as pointed out by the distinguished chairwoman. the number-one priority of virtually every producer that testified before our committee. why? because their banker, their lender say, you got to have crop insurance, and you to strengthen it and improve it. in the past we have been using crop insurance as a bank. no, we're not going to do that anymore, given the circumstances that our farmers face, even today in kansas as we go throughout another dry spell and also in texas, oklahoma, and the high plains. we've streamlined our commodity program while reducing the complexity. we've updated the acreage. mr. president, that's a point i want 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 capital 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 champlechart. if all did was listen to these groups, you'd think we were robbing peter to pay pawvment i understand that the elimination of direct payments is a big deal to many commodities. if anybody should understand that, it should be me. it was a key feature of the 1996 afnlgt 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 planning acreance 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'll have a strong risk-management program. it will just be different -- it will be just for different crops. why? because when base akers were established -- because when base acres were established 250 years ago, kansas planted 2.8 million acres of corn, 1.6 million acres of soybeans, and 12.1 million acres of wheat. now in the mouses recent three-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's 4.9 million fewer acres of wheat and sorghum and 4.2 million acres of corn and soybeans. now, why does d. this happen?

why did these acreage shifts in kansas and all the country change like that? it occurred because farmers made those decisions, not washington. our -- our producers have planted for the domestic and international market and we've done so in a way that we do not encourage a w.t.o. 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're becoming much more diversified. throughout the states on this committee and the nation. it is not shifting because we are in washington intentionally picking winners and losers. now, mr. president, i understand that some are frustrated with the decision and changes that 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 it differently.

but let's be blunt. this is not the 2000 or 2008 farm bill and we do not have extra funds available. mr. president, this is not my first trip to the farm bill rodeo. i've written bills in times of budget surpluses and extra spending, and i've 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 you're adding money to the baseline. a whole heck of a lot easier. nutrition groups, conservation organizations, or commodity groups, or members of congress want to stand by you and take the bows when you're 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're just not even in the same room and they're hiding in the weeds.

mr. president, 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 in their market basket -- okay? -- than any other nation in the world. america's farmers and ranchers provide us with the most abundant, safest and affordable food supply on the planet. now, that's the speech that every farm organization and commodity group and farmer and rancher has heard over and over again but it's a speech that deserves repeeing to all of my colleagues -- repeating to all of my colleagues over and over again 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 today and rancher do provide stability in a chaotic world, and in doing so, national security as well. you show me a country that can't really sustain itself in terms of food supply, i will show you chaos. read the mid east. read syria. read libya and what's going on over in that part of the world. and 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. it's also a national security program. and every year america's farmers produce more on less land, using less water and fewer inputs with ever stronger conservation practices. mr. president, it is truly a modern-day miracle what the agriculture sector in america does today.

now, i understand that 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, mr. president, i can assure you, however, that 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 all -- or any american producer to feed this nation and this world, a bill that eliminated their safety net, which destroys their ability to protect our natural resources while also feeding the most needy in our country, i would not be standing here today and supporting it. wouldn't do that. if i thought it would in any way keep us from feeding the 9 billion people -- note that, 9 billion people -- that will walk this earth in just a couple of short decades, i would oppose this bill. we're going to have to double our ag -- our ag production to help in a humanitarian way and

to prevent chaos all around the world. $9 billion people. mr. president, agriculture is the backbone of the kansas economy. it employs one in five kansans. more than 65,000 farms dot the kansas landscape with an average farm size size of 705 acres. these farmers and ranchers do a tremendous job of feeding a troubled and hungry world. in fact, kansas ranks number one in the nation in the production of wheat and grain sorghum, second in cattle on farm and third in sunflowers produced. you would expect that, being the sunflower state. cash seats from farm marketings were -- receipts from farm marketing were in excess of $12 billion and farm exports in excess of $8 billion. mr. president, farmers 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 that we face. we have performed, mr. president, 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've cut mandatory spending by $23.6 billion. we have reformed, eliminated and streamlined u.s. aid programs to the tune of more than 100 programs and authorizations eliminated. and we've 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. and when we've done it in a bipartisan fashion, that's the best way to do it. people -- how many times have you 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, madam chairwoman, thank you for bringing us to this point here today, and let's pass this farm bill. it's good for the country. it's good for the world. it's a good bill and we need to proceed. and i would hope that every member could vote for the motion to proceed. and if you have amendments that you are interested in, please come to us. it's like bob barker, "come on down." come on down and talk to us. we'll work with you. if you have a problem with the bill, we'll work with you. just let us know. okay? in closing, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senator from tennessee, senator alexander, be recognized for 10 minutes when he appears on the floor. i thought he would be here by this time but he has not -- but he is not. but at that appropriate time, i

would ask unanimous consent that he be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new york is

recognized. mrs. gillibrand: i request that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: i want to begin by taking this opportunity to thank the chairwoman of the agriculture committee and the ranking member for their very, 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, and i know that the tireless efforts 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 want to 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, and because of this strong work, i'm urging my colleagues to vote for cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill. when i first came to the senate

three years ago, i became the first member from my state of new york to serve on the senate agricultural committee in almost four decades, and it's a responsibility that i not only honor but i take incredibly seriously. and for those three years, i have traveled all across our great state, i have met with our farmers in their communities, i have listened to their concerns, i understand their needs and the priorities. now, new york is not home to the megacorporate farms. we're home to small dairy farms, specialty crops, orchards and vineyards. and as we have been shaping and debating this farm bill, those are the farms, the small businesses that i have been fighting for. now, i am very grateful that this bill will help our specialty crop growers by providing them with dedicate dedicateed -- a dedicated funding stream as well as a

better way to protect against disasters, and i'm also very proud of the good work with broadband investments to make sure that our rural communities have access to the internet. we also worked hard ton trying -- on trying to guarantee more transparency and accountability on how we price milk in this country. but we cannot forget that this bill is much more than a number of esoteric figures. what a farm bill is about, it's about how we protect and create a growing economy for small businesses, agricultural businesses, the middle class and those families that are desperately trying to get there. the farm bill is about the health of the agricultural industry, it's about the health of our families, with nutritious food that's actually within reach of the children who need it. so as a mother, i am very concerned that this current farm

bill cuts $4.5 billion from the supplemental nutrition assistance program. it's the snap program, food stamps, as we know it. over the next ten years. now, i'm incredibly disappointed and even troubled that my republican colleagues are seeking to cut food stamps even more from those cuts. now, under this bill, families in new york who are already struggling will lose $90 a month of food that goes onto their tables. now, think of a month long of food for a family. it's basically the last week, the last week 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 tell you if you are a parent who is trying to protect your children and feed them good, wholesome,

nutritious foods, it means everything in the world. now, i don't know for any parent who is watching today whether you personally ever heard your child say mommy, i'm still hungry. well, imagine not being able to help your child and feed your child. imagine that your child says this every single day. that is what we are faced with here. i am heard stories from new yorkers who never dreamed they would need food stamps in their lifetime, who never, never imagined that 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 the 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 asking for food stamps, but suddenly i was jobless, i didn't know where my next meal would come from. food stamps played a big role during make-or-break moments in my life. they're not a handout. i worked all my life, i 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 is, it is unacceptable and should not be tolerated and should certainly not be advocated for. i know that not every state in this country has as many as we have in new york. we have 20 million people in our

great state. so with these cuts, it's going to affect 300,000 families. imagine 300,000 families in your state or any state going hungry at night. these kind of cuts, they hurt children, they hurt families, they hurt seniors that are homebound, seniors that don't know where their next meal is going to come from. we are asking these families, 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. now, we know food stamps are actually a very effective investment. for every dollar you put into the food stamp program, you get get $1.71 of spending back into the economy. mark zandi, world-famous economist, says the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is by expanding snap and food stamps.

this money pays the salary of grocery clerks, truckers bringing food to and from a store from the farm. the usda estimates that 16 cents of every one of these food stamp dollars go right back to our farmers. and despite widespread myths and inaccuracies, there is so little fraud in the snap program, less than 1%. that's a penny on a dollar. now, i take our nation's debt and deficit as seriously as anyone else in this chamber, and 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, they 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, companies based in bermuda, australia, switzerland, it's not the right priority for america. we should be helping the most needy among us. our children, our seniors, a family at risk. so today i'm introducing an amendment to restore the $4.5 billion in cuts because it's the right thing to do. it's the right thing to do for our families, our seniors, our kids. it's the right thing to do for our economy. it invests $500 million over ten years in fresh fruits and fresh vegetables, a snap 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's useful when we have all-time high rates of hunger and unemployment that put unbelievable demands onto these emergency feeding organizations,

and to pay for these investments in our children's health and health of the economy, my amendment makes a very 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, it's about our priorities. it's a reflection of our values. so i'm asking my colleagues let's agree that children deserve healthy meals so they can live healthy lives, so they can learn, so they can grow, so they can reach their god-given potential. let's agree that it's a worthwhile investment in our future to make sure that children do not go hungry in

this country. i yield back my time and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: stphropl montana is recognized. mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: i ask unanimous consent that two detailees from my office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on s. 3240, the agriculture and farm bill act of 2012. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: 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 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 enclosure about it and allow neither manor 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. end quote. 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 are tied to agriculture. but president lincoln's observations also apply to many other walks of life, including work in the united states senate. under the leadership of chairwoman stabenow and senator roberts, they worked hard, very closely together cooperation. it's 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's right, this reduces the deficit by about $23.6 billion. that's over ten years. direct payments have their place in farm program history. but in light of necessary spending reductions, it is clear we cannot continue the status quo. so the senate agriculture committee worked closely with farmers and ranchers across the country to create a prab for a -- 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 much more. this new revenue program will make sure there is stability and predictability for farmers from year to year. our comprehensive farm policy contributes to overall security in american agriculture, and that's why we spend less on food than any other country in the world. americans spend less than 7% of their disposable income to feed their families. 7%, compared with almost 25% in 1930. it's more than just food security. as a next exporter of agriculture products, montana ranchers and farmers create good-paying jobs. the shallow lost revenue program combined with the 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.

and we improve much more than the commodity title. we save $6 billion in the conservation title without compromising the policy. we do this by consolidating 23 existing programs. we consolidate them all together creating a network of conservation programs. i made sure that we protected the working lands programs which contribute to substantial conservation improvements but still allow for productive use of the land. the livestock, i made sure we extended and made permanent the livestock disaster programs we worked hard to include in the last farm bill. since 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 u.s. 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 authorize stewardship contracting. this is very important. this will help the timber industry harvest more trees. this authority is critical for reducing wildfire risk and maintaining resilient landscapes in communities of our country. as i advocated prior to markup, these returns are well worth small investments. it can keep companies like h.f. stultz, celebrating one00 years in operation in montana in business for another 100 years. there is a workable approach to the beetle epidemic. our loggers and small timber mills in montana are facing the second worst kill in the lower 48. the forest service is tied up with lawsuits.

sawmills like those owned in living stopb will benefit. there is work for veteran farmers and ranchers. not only did the committee accept my amendment to expand access to conservation programs to veterans, but also will direct uda to set up a military liaison position. these strides to extend assistance to veteran farmers and ranchers are vital toward turning iraq and afghanistan veterans who hope to return to rural america and work in agriculture. 35% 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'm committed to enacting legislation that enables the decisive and responsible action as 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's also responsible to taxpayers. if we senators were farmers, i'd say we would have produced a pretty good crop with this bill. but that is not the final step. all farmers know that 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 of our food supply. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. kyl: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from arizona is recognized. mr. kyl: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. further, mr. president, to speak as if in morning business for up to 12 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. let me speak today about two recent c.b.o. reports and what they portend for the economy and for policy that we might want to be making here in the congress. c.b.o. of course is the engine partisan congressional budget office. from time to time, it looks at economic conditions and presents studies or issues, reports about the state of our economy based upon legislation that the congress has adopted. and there are two recent reports which i think suggest some very dire news for this country, unless we're here in the congress 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 non-defense spending to the tune of $9 -- excuse me, $109 billion next year, something which the secretary of defense has said would be deaf tating and -- devastating and catastrophic for our national security. that's the first problem. and what the congressional budget office said was that 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 things will put this country back into recession, that the growth rate next year c.b.o. projected to be only about .5%,

and 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 c.b.o. just came out, and it is a report that talks about the surging debt of the united states government and talks about the probability of sudden fiscal crises. so we have a combination here of the potential for going back into recession, combined with the probability of sudden fiscal crises because of the amount of debt that the federal government is taking on. now, because of the second report that 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." and i'll just quote a few lines from this editorial in "the wall street journal." it says that the c.b.o.'s

long-term budget outlook notes that federal debt held by the dpush and that's the part we have to pay back -- will surge to 70% of the economy by the end of this year, which is the highest in the history of the country, except during world war i i. i think that's about $49,000 or $50,000 photographer man, woman, and child in the united states. and they point out under the present trend, the debt will hit 90% of g.d.p. by 2022 and then balloons to 109% by 2026. now, what -- what does this mean in practical terms? well, here's a -- a quotation from the "wall street journal" about the c.b.o. projections. quote -- "we have never been deficit goals 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-g.d.p. ratio

well to the 90% to 100% danger zone where economists say the economy begins to slow and risks mount." and c.b.o. notes that this level of debt increases -- and i'm quoting now -- "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." end of quotation. how bad is it, the "wall street journal" asks? well, in the absolute worst-case scenario, c.b.o. says that debt would exceed 250% of g.d.p. in 2035. at that point -- again quoting -- "the c.b.o.'s economic model breaks because so much debt is so far outside historical experience and the c.b.o.'s assumptions might no longer be valid." end of quotation. that's where we're headed if we don't do something about it. and interestingly, what the

c.b.o. assumed in order to reach these conclusions is that tax collections would continue to hold to the post-1972 historical average of 18% of g.d.p. so the point here is we're not talking about raising taxes in order to affect this. they're assuming that we will have revenues of the historical level of 18% of g.d.p. the problem is not the tax collections, in other words, the problem is the excess spending. and they go on to point out that, of course, the excess spending is primarily a factor of the entitlement programs, social security, medicare and medicaid. and they point out that the biggest of all of those is in medicare. and then the "wall street journal" concludes this way. "this is where the tax burden comes in, and on that score, c.b.o. admits -- quote -- "to the extent that additional tax revenues were generated by boosting marginal tax rates" -- this is what president obama has

proposed, remember -- "those higher tax rates would discourage people from working and saving, further reducing output and income." so even the so-called keynesians would admit that there are costs in lower growth if we raise tax rate as the president has proposed. this is, in effect, the most predictable crisis in history. so you have the combination of the c.b.o. 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 you can see that the united states is headed for a disaster without intervention by the united states congress and the president. just one -- one last thing. the director of c.b.o. put it this way -- and i quote -- "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."

so what has the president and the democratic majority here in the senate suggested? well, we turn to jay carny, who at a press conference monday -- he's the spokesman for the president -- and he said the president -- i'm quoting -- "is continuing to work with his team on potential new ideas." well, i'd like for him to be able to work with the congress because we've had a lot of ideas here. the house of representatives has passed almost 30 bills that deal with this. 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'd love to have him work here with the congress rather than this anemic to-do list he has proposed which obviously wouldn't provide any relief. bottom line here is that as th the -- as was reported in a

story by the associated press, andrew taylor, of a day ago, i think, as he said, the -- after talking about the bills passed by the house of representatives, he said -- and i'm quoting -- "democrats will try stop republicans from forcing a vote on it in the senate and the "it" that he's talking about is the vote the house of representatives intends to have here before long that would extend the current tax code so that there's certainty in tax rates and business and families don't have to worry about this $4.5 trillion tax increase. but democrats will try to stop republicans from forcing a vote on it in the senate. why? why would the democratic leader here 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 and, in fact, the president himself said so when he extended them for two years, along with the support from congress, in december a year ago. he said, not to do so would harm economic growth, and he was exactly right then and he's right now. as a matter of fact, we had a -- a better g.d.p. growth back then than we do now, and if that would have been harmful back then, of course it would be more harmful now. well, he has -- his belief then is adhered to by people who have worked with him and former leaders, for example, former democratic president bil presidl clinton suggested yesterday that the president extend all the bush-era tax cuts and that includes the taxes for the wealthy -- remember, the bush tax cuts applied across the board, they applied to

everything -- but the president has seen well, that's fine, but not for the welly. and president clinton said no, the bs thing for the economy would be for all of those -- best thing for the economy would be for all of those tax cuts to be extended. i'll 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." and he was asked if that meant extending the tax cuts and he said -- quote -- "they will probably have to be put off until early next year. that's probably the best thing to do for right now." and then the president's former advisor who -- who is an economics professor, larry summers, said today that congress should temporarily extend the bush-era tax cuts. he said -- and i quote -- "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 mentioned this on msnbc's "morning joe" program and he said -- quote -- "that's got to be the top priority." so here you have larry summers, former advisor to president clinton on economic matters, and former president bill clinton, both of whom have said that we need to extend these tax policies today in order to avoid further damage to our economy tomorrow, exactly what the president himself has said when these tax rates were extended a year and a half ago. and i -- i just note from another associated press story regarding the comments by president clinton, the -- 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. and that's when they -- 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. now, mr. president, the -- the reality is that we have somewhat of a consensus beginning to develop here that it would be a wise thing for the country to retain current tax policy -- not allow this big tax increase -- to avoid the sequester or the across-the-board cuts that otherwise would affect both defense and non-defense, and that if we don't do those two things, according to c.b.o., 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% for our g.d.p. next year. let me just conclude by referring to another article in the "wall street journal" dated june 5, the title of which is

"defense chiefs signal job cut cuts." now, here what we're talking about are the -- the employers of people in the defense industries who are predicting that if we don't do something about sequester, that they're going to have to begin laying people off. and 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, who's chairman of lockheed martin, which is a very big contractor with the defense department, as you know. and he said -- and i quote -- "it is quite possible that we will need to notify employees in the september and october time frame that they may or may not have a job in january, depending on whether sequestration does or doesn't take effect." and one of the reasons for this is a federal law that requires employers to provide this

notice. it's called the worker adjustment and retaining and notification act known as the warn act, and it requires companies to notify employees in advance of mass layoffs or plant closings, if you have more than 50 or more employees, for example. and one thing mr. stevens said is that it doesn't just affect the companies, the big companies like his, but also all of these suppliers, the people who have to provide the -- the pieces or the components of product that they end up then putting together. and they would have to be notified because they're not going to have subcontracts next year. so one of the industry officials said sequestration is already here, and the reason -- what he meant by that is that the reality is that businesses are having to make decisions now. so this talk here in the senate about, well, we'll -- we'll somehow be able to deal with this if the lame-duck session after the election is simply not true. and i would just suggest to my colleagues in both the house and senate, if we try to wait until after the election, i think our

constituents, knowing what's happening here, are going to -- and -- and 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 that they may be sending a message to us this fall and, therefore, it behooves us to act before rather than after the fact. now, there's 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 they are tough decisions but they want people who are elected to political office to do something about the problems, to act, to have some courage, to tackle the tough problems. and 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 at least had he taken the bull by the horns, tried to

solve a problem and as a result of the things that they were able to do there, the fiscal situation in the state of wisconsin is much better than had they not taken those actions. i think that's what we here in the congress need to learn. the people understand that we have a big debt crisis facing us, confirmed by the congressional budget office. they understand that 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 on january 1 and this sequestration that also occurs on january 1. they would like for us to do something about it, and i think what they really resent is politicians saying well, after the election, we'll take it up and begin thinking about it. first of all, that's too late for a lot of people whose jobs depend upon it and makes for a very inefficient way of running the government. and secondly, i think political leaders owe their constituents the ideas that they would like to put into effect. you don't wait and hide the ball

if your constituents, refusing to tell them what you think until after the election. the whole idea of a democratic republic is that people stand for office by saying this is what i would do to solve our problems, do you like it or not? and if the voters say yeah, we think that's a pretty good idea, then they elect you and then they expect you to follow through on it. if they don't like your ideas, then they elect the other person. but if you hide the ball and say we're not going to take any votes here in the senate because we don't want to put our members on record because then the voters might know what they're thinking and they might not like it and then they might not elect them, well, that is -- that's obviously a lack of political courage, but it also runs counter to what the whole concept of elections is all about. so i suggest what we ought to be doing is tackling these two issues now, not wait until after the election. now, legislation has been introduced in both the house and in the senate to find a way to save the $109 billion that needs

to be saved in order to avoid sequester for next year. this process will have to be undergone, undertaken every year for the next ten years because we promised the voters that we would save a total of $1.2 trillion. so how will we do it next year? well, there are any number of ways. senator mccain and ayotte and myself and chambliss and graham and cornyn and some others have introduced legislation that says well, here's 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 work force, only replace two out of the three. everybody talks about how wonderful the recommendation 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. now, if you don't like that way to save money, there are many, 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. 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. and here's the problem with that. the very people that you want to create the jobs are the business people who pay these taxes. according to president obama's secretary of treasury, that

department says that 80% 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. it's -- when senator lindsey graham asked defense secretary panetta wouldn't this be -- the sequestration be like chattanooga ourselves in the foot? he said no, senator, it would be like shooting ourselves in the head. i suggest that raising taxes on the exact people who you are looking to to create jobs is the same thing. and that's the reason that republicans have said that's the wrong way to come up with this $109 billion. the whole idea from the budget control act was to control spending, not to raise taxes. since there are so many ways in which this government, $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's been the reason why this hasn't been taken up. one side insists we have got to raise taxes in order to deal with this sequestration problem. the other side says no, we don't, we don't have to do that at all. let's sit down, let's work together and let's find a resolution to this problem and let's get it done before the end of the year, because at that point it's too late for a lot of people who will have lost their jobs. by the way, some of these industry people also told us that some of the sole source suppliers or subcontractors would probably end up taking bankruptcy because their orders could not be filled because there would be no certainty that the contract was there. so you could have a great deal of damage to the economy. in fact, the estimate is that if sequestration or across-the-board cuts occur, in the defense industry alone, you're talking about a million jobs lost. do you remember how many jobs were created last month?

i think it was 69,000 jobs created last month. compare that to losing a million jobs, and you can see the significance of what the congressional budget office was talking about. this is a fiscal cliff. you cannot allow the sequestration to occur and you cannot allow these big tax increases to occur without understanding the damage that that's going to do to the economy. it's going to cut us back in a recession, they said. that's before the report that they just released on the increasing debt burden of this country. so, madam president, i just urge my colleagues, the evidence is here, and leaders like former president clinton, 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 that we don't have that hanging over our heads, and then look for other ways to boost job growth and

economic productivity. that's the way to get out of the recession. that's the way to help families. and 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 that we've accumulated. i think everybody agrees that economic growth is ultimately the best way to get out of the -- of the government's fiscal problem, but it also, of course, is precisely the way for businesses and families to prosper. i hope that colleagues in both the house and senate, both democrats and republicans, can see their way to respond to this crisis, this utterly predictable crisis and to deal with this problem sooner rather than later, exercising the courage that our constituents would like to have us exercise, thereby represent them in a way that they deserve to be represented. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll of the senate.

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, the senator is recognized. ms. klobuchar: i'm here to talk about the 2012 fawcial and the -- farm bill and the importance of moving forward with this important legislation. i want to acknowledge the hard work of chairman 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 and get things 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 that 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. mr. president, i've spent the last year all around our state, and i've talked to farmers and businesses across minnesota. and no matter where i go, i am always reminded of the critical role that farming plays in our state's economy. we are 21st in the country for population but we are sixth 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, mr. president, that our unemployment rate is at 5.6%, significantly better than the national average, and that is because we have had consistent farm policy coming out of this chamber, out of washington, d.c., and you can't say that in every area of industry, consistent policy coming from the government, over the last decade. that -- that must continue. it doesn't just help our farmers on the front line. it feeds into many industries and it certainly feeds into agriculture exports. our state is number one in turkeys in the united states of america, a fact you might not have known, mr. president. we are tphoupl one for green pea -- number one for green peas and sugar beets, home to del monte processing facilities.

we are number two in spring wheat and home to a rich tradition of milling. we are number three in hogs and soybeans and also home to pork processers and biodiesel plants. we are number four in the country for corn and also home to 21 ethanol plants that produce over a billion gallons of ethanol every single year and it's one of the major reasons that our country has reduced our dependency on foreign oil from something like 60% five years ago to the 40's, mid 40's now. that's 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 and rural communities benefit from a strong farm economy that provide jobs on the farms, mills and processing plants, equipment manufacturers and other key exports 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 economy. mr. president, it's no secret that during each step of the process, we have been working with a tough budget climate, but that doesn't mean that the goal of maintaining a strong farm safety net or a safe, nutritious and abundant food supply is any less critical. the last thing i want to do is to be dependent on foreign oil even though we've seen improvements like we are dependent on foreign oil, we don't want to have that happen with foreign food. how have we done this to get the $23 billion in cuts? i think 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 from states that are more urban-focused, only 14% of the farm bill is farm progress. could have had a different name but a lot of people call it the

farm bill. it's 14%. the rest is conservation, school lunches, you name it. while only 14% of the farm bill is farm programs, nearly two-thirds of the cuts over last year are on that 14%. nearly two-thirds of the $23 billion in cuts, about $16 billion, is cut from the farm programs which are only 14% of the farm bill. you know, i heard from many producers in minnesota as we dealt with how are we going to get rid of direct payments i've long advocated, we had huge floor fights last time on 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, and 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 in our country. the bill also simplifies the commodity programs by eliminating a number of programs and relacing them with the agriculture risk coverage program, which complements crop shaourpbs by providing -- insurance by providing protection against multiyear project declines. the bill helps our agriculture producers keep our soil healthy and our water clean. our state is number five in the conservation reserve program and number three in the environmental quality incentives program, and number one in the conservation steward program. specifically, i've worked to ensure that local communities also have the tools they need to address conservation challenges like flooding. conservation groups from ducks

unlimited to pheasants forever know how important the farm bill is, and that is why over 640 conservation groups, mr. president, 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 the next generation of farmers and ranchers, that it just doesn't 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% for the first five years. i believe that people who grow our food deserve to know that their livelihoods can't be swept away in the blink of the eye by market failures or natural disasters. that is why strengthening crop insurance for beginning farmers is a priority. i worked to include an amendment with senators johanns, baucus and hoeven to allow beginning producers to use c.r.p. acres for tkpwraezing without a penalty. i believe this will go a long way in building the next generation of farmers. as a beginning cosponsor of the rancher opportunity act introduced by senator harkin, i fought for the mentoring and outreach provisions for new farmers and planning and credit building, skills they need to succeed and stay on the land. mr. president, homegrown renewable fuels helped us reduce

or dependence on liquid fuels. i believe that we can continue this trend. as i mentioned we've seen an enormous shift in our dependence on foreign oils. much of that has to do with biofuels, now 10% 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 we should be focusing on the workers and farmers of the midwest and not the cartels of the mideast. that is what helped reduce our foreign oil dependence is i in these last few years as well as the drilling i mentioned before. i also cosponsored amendments to provide funding for the energy title. this is key in this farm bill. i know we've all heard from farmers and ranchers in our states about the importance of passing a five-year farm bill. you think about the work that's done in congress. what every business says is we need a longer time period. we need consistency for our tax credit.

we need to know what's happening. this is one area where we've actually done it. we've done this with the farm bill over the last decade. the last two farm bills with five-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 that 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 here. we have one of the stars in terms of exports coming out of this farm bill. that is one of the main reasons it's so important because we not only are growing food for the people of this country, we're feeding the world, we're keeping the jobs in america. mr. president, thank you very much. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. ms. klobuchar: if i could, i just have one announcement. i ask unanimous consent that chris avery, a fellow in senator coons' office be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 112th congress. i thank the senator from tennessee for giving a minute of his time. the presiding officer: without objection, the request will be granted. the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: thank you very much, 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'd like to take ten minutes, mr. president, to speak of 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 20 column in "the new york times" by thomas freedman that caught my attention. i ask consent that following my

remarks mr. freedman's column be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. alexander: mr. president, mr. freedman said he 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 was: is the united states prepared to deal with the innovation that we may be seeing around the world over the next decade? yesterday i heard robert zell lech's retiring president of the world bank brief a number of us about the problems we were going to have at the end of the year, whether the united states congress and president can rise to the challenge of governing so that we can show the rest of the world that we're capable of that. mr. zelleck says he travels a lot, an understatement, but he said two-thirds of the growth in the world over the last ten years have come from developing countries and that advanced countries like japan, europe, to

some extent the united states, have been stagnant or drifting. mr. freedman's column says that we should try to remember the things that made us great and preserve as much of those as we can. he said we need a plan. then he suggested what he called a magic combination. number one, immigration of high-i.q. risk takers as he called it. number two, government-funded research. number three, cutting-edge higher education. that was the plan. that was the magic combination. and he said this is not a call to ignore hard budget choices. but we just need to make sure we give education, immigration and research proper places in this discussion. my purpose as a senator, as a republican senator, is to say i believe he's exactly right. i believe that is the right plan, or at least the beginning of it. number two, i believe there's more going on in the direction

that he recommended than most people know. and, number three, i believe that finishing the work of 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-i.q. risk takers, we call this pin the green card on the stem graduate. this idea is supported by, i would judge, most members of the united states senate. each year 50,000 of the brightest students in the world are attracted to our great universities, and then each year we send 17,000 of those graduate students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics back home. we make them go home so they can create jobs in the countries where they came from rather than

in the united states. a number of us have introduced legislation to change that. it came from a recommendation for legislation called america competes, which passed first in 2007. this was legislation sponsored by the democratic and republican leader that had 35 republican sponsors and 35 democratic sponsors, and it included the 20 things that a distinguished group told us we should do as a congress to help america compete in the next generation. and we've done two-thirds of them. 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 stphorpb warner and moran, coons, warner

and moran have another one. senator bennet have another one. many of us say let's go ahead and pin the green card on the high i.q. 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 united states senate step by step. the second idea, advance research. it's hard to think of a major innovation in the biology or sciences that doesn't have some aspect, hasn't had some support from government-sport research since world war ii. and the american academy of sciences tells us that maybe half our growth, half our wealth since world war ii has come from this technological advance. for example, maybe one of the most best examples is

unconventional gas. we call it shale gas. it's 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 advance shale gas said it couldn't have happened without the department of energy and couldn't have happened without inventions on 3-d drilling from sandia national laboratory. yesterday i visited with the head of what we call arpa-e. most of us know about an organization called darpa, which has been around for 35 50 yearsn the department of defense. ought of it has come things like the internet and a whole savors innovawtions that aaffect the lives of people every daism the idea was to try that in the department of energy. that came out of america competes as well. and it takes promising ideas, brings them into the government and funds them for three years and spits them out again into the marketplace to see if they can survive. phs th it is the kind of

government-applied research that moves cuss support. it had the support of 35 democrats, 35 republicans. yesterdayist briefed just on three of their innovations. one company has doubled the density of a battery, a lithium battery. that means that 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. or 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. and then a third, which i would describe is really the holy grail of energy-advanced research, is the idea of taking carbon, such as that that comes from coal plants, and turning it into something that can be used

commercially. think of the difference that that can make for our country if we were able to find a way to do that. well, there is a promising way to do that with 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 may not work in a commercial sense. but this is the kind of amaisessing research that -- amazing research that they're doing. what do we do about that snild suggest that all i would need is to double clean energy research, a kind of manhattan project, and pay for it by reducing the perm subsidies for other energy programs, whether big oil or big wind. finally, the third idea of mr. friedman is one i've 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,

medicaid, incarcerate and educate. the courts tell the states you have to spend this much on prisons. if we in the federal government tell the states you have to spend thch on medicaid, there's nothing left for education and the various orders to states today are ruining public higher education, 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 the legislatures decide thousand spend their money, and i guarantee you if they do, they'll come closer to the way it was when i was governor of tennessee and we paid 70% of the cost of a student's education instead of the way it is today, which is just the reverse, the state pays 30% and the student pays 70%. the students are protesting at university of california because the state has cut $1 billion from the greatest public university in the world

proacialtion the university of california, over the last three or four years. probably have no idea the main reason for that are medicaid mandates from washington that soak up the money that otherwise would go to keep tuitions low and quality high at the university of california. so my purpose in coming to the floor today is simply to say, i think mr. friedman is right. he is right on the money. second, i think more is going on than meets the eye. and, third, finishing the job is well within our grasp. we can pass the green card bill. pin the green card on the stem graduate. there are six different versions of it before us in the united states senate. we can double energy research and pay for it by reducing wasteful subsidies. and, three, we can end the medicaid mandates and give our colleges and universities and community colleges a chance to prosper again and create the kind of future that we want. that's the plan for the kind of innovawtion that we need in america -- the kind of innovation that we need in

america. i salute mr. friedman for suggesting it, but i hope that the rest of the country will recognize that in all three cases, the united states senate is headed in exactly that direction, with legislation that we've already passed or introduced, and i hope that on both sides of the aisle we'll work together to finish the job. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent also to include, following mr. friedman's coul umg, an article that i wrote in "the wall street journal" published wednesday, may 16, which talks about the damaging effect of washington mandates for medicaid on state governments and how it's damaging public higher education. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: thank the president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky.

mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that we grant floor privileges to a member of senator memory's staff. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. paul: mr. president, i think that most americans remember where they were on 9/11/2001. i was doing eye surgery in bowling green, kentucky, and i came into the patients room and on the television set in the patient's room were the planes crashing into the buildings. my first thought was horror. my second thought was concern for my father, who was in washington, who was a congressman, and who lives near the pentagon. as i thought about this, it just struck me as so bizarre, just hard to believe, but i knew 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 coming in from pennsylvania, we think headed towards the white house sm. she was asked to scramble a fighter jet with no armaments. at that time we weren't prepared and didn't have jets that were already prearmed. her mission was to take down the plane however she could. probably that 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 and people trying to dismantle and pull out the gas hose and et cetera and all the appendages to the plane as she was taxiin taxg down the run way. when seal team 6 infiltrated bin laden's compound and killed bin laden, i think americans were

proud of seal team 6, proud of our military and what they did, to finally get this mass murderer. when this happened, in the weeks leading up to that attack on the compound by seal team 6, there was a doctor that helped you dr. shaki luvment afridi, a man about the same ages as me. i have a lot of sympathy for him. he thought this was important enough and bin laden was a bad enough person that he would help america get bin laden. he set a set up a vaccination clinic and they did d.n.a. 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 now put him in prison for 33 years. i find this incredibly insulting 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 put in prison for 33 years. he has been really in prison for the last year without trial, probably being tortured. he's lost a significant amount of weight and now he's told that 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 trouble something that the u.s. continues to fund -- we continue to give money to pakistan, over $1 billion of u.s. taxpayer money is sent to pakistan. it troubles me that we're 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. now recently in a committee -- the committee proposed reducing our foreign aid, $1 billion by

$33 million. that's 3%. i think they'll laugh ought and keep doing what they're doing. they only understand negotiation from strength. so what i'm proposing and insist upon in the next few days is a vote owning aid to pakistan -- ending aid to pakistan unless they free dr. ofridi. i think that is the very least they can do. i'm also asking the u.s. government to grant him emergency citizenship and help his family get over here and to provide them safe passage. i think it's the least we can do. but we shouldn't reward bad behavior. that's what we've done for so many years with foreign aid. it's one thing to talk about aiding and assist your alirks but to aid people who persecute their own people, people who continue with human rights abuses ... you know there is a woman named asia bebe, accused of saying

something about the prophet. she didn't do it. it is gossip. she set to be executed in pack stafnlt i think the americans should be outraged that $1 billion of your taxpayer dollars is being sent to pakistan to a country that is imprisoning the guy who helped us get bin laden, who is is imprisoning a christian for saying that she said some sort of religious blasphemy, which is basically gossip, the accusation. irthink wi think we should be insulted. i don't think it works. look at the examples throughout the last 30, 40 years of the different dairktddifferent daire given money to? we gave mubarak over $60 billion, the military dictator of egypt. he stole a the love t he was one of the richest mefn i men in the world. his kids were enriched also at your expense. look at mobutu in congo, given billions of dollars and

entertained by american leaders. at one time had seven of the largest palaces in the world. mansions in the u.s., mansions in paris, all paid for with your money. what did his people have? they didn't have running water or electricity. even if you believe the humanitarian nation -- nature of giving money to these countries, it's not going to them. you're making rich autocrats richer in thirled world countries and it is not going to the people of the country. it is stolen and skimmed off the top. look at mugabe. lou gay bein disciple bab -- mugabe has confiscated land, basically run his country into the ground, and we've given him billions of dollars. you can't buy better behavior. don't reward autocrats. don't reward folks who torture their people. and for goodness sakes, let's don't send $1 billion to pakistan who is imprisoning a hero, who helped us get bin

laden. my amendment will call for an immediate halt to all aid to pakistan now. i'm asking president obama not to send one penny to pakistan until dr. afridi is free. i'm asking for no more money to go in the future until dr. afridi is free. i think this is the least we can dovment i plan on demanding a vote here in the u.s. senate, and i hope the american people will pay attention to how their representatives vote. they are vietnaming to send money we don't -- they're voting to send money we don't even have. we borrow the money from china to send it to pakistan? it makes no sense. our infrastructure is crumbling. we've had two bridges collapse in kentucky this year. we're struggling with money to pay for our own infrastructure, and we're sending $1 billion to a country who imprisons christians for their beliefs. it has to come to an end. it's going to come to an end one way or another. what i ask is the u.s. senate step up and support ending this

moin being -- money being sent to pakistan, at the very least not sending anymore until dr. afridi is freed. thank you, mr. president. i yield back my time. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: would the chair advise me of the pending business? the presiding officer: the pending business is the motion to proceed to calendar number 415. s. 3240. mr. durbin: the farm bill, is that correct? the agriculture bill? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. i was advised of that and i wanted to double check. mr. president, three weeks ago, we passed a milestone in u.s.

agriculture. the united states department of agriculture celebrated its 150th birthday. i take some pride in that coming from illinois because it was senator -- pardon me, then-president abraham lincoln who created the u.s. department of agriculture. he called it the people's department. among other things, it became a launching 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's turning to debate on the 2012 farm bill that will carry forward the vision of our government's role in agriculture for the next five

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 can't afford to forget for a moment that there is inherent risk in farming, risks that many other businesses don't face. droughts, floods, wind damage, rain, pests are just a few of the risks that farmers must cope with on a year-to-year basis. because of the nature of these risks associated with farming and the important role that 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 by the

federal government. the ag committee under the leadership of chairwoman steby 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 agricultural community deserve credit for stepping up to find savings in this farm bill to cut subsidies and to make sure that those savings are dedicated toward good programs and deficit reduction. they make real reforms in agriculture 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 managers reduce their risk, make key investments in energy and research, ensure programs are in place to help rural communities grow and assist 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 ten years against what we have

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 ag committee has proposed a new ag risk coverage program known as a.r.c. a.r.c. is a market-oriented program to build on the principles of the acre program that i authored in the last farm bill and expanded on in the aggregate risk and revenue management act along with senators sherrod brown, senator thune and senator lugar last year. the biggest change introduced by the a.r.c. 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 ag policy, and i think a very wise one. a.r.c. does not guarantee a profit and it doesn't make the farmer completely whole, but it smoots out the downturns and provides the producer time to

shift to a new market condition. crop insurance protects farmers with any given year. the art program is designed to help manage risks when there are repeated years of low prices or low yields. in other words, it makes the payments when they are needed. even better, the shift to a.r.c. saves the federal government about $15 billion, and 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, reauthorizes and expands several programs in ag research. it is a small part of the ag 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 at major research institutions like 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 biobased manufacturing, advanced biofuel and renewable energy. these programs are going to help companies in my state like 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 biobased industry. the bill reforms the conservation title to streamline programs, finds additional savings by limiting the number of acres that can participate in the c.r.p. or the 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. i'd 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 can't improve your situation in life if you're hungry. the committee bill takes some steps to reduce fraud and snap programs and i heartily endorse that. we can't really argue against those, but i'm concerned about rumblings from other members considering amendments to cut the program more fundamentally and alter the way that the snap program 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% of the population living in poverty. that's over 46 million people in our country.

for them, the snap or 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's run by the church or whether it's 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 don't make enough money to feed their families. now is not the time to cut food assistance for american families. if you need more savings, i encourage my colleagues 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 of 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's the area of crop insurance.

the 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% 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 join 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, most prosperous farmers in america to pay a little more for their crop

insurance. right now, the federal government is subsidizing 62% 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'm standing. i commend my colleagues on the ag committee for sending us this bipartisan bill. it's 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. mr. moran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my senate colleagues. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you very much. entrepreneurs and new businesses are vital to the strength of the united states economy. we need to be a competitive country in which we have great success in creating jobs in america. between 1980-2005, start-up companies less than five years old accounted for nearly all the net new jobs created in our country. new firms create an average of approximately three 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 purposes of creating the opportunity for all americans to pursue the american dream. it's important for us to have the ability to put food on our families' tables and save for our kids' education, to save for

our own retirement, and it's important because at a time in our nation in which our 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, it's important -- 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, and 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, and 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 prolong and avoid the chances that the united states become another greece or other southern european country. a mum of us in the senate who believe that we can work together to accomplish this have come together and entered into negotiations and created legislation based upon information provided by the kaufman foundation on entrepreneurship in kansas city as well as the president's council on jobs and competitiveness, and on the floor today with me are several of those colleagues. the senator from virginia, senator warner and i gathered together our thoughts several months ago and introduced legislation called the start-up act. also on the floor this afternoon is senator coons of delaware. he and the gentleman from

florida, mr. rubio, introduced the agree act designed to create the -- the agree act, designed to put some things in place that most members of congress agreed upon to grow the economy and create jobs. the four of us then came together with an idea and have now introduced start-up 2.0. today house -- members of the house of representatives introduced companion legislation this morning in a bipartisan effort, and so we now have a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that we believe is important to the country. woe believe it is important to individual citizens and we believe it's 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 that we spend,

the taxpayer dollars that universities in conducting research and to encourage that 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 -- can demonstrate their interest and willingness in pursuing an entrepreneurial environment so that entrepreneurs and innovators find the place to build their companies. it's 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 that this is something more than just introducing a bill, something that is important not just as a thimble that we're -- super bowl that we're working together but of the belief that we're of the believe it can follow the jobs act 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'd like to join in this discussion. i would yield to the gentleman, the senator from virginia. mr. warner: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. warner: i'd like to thank my friend, the senator from kansas for his leadership on this issue. this is something he and i have spent a lot of time working on, as i know the senator from delaware, from florida, and we're joined, the senator from missouri as well. we are all new senators, we've said before when we unveiled this we didn't get the memo that we're supposed to take presidential election years off. we still think the needs of our country ought to trump election-year politicking and 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 start-up businesses. and everything in my experience

validates what senator moran has talked about, candidly, the facts show 80% of all in new jobs created in the last 20 years come from start-up businesses. they're not all tech businesses. think about under armour in delaware. there are certain things that every start-up business needs. they need access to capital, access to talent, they need access to new ideas, they need to make sure we've got a stable regulatory environment that's not overly burdensome and in each way we move the ball in this legislation, both that we've passed and that we're working on right now. i want -- senator moran mentioned the jobs act which looked at access to capital issues, how's wee can perhaps allow companies access to public markets in a cleaner way. i commend the presiding officer as well. he took the lead on a whole new area of fundraising around crowning, crowd sourcing, using the tools of the

internet, democratizing the ability to raise capital. this legislation, start-up 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 the world-class universities we have. oftentimes we then train them in science, technology, engineering and math with graduate degrees. i wish we could fill all those slots in american universities with native-born americans. but we don't have enough and cons subsequently we train the best and brightest in the world and 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, a entrepreneurial community, literally a third of our high-tech firms in northern virginia, one of our founders are first generation americans. if we had the same policies 20 years ago we wouldn't have had that growth we had in the 1990's

from technology. i want to ask my colleague, the senator from delaware who -- a state that punches above its weight, small state but a state with great universities, a state that's going to -- got a rich entrepreneurial climate as well, about what got you involved and i know you've got a background in business as well on this issue, and i know you want to share as well some of the aspects of start-up 2.0. mr. coons: thank you mr. warner. i'm honored to join with the good senator from kansas and from missouri and my friend from virginia in speaking today in a colloquy, 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, to our competitors. that we understand that just because we happen to be in an election year doesn't mean our get exetors in china and india and russia and other other parts of the world, africa where there are emerging markets or places where we have well developed competitors, dhoapt take this year off.

the american people expect since we're still drawing a sool salary we should be making progress and we should still be trying to meet the needs of a growing economy that needs to grow faster. and 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 this senate. we were pleased a number of the provision in that first agree act have subsequently become law. one to ease the path for i.p.o.'s, initial public offerings for high potential, high growth companies, another through executive order to strengthen intellectual property protection. and we're 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. and on top of that, senators rubio and i have now teamed up with senator moran and senator warner take some of the remaining provisions of the agree act and add them in with your start-up act and now make an improved and broader start-up

2.0. the pieces that we brought to the party we're eliminating the per country caps for visas and making permanent the exemption of certain capital gains so investors can provide financial stability to qualified start-ups. there's a lot of good ideas in this bill. a lot of different ways it tackles the issues that my colleagues have already spoken to. immigration, retaining high promise entrepreneurial folks who have come and learned in the united states. moving the inventions and innovations on college campuses to the marketplace, more predictably, more swiftly, providing tax incentives for start-up businesses and putting things 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 start-up businesses. in all, these provisions i think make for a terrific package. thus the moniker 2.0, it's already attracted some other folks to join us.

before i hand the floor over to the senator from missouri i want to comment on what i think that means. there are trillions of dollars of capital sitting on the sidelines. american corporations have more money sitting on their balance sheets not invested in moving our economy forward than at almost ai ni time in modern history because they're not sure this body, that the congress of the united states can tackle the very real financial and competitiveness challenges in front of us. and something about the symbolism of what's on the floor today, the agriculture bill, the farm bill, and the bill that we took up and passed a few weeks ago, the transportation bill, i think 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, and important bills, the farm bill and the transportation bill, were passed through committee by strong folks, senator boxer of california and senator inhofe of california, 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 trption bill and the farm bill. this start-up 2.0 i want to thank senators moran and warner and rubio for putting this on the floor today and to the good senator from missouri, a freshman in the national senate but a man of great seasoning and experiencing in the house and in public service, we're grateful you've joined us as a cosponsor and i welcome you, the senator from missouri to speak about how you see this contributing to positive progress for our recovery. mr. blunt: i do think there are those things we can agree on and i'm pleased to be with my colleagues, i'm glad to join with the three of you and senator rubio is one of the cosponsors of this bill you have crafted and put together. good energy policy, good tax policy, good regulatory policy are really important to the future but there are things we can do right now even outside of those bigger debates we need to have as well that are in this bill. who would have thought senator

moran brought this poster to the floor, that great britain would become a real competitor for us as a better place to do business? and i've talked to more than one american business lately that's actually changed their worldwide headquarters and their corporate structure to britain instead of the united states of america. and then we've got another, this one is entrepreneurs are great britain, i think entrepreneurs are still the united united states of america but this ad would suggest otherwise. your next big idea, canada. canada is a great trading partner, a neighbor of ours, a friend of ours, but i don't think we would have thought a decade ago that these countries would be repositioning themselves and that's happened as well as i think we haven't kept up like we should and we could with things like the start-up act but these companies -- 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 doesn't create very many private sector jobs. i believe this bill, one of the reasons i decided to cosponsor the start-up act 2.0, the second version of the start-up act is i think it does some of the things we begin to need to do. 75% of all u.s. engineering and technology firms in the last decade, the decade that we have really good numbers on, the one that ended a few years -- that ended really in the numbers i have are 1995 to 2005, 75% of the engineering and technology start-ups were started by people who were born in another country. and this bill just simply creates a visa program that allows entrepreneurs who have good ideas and frankly have some money to go along with those good ideas to come to the united

states of america and start those jobs, to take advantage of our great work force, to take advantage of the position that 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 annual sis of rules and regulations. the federal government last year, of the 66 rules that cost more than $100 million, only 18 of them had what you could really describe as a cost-benefit analysis. and there are lots of things that would be fine to do but if the cost to the economy, if the cost to jobs, the cost to families is greater than the benefit, we shouldn't do them. so this bill says that, says let's go ahead, let's not let the cost of something overwhelm the benefit to the economy or

become the negative impact on the economy. long-term investment in this act was with start-ups would have some exemption from the capital gains so you're risking a lot of money with a start-up and this is saying okay, we want to reraise the reward quotient of that risk so we encourage people to take the risk. if you're doing a start-up, the odds are pretty high that money may not ever come back. and so whatever you can do to encourage that that money be put on the table, that those jobs be created, in 2009, 651 start-ups were started with university research as a component. this just further opens the doors of 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've got to be

focused on opportunity for families, opportunity for individuals. how -- who really creates the jobs in america? small business creates the jobs in america. start-ups create the jobs in americas. so senator moran, i'm pleased to be here standing with you on the floor and the next big idea is the biggest idea for the last couple hundred years, which is the united states of america intends to be a competitive leader in the world, and what do we need to do as members of the united states senate to see that that happens. and i'm glad you and senator warner and senator coons and senator rubio are leading this effort. i'm glad to join you in it and glad to be here on the floor with you today. mr. moran: very much appreciate the senator from missouri, his remarks but his sponsorship 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 united states 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 america has slipped in the rankings in terms of start-up friendliness from first to 13th. this is about whether it's provisions in here about visas for those who are foreign born, this is very much about american jobs. this is about the opportunity for someone to start a company here and hire americans and if you happen to be someone who is foreign born but highly educated in science, technology and engineering and entrepreneurial with money who wants to invest in the u.s. economy and agree to put people to work, we're saying our doors of the united states of america are open for business for purposes of hiring united states citizens. it is an important component and 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 bren pren newer recently they said -- with an entrepreneur recently they said we couldn't get the person we needed to work at our company, they couldn't get a visa, they were foreign born, so we hired them but thut putt them in our plant in canada, in our facility in dublin. the fear is there are more than the number of jobs that were not created in the united states. it means people who are entrepreneurial are now in dublin and in torrent where they're -- and in toronto where they're making decisions about what they have to do today for a check, but when they have an idea about starting a business, they're outside of the united states and we lose the benefit of that job growth. let me also say something else about this legislation. it's designed to -- in fact, an entrepreneurial engineer told me to get a plane to fly there's two forces at work: tkruft and

drag -- thrust and drag. too many times congress spends its efforts in creating new laws, more spending. it promotes the thrust. what we're doing here 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 thank the senator from kansas for his comments. i, like you, am quite fond of canada. my mom's family is all from canada. what is remarkable, canada over the last few years has aggressively sought out worldwide talent. i'd ask the senator from kansas whether he thinks it is good policy, what we do now -- once again make very clear this is about growing american jobs. 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 guess i'd ask the senator from kansas whether it would make sense, we thought about this from a national security standpoint, would it make sense for us to take a, say, for example, a chinese lieutenant, send him to west point, expose him to everything that we have in terms of our national security ideas, and then send him home? i guess i'd ask the senator from kansas whether he thought that would be good national security policy since in effect that is what is our current national immigration policy on an equally important topic, job creation and economic activity. mr. moran: that lacks common sense, doesn't make any sense at all, no good judgment. that is the point i would make in a broadway are the provisions to start up 2.0 are mostly common sense, where if you looked at a problem and say how

can we solve it, create jobs and grow the economy, they would say these things just make common sense. that's what this legislation is about. in my view, i would guess 80% of our colleagues here in the united states senate at least would be supportive of the provisions in this legislation. and 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 still are in a legislative body that can accomplish things 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. and, again, i would ask if the senator from virginia has any items to close? mr. warner: no, i hope our colleagues -- we can get a number of our other colleagues

to join us on this. this doesn't follow on a traditional democrat-republican lexicon. it is really about more future versus past. this is tpaout tour, a global -- future, a global competition for talent, capital. this is where job creation is going to come. and i look forward to working with you and all of our other colleagues to make sure that not only we get the support here, we get the support in the house, we get this bill passed. with that, i thank the presiding officer and i thank my good friend, the senator from kansas. mr. moran: i thank the senator from virginia as well as senator coons and senator blunt today, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination the judiciary, jeffrey j. helmick of ohio to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 90 minutes of debate equally

divided in the usual form. the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. the united states constitution entrusts the united states senate with one of our democracy's most important obligations: to -- quote -- "advise and consent" to judicial nominations. yet today almost half of all americans, 133 million citizens of our great country, live in districts or circuits that have a vacancy due to the inaction, the inaction of members of this body. we have an opportunity today to take seriously our responsibility to do something

about that and take one significant step by voting to confirm jeffrey helmick to serve as united states district court judge. president obama nominated mr. helmick to serve on the u.s. district court for the northern district of ohio on may 11, 2011. based on a bipartisan commission's recommendation, based on my own judgment, i had no hesitation whatsoever in suggesting jeffrey helmick's name to president obama. let me tell you about our selection process. in 2009 then senator george voinovich and i got a list of ohioans in the legal community. it included a former attorney general in ohio, a law school dean and other accomplished ohioans. in order to avoid any conflicts of interest, leading legal professionals from the southern district of the state -- ohio

has a northern tkreubgt which includes toledo, canton, youngstown and cleveland and a southern district including columbus, dayton, cincinnati and other communities -- leading legal professionals from the southern district of the state reviewed nominations for vacant judgeships in the northern district and vice versa. each of these commissions, the northern and southern districts were almost exactly half republican and half democratic, one slightly more republican, one slightly more democratic. the members of this commission spent a substantial amount of time as they have on previous judges in the process we set up, screening, interviewing and discussing the candidates. at the end of this process they selected jeffrey helmick, a native of toledo, to be the nominee for its judicial vacancy. they gave me three highly qualified names, suggesting that i interview them, which was part of the process. i then, with their advice and consent, if you will, after

speaking with almost every one of the 17 members of the committee personally on the phone or in person, i chose to send jeffrey helmick, a native of toledo, to be the nominee for this judicial vacancy. mr. helmick continues to leave in the town he grew up in, toledo, he lives there with his wife karen and their son joel. each of the 17 members of this commission i spoke with was impressed by jeff thoughtfulness, i might might -. i might have spoken -- one or two might have been on vacation. each of them was impressed by jeff's thoughtfulness, even opposing counsel, people who opposed him in judicial proceeding. the chair of the commission, nancy rogers, former dean of the ohio state university law school

said of jeff -- quote -- "he's shown commitment to integrity, excellence and dedication to his community and the administration of justice. helmick not only has the support of this bipartisan committee, he has the support of the larger legal community, including all the federal judges that he will serve beside the federal courthouse in toledo. the united states district court judge jack zuhary nominated by president george w. bush has been a judge in the northern district since 2006. he currently is the sole active judge of the court in the western division, the western division of the northern district in ohio, and will be working most closely with this new judge, we hope. judge zuhary wrote to this committee recommending jeff helmick's expedient confirmation. he wrote -- quote -- "you'll find no better candidate than

jeff helmick. he possesses the intelligence, the passion for our justice system and the necessary temperament and people skills to be an outstanding district court judge." if that weren't enough, he also said in the private practice, lawyers are able to choose their partners. federal judges don't have such a luxury. we must work with whomever you confirm. he wrote, i would be thrilled to have jeff as my partner on the bench. ohio state senator mark wagner, a republican, represents much of that area in the state legislature of the western division of the court. he's a state senator. he's chair of the ohio state senate judiciary committee, a longtime member of the toledo bar association, state senator wagner represents jeff for this position. state senator wagner, a republican, said jeff is someone -- quote -- "who stood for principles litigated honestly, ably defended our constitutional system of government. he's held in very high esteem by the local bar. his support crosses partisan

lines." the bipartisan selection committee again, which former senator voinovich and i convened and did its job well, today we must do our job. jeff helmick understands the needs and challenges facing the northern district of ohio and our legal system generally. rising cost of litigation, increasing size and scope of court dockets together pose numerous challenges to any system of justice. but it's because of his experiences and respect from fellow lawyers and judges he's worked with that he's well prepared to meet these challenges. he's a courtroom innovator, having worked with the courts to integrate cutting-edge technologies into courtrooms, to ensure that the administration of justice is efficient and equal and fair and open to all who seek it. i'm not a lawyer, madam president, but that's what lawyering and the judicial system should be about. outside the courtroom, jeff helmick is equally dedicated to serving the public, a supporter of pro bono service, he

volunteers to the valley criminal defense lawyers association, to kpwraouft professionalism of -- improve professionalism of lawyers and access to justice for the underserved. he's past president of the pimbersville boys ranch, helps troubled young men who need a home or safer environment to reach their potential. jeff helmick will make an outstanding judge in the u.s. district court for ohio's northern district. i agree with judge zuhary that -- quote -- "we will find no candidate than jeff." that's why i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to confirm jeff helmick today. the snail pace with which we have been moving on judicial nominations threatens to delay for far too many -- delay justice for far too many americans. right now 15 nominations reported favorably by the judiciary committee will await or are waiting senate confirmation vote.

right now nearly one in ten federal judgeships is vacant. earlier this year the nonpartisan administrative office of the courts, the nonpartisan agency charged with running our federal district courts declared a judicial emergency for ohio's northern district. we need to act right now, right now -- today -- to confirm jeffrey helmick. the people of ohio have waited for too long. the result is that litigants in the northern district of ohio are experiencing delays in having their cases resolved, in too many cases justice deferred can be justice denied. in june of 2010, u.s. district judge james carr took senior status creating a vacancy in toledo's federal courthouse. june 2010, almost precisely two years ago. for these two years jeffrey helmick, who enjoys, for most of two years -- i spoke with him in august if my memory is correct, saying i wanted to send his name to the president, telling him the delay may be several months, maybe even a year.

never dreaming that partisanship in this body would mean the delay was two years. for two years -- for almost two years jeffrey helmick, who enjoys, again, the enthusiastic support of federal judges appointed by presidents of both parties in toledo, enjoys the bipartisan support of me and of senator portman, a republican from ohio, for these two years jeff helmick has had his nomination placed on hold. an enormous political cost. helmick is not -- an enormous cost in many ways. justice delayed, justice denied. helmick is not a partner in some big law firm where others can help him or help with or help take over his cases. instead he's had a small firm where the clients are his own. as a result his practice and his clients have been placed in limbo, not knowing when he'll be nominated, when he will be -- when he will actually be

confirmed. now some two years later we can finally ensure that the u.s. district court for the northern district of ohio finally, finally has its long-standing vacancy filled. today we can confirm judge helmick, jeffrey helmick as a judge, a brilliant and distinguished lawyer who was nominated by the bipartisan commission whose members again were appointed by former senator george voinovich and me. and we must confirm jeffrey helmick, madam president. he has the support of his colleagues and from republicans and democrats in my home state. madam president, one more brief story. i came to the senate as the presiding officer did in january of 2007. soon after i came to the senate i was presented with the nomination of a potential federal judge, now judge leroy from canton, ohio. judge lehoy hoping to be a

judge, i believe she was a common police judge -- i don't remember for sure at the time -- and she had been selected by two republican senators, senator dewine, who is my predecessor, and senator voinovich, neither of whom is in the senate today, she had been selected and vet bid two republican senators in a process not nearly as bipartisan or i don't think as vigorous as ours or as rigorous as ours. nominated by president bush, sent to the united states senate as the senator, as the senator from ohio i had the opportunity, if i had chosen, to block ms. lehoy's appointment. the chairman of the judiciary committee, controlled by the democrats, my party, in considering a nominee by the her name was presented to me. i sat down with ms. lehoy for

perhaps an hour, interviewed her, talked to others who were familiar with her and her background. found her to be a woman of integrity. found her to be qualified. i sent her name to senator leahy, the chairman of the judiciary committee. and i said she has my support. i don't have the precise date, but within only a few weeks of my coming to the senate and meeting future judge lehoy, she came to the floor of the united states senate and was selected. contrast that with what's happened today with dozens and dozens of judges, i plea with my colleagues to confirm a qualified, smart man with great integrity from toledo, ohio, who has been vetted by both parties, who has waited long enough, and more importantly, the people of the northern district where a judicial emergency has been declared deserve this nomination to be confirmed so that he can

begin to serve the people of the northern district in the western area of the northern district of the federal district court in ohio. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i suggest the time under the quorum call be divided equally on both sides. the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. brown: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: without objection, i ask the time be equally divided during the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: madam president, i ask to speak for five minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: madam president, 68 years ago today, june 6, 1944, some 150,000 americans, including many ohioans, began what seemed like an impossible journey. supreme allied commander dwight eisenhower called it the great crusade. 6:30 on a fog-filled morning on june 6, our service members made

it to france. they waded on shores, pass mines landing from the air, pass sharpened stakes and crawled toward gunfire. general eisenhower told our sailors and soldiers and our airmen that the eyes of the world, the hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere were with them. a mere 50-mile of the stretch coast, places like utah, omaha, gold and juneau, poins point dehor were all that stood between humanity's freedom and hitler's aggression. but our warriors, men like ohio's own private first class frank harget did not give up of the last may i had the honor of presenting mr. harget of akron, ohio, with the service medals he earned during world war two some 6 -- during world war ii, some 67 or 68 years later. frank harget joined the army in september 1943, was immediately sent to the european theatre:he

was give not unenviable task of scout and was dispatched to the frontlines to perform reconnaissance. his job was to gather intelligence on enemy forces. many times mr. harget told me he was so close to the german front that he could see german soldiers eating their lunch. he served in five battle campaigns from d-day to the battle of the bulge and in central europe. mr. harget was discharged in november of 1945 after the war was over without receiving the bronze star he had earned. my office helped him finally receive that bronze star and seven other medals and awards. he helped our nation and the world -- think about this, living with this for the next 60 years of your life -- he helped the nation and the world overthrow an evil regime. today, we recognize men like frank harget it who overcame grt

odds thousands and thousands of miles from home. d-day was the largest amphibious invasion in recorded world history with 73,000 american troops, 61,000 british troops, 21,000 canadian troops and 19 195,000 allied naval and merchant marine personnel and 5 -- more than 5,000 ships involved. after 24 hours, only 2,500 troops of the 101st and 2,000 of the 82nd airborne were under the control of their parent units. at gold beach, 25,000 men land landed, 400 were killed. at omaha beach, the u.s. 1st infantry and 29th infantry divisions found their section to be most heavily fortified of all the invasion beaches. the official record stated -- quote -- "within ten minutes of the ramps being lowered, the leading company had become inert, leadership and almost incapable of action. every officer and sergeant had been killed or wounded. it had become a struggle for survival and rescue.

the 2nd ranger -- unquote. the 2nd ranger battalion had to scale 100-foot cliffs under the cover of night and then attack and destroy the german coastal defense guns at the massive concrete clifftop gun emplacement at plant deho. but despite these obstacles, young men like frank hargett from akron, ohio, who participated in this -- in this invasion fought and persevered and began the liberation of europe with little else besides their training, their comrades, their courage and their refusal to quit. these men proved that the forces of freedom are strong. i would suggest the forces of freedom are still strong today. members of the allied forces showed us the strength of humanity over tyranny. franklin roosevelt knew that your d-day warriors "would not rest until the victory is won." we did win. today we salute the frank hargetts of the world. there are still thousands of

world war ii veterans left. most have died. most that fought in d-day, who survived d-day are no longer with us, some still are. we salute them and we salute those who went before them for running towards danger in order to secure peace. madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from ohio is recognized. mr. brown: i ask that the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without t objection. mr. brown: i ask that michelle lacko, a fellow on the senate judiciary committee, be granted floor privileges for the

duration of debate on sed 3240, the agriculture reform, food and jobs act of 2012. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

thermal. mr. grassley: madam president, i ask that calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: today the senate turns to another nomination, jeffrey j. helmick, northern district of ohio. i want to tell the senate why i oppose the nomination and urge all senators to do likewise. we continue to confirm the president's nominees at a very

brisk pace just two days ago we confirmed the 147th judicial nominee of this president to district and circuit courts. let me put that in perspective for my colleagues. we also have confirmed two supreme court nominees during president obama's term. the last time the senate confirmed two supreme court nominees was during president bush's second term. during president bush's entire second term, the senate confirmed a total of only 120 district and circuit court nominees. we have already confirmed 27 more nominees for president obama than we did for president bush in a similar period of time. and this is in a presidential election year. typically a time when judicial confirmations are limited to consensus nominees. yet here we are here considering a controversial nomination.

perhaps the senate could better spend its time working on critical issues facing our nation, such as our massive debt, intolerable deficit spending, and anemic economy, unacceptable unemployment levels, high energy costs, and national security issues. the advice and consent function of the senate is a critical step in the appointment of federal judges. in "the federalist" paper number 76, alexander hamilton wrote this. "to what purpose then require the cooperation of the senate? i answer" -- meaning alexander hamilton answering go "that the necessity of the concurrence would have a powerful general though silent operation. it would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characteristics from state

prejudice, from family connections, from personal attention, or from a view to popularity." end of alexander hamilton's statement in "frist paper 76." -- in frist paper 76. the senate has the role of apointsing judges that are unfit characteristics or political favors of any president and of those who are not qualified to serve as federal judges. what did our current president, then-senator obama, say about this duty? he stated -- quote -- "there are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority appoint his nominee and the senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice gay, that once you get beyond intellect and personal characteristic, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed."

i disagree with this view, then-senator obama said. "i believe firmly that the constitution calls for the senate to advise and consent. i believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent, that includes an examination of the judge's philosophy, ideolo ideology, and record." endlend of quote of then-senator obama. mr. president, our inquiry of the qualifications of nominees must be more than intelligence, a present personality who are a prestigious clerkship. at the beginning of this congress, i articulated my standards for judicial nominees. i want to ensure that the men and women who are appointed to a lifetime position in the federal judiciary are qualified to serve. factors i consider important include intellectual ability, respect for the constitution, fidelity to the law, personal integrity, appropriate judicial

temperament, and professional competence. in applying these standard, i have demonstrated good faith in ensuring fair consideration of judicial nominees. i have worked with the majority to confirm consensus nominees. however, as i have stated more than once, the senate must not place quantity confirmed over quality confirmed. these lifetime appointments are too important to the federal judiciary and the american people to simply rubbe rubber sp them. this is not a pro forma process that we are engaged in. last year i became increasingly concerned about some of the judicial nominees being sent to the senate by this administration. in a few individual cases it was very troublesome. mr. helmick's nominees fell into that category. when i applied the standard that i mentioned and the standards which senator obama laid out or the standards expressed -- when

i a. ply the standards i mentioned or the standards which then-senator obama laid out or the standards expressed in "the federalist" papers, i reach the same conclusion. in my judgment, mr. helmick fails to meet the required standards and should not be confirmed. the senate process for reviewing the professional qualifications, temperament, and background and characteristic is a long and thorough process, and in mr. helmick's case, there were some irks that needs to be examined. at the conclusion of that process, a substantial majority of my political party, the republicans on the judiciary committee, determined that this noms nomination should not be reported to the senate. nevertheless, we now have the nomination before us. even so, there are reasons

sufficient to oppose the nomination. in 2000, mr. helmick faced disciplinary action for failing to comply with a court-issued subpoena. he refused to turn over an incriminating letter signed by a former client in the same case which contained threats to a state's witness. a grand jury issued a subpoena to obtain the letter, but mr. helmick refused to appear before the grand jury. the trial court found him in contempt of court. mr. helmick appealed, which caused the contempt sanction to be stayed. a three-judge panel on the ohio court of appeals unanimously held that he was required to turn over the letter. mr. helmick then ailed appealed to the ohio supreme court which held that he must comply with the subpoena, although they lifted the contempt citation. the supreme court of ohio stated that mr. helmick's concern regarding the attorney-client privilege were not enough to --

quote -- "override the public interest in maintaining public safety and promoting the administration of justice." i do not think that we need to confirm to the bench individuals that are willing it put private interests over the public interests and in the administration of justice. i'm -- i am concerned about mr. helmick's view on national security. he in looking at the arguments that he has made in court representing terrorists, i am concerned that he may believe terrorism cases are less serious than other criminal cases. and that in turn causes some concern about how he might handle terrorism cases that may come before him, if confirmed. for example, he represented the terrorist mazlum. this terrorist was convicted by a jury, a conspiracy to kill u.s. troops overseas and of

providing material support for terrorists. those are very serious crimes. according to the sentencing guidelines ms. loom deserved life in prison. mr. helmick argued -- quote -- "that perhaps the life sentence that was called for in the advisory sentencing dpliens was too -- guidelines was too severe or too harsh." in the end this terrorist did not receive a life sentence, only an eight-year sentence hardly a punishment or a deterrent. for these reasons and others i will vote no on this nomination and urge my colleagues to do likewise. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent that call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: madam president, do i have time remaining? the presiding officer: the majority has 17 minutes and 10 seconds. mr. leahy: madam president, i will use part of that to refer to the farm bill and i'd ask consent that the part speaking on the farm bill appear in the debate on proceedings to that matter. the presiding officer: without

objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: first i thank the chairwoman, senator stabenow, the ranking member, senator roberts, for working together to advance a bipartisan farm bill, one that can pass the senate and become law this year. i know having been -- served in the position both as chairman and ranking member with senator lugar, i know how hard it is to get consensus but when you make it a bipartisan consensus as senator lugar and i did, it is far more apartment to pass the bill. some ask why we have to do this. well, we have to do it because the current farm bill expires at the end of september. our dairy farmers have a serious matter if it's not addressed by august 31, they're left without a vital safety net. now, i know not all senators come from farm country, but those that do, like