steal the secrets not only of our government but also of major companies, to burrow into our systems like the utilities of america and be prepared at a moment's notice to destroy the capacity of the u.s. economy or worse. we went through the exercise and the exercise really spelled out for us what might happen, what might happen if there was cybersecurity attack into the united states and it literally turned out the lights in the great city of new york. what happened happen? what would happen? it would take days before we could restore service and in the process people would die, the economy would be crippled and we are at risk of that happening. so the administration has produced a cybersecurity bill to keep america safe from that kind of attack. well, unfortunately, it doesn't meet mr. cantor's test. he's told us we can't do anything the rest of the year. all we can do is campaign, politic, give speeches.

we have a responsibility as members of the senate and the house to especially is the challenges facing this nation. number one, create the jobs, invigorate the economy, getting this country moving forward. second, keeping america safe. i might say to mr. cantor cantor from virginia, take some time during your next recess, which is next week, and go over to the central intelligence agency and sit down with them and talk about cybersecurity and the danger to the united states and ask them if we can wait six months or a year to get back to this issue? i know what they're going to say. they are geeing to remind him that he swore to defend and uphold this great united states of america. and if he's going to do it he ought to roll up his sleeves and go to work instead of coming up with an keeks four political ca. this really comes down to the basic question. eric cantor, house republican majority leader, has all but predicted that 2012, this year, is substantively over, we're finished. no more heavy lifting. it reminds me when i was a kid on the last day of school before

summer vacation. remember that? it's usually a half day. you couldn't wait toeacut the front door, screaming and hollering and throwing things in every direction, jumping up and down with your buddies, saying we're going to go swimming tomorrow and, get your bike out, we're going to go have some funds. it was three months at least of pure, unadult rated joy, no responsibility. well, speaker -- majority leader cantor has announced that school's out for the house republicans, they're finished for the year. but america isn't finished. our agenda is still there. i want to commend the senate republicans who have joined us in passing this transportation bill and i want to say to speaker boehner, when you return from the next recess next week, roll up your sleeves and get to work. put 2.8 million americans to work with this bipartisan transportation bill, have the courage to bring it for a vote on the floor of the house of representatives so we can put america to work and make certain they know that we take our jobs seriously. madam president, i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: madam president, i rise in support of the words of the majority leader and the majority whip. many of us have been frustrated lately by the glacial pace of activity in the house of representatives. the senate is supposed to be the cooling saucer, but these days, the house is where jobs bills

and other important measures go to die. they are dragging out negotiations on a highway bill that would put millions to work. they refuse to even allow a conference on a bipartisan violence against women act rethai everization, even though- reauthorization, even though the senate passed a bill with 68 votes. they refused to authorize a bill that cracks down on china's unfair currency practices, something their own party's nominee for president claims to support. why the stalling? well, we got our answer in the pages of "politico" two days a ago. eric cantor, who controls the floor schedule in the house, has decided to forego legislating in favor of politicking full time. despite all the major challenges that this congress faces, despite the crisis of confidence that may hit our markets in the fall due to uncertainty over the looming fiscal cliff, eric

cantor has declared a moratorium on any serious legislating until after the fall elections. the house of representatives is like a computer that has been turned on sleep mode and it doesn't plan to be rebooted until after november. this is a breathtaking admission by the number 2 republican in the house. i wouldn't be surprised if leader cantor wishes he could take his statement back. it contradicts the rhetoric from many on his own side. just last month in a speech at the peterson institute, the speaker of the house made a great show of calling on the administration and congress to tackle tax cuts and the debt ceiling now, before the electi election. here's what speaker boehner sa said. "it's about time we roll up our sleeves and get to work." unfortunately, leader cantor's comments seem to reflect house republicans' true intentions

more so than speaker boehner's quote. and that's a terrible shame. leader cantor and the house republicans are shrinking from a potentially historic moment. i have a message for leader cantor -- you may have abandoned any intention to legislate this year but we will not bow to election-year politics here in the senate. the nation needs us and we have too much to do. all around this chamber there are green chutes of bipartisan activity. in the last two months alone, we have overhauled the postal system, approved a multiyear transportation program, renewed the violence against women act, streamlined drug approval rules at the f.d.a., renewed the export-import bank, and passed a bill to help business start-ups. we've confirmed 20 judges and put the federal reserve board at full strength for the first time in six years. and just this morning, we moved to proceed to a farm bill, the

first overhaul of agriculture in five years, by an overwhelming 90-8 vote. every one of the -- every one of the issues i mentioned have broad bipartisan support. each wouldn't have been accomplished without bipartisan support. these are items certainly that are not the same as the big challenges that await us on taxes and spending, but they aren't trivial. they aren't post office namings either. they are real accomplishments. quote -- "the senate is on something of a roll," "the new york times" recently reported. these accomplishments could very well prove to be the bigger building -- the building blocks for bipartisan compromise on the bigger issues that await our nation. so the house may already have entered election mode but, mr. president, i dare say the

senate may be starting to gel at just the right time. in the senate, there's a hunger to legislate. republicans and democrats alike in this chamber sense our nation is at a crossroads and their first instinct is not to pause to contemplate its political implications but to get things done. for this, i must salute the growing number of my colleagues across the aisle who are seeking to work across the aisle. even as the loudest voices on the republican side cite the president's defeat as their number-one goal, i believe there's a silent majority within the republican caucus that yearns to come together and address the nation's problems free of bipartisan politics. even after the extreme elements in their own party have claimed two of the most esteemed members of this body -- one by retirement, one in a contentious primary -- a silent majority of

brave republicans still dares to believe that compromise is a virtue, not a vice. my colleague from tennessee, senator alexander, is a senator i admire. he has taken the lead in bringing members together to tackle the big issues that await us at the end of this calendar year. i was at a briefing this week organized by senator alexander, a republican, and senator warner, a democrat. believe me, no one in that room thinks, as leader cantor apparently does, that these issues should be put off till the election. the conversations were quite preliminary, for sure, but motivations of all the senators who attended were pure. senator coburn i is another brae republican. i may disagree with tom coburn on most issue issues and even oy of his tactics, but i admire the courage he displays on a daily basis by standing up to even the most powerful special interests in his party. he doesn't talk the talk about

bucking his party's orthodoxy on revenues. he walks the walk. just this morning i watched him on one of the morning news programs making great sense about the need for both parties to show leadership in confronting the big issues. he also made a pointed of saying that, unlike leader cantor, he doesn't believe these issues should wait till the election. my colleague from south caroli carolina, senator graham, is another such brave republican. we have our differences on many issues but he's a statesman, plain and simple. he's been quite vocal on his wish to overturn the defense cuts in the sequester. but while others in his party propose to replace these cuts on entirely their own terms, senator graham has bravely signaled an openness to make the tradeoffs needed to help bridge the partisan divide. asked by "the new york times" recently about the potential for tapping revenues to replace some of the sequester cuts, senator

graham bravely bucked his party's orthodoxy -- quote -- "i've crossed the rubicon on that one, he said." be assured, senator graham is someone we can negotiate with. senators coburn, alexander, and graham are not alone. there are others who note the need to fact that a bipartisan fashion. senator corker recently called out his own party for famously rejecting a deal, a hypothetical deficit deal, with 10-1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. senators isakson and collins said in the same "politico" article that they, too, would be open to supporting a grand bargain that includes revenues as well as spending cuts. and my colleague from oklahoma, senator inhofe, is featured in the pages of "roll call" today for his herculean efforts to get house republicans to be reasonable on a long-term highway bill, along with his colleague and our friend, senator boxer. i suggest that the house

majority leader reconsider his remarks to "politico" and take a page from the book of these brave republicans. the house may be in an all-politics mode but the senate is not done legislating, not by a long shot. and let's be honest, if the solution to these big issues is at all possible in the lame duck, or maybe even before the election, it's not going to come from the house, it's going to come out of the senate. so i suggest to leader cantor, washington doesn't need an election to bridge our differences, it needs the sena senate. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. i come today to talk, as my colleagues have discussed, about the fact that republicans in the house of representatives seem ready to pack it in for the year. led by their majority leader and by the "may way or highway

philosophy" that they have stuck to all year, they have signaled that they have given up on the work of the american people. from our yearly responsibility to pass appropriations bills to legislation that would create thousands of good-paying construction jobs to efforts to stop an impending student loan hike to a bill that would protect vulnerable american women from violence. house republicans have now indicated they'd rather kick the can down the road. it is really unfortunate that this is their attitude, not just for our college students or construction workers looking for jobs, or women at risk, but it is statements like the one that the house majority leader made that make every american shake their head. and that's because, as american families come together around their kitchen tables to make tough decisions about their mortgage or how to make tuition payments or even about how they're going to afford groceries, they want to see us

coming together to make similarly tough decisions. but, as leader reid and my other colleagues have made clear, it's tough to legislate from only one side of capitol hill. it's tough to address the issues affecting everyday americans when house republicans are more interested in drawing dividing lines than coming to the middle. pretty tough to create jobs and help our economy rebound when house republicans are more focused on next year than on the bills that are stuck in their chamber today. and it is impossible to do anything about the looming fiscal cliff that we face when house republicans continue to show they don't get it will take a balanced approach to fix. the bottom line is that we need a partner in legislating, and it appears from comments like those made this week, that that hope is quickly fading. madam president, what is

particularly concerning about house republicans wanting to shutter their chamber for the year is the fact that bipartis bipartisan, commonsense senate legislation is languishing there. bills that have gotten support from overwhelming majorities and that were carefully crafted over months of negotiations are in limbo for no good reason. in fact, what i'd like to do today is highlight two important numbers to illustrate what i mean. first number is 68. 68. that is the number of senators that voted to pass a bipartisan, inclusive bill to reauthorize the violence against women act. it's a total that includes 15 republican senators who, like the vast majority of americans, agreed with us that we not only need to reaffirm our commitment to protect those at risk from domestic violence but that we also need to improve and expand protections. 68 senators who came together to say that our commitment to

saving the lives of victims of domestic violence should be above politics. 68 senators who said that we cannot allow partisan considerations to decide which victims we help and which we ignore. 68 senators that sent a strong bipartisan message to the house that we can come together to strengthen protections for all victims, regardless of where they live or their race or their religion or gender or sexual orientation. unfortunately, it's a message that republicans in the house have ignored. true to form, instead of taking up our bipartisan bill, republicans have passed a bill that leaves out both the additional protections for vulnerable women and the delicate compromises that we achieved. and so when women across our country see the headlines that leader reid pointed out earlier, they -- they know that their protections are at risk, and they are at risk not because the

senate can't come together but because house republicans refuse to join us. madam president, the second number that i wanted to highlight today is 74. that is the number of senators that came together to send a bipartisan transportation jobs bill to the house. 74 senators who voted for a bill that will create or save millions of jobs in the country today. 74 senators who said that politics should not get in the way of our economic recovery or the need to fix our crumbling infrastructure. 74 senators who got behind a bill that was the product of intense and long negotiations between senators who we know don't often see eye to eye but who did come together to pass a bill that could truly be called a compromise. yet here we are months after this bill was passed with

overwhelming bipartisan support, and it, too, is now the subject of political games in the house. another bill that should never be considered political has become part of their grandstanding routine. madam president, it does not have to be this way. if republicans can set aside politics and stand up to their tea party base, we can protect victims of domestic violence. we can pass a transportation bill. we can stop those tuition hikes. we can pass our appropriations bills. in fact, madam president, we can even come together on the big issue that house republicans have indicated they believe can only be resolved after an election. if republicans are ready to admit that it will take a balanced and bipartisan deal to avoid that fiscal cliff, we could make a deal tomorrow. but on this issue, republicans haven't just refused to meet us in the middle. they won't even come out of

their corner. we all know a bipartisan deal is going to be required to include new renee long with spending cuts. unfortunately, republicans are singularly focused on protecting the wealthiest americans from paying a penny more in taxes. madam president, democrats are ready, we are willing to compromise, we know it's difficult, but we have to have a partner to do that. republicans need to understand that the fiscal cliff is not simply going to disappear if they close their eyes and wish hard enough. we have to act. and republicans shouldn't let politics stop them from working now on a balanced and bipartisan deal. middle-class families today expect and deserve. madam president, statements like the one made by the house majority leader only reaffirm what american families fear the most, that at a time when they deserve a government at their

back, they are being abandoned. in the senate, we have shown here that we can come together around bipartisan solutions but we cannot do it alone. house republicans need to send the american people a clear message they are willing to be a partner in compromise. it's time for them to take up our bipartisan legislation to protect women and put workers back on the job. it's time to work with us in the appropriations process and to help our nation's students. it's time to realize that a solution to the impending fiscal cliff will require a balance. it is certainly not time to give up. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i appreciate very much the wonderful statements by senators durbin, schumer and murray. we have a problem in this country, based on what cantor said. here are the headlines."

congress switching from policy to politicking." all that we said here today has been based on fact, and that's too bad. it's too bad, madam president, that we have somebody who is running the house of representatives who is trying to kill these important pieces of legislation that senator schumer outlined we have passed over here. we have passed all these things, worked very hard to get them done, and because of politicking , not policy, the majority leader of the house of representatives is killing all this legislation for reasons that we all understand. madam president, cloture has been invoked on the motion to proceed to the farm bill by an overwhelming vote of 90-8. senators stabenow and roberts are now as we speak working on agreements on amendments to the bill, and i am hopeful they can make significant progress over the weekend. there will be no roll call votes today. monday at 5:30, we'll have a vote on andrew hurwitz to be a

ninth circuit court judge. we also need an agreement on flood insurance which is also vitally important to this country. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i came to the floor to talk about legislating. i was struck, in fact, by some of the comments recently because what i'm here to talk about is essentially the yeoman bipartisanship that we have seen with senator stabenow and senator roberts on the farm bill, and i'm going to talk about some specific ideas, each of which i believe could win bipartisan support and help strengthen the legislation as we go forward here in the senate. now, madam president, i believe it's hard to overstate the importance of writing the best

possible farm bill here in the senate. when america desperately needs more jobs and one in every 12 american jobs is tied to agriculture, this bill is an opportunity for the private sector to grow more jobs. when owe beas -- obesity rates are driving the america health care challenge, this bill can promote healthier eating without extra costs to taxpayers. when we're concerned about the threat to our treasured lands and air and water, this bill is our primary conservation program. when our rural communities are especially hard hit -- and the president of the senate knows about this because she has got a lot of rural country in her state -- these rural communities are walking on an economic tightrope, and this bill can be a lifeline madam president, i

spent much of last week in rural oregon. in my state, oregonians do a lot of things well, but what we do best is grow things, lots of things. oregon grows more than 250 different crops, including everything from alfalfa seed to mint and blueberries. several weeks ago, the oregon extension service reported that agricultural sales in my home state increased more than 19% in 2011. agriculture in oregon is now more than a $5 billion industry annually, and much of this is driven by high prices for wheat and cattle and dairy products, fruits, vegetables and other specialty crops. the fact is agriculture is really the lodestar to

prosperity for many rural oregon communities, and nationwide there are many other towns in a similar position to the small communities i have the honor to represent here in the senate. that's why, madam president, an apropos of the talk about this need for bipartisanship, and senator schumer listed a number of these bipartisan areas, i consulted with the chair of the agriculture committee, senator stabenow, and the ranking minority member, senator roberts. both of us served together here and also in the other body, and after getting their counsel, i selected 28 oregonians from every corner of my state and across all types of agriculture to help serve as an advisory committee on ways to improve the

economic opportunities for oregon specifically through this bill, and we had the good fortune to have the committee chaired by ms. carla chambers who owns a farm in the lamite valley, staubash farms, and also mike thorne, a wheat farmer in eastern oregon. from the outset, this advisory committee didn't talk at all about politics, didn't talk about was there a democratic way to write a farm bill or a republican way to write a farm bill. what they did is they talked about the importance of the issues that i have just outlined -- jobs, health care, conservation, rural communities. that's what they spent their time focused on, and particularly the jobs issue was central to their discussions. there are about 38,000 farms in my home state which roughly

support 234,000 jobs. that's about 11% of our state's employment. as much as 80% of the agricultural goods produced in oregon are sold out of state. half of that is exported to foreign countries. that was especially important to me, madam president, because i also chair the trade subcommittee on the senate finance committee, and so what i have taken as the centerpiece of my approach to agriculture and to our country's economy is we ought to do our very best to grow things here in the united states, to make things here in the united states, to add value to them in the united states and then ship them somewhere, and it's especially important for oregon agriculture, as i just noted that 80% of our agricultural goods that are produced in our state are sold

out of state. now, abroad, our producers are doing very well. nationally, each $1 billion in agricultural exports is tied to criminal 8400 american jobs. these growing overseas markets represent a way to create and sustain good-paying jobs that rely on export sales. in fact, agriculture is one of the only sectors with a trade surplus, and in 2011 it boasted a surplus totaling $32.5 billion, the highest annual surplus on record. that's why, madam president, i was honored to have a chance when chairman baucus was tied up in discussions with respect to the subcommittee, he gave me the opportunity to manage a significant part of the debate on the recently passed free trade agreements, which again give us a chance, as i have indicated, to build on that proposition that i have outlined

here where we grow things here, add value to them here and then ship them somewhere else. nothing says more than giving those opportunities to producers from oregon to florida, they sell their fruits, their vegetables, their beef, wheat, nursery products and other high-value products at home and abroad. the farm bill continues those programs that american producers rely on to help market their goods in foreign markets. i think it's important again to stress the bipartisanship associated with making sure there are bountiful opportunities for american agriculture and particularly for oregon agricultural goods. the second area that my agriculture advisory committee focused on, madam president, was stressing the importance of healthy nutrition here at home, and of course the usda, our

department of agriculture, has recommended five fresh fruits and vegetables for americans daily in our country. so what that means is that from byrnes, oregon, to bangor, maine, farm programs need to make it easier for those with low incomes to be able to eat healthier. and there never ought to be a trade jf between promoting good eating and affording hety food. we need some fresh approaches to promote healthy nutrition in this country, and i believe that it is not just an economic threat to our country, it is also a national security threat to our nation, madam president, because we have seen, regrettably, the many americans who would like it wear the uniform of the united states, patriots who have not been able

to pass the health exams, the physicals, necessary to serve in our military. in the past three decades, obesity rates have quadrupled for children ages six to 11. more than 40% of americans are expected to be obese by 2030. the center for disease control reports that in 2008 alone, the united states spent $147 billion on medical care related to obesity. obesity is the top medical reason one in four young people cannot, aes as i have a i have, join the military. and it is a threat to national security by the department of defense. madam president, it doesn't have to be this way, and i want to outline some specific ideas for changing that to promote good health in our country without

adding extra costs to taxpayers. one opportunity for chairman, madam president, is through the farm to school program. again, without costing taxpayers additional money, it ought to be easier for delicious pairs and cherries and other healthy produce grown just a few miles down the road to make it into our schools. and, again, this ought to be a national approach. schools from springfield, oregon, to savannah, georgia, currently purchase their fruits and vegetables from usda -- these are department of agriculture warehouses which may be hundreds of miles away. many of our farmers and our producers would like to sell their goods to local schools, and many schools would like to source their product oz locally. the farm bill a ought to promote that. when i was in oregon last week,

i had a chance to meet with some management of harry and david. they are a major employer in my state, an oregon pair produce,and they told me they want to sell their fruit to schools down the street, but instead a complex maze of federal rules and regulations have been a hassle. they pretty much described something that sounded like bureaucratic water torture. so i am going to offer an amendment, madam president, that would make it less of a hassle for producers, such as harry & david, and farmers to sell directly to local schools, all without spending additional federal dollars. a second opportunity to improve our nation' nation's health, mam president, lies with the snap program, the supplemental nutrition assistance program, which is better known as food stamps. the program currently spends

over $70 billion a year. this is the big expenditure in the farm bill, madam president, and there is no way to really determine whether it promotes good nutrition. so, madam president, and colleagues, think of all the possibilities for helping our country -- all the possible benefits -- if the snap program did more to improve nutritional outcomes for those who use the program. let me make clear, i am not for cutting benefits. i understand the crucial lifeline this program provides for millions of our people. what i am interested in doing is seeing that through that $70 billion, it's possible to wring more value for good nutrition and improving nutritional outcomes out of that enormous

expenditure, and one of the ways that we can do it would be to allow states to obtain a waiver from the snap program when they drop their farmers, their retailers, their health specialist and those who use the program personally -- if they came together and said, we've got a consensus for improving the nutritional outcomes in our state for those on the food stamp program, the snap program, they ought to be able to get a waiver in order to do that and help us produce more good health in america. madam president, that's not some kind of national nanny program. that's not telling people you can only eat this or you can only eat that. that's just common sense to have

farmers, retailers, those on the program, health specialists, look, for example, to try to create some voluntary incentives to promote better nutrition with this enormous sum that is spent on the snap program, and i intend to offer an amendment to do that. a third opportunity for improvement, madam president, is through what's known as the gleaning program. historical -- historically, gleaners gather leftover produce from the fields, but today gleaners play a crucial role in reducing the staggering amount of food that goes to waste each year. are at a time when -- at a time when food waste is the single-largest category of waste in our local landfills -- more than 34 million tons of food -- again, without spending extra taxpayer money, we can do more

to ensthiewr this unwanted -- ensure that this unwanted food is used to tackle hunger in america. led by the dedicated work of local food banks, many are striving to put america's food bounty to better use. in portland, oregon, a wonderful nonprofit organization run by tracy osrun is known as urban gleaners. thndz they are poised -- and they are poised to collect surplus food, hundreds of thousands of pounds of food, from grocers, restaurants, parties, and all kinds of social organizations, and they redistribute those hundreds of thousands of pounds of food to organizations that serve the hungry. urban gleaners is doing great work, but they could be doing a lot more, madam president. so, again, without spending a dime of extra money, we can

advocate for gleaners all across america, all across america, madam president, by making it possible under the microloan program, if you're trying to set up a gleaning program in a small town and you have to borrow, say, $20,000 -- $20,000 to start a refrigeration program to preserve the quality of the food, let's make it possible for the gleaners to be part of the microloan program. i'm not proposing, madam president -- i've discussed this with the chair of the committee, senator stabenow, and senator robert ozs, the rank minority member -- i'm not proposing voting one additional time to the program. i simply want to say that when

you have gleaners in our country who are telling us about the enormous amount of food that is still wasted, despite their tremendous efforts, let's not pass up an opportunity to, with this bill, make it possible to promote gleaning in our country. now, next, madam president, to produce the healthy food needed to feed america, we need fertile agriculture and conservation plays a central role in that. roughly 28% of oregon's land mass is devoted to agricultural production. maintaining this land is crucial for our productivity. for more than half a century, the farm bill has supported infrastructure, modernization, and conservation projects. they give, once again, the opportunity for collaboration, and that's key to our natural resources. i see my friend from arizona, senator mccain, you know,

here. we talked about doing this in the forestry area years ago. we ought to be promoting collaborative projects to boost rural economies. it is the oregon way, and we ought to build on that in this farm bill as well. the time is also ripe to promote farmers' markets and locally grown food, which will lead to greater awareness of local markets, roadside stands, and community-supported agriculture. this farm bill expands those opportunities, and i think once again these types of local initiatives give us the opportunity to change the trajectory, the tranlic and staggering -- the tragic and staggering trajectory of obesity in this country and to ensure the viability of these programs, the land required, to produce nutritious foods must be addressed. i plan to offer, madam president, as i've indicated in

these comments, a number of amendments to the farm bill, each of which i have discussed with the chair of the committee, senator stabenow, and senator roberts. the farm-to-school amendment that i'll offer would not spend additional taxpayer money but would make it easier for schools to purchase locally for the breakfast, lunches, and snacks that they serve children. my second amendment, to allow states a across this country to get a waiver under the snap program, under the food stamp program, so they can consult with the farmers, their retailers, their health specialists, those who are on the program who use it, and try to come up with a way to get more good health and nutrition out of the $70 billion that's spent on the program. they ought to have an opportunity to do that so that

the snap program can be a launchpad for healthier eating rather than just a conveyor belt for calories. with a waiver, states with innovation and effective ideas could improve nutritional outcomes and put their good ideas into action. third, i intend to offer that amendment -- again, that does not spend additional taxpayer money -- to promote gleaning through the microloan program. and finally, madam president, based on the recommendations of the institute of medicine, i will offer an amendment -- again one that does not cost money -- to make it possible to advance some of the recommendations of the institute of medicine to look at the relationship between agriculture possible, the diet of the average american, and how we can reduce -- mr. mccain: will the senator yield for a question in how much time -- mr. wyden: i am about one

minute away. cane cannecane can i thank the . -- mr. mccain: thank the senator. o- mr. wyden: so the last amendment would allow us to advantages the institute of medicine. they have made a number of thoughtful proposals that i think are going to give us a chance of promote our national security and reduce obesity and we certainly should pursue them through this farm bill. the last comment i'd make, madam president, is i think oregonians got it right, and i think we ought to be building on the work done by nor stabenow and -- by senator stabenow and senator roberts. this bill, at a crucial time in american history, can help us grow more jobs. it can help us improve the health of the people of our country without spending additional money. it is an opportunity to protect our treasured land and air and water. and finally, it is a lifeline

for these rural communities, these communities that i've described as walking on an economic tightrope. i intend to work with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis -- i've heard all this talk about how the legislative process is over. we ought to build on the work that has been done already, get this important bill across the finish line, because it will be good for our economy and national security, good for our health, and good for our environment. madam president, with that, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: madam president, thank you. i ask unanimous consent to address the is that the as if in morning hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: last week many americans, many of you on memorial day, we remembered our nation's fallen troops who laid down their lives. we're blessed to live in a country where i had haves volunteer to defend our country and our freedoms, no matter the cost. because of the sacrifices of our nation's veterans, we have the

opportunity to live in the strongest, freest, and greatest nation on earth. today at recallington national cemetery, 330 u.s. service members will be honored for their service. these men were killed last august when insurgents fired upon their helicopter it is a it was aiding troops in a fire fight in a province in afghanistan. more than 20 u.s. special oppose reagan administration forces were killed when the helicopter crashed, the deadliest single loss of american forces in the war in san franciscan. -- in afghanistan. among those were three kansas soldiers. bryant nickles of hays, specialist dunk an, and sergeant alexander bennett of tacoma, walkers stationed in new century, kansas. this afternoon, these men will be given full honors during a special memorial service and laid to rest at arlington

national cemetery. we lost 30 american heroes that tranlic day, brave men who answered the call to defend our country. our nation is forever indebted to these young men for their service and sacrifice. especially today we think of their families and the loved ones they left behind. may god comfort them in their time of grief and be a source of streng -- strength. yesterday another life was remembered. carl miller was killed two weeks ago in a combat mission in afghanistan when the vehicle he driving was struck by an improvised explosive device. it has been said that america's soldier does not fight because he hates who is in front of him. he fights because he loves those who are behind him. this passage was read yesterday during kale's service in olathe and it is a fitting description of this young man's devotion to

his country. kale was raised in olathe and was a 2007 graduate of olathe northwest high school where he was a member of the football and track team and played the trumpet in the marching and jazz bands. three years after graduation, kale joined the army and was assigned at fort lewis in washington state. kale was known as a fierce warrior on the battlefield and was -- quote -- "one of the best of the best. among his buddies, he the reputation for being a hard worker, someone who would go above and beyond to accomplish the task at hand. kale's battalion commander said he was known as everyone's protector and was -- quote -- "hands down the best striker-driver he ever had seen." more importantly, his sergeant said kale had the unique ability of knowing the right thing to say at the right moment. he was a source of strength that pulled his sergeant and his squadmates through many difficult days. kale loved the army but he was also devoted to his family.

he loved to laugh and had a great sense of humor, which helped his family find the bright side of every situation. his step-father dave is known for giving sound and practical advice and served as a role model for kale. in fact, kale once told his mom that he was turning in to dave for his buddies since they often turned to him for advice and encouragement. kale had a close relationship with his sister, courtney, and loved his mother deeply. and he spoke of her often to his buddies. my heart goes out to the entire miller family and i ask that all kansans, all americans join me in remembering them in our thoughts and prayers during this difficult time. on monday, kale was given a hero's welcome upon his return to kansas. volunteers placed flags along 151st street in olathe and hundreds of people stood in silence waving those flags and signs that read, "community for kale." to honor this young man and his service to our country.

this demonstration of support comes naturally to kansans who respect and honor those who defend and serve our nation. today we honor kale miller, brian nickles, spencer ducken, alexander bennett who laid down their lives for our country. we thank god for giving us these heroes and remain -- and we remain committed to preserving this nation for the sake of the next generation, so they, too, can pursue the american dream with freedom and liberty. we are indebted to our veterans to do nothing less. may god bless our servicemen and women, our veterans and the country we all love. i yield. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, we'd like to thank the senator from kansas for a very moving tribute to those who have served and sacrificed, and i know the people of kansas join him in expressing their gratitude for their service and sacrifice. and i thank the senator from kansas for a very eloquent and

moving statement. god bless. mr. moran n: madam president, i thank the senator from arizona for his tremendous service. mr. mccain: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senator from connecticut and i join in a colloquy on the situation in syria. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i'd like to make brief remarks before we begin that. it should come as no surprise to any of our colleagues, and it certainly comes as no surprise to me, that the civil war raging in syria has only deteriorated further over the past two weeks. on saturday, may 26, we read the horrific news of a massacre that bashir al-sadr's forces committed in the syrian town of jula. at least 108 civilians, the majority of them women and children, are now believed to have been killed, some from repeated shelling by assad's tanks and artillery, but most slaughtered in their homes and executed in the streets.

survivors describe a scene so gruesome that even after 16 months of bloodshed and more than 10,000 dead, it still manages to shock the conscience. there are now reports of another massacre by assad's forces with as many as 78 syrians dead and that syrian authorities are blocking access to the scene for the u.n. monitors on the ground. these massacres of civilians are sickening and evil, but it's only the latest and most appalling evidence there's no limit to the savagery of assad and his forces. they will do anything, kill anyone, and stop at nothing to hold on to power. and what has been the response of the united states and the rest of the civilized world to this most recent mass atrocity in syria? more empty words of scorn and condemnation, more hollow pledges that the killing must stop, more strained expressions of amazement at what has become

so tragically commonplace. indeed, as jeffrey goldberg has noted, administration officials are now at risk of running out of superlative adjectives and adverbs with which to condemn the violence in syria. they've called it -- quote -- "heinous, outrageous, unforgivable, breathtaking, disgraceful" and many other synonyms for the same. i don't know what else they can call it, and yet the killing goes on. the administration now appears to be so desperate that they're returning to old ideas that have already been tried and failed. let me quote from a "new york times" article that appeared on may 27. quote -- "in a new effort to halt more than a year of bloodshed in syria, president obama will push for the departure of president bashir al-assad under a proposal modeled on the transition in another strife-torn arab country, yemen. the success of the plan hinges on russia, one of mr. assad's

staunchest allies, which is strongly opposed to his removal. this is a case history repeating itself as farce. trying to enlist russia in a policy of regime change in syria is exactly what the administration spent months doing earlier this year and that approach was decisively rejected by russia when it vetoed a toothless sanctions resolution in the u.n. security council in february. and how is this recycled policy working out? well, last week a human rights organization disclosed that on may 26, a russian ship delivered the latest russian supply of heavy weapons to the assad regime in the port of tartus. last friday, the russian foreign minister issued a statement on the jula massacre and blamed it on the opposition. president putin, after blowing off a trip to washington in favor of a visit to europe, suggested that foreign powers

were also to blame for the jula massacre. he went on to reject further sanctions on the assad regime and to deny that russia is shipping any relevant weapons to assad. not to be outdone, the russian foreign minister also last week described the situation in syria this way -- quote -- "it takes two to dance, although this seems less like a tango and more like a disco, where several dozens are taking part at once." you might think this alone would be enough to disabuse the administration of its insistence against all imperial evidence that russia is the key to ending the violence in syria. you might think so but you'd be wrong. asked last week whether he could envision some kinds of military inter-- kind of military intervention in syria without a u.n. security council resolution which is subject to a russian and chinese veto, the secretary of defense said, no, he cannot envision it. similarly, the white house spokesman, jay carney, rejected the idea of providing weapons to

the syrian people to help them defend themselves, saying that would lead to -- quote -- get this -- get this -- "if we supplied weapons to the syrian resistance -- quote -- "it would lead to chaos and carnage." and that it would "militarize the conflict." it would "militarize the conflict" after more than 10,000 slaughtered by bashir assad with russian weapons, iranians on the ground, that it would militarize the conflict. it's difficult to even muster a response to statements and actions such as these. u.s. policy in syria now seems to be of subject to the approval of russian leaders who are arming assad's forces and who believe that the slaughter of more than 10,000 people in syria can be compared to a disco party. meanwhile, the administration refuses even to provide weapons to syrians who are struggling

and dying in an unfair fight, all for fear of -- quote -- "militarizing the conflict." if only the russians and the iranians and al qaeda shared that lofty sentiment. i pray that president obama will finally realize what president clinton came to understand during the balkan wars. president clinton, who took military action to stop ethnic cleanse not guilty bosnia -- cleansing in bosnia and did so in kosovo without the u.n. security council mandate, ultimately understood that when regimes are willing to commit any atrocity to stay in power, diplomacy cannot succeed until the military balance of power changes on the ground. as long as assad and his foreign supporters think they can win militarily -- which they do -- they will continue fighting and more syrians will die. in short, military intervention of some kind is a prerequisite to the political resolution of the conflict that we all want to

achieve. the question i would pose to my colleague from connecticut and to the administration is this -- how many more have to die? how many more have to die? how many more young women have to be raped? how many young -- more young syrians are going to be tortured and killed? how many more? how many more? before we will act? how many more? and i would like to also ask, when will the president of the united states speak up in favor of these people who are fighting and dying for freedom? i thank my colleague from connecticut for his continued involvement. we shared the same experiences that i have in refugee campedz,, meeting people who've been driven out of their homes, family members killed, tortured, young women raped as a matter of policy and doctrine of the ass

assad -- of assad's brutal forces. mr. lieberman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: madam president, it's an honor to join in this colloquy with my friend from arizona, though i, obviously, take no pleasure in it because it's a -- it's an outcry, a kri de corps, a cry of the out about the slaughter going on in syria now, once again with the government killing its own people to maintain its own presence in power. and it's an outcry because essentially now for more than a year, the rest of the world, including the united states, has offered these victims of the brutal violence of the bashir al assad regime in da msk us -- in damascus, essentially words, words of condemnation, words of sympathy.

but those words or the few cell phones we've given them, those syrian freedom fighters, don't -- don't stand up against assad's tanks, his -- his guns, the brutality of his forces. and so i'd say the answer to the question that my friend from arizona posed -- how many more people have to be killed? -- obviously, too many people have already been killed. it's time for the u.s. to show some leadership. senator mccain and i are not calling for american troops on the ground in syria. and we're not calling for the united states alone to take action here. there is a coalition of the willing. if we continue to say that we're not going to take action to help the victims of assad's brutality until and unless we get authorization from the u.n. security council, there's never going to be any hope go to these victims in syria because the

russians and -- and probably the chinese will veto any u.n. resolution. every time we say we have to go to the u.n., we raise the -- the power of russia to protect its ally in -- in damascus. but there's a coalition of the willing ready throughout the arab world, and i think some in europe and elsewhere, which will not act until the united states shows some leadership here. madam president, i want to just briefly put this in a historical context. after the nazi holocaust of the last century, the world said, never again, never again. we have kept that pledge in some cases, such as bosnia and kosovo, although it took us too long, too many people were killed before the world acted. in other places such as rwanda, we turned away from the

slaughter of people there. and once again, we're challenged to show the victims whether we're true to our words. i read something a few days ago in "the washington post," an article that was drawing parallels between the genocide in bosnia during the 1990's and the killing that's taking place in syria today. there was a 37-year-old survivor of the veb -- srebenitzka massacre, who said it's bizarre -- i'm quoting now -- it's bizarre how never again has come to mean again and again. it's bizarre that we live in a world where srebenitzkas are still possible. what's happening in syria today is almost identical to what

happened in bosnia two decades ago, end of quote of the survivor. so what is the world waiting for, a syrian srebenitzka when thousands are killed by their own government before we act? i hope not. and that's why we speak out today. look, just within the hour, a story was posted on reuters news service out of beirut, six hours after tanks and militiamen pulled out of al-kabair, a syrian farmer returned to find only charred bodies among the smoldering homes of his tranquil hamlet. there was smoke rising from the buildings and a horrible smell of human flesh burning, said a man who told how he had watched syrian government troops in sha shabiha -- these are the government-sponsored gangs,

militia, gunmen, attack his village as he hit in his family olive grove. it was like a ghost town, he told the reporter. senator mccain and i have been explicit for some period of time. we have been both to turkey and lebanon to talk to leaders of the opposition and people in the refugee camps, and they simply say to us as americans you are our only hope, this from a people whose government has been determined in its antiamerican posture, the outside government, and yet people now turn to us as they always do in a time of crisis around the world and say this is what america is about. america has a moral government that cares about people's right to life and liberty, and we will not be saved unless you get involved. i hope the latest events move

our government to go beyond words to actions and immediately -- and again, senator mccain and i have talked about actions we support, arms to the opposition fighters, training of the opposition fighters, safe havens in turkey and perhaps other neighboring countries to syria where they can be trained and equipped, provision of intelligence that we have which will help the opposition fight to defend themselves and their families. frankly, if it was up to us -- i know i can speak for senator mccain. i think if we really wanted to help and turn the tide quickly without a lot of unnecessary loss of life, we would use allied air power, americans and our allies, and we would hit some targets important to the assad government, and i think that would break their will and it would increase the number of defections from assad's army and from the very important business

community and would result in a much sooner end to this terrible waste of life. so that's our outcry, and that's my answer to your question, my friend from arizona. i thought you were particularly right in condemning the idea that if we get involved, it militarizes the conflict, the conflict is already mill arrestized on one side. russia and iran are providing us with all the represents he needs. meantime, the opposition is scrounging around paying exorbitant prices just for bullets which they have been running out of. i ask my friend from arizona, people say that intervention in syria will be much harder than it was in libya, and i wonder if he would respond to that argument against us getting involved?

mr. mccain: i thank my colleague, and i also want to point out that traveling in the region and meeting with the leaders in these various countries, it cries out for american leadership. i think my colleague would agree, in a coordinated partnership with these countries, but they cry out for american leadership. and meanwhile, the president of the united states, as this slaughter goes on, is silent and his spokesman, his spokesman says they don't want to militarize the conflict. how in the world could you make a statement like that when 10,000 people have already been slaughtered? that to me is -- is so bizarre, i'm not sure i have ever seen anything quite like it. you know, there is always the comparison, i say to my friend from connecticut, about libya.

you know, there is an aspect of this issue, libya was not in america's security interests. libya was clearly a situation where we got rid of one of the most brutal barriers who was responsible for the bombing of pan am 103 and the deaths of americans, but if syria goes on the path to democracy, it's the greatest blow to iran in 25 years. hezbollah is broken off. they lose their last client state, russia loses their last client state. iran loses the most important ally they have in the region. and finally, i would say to my friend, we keep hearing over and over again that extremists will come in. al qaeda will come in. you know, we heard that in tunisia, we heard that in libya, we are hearing that in egypt and we're hearing that again negligenting the fact that al

qaeda and extremists are the exact ant they -- antithesis of who these people are. now, they have been repressed with brutality whereas al qaeda as we know believes in acts of terror. and i agree with my colleague, if we provided a sang -- sanctuary for these people in order to organize, to care for the wounded, to have a shadow government set up as we saw in libya, then i think it's pretty obvious that it would be a huge step forward. but again, my friend from connecticut has often said so eloquently that probably the most immarty words ever written in english is that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all of us are endowed, all

endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. people of syria that are suffering under this brutal dictatorship and being slaughtered as we speak i believe have those inalienable rights, and the role of the united states was not -- has not been to go everywhere and fight every war, but it has been the role of the united states of america when it can to go to the assistance of people who are suffering under dictatorships such as this, one of the most brutal in history. and for us to now consign to the good graces of russia and whether they will veto a u.n. security council resolution, resolution as to whether we will act or not on behalf of these people is a great advocation of american authority and responsibility. finally, i would like to say that senator lieberman and i have visited these places, we have seen these people.

i wish all of our colleagues, i wish all americans could have gone to the refugee camp where there is 25,000 people who have been ejected from their homes, the young men who still had fresh wounds, the young men who had been gang raped, the families and mothers who had lost their sons and daughters. it's -- it's deeply moving, it's deeply, deeply moving. as my friend from connecticut said, they cry out, they cry out for our help. we should be speaking up every day on their behalf, all of us, and we should be contemplating actions that stops this unprecedented brutality. mr. lieberman: madam president, i thank senator mccain. i think he -- he spoke with real clarity and strength. it's exactly what we need to continue to do. i want to just go to this point

that he made. some people say we shouldn't get involved in syria because we don't know who the opposition is and therefore we should be cautious before helping them. we have had the opportunity to meet the opposition and their leadership, both the political opposition and the military opposition, and i would tell you to the best of my judgment, i believe it's our judgment, these aren't extremists. these are syrian patriots. as senator mccain said, this whole movement started peacefully. they went out into the squares in big cities in syria. they were asking for more freedom. they weren't actually at the beginning asking for an overthrow of the assad's government, but what was assad's response? he turned his guns on them and started to kill them wantonly. when they decided there was no peaceful course because he rejected every compromise alternative that intermediaries put in, they took up arms such as they could find.

the danger here is not that the people who are the leaders of the opposition are extremists or terrorists. the danger is that the extremists and terrorists will take over this movement if we and the rest of the civilized world don't get involved. and the syrian opposition will be sorely tempted to take their support because they have no alternative. we simply can't let that happen. i know that there is a lot going on in our country. i know people are worried about the economy, as we are, of course, but america's strength and credibility in the world has actually always been not only what we're about by our founding documents and our history but what maintains our credibility and strength in the world which is a foundation of our economic strength. and the longer we give words but no action in response to the

murder and rape of victims in syria, the lower our credibility is, and we can't afford that. and senator mccain said, i just want to emphasize it, the main reason to get involved here is humanitarian. it's what america is about. it's about the protection of life and liberty. but it happens to be that this makes a lot of strategic sense, too, because the central -- the number-one enemy we have in the world today is iran, and if assad goes down, iran will suffer a grievous blow. some people say and some still say it, including high officials of our government, that it's not a question of whether bashear al-assad will fall but when. i don't agree. having been over there talking to the opposition, talking about what's happening, this is a profoundly unfair fight. assad has most of the guns and

systems and the freedom fighters have very little. he will keep doing this as long as he has to, and this battle will go on, this war will go on a long time with thousands and thousands and thousands of more innocent people killed as they were earlier today. so the facts cry out at us to take action. i hope and pray that we will. senator mccain and i and others, senator rubio has an op-ed in "the wall street journal" today that speaks to some of the points we have made and others on both sides. i hope we will continue to speak out until finally there will be action to save the lives of innocents. madam president, i would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record a series of questions that opponents of our involvement raise and the answers that i would offer to those questions arguing for our involvement with a coalition of the willing. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair and i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: may i ask that the pending quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: we are wise in this chamber to reflect with reverence and gratitude on those who risked their lives fighting to establish this great republic. today i would like to recognize and celebrate the 240th anniversary of one of the earliest acts of defiance

against the british crown in our american struggle for independence. most americans remember the boston tea party as one of the major events building up to the american revolution. i see the pages in front of me looking -- nodding knowledgeably, yes, i do know about that boston tea party. we learned that story of the spirited bostonnians, literally spirited bostonnians, i'm told, clambering onto the decks of the east india company ships and dumping tea into boston harbor to protest british taxation without representation. however, there is a milestone on the path to the revolutionary war that soften overlooked, the story of 60 or so brave rhode islanders who challenged british rule more than a year before the tea party in boston. today i rise to honor those

little known heroes who risked their lives on one dark night in rhode island 240 years ago. in the years before the revolutionary war as tensions with the american colonies grew, king george iii stationed revenue cutters, armed customs patrol vessels along the american coastline to prevent smuggling, enforce the payment of taxes and oppose the authority of the crown -- imcrows the authority of the crown. one of the most notorious of the ships was stationed in rhode island's narragansett bay, the h.m.s. gaspeae were known for seizing cargo and seizing ships to harass and interrogate the colonials. trade agreement, the merchants and shipmasters of rhode island flooded civil and military officials with complaints about

the gaspy, exhausting every legal means to stir the british crown to regulate dudington's conduct. not only did british officials ignore the rhode islanders' concerns, they responded with open hostility. commander of the local british fleet, admiral john monague warned an anyone who retaliated would be taken into custody and hanged as a pirate. which brings us to june 9, 1772, 240 years ago this week. rhode island ship captain benjamin lindsay was en route from providence to newport. the other other way around. en route from newport to providence. he was sailing his ship, the hannah. he was accosted and ordered to yield for inspection by the gaspy.

captain lindsay and his crew ignored that command and raced northward up narragansett bay despite warning shots fired by the gaspy. captain lindsay knew that his ship was lighter and drew less water, so he sped north towards patuxet cove off namquid point. the heavier gaspy grounded and stuck firm. the british ship and crew were caught stranded in a falling tide and would need to wait many hours for a wising tide to free their hulking gaspy. spotting this irresistible opportunity captain lindsay proceeded to providence and enlisted the help of john brown, a respected merchant from one of the most prominent families in the city. the two men rallied a group of rhode island patriots at sabin's tavern in what is now the east side of providence.

together the group resolved to put an end to the gaspy's reign over rhode island's waters. that night the men led by captain lindsay and abraham whiple embarked in eight long boats quietly down narragansett bay. they encircled the gaspy and called on the captain to surrender his ship. dudingston refused and ordered his men to fire upon anyone who tried to board. refusing to yield to the threats, the rhode islanders forced their way onto the gaspy's deck, wounding dudingston with a musket ball in the midst of the struggle. right there in the waters of war rick --, warrick, rhode island, the very first blood this the conflict that was to become the american revolution, was drawn. as the patriots commandeered the ship, brown ordered one of his rhode islanders, a physician named john money to head to the ship's captain to tend to

dudingston's wound. in their moment of victory, they showed mercy on a man who threatened to open fire on them moments before. allowing the gaspy's crew time to collect their belongings they took the captive englishmen back to shore before returning to the despised gaspy to rid narragansett bay of they are presence once and for all. they set her afire. the blaze spread to the ship's powder magazine, setting off explosions like fireworks. the resulting blast echoing across the bay as airborne fragments of the ship slashed down into the water. the sight of this historic victory -- site of this historic victory is known as gaspy point. so i come again to this floor to share this story and to commemorate the right june 9 -- the night of june 9, 177, and

the names of john brown and abraham whiple who went on to serve as a naval commander in the refusal nutritionary war. i know these events and the patriots whose efforts are not forgotten in my home state. over the years i've enjoyed marching in the gaspee days parade in warrick, rhode island as we recall the courage of these men that fired the first shots in that great contest for the freedoms that we enjoy today. they set a precedent for future patriots to follow including those in boston, who more than a year later would have their tea party. but don't forget madam president as my home state prepares once again to celebrate the anniversary of the gaspee incident, that massachusetts colonials threw tea bags off the deck of their british ship. we blew ours up and shot its

captain more than a year before. we're little in rhode island, madam president, but as lieutenant dudingston discovered, we pack a punch. i thank the chair, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, i ask the vitiation of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: madam president, i just returned home from a week in indiana where i had the opportunity to meet with hoosiers from all parts of our sta*eut and on all -- state and on all different issues. one of the common themes that came out of the week back home was the fact that we're just not growing as fast as we need to as

a nation to get people back to work. we held a job fair in lafayette, indiana. about 2,200 people showed up for that looking for work opportunities. while many walked away, some walked away with job applications and job offers in hand. clearly there just aren't enough viable opportunities out there to get the people back to work that really want to get back to work. now, as i talked to business people across the state, particularly medium and small business size entities, there was a common theme that came forward, and that is, well, we're very reluctant to hire. it's not that our business isn't improving. we've seen some significant improvement going forward, particularly in indiana with some drop in the unemployment

rate. but they say it's not specifically that we don't have the work. it's that we're afraid to hire. we're afraid to hire new people because there is so much uncertainty as to what our taxes are going to be, what new regulations are going to come forward, what new items that are going to be imposed upon us by the regulatory authorities here in washington, d.c., by the health care reform bill, which put some pretty mandated requirements on us. to hire a new employee, we have to factor in all these various uncertainties in terms of our ability to continue this business at a profitable -- on a profitable basis. and so whether it's talking to farmers in southern indiana who are upset about the various proposed regulations concerning

their business or whether it's talking to manufacturers in northwest indiana or small business people across the state, i'm hearing this repetitive response. and that is that washington is trying to impose too much on them, and it leaves too much uncertainty about their ability to deal with the future and make decisions about hiring. one of the latest things to come across, that we've been hearing about is the fact that the e.p.a. is imposing significant new regulations relative to the clean air act on emissions that affect indiana utility rates in a very significant way, and that's one more thing that our business people mentioned, and that is we don't know what our utility rates are going to be in the future and the cost of that because of these new regs coming out. and utilities are basically telling us we're going to have

to be paying more in the future because of these regulations. i stand here as someone who has voted for the clean air act, supports the clean air act. we all are for clean air. those of us who are trying to propose reasonable ways of achieving that so that without negatively impacting our ability to hire people and the ability of consumers to pay their utility bills and the ability of corporations and businesses to have reasonable rates so that they can compete worldwide, producing the products that are made, all they're asking for -- they're not asking for a return to dirty skies. they're not asking for a return to dirty water. they're citizens of the united states. they breathe the same air as we all breathe. what they are saying, however, is can we have a solution to the problem that is handled in a

responsible, reasonable way, and affordable, that gives us time to implement these. recently there's been a lot of talk about two items that the e.p.a. has been imposing on the power industry. after visiting with indiana utilities, it's clear that the e.p.a. time line will result in more job loss and skyrocketing rates. and so again, while we all want to support cleaning toxins out of the air, doing so in a way that also keeps our people at work and keeps our utility rates at a reasonable level is not being considered under this. i joined with the democrat, joe manchin of west virginia, to bring forward legislation that meets the standards and meets the goals but does so in a way

that gives those power-producing utilities the opportunity in time and cost opportunity to be able to accomplish that. all we've done really is just extend in the case of one of the regulations two years, in the case of another three years. to give those utilities time to comply. because the immediate compliance requirements of the e.p.a. on these utilities means they're going to have to shut down the plants. some of those are in retrofit as we speak, and that retrofit will not, however, meet the e.p.a. deadline. and, therefore, they're asking for the right to get a waiver for an extension. and that is what manchin-coats, coats-manchin does. it provides a reasonable way of achieving the goals of clean air, and yet doing so in a way that it doesn't have a devastating impact on our states as these regulations would do.

one is the caspar act which deals with sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions and the other is utility mact. there is a movement underway now to remove mercury from these emissions, and that's something that we all support. but if we don't do it in a responsible way, the consequences of the e.p.a. regulations coming down hard and closing up to six power plants in indiana and a skyrocketing of utility rates. there's particularly an impact on small business. small business, as we know, provides most of the hiring, and those small business people, they don't have the backroom support to comply with all the written and required regulations being imposed on them. i've talked to some people who said instead of being out on the show room floor, being out on the counter, i have to be back half the time in my business

complying with regulations. a hospital administrator told me of the 12,000 people under their employ, 6,000 provide care and 6,000 fill out paperwork for compliance with regulations, compliance with reimbursement, compliance with administrative costs, many of which are imposed by legislation or regulation, in most cases, that comes out of washington. so as we look at opportunities here in the senate to responsibly address some of these issues, it's always in this business tempting to politicize the process. and if someone doesn't immediately step up and salute the latest e.p.a. regulation, you're harming people this or you're denying people that, or safety concerns, you're risking harm to people and so forth; all we're asking for is a reasonable way to go forward to meet

reasonable health and safety standards. what we're saying is that the surge in regulations that is pouring out of washington upon our people and our businesses, within the last two or three years is staggering. and it is clearly holding down growth. it's clearly holding down economic recovery. it's clearly holding down the ability of businesses to hire and put more people back to work. so whether it's the inhofe provision or whether it's the portman provision or any of a number of others, i'm going to support those. the blank check that has been given to regulatory agencies because it is not possible for this administration to pass it through congress as they did in 2009 and 2010 with a total majority, no longer exists. therefore, the regulatory agencies appear to have been given a blank check, and they have just run amok with regulations. so as we look at these, let's take a reasonable look in terms

of what we need to accomplish, in terms of providing for health and safety of our people. and what the consequences are of trying to do it in a way that jeopardizes our economic recovery and getting people back to work. madam president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i rise to speak on s. 3240, legislation to reauthorize the farm bill. as a former member and ranking member of the agriculture committee here in the senate, i recognize how difficult it is to combine all the diverse interests into legislation that meets the needs of all crops, regions, rural and urban communities that the farm bill impacts. this bill before us is no exception, and i am disappointed that at this time i am not able to support this bill because of its current form. i do want to take a minute to commend the chairman and the

ranking member for their efforts in putting a farm bill together in a very difficult budget time that we're in. we all understand that agriculture has to pay its fair share of deficit reduction, and, frankly, is going to be at the lead of the pack when it comes to participating in deficit reduction. we're one of the first agencies out of the box to make a commitment to do so. with that being said, it is my hope that at the end of the day i'm going to be able to support this bill as we complete the legislative process. but as of today the bill is filled with inequities and is unbalanced. contrary to statements made on this floor in the last several days, the bill under consideration seeks to place a one-size-fits-all policy on every region of the country. it works for some regions but it does not work for other regions,

because distribution of benefits is skewed to one particular region, it fails a basic test of fairness that we all seek in legislation that moves through this chamber. i believe the farm bill needs to provide an effective safety net for farmers, ranchers in rural communities in times of deep and sustained price decline. it should also responsibly provide nutrition assistance to those in need in all parts of the country, urban and rural alike. the farm bill initially and remains focused on farmers and ranchers, helping them manage a combination of challenges much out of their own individual control, such as unpredictable weather, variable input costs and market volatility. all combined determine profit or loss on any given farm in any given year. the 2008 farm bill continues today to provide a strong safety net for producers and any

follow-on legislation must adhere and honor the same commitment that we made to our farmers and ranchers across america four years ago. at the same time i believe the agriculture sector can contribute to deficit reduction, and the bill before us provides savings and mandatory spending programs. the key, though, is to do this in an equitable and fair manner throughout all titles and areas of the bill. the nutrition benefits in this bill, which are already inflated by the president's failed stimulus package, are reduced by only one half of 1% while the commodity title is cut by roughly 15%. by this account, it is clear that the agriculture committee carefully determined how best to contribute to deficit reduction to ensure an undue burden was not placed on those truly in need. this farm bill will be my fourth as a member of congress, and

each has had its own unique challenges and opportunities. balancing the needs and interests of all agriculture requires patience and an open ear. it is very important that we recognize the unique differences between commodities as well as different parts of the country. as agriculture markets become more complex, we must be mindful that a one-size-fits-all program no longer works for u.s. agriculture. regions are much more diverse than they ever were, and we need to recognize this diversity by providing producers with different options that best match their cropping and growing decisions. my greatest concern with this bill is that the commodity title redistributes resources from one region to another not based on market forces or cropping decisions, but based on how the underlying program, the agriculture risk coverage

program, was designed. after deducting a share for deficit reduction, certain commodities received more resources than others, and crops such as peanuts and rice are left without any safety net whatsoever. there are many reports illustrating the lopsidedness of this bill. among the biggest losers in budget baseline are wheat, barley, grain sorghum, rice, cotton, and peanuts. we should not convince ourselves that this is not going to have an enormous, negative consequence for many regions of the country. but simply by making the bill too rich for a few at the expense of many, it lacks balance. some will say that planing shifts are responsible for much of the change in the budget baseline, and that's partly true. but it does not take away the injury that would be inflicted on regions of the country, nor does it tell the whole story.

by squeezing all crops into a program specially designed for one or two crops, this bill will force many growers to switch to those crops in order to have an effective safety net. this is the very planning distortion caused by farm policy that we seek to avoid in any farm bill. but there is another very serious problem with this bill. it's not going to be there when farmers really need it. whether offered an on on-farm or areawide basis, it will not provide a safety net if crop prices collapse and we know they will. under this bill, a farmer has an 11% deductible. then the next 10% of losses is covered. but then farmers are left totally exposed to a plunge in crop prices all the way down to

the loan rate. if that happens, congress will be asked to pass ad hoc disaster programs again. we should seek to avoid such disaster packages and farm bills give us the opportunity do that, not create ad hoc disaster opportunities. crop insurance can cover the production side of the risk if you can afford to buy higher coverage, but it does not cover year-on-year low prices. even the 10% revenue band this bill does cover has problems, because the revenue guarantee is based on the previous five years' price and production. the guarantee is only as good as those previous five years. if they were bad or they become bad, the guarantee is also bad. this is not an effective safety net. just last week my staff and i traveled throughout south georgia, and we witnessed crop

damages and in some cases total losses of crop, which were the result of a hailstorm that occurred across a 40-mile stretch of georgia. it is estimated that well over 10,000 acres have been damaged or totally lost. i just don't see how a small band of revenue protection provided for in this bill that is limited to a $50,000 is helpful to some farmers who lost over $1 million in one field. the a.r.c. proposal in this bill is simply not an effective safety net. members have come to the floor championing the commodity and crop insurance programs in this bill as well as stating that we were solving the problem with commodity promises by eliminating direct payments. i've seen quotes in the press criticizing southern commodities, stating that we are too closely tied to direct payments. well, let me be very clear.

i have never been a fan of direct payments, and back in 1996, as a member of the house, i supported a much different proposal%, and let pe let me ale that direct payments were always difficult to defend and we needed to find a different way to provide a safety net while doing in a fiscally responsible way. southern growers have not asked for direct payments at any time during the current discussions. my criticism stems entirely from the fact that this farm bill shoehorns all producers into a one-size-fits-all policy. producer choice based on a producer's inherent risk is the better course to follow. the university of georgia's national center for peanut competitiveness evaluated the a.r.c. program, which is the fundamental safety net that's provided for in this farm bill,

and they determined that it is of little utility to peanut producers. the center has a database of 22 representative farms spread throughout oklahoma, new mexico, texas, mississippi yo, alabama, georgia, florida, south carolina, north carolina, and virginia. based on the analysis provided, this farm bill does not provide the same level of production as midwestern growers who will be growing corn and soybeans. that is a fablght. -- that is a fact. i want to work with the chair and ranking member with respect to trying to make the bill more balanced and more equitable, but frankly all of our offers to this point in time have been rejected. peanut producers have offered no proposal that includes direct payments. but yet they're labeled as unwilling to change from the status quo. the a.r.c. program is not new.

it's a derivative of a program in the 2008 farm bill that experienced low participation. in fact, when producers had a choice, they chose something other than this type of program. in spite of all this i should point outer that this point out that this bill includes a new program for cotton that complies with our international commitments and will show our trading partners that we will abide by our international agreements. as chairman and rank member of the ag committee, i committed to find a solution to the w.t.o. brazil case. i offered legislation in 2005 and again in 2008 that made significant changes in the cotton and export programs to bring us into compliance with our international commitments. we eliminated the step-2 program, we reformed the cotton marketing loan program, and reduced the cotton

countercyclical program unilaterally and in good faith. we find ourselves again reforming the cotton safety net with what is called the stacked income protection plan for users of upland cotton, or the stacks program. the program in this bill is a significant departure from what is available to other covered commodities and puts us down the path of resolving the w.t.o. dispute with brazil. my hope now is that our brazilian friends engage in a real and meaningful way and we can put this issue behind us. at the end of the day, let us remember, the reason we are here is to represent the hardworking men and women who work the land each day and provide the highest quality of agricultural products in the world. i believe we have the opportunity to pass a bill that can be equal to their commitment in providing food, feed, and fiber that allows us to continue

to be the greatest producer on the earth. right now this bill lacks the commitment and strength of those it was designed to support. i do not intend to impede the movement of the farm bill that if repaired through an open amendment process, of which we have been assured at this point, that it has the potential of providing for all of america. farm bills are complex. they always consume a lot of floor time. but the farm policy is also very important. i luke forward t look forward te forthcoming debate over the next several days and weeks and at the end the day to hopefully have a true, meaningful, and balanced farm bill that will provide producers an equitable opportunity of a safety net and at the same time to continue to provide the world with the safest, most productive and

highest-quality agriculture products there is today. with that, madam chair, i yield the floor. mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the chai senator from north dakotat. thunthune earliermr. thune: to e you have to ask yourself, do they really believe what they're saying? they cram down track about how republicans are blocking this or blocking that. i think it is important to point out that now for the past six years the democrats have been the majority party here in the united states senate. in fact, for two of those years they had a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority in the united states. filibuster-proof, literally could do anything they wanted to in the united states senate. they had a majority in the house of representatives, and of course they got the presidency.

and if you look at the volume of legislation that was produced at the time, most of the things that were accomplished with the 60-vote filibuster-proof majority were things that the american people disagree disagrh as i think what you find now with public polls. the individual mandate that was included in the legislation and gleed generally with many of the provisions in the bill. my point is for a period of time the democrats literally had the run of the tables here in washington, d.c., as we in it. a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in the snavment a majority in the house of representatives and the presidency. yet they come down and decry republicans as being responsible for all the things that have or haven't happened here in the united states senate. and one of the things that they point out is that there is this attempt by republicans to continue to filibuster legislation, and i would argue, madam president, nothing could be further from the truth.

in fact, everybody knows in the senate that the majority leader is the person who is first to be recognized on the senate floor, which allows him to use that power to offer a series of democrat amendments to pending legislation in a way that prevents republicans from offering that i remember own ideas. it's called filling the tree, sort of a term of art that's used around here in the senate. but filling the tree is engs will --is essentially what the democratic majority has the opportunity to do because he has the power of recognition and he can fill the amendment tree and prevent republican amendments from being offered and voted on. interesting enough, majority leader reid once sinced that this practice "runs against the basic nature of the senate." will the me rate that. majority leader reid once insisted that filling the amendment treat, "runs against the basic nature of the senate." but by the way that the senate operates today, it is clear that he has abandoned that assessment. according to the congress

research service, the c.r.s., majority leader reid has employed this tactic a record of 59 times. he's sue used it to block minory input into legislation 50% more often thank the past six majority leaders combined. i think that's worth repeating. this majority leader has used the filling of the tree procedure 50% more often than the past six majority leaders combined. so, the only option the minority is left with under that scenario is to -- is to basically try and get votes on amendments and to work with the majority, in which case the majority says, no, we aren't going to give you amendments. we've filled the tree. so they invoke cloture. we end up having a vote on cloture. what we've seen repeatedly is the senate break down in a state of dysfunction simply because the majority doesn't want to make tough votes on amendments. and so we've seen this over and over and over again, as i said.

it is historic and unpress defntsed as the -- and unprecedented as to the number of times it has occurred in the united states senate. the real reason that we probably don't have votes on amendments and the filling of the tree is used repeatedly is because members on the other side don't want to make the hard decisions, don't want to cast the tough votes. irthink that's evidenced as well -- i think that's evidenced as well that for three years in a row we haven't had a budget in the united states senate. if there was a real interest in solving problems, you would think that the majority, again, which has responsibility to put a budget on the floor, would bring a budget to the floor that would set a direction for the future of this country and ask members of the united states senate to vote on it, to vote on amendments, to have an opportunity to say to the american people, this is how we would lead the country. that hasn't happened now for over 1,100 days, for the past three years. republicans are ready and willing to work with the majority as we have evidenced on many occasions -- in fact we're going to debate this next week

farm bill legislation, something that there is bipartisan support for here in the united states senate. i would argue that we are -- there are many things that we would like to see done. we would love to have an opportunity to vote on extending the tax rates that are in effect today, which is something that even president clinton in the last few days has come out in support of. because we know -- everybody here knows that we're facing this fiscal cliff, could be very, very dangerous to our economy if steps are not taken to prevent and avoid that. and we would be more than willing to work with the majority on extending the tax rates to give some certainty to our job creators and our small businesses. we'd also like to work with him on the sequester that's going to lap at the end of the year and redistributing those cuts in a way that doesn't completely decimate our national security budget. there are lots of things that the republicans are ready towork with our colleagues on the other side with when it comes to try to grow the economy and create jobs, but frankly we believe it is important that we at least

have a opportunity to get amendments debated and votes on. that simply hasn't happened, as i pointed out by the number of times the majority leader has filled the tree. i am not suggesting that there isn't plenty of blame to go on the one han--to go around in war the situation we're n all i am a he simply saying is for the majority leader to come down and suggest that somehow republicans are responsible for gridlock here in the united states senate is complete denial of reality and denial of the facts. as i said before, they had a period here for a few years where they have to complete -- they had the complete run of the place. offed a 60-vote filibuster-proof senate. they had the house of representatives and the presidency. it's pretty clear to me to suggest for a moment that

it's republicans who are attempting to slow you things down around here or keep the majority from working its will is completely contrary to the facts and the reality as i think most senators -- all senators i think know. and i know that my colleague from wyoming is someone who is somewhat new here but has been here long enough now to have see many, many times where the majority has prevented the minority from actually offering amendments, getting votes on amendments on the floor of the united states senate, and i would just suggest to him and allow him to make some observations with regard to this subject as well, because it strikes me, at least, that he and i both, and many of our colleagues, are very interested in working with the majority on things that would actually put people back to work, get our economy growing again. we would love to have that opportunity. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i'd just like to commented on that because it doesn't matter how long you're here, all you needed to do was pick up the newspaper, pick up the "national

journal," and i agree with my colleague from south dakota. at the beginning of this year, the "national journal," big article, picture of the majority leader and the headline is, "reid's new electoral strategy." forget passing bills is the subheadline. "forget passing bills, the democrats just want to play the blame game in 2012." and, madam president, that's exactly what we saw this morning on the floor of the united states senate. and this isn't some piece of fiction. this is something that actually the majority leader told the 40 democrats from the house about his goal, his intentions for the 2012 year here in congress. goes on to say, "working with the white house, senate democrats are plotting a 2012 floor agenda driven by obama's reelection campaign." it goes on, "senate floor action will be planned less to make law." we have 8.2% unemployment, madam president. 8.2% unemployment, and this party admits, the leader admits in this piece, the senate actual will be planned less to make law

than to buttress obama's charge that republicans are object strucking measures -- are obstructing measures. that's what their goal is? that's a year's plan as outlined to democrats in the house from the majority leader. it goes on to say, "democrats will push legislation that polls well and dovetails with obama's campaign." well, madam president, with 8.2% unemployment, that's not polling so well. and with today "the new york times" reporting that over two-thirds of americans want to find that the health care law is unconstitutional, "new york times," two-thirds of the americans, unconstitutional health care law, that's what the people are saying. nothing that this president and this administration and the democrats are doing is polling very well. you know, we ought to look back at the history of this great institution. this senate is a unique legislative institution. it is designed to guarantee the minority party, no matter who the majority is, designed to -- to guarantee the minority party and, therefore, a large block of americans that it represents, that that party has a voice.

trarnlly this body -- traditionally this body functions well with majority party works to find consensus with the minority party on the process and the substance of legislation. consultation, compromise, with both parties work together. historically that's been the rule, not the exception, as we've seen in recent years. so i think here -- i sit here and look at the empty seat a couple of rows ahead of me and off to the other side of the aisle where robert byrd sat. senator byrd understood the importance of allowing for a full debate and amendment process in order to preserve the senate as a unique institution in our democracy. he said, "the one place in the whole government," he said, "where the minority is guaranteed a public airing of its views." the senate, he taught -- quote -- was a forum guaranteed to be open for debate and for minorities." he went on to say, "as long as

the senate retains the power to debate and unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure." mr. president, i would say allowing the minority to debate and amend legislation has given way to what we see now is democrats' election-year political strategy of blaming republicans as obstructionists. the minority and majority need to work together. majority leader reid has done all of these things in terms of the strategy and the blaming by preventing republicans from amending pending legislation, ending debate before it starts and bypassing the committee process. he's made a habit of squelching the voice of the minority by curtailing its ability to amend legislation. the majority leader is always the first to be recognized on the senate floor. he can use that power to offer a series of democratic amendments to pending legislation in a way that prevents republicans from offering any of their ideas and it's called filling the tree.

so how often does it happen? well, let's think first about the history. the majority leader once insisted that this practice of filling the tree, he said -- quote -- "runs against the basic nature of the senate." by the way, the senate -- by the way the senate operates today, however, it's clear that he has abandoned that previous assessment. according to the congressional research service, majority leader reid has employed this tactic a record 59 times. he has used it to block minority input in legislation 50% more often than the past five majority leaders combined. the minority's only option under these circumstances is to oppose ending debate on legislation, known as invoking cloture, in order to convince the majority to allow it to offer amendments. to the legislation and thereby represent the interests of their constituents. mr. president, this is a very bad practice and one takes a look at congress after congress, whether it was george mitchell,

bob dole, trent lott, tom daschle, bill frist. combined here we have senator reid 50% more than the others all combined. so here we are, we've come to the floor of the senate to respond to what we heard from the majority leader this morning about obstructionism and what we do see, it is just a page from the majority leader's playbook of the electoral strategy for 2012, from the leader of the majority, "forget passing bills: the democrats just want to play the blame game in 2012." and, mr. president, that's exactly what we saw today. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. actually, mr. president, i'm not here to play the blame game. i am here to talk about a place where we in the senate have found real bipartisan consensus

and it's an issue that is critical i think to us in the state of new hampshire and to all of the senators here. because in 23 days, our countr country's surface transportation programs are going to shut down unless congress can come to an agreement on critical legislation. nearly three months ago, 74 senators voted to pass a measure that would reauthorize these programs through the end of fiscal year 2013, providing much-needed certainty to our states and to private industry. and here in this chamber, senators from vastly different ideologies were able to lay aside those differences and to come up with bipartisan ways to pay for this bill, to streamline federal programs and to make our transportation investments more efficient. so that we spend leses on less n overhead, more on roads and

bridges and transportation projects. now, this process wasn't easy, as everyone remembers. it required compromise from both sides to ensure that we could put together legislation that would bring america's transportation policies into the 21st century. but if jim inhofe from oklahoma, the ranking member of the environment and public works committee, and barbara boxer, the chair of that committee, can come together and figure out how to put together a transportation bill, there is no reason why our adjoining body over in the house can't do the same thing. and i have been very disturbed by recent news that the house is less interested in finishing this bill than in approving a hose of unrelatehost of unrelat. now, there's a time and a place for to us consider whether some of the amendments that have been proposed on the transportation bill in the house, like whether coal ash should be regulated as a hazardous material or not, but

the transportation bill is not one of those places. we need to focus on policies that will encourage the types of investment in our highways, in our railroads, in our bridges that put americans back to work and spur economic growth. here we are. we just heard the unemployment rate went up slightly for the last month. we have legislation pending that came out of the senate that would put people back to work. every billion dollars we spend in transportation funding puts to work 28,000 people. and we've got the house fiddling while construction workers all over this country are out of work. the conference committee needs to focus on transportation policies that will reduce congestion, that will create jobs, and that will unleash economic development. we have a project like that in new hampshire.

it's one of our most important roads. it's the corridor that goes from our largest city of manchester down to the border with massachusetts. it's got too much traffic on it today. it's a safety concern. we need to finish this road. and we've -- we're being held up in doing that because of the failure of the house to be willing to go along with what the senate did and reach agreement. our department of transportation in new hampshire has said that work on just a single portion of this highway, interstate 93, will put to work 369 people in the construction industry, which is still struggling. it's the industry in this country that still has the biggest impact from this recession. and last year in nashua and portsmouth, new hampshire, construction employment declined by 7%. job creation in that industry remains stagnant in new hampshire and nationwide, and we

need this legislation to get these folks back to work. and it's not only construction jobs that depend on federal investments in transportation. it's our economy as a whole. the deteriorating condition of america's infrastructure -- its roads, its railroads, its bridges -- costs businesses more than a hundred billion dollars a year in lost productivity. and this is a bill that a broad coalition of people is behind. both the afl-cio and the u.s. chamber of commerce agree that we need transportation legislation. and despite the importance of the spending to american workers and businesses, today the house plans to vote on a motion to cut federal transportation investments by one-third. the federal highway administration found that cutting funding so severely would put 2,000 people in new hampshire alone out of work,

half a million people in the country out of work. this at a time when we should be creating jobs, not destroying them. cutting funding at this time would be so shortsighted. brazil, china and india are all spending about 9% of their g.d.p. per year on infrastructure -- roads, bridges, public transportation. what we're spending in the united states is roughly 2%. that's half of what we were spending in the 1960's, when there was real bipartisan support for policies from both president kennedy and dwight eisenhower to invest in projects like our interstate highway system. both republicans and democrats agree that investment was -- that investment in our interstate highway system was one of the best decisions in our nation's history. members of both parties need to

come together, as we have for decades, and focus on reasonable bipartisan policies that will end the uncertainty that states and private industry are facing when it comes to our transportation legislation. on june 30, it will have been 1,000 days since our last federal transportation bill expired. congress needs to come together now and pass a transportation reauthorization bill before we get to the ends of those thousand days. thank you very much, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota.

mr. hoeven: i ask that i be recognized to speak in support of the farm bill. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. hoeven: i rise today to speak in support of the farm bill, which is now before the senate. as a member of the senate ag committee, i worked together with my fellow committee members on a bipartisan basis to put forward what we believe is a sound farm bill for this country. we passed the bill out of committee on a strong bipartisan vote 16-5, so it comes here to the senate floor for deliberation. the bill is entitled the ag reform food and jobs act of 2012. i'd like to begin with just a simple question. why is the farm bill so important? why is the farm bill so important? i think the first chart i have sums it up. this is i think the most important point that i'll make

today. i'm going to begin with it and i will end my -- or conclude my comments with it as well. u.s. farmers and ranchers provide the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. our farmers and ranchers today provide the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. and not only do they provide the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world, they supply the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the history of the world. that's vitally important to every single american. so when we pass a farm policy that supports our network of farmers and ranchers throughout this great country, we're doing something that makes a fundamental difference every single day for every american and for millions and millions of people beyond our borders. there are other aspects to this farm bill that are very important as well. for example, we have a tremendous number of jobs in farming and ranching across this

country, and every state in this country, throughout our heartland and beyond. not just direct jobs in farming and ranching but indirect jobs in everything from food processing to retail to transportation, marketing, you name it. so we could say it's an incredible jobs bill, which it is. there is no question about it. when we provide a good, solid farm program for our farmers and ranchers, we are also very much passing a jobs bill as well. soar we could talk about it in terms of a favorable balance of trade. the united states has a deficit in its trade balance, but agriculture, agriculture has a positive balance of trade. we export millions in food products all over the world to feed hungry people and it generates a positive return for this country in a big, big way. or we could talk about it in terms of national security. think how important good farm

policy is for national security. we produce not only the food we need but far more than we -- far more than the food we need for our citizens, we provide food for many other citizens in many other countries as well. but think about the national security implications. if we had to depend on other countries for our food supply. maybe even countries that don't necessarily share our interests or values, which is currently the case with energy. we certainly don't want to be in that situation when it comes to feeding our people. so it truly is an issue of national security, being in the position to make sure that we have farmers and ranchers that will supply not only the food we need in this country but the food that people consume in many, many countries throughout the world. so for all those reasons, this is an incredibly important bill, an incredibly important

legislation, but it's not just incredibly important to our farmers and ranchers. it's incredibly important for every single one of us. for all those reasons and more. the second point that i want to make is that this farm bill is cost-effective, and it's not only cost-effective but we provide real savings to help reduce the deficit and the debt. it provides strong support to our farmers and ranchers, but it does it the right way. it does it in a way where we provide savings that will go to reduce the deficit, reduce the debt. our farmers and ranchers are stepping up and not only doing an amazing job for this country in terms of what they do in food supply and job creation, all these things i am talking about, but they are stepping up and helping meet the challenge of our deficit and debt as well. the second chart is an example of what i am talking about in terms of the farm program being

cost-effective, and i want to use this and several other charts to go into the actual numbers to show that this -- that the farm program and particularly this bill that we have crafted is not only cost-effective but provides real savings as well, and at the same time provides enhanced support for our farmers and our ranchers throughout the country. if you think of the total federal budget as this cornfield , then the portion that goes to the farm bill would be similar to this ear of corn out of this cornfield. think of the total cornfield as the federal budget. think the farm bill then would be about one year of corn, and the portion of the farm bill that actually goes to farmers and ranchers to supporting what farmers and ranchers do would be one kernel of corn out of the entire field. just to put those numbers into perspective, on an annualized basis -- now, these are

annualized numbers -- you talk about federal spending of about $3.7 trillion, right in that range, $3.7 trillion. you're talking about a farm bill that on an annualized is about $100 billion. so $100 billion out of $3.7 trillion. and then if you talk about the portion that actually goes to support our farmers or ranchers, you're talking $20 billion less than, less than $20 billion out of $3.7 trillion, so that's why i use this frame of reference. and we go to the next chart, we go specifically into some of the numbers and how that funding is broken out in the farm bill itself. here this pie chart shows the c.b.o. scoring. now, of course, with any legislation, you need the c.b.o. scoring that shows the actual cost, and we try to do that in a consistent way across all the

legislation that we pass, so c.b.o. uses a ten-year scoring period, and on that basis, this entire pie, the entire farm program scored over a ten-year period is $960 billion, $960 billion. of that, almost $800 billion is nutrition programs, okay? almost 80% goes to nutrition. what did i mean by that? i mean primarily snap, supplemental assistance food payments or food stamps or things like the school lunch programs. so things like nutrition programs comprise 80% of the total cost in the farm bill. only about 20% actually goes for farming and ranching for farm programs and for conservation. all right? so that's only about in the scoring $200 billion. but we know that the bill is not a ten-year bill, it's a five-year bill, isn't it?

it's a five-year bill. so the actual cost is $480 billion, half that, half of the score, $480 billion. that means approximately $400 billion goes for nutrition programs, food stamps, school lunches and so forth, $400 billion, and less than, less than $100 billion goes for farm programs and conservation programs, so we're talking about an annual cost of this farm program, a program that supports farmers and ranchers and feed this country in much of the world total is about $20 billion, actually less than $20 billion. so let's go through how in my next chart, how the program actually provides savings, how our farmers and ranchers are stepping up and providing real savings for deficit reduction in this country. this bill saves more than $23 billion. $23.6 billion is the savings generated by this farm bill. $15 billion comes from farm

programs themselves, $15 billion. $6 billion from conservation programs. only about $4 billion comes out of nutrition programs. so 80% of the bill, 80% of the cost in the bill is nutrition programs, which is $400 billion. only $4 billion comes out of the nutrition programs. close to $20 billion comes out of the -- the ag portion of the bill. so we're talking about if you look at going back to my prior chart for just a minute, if you go back to just the crop insurance provisions and the commodity, which really comprise the farm support network, that's about $150 billion in the c.b.o. score. and remember, i said that $15 billion comes out of that $150 billion. my point being 10% reduction. so farmers and ranchers are stepping up in this farm bill

and saying okay, we're going to help meet the deficit and the debt challenge. they are in essence taking 10% less. now, think about that if throughout all aspects of the federal budget everybody stepped up the way our farmers and ranchers are stepping up and this legislation says okay, here is 10%, 10% reduction that we're going to take to help get our budget balanced, to help get our deficit under control, to help get this debt under control. so my point is very clearly in this legislation, we have real savings and that real savings is being provided by our farmers and ranchers. but at the same time, at the same time, this is my third point and it's very important. this farm bill provides the kind of support that our farmers and ranchers need by providing the risk tools, the risk management tools that our farmers need. this farm bill provides strong support for our farmers and for

our ranchers and it does it the right way. it does it the right way with sound risk management tools. what are those risk management tools? i have got them right here. first and foremost, enhanced crop insurance. second, a new ag risk coverage or a.r.c. program. it also includes reauthorization of the no-cost sugar program. and it includes continuation of the livestock indemnity program. and let me talk about each of these because these are the kind of risk management tools that our farmers and ranchers have asked for. they are cost-effective, they are market-based approach, but they provide the sound solid safety net that our farmers, our producers need to continue to produce food supply for this great country. all right. in my next chart, i'm going to go into more detail on crop insurance. as we -- as i travel around the state and as myself and others

who are members of the ag committee travel the country, one thing that our farmers and ranchers said to us over and over again is that they want enhancements to crop insurance. as we worked on the safety net for farmers and ranchers, as we worked on safety tools for farmers and ranchers, what they said over and over again is the heart of the farm bill needs to be enhanced crop insurance, so that's exactly what we have done with this legislation. that is the heart of the bill. the enhanced crop insurance involves a number of things. first, farmers can buy crop insurance and do buy crop insurance at whatever level they deem appropriate. so they look at their farm operation, they decide how much prop insurance they are going to buy to cover that farm operation, but the higher level that theyen sure -- that they

insure because they insure at higher levels, the cost to buy that insurance gets more and more expensive. so one of the key things that we tried to do in terms of enhancing crop insurance is figure out how we could help them insure at a higher level but still at an affordable price. that's one of the new innovations in this farm bill. it's called the supplemental coverage option, s.c.o., supplemental coverage option, and what it allows or enables farmers to do is to insure or cover their farming operation at a higher level but still at a -- an affordable price. and the way it works is, again, the farmer buys his normal crop insurance at the level that he would normally purchase it, but then in addition on a countywide basis, he can buy supplemental coverage, the supplemental coverage option on top of his existing insurance. so if he typically insures up to, say, a 60% or 65% or maybe

70% level, at a lower or at a reasonable premium, he can buy additional insurance on top of his regular policy, his regular policy is a farm-based policy, this is a county-based or a countywide policy, but it provides additional coverage at a reduced rate. again, better risk management tools, enhanced ability for farmers on a market-based approach to cover their farming operation. the second innovation that we brought, as i will show you on my next chart, is the program that is called ag risk coverage or a.r.c. very often farmers -- obviously, one of the great challenges farmers face is due to weather, but when they face those weather challenges, oftentimes we can get in a cycle, a wet cycle or a dry cycle, so the problem they have with weather may not be limited to one year. you may have a number of years where they face real weather

challenges. in addition what may happen it may trigger losses in their farming operation that aren't severe enough to trigger their regular crop insurance, but still cause them losses. so you have what are called repetitive or shallow losses. over time, those can make an incredible difference in terms of farmers being able to continue in farming and continue their operation. so we added shallow loss coverage or the ag risk program to help cover or help them protect against these repetitive losses which they can offer face due to weather conditions. that's the a.r.c. program or ag risk coverage. basically it covers between 11% and 1% of their historical -- 21% of their historical revenue. how do you calculate their historical revenue? a five-year average, their last five-year average based on price

and yield, the revenue they generate on their farming operation, you take out the high year, you take out the low year, and you average the other three. so the way it works is when you have a year where the farmer's crop insurance may not trigger, they still have help when they have a loss but a loss that may not trigger on their crop insurance. in other cases, it works with their crop insurance to make sure that they are adequately covered so they can continue their farming operation. again, an enhanced risk management tool, cost-effective, focused on a market-based approach to make sure our farmers and ranchers have the coverage they need to continue their operation. one other point i want to make in wrapping up is that this bill also continues strong support for ag research.

ag research is making a tremendous difference for our farmers in terms of what they're doing to increase productivity. so obviously we all know that technology has done amazing things to help productivity, but at the same time ag research has made an incredible difference in not only food production, productivity when it comes to food production, but energy production as well. so that's it. that's how this legislation works. it provides strong support to our farmers and ranchers, it provides that support on a cost-effective basis, the bill emphasizes a market-based approach focused on crop insurance which is exactly what producers have told us that they want. and at the same time, this legislation provides real savings, $23.6 billion to help reduce the federal deficit and the debt. it is bipartisan, and it received strong committee

support. i know some of our southern friends are still looking for more help with price protection and we're working with them, and it's likely that the house ag committee will seek to do more in that area as well. but this is legislation that we need to move forward. this is legislation that supports our farmers and our ranchers the right way, as they continue to provide -- and i'm going to go back to my very first chart, if i could. it's legislation that continues to support our farmers and ranchers as they provide -- my first chart -- the highest quality and the lowest cost food supply for every single american. as i said, this is where i started my comments, and this is where i'll conclude. we're talking about a farm bill.

we're talking about something that's important to every single american. every single american. we do it the right way here. and i ask all of my fellow senators on both sides of the aisle, we work together in a great bipartisan way in the committee and i ask that we work together in a great bipartisan way here on the senate floor and pass this bill. thank you, mr. president,. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: the house of representatives will vote on the health care reduction act of 2012. i want to say a few words about that bill which repeals two of the more counterproductive of many components of the president's health care law. specifically it repeals the restrictions on the use of f.s.a.'s and f.h.s.'s as well as the medical twice tax. wait a minute to thank my colleagues in the house for advancing this legislation. repeal of the onerous o.t.c. restrictions and the device tax are priorities of mine as well. i have introduced legislation that specifically repeals the medical device tax and my bill, the family and retirement health investment act, includes the repeal of the limitations on the purchase of over-the-counter

medication. others in the senate including my friend and colleague senator hutchison, have been working to repeal the o.t.c. restrictions and my friends from massachusetts and pennsylvania, senators brown and toomey, have been strong advocates for repeal of the medical device tax. i appreciate working with them, and all members who are committed to repeal of the president's health care law. i appreciate the hard work of chairman camp and speaker boehner in moving the health care reduction act through committee and onto the floor and i want to thank in particular the hard work of my friend congressman erik paulsen of minnesota. we have partnered on both the o.t.c. repeal and the medical device repeal and he has been tireless in fighting not only for his constituents but for all americans who are burdened by these misguided policies. despite some weak profittations

to the contrary from the white house, neither of these provisions serve any health policy purposes. they exist for one reason, to bankroll the $2.6 trillion in new spending that is the real soul of obamacare. there is no good that can come of obamacare. the bad and ugly are plenty, however. the restriction on the purchase of over-the-counter medications, what some have called a medicine capital net tax inconveniences families and increases burden on primary care providers, reduces patient choice and increase health care utilization and spending. so much for bending the cost curve down. and the medical device tax in addition to harming patients is a job killer at a time when our nation and our country needs all the good jobs it can get. together, they are also clear violations of the president's pledge not to raise taxes on

families making less than $250,000 a year. with respect to the restrictions on the purchase of over-the-counter medications, obamacare now requires the holders of health savings accounts and flexible spending arrangements to obtain a physician's prescription before using those accounts to purchase over-the-counter medicine. in some respects, this policy more than any other represents the incredible arrogance and wrong-headedness of the president's signature domestic achievement. when president obama and his allies touted the virtues of this law, they mentioned the increased access and lower cost. yet to pay for the law's coverage expansions they included this medicine cabinet tax which will do nothing but burden medical providers, undermine access to health care, and increase costs for

patients and businesses. it is worth noting that in yesterday's statement of administration policy, announcing president obama's opposition to the house bill, they did not even describe this provision in detail, much less defend it. it seems clear to me that the administration is embarrassed by this tax on patients, and they should be. a study from the consumer health products association determined that 10% of office visits are for minor ailments and 40 million medical appointments are avoided annually through the self-care enabled by over-the-counter drugs. according to a study by bows and company, the ability of these over-the-counter medications saves $102 billion annually in clinical and drug costs. yet obamacare deliberately restricts their availability. with respect to the medical device tax, we all know how bad

this tax policy is. i am sure that the president knows how bad his -- this policy is as well. but he and his allies continue to defend it. beginning next year, obamacare places -- imposes a tax on the sales of medical device makers. not the profits, the sales. with this excise tax, even unprofitable firms will be responsible for a 2.3% tax on devices on their sales. it is difficult to overstate the damage to patients and our economy that this tax will wreck. according to one analysis, this obamacare tax will kill between 14,000 and 47,000 jobs and we wonder why we're having trouble with unemployment. according to another analysis,

it would reduce research and development by $2 billion a year. now, the resulting collapse in innovation will undermine care for not only the elderly but all patients. they determined the effect of this tax will be one million life years lost annually. one million life years lost annually. between 1980 and 2000, new diagnostic and treatment tools such as improved scanners and catheters and tools for minimally invasive surgery helped increase life expectancy by more than three years. medical devices helped to slash the death rate from heart disease by a stunning 50%. and cut the death rate from stroke by 30%. from 1980 to 2000, the medical device industry was responsible for a 4% increase in u.s. life

expectancy, a 16% decrease in mortality rates, and an astounding 25% decline in elderly disability rates according to a study by medtap international. why on earth would anyone vote for a targeted tax on an industry that provides such enormous value and security to patients? for those who vote against repealing this tax today, and stand against its repeal in the senate, it is worth recalling last week's jobs report. in the month of may our economy created only 69,000 new jobs. that is frankly pathetic. it is barely keeping up with population growth, much less digging us out of our jobs deficit. i think there is little doubt that the mere threat of this tax on medical devices is contributing to these paltry

numbers. in other words, this tax is undercutting a key industry, creating deep uncertainty, and hindering job creation. since president obama signed this tax into law, the dollar amount of venture capital invested has declined more than 70%. the $200 million raised last year is the lowest level of medical device start-up activity since 1996. this industry is one of the engines of our economy. according to the lewin group, the highly-respected group and the medical technology industry, it contributes nearly $382 billion in economic output to the u.s. economy every year. in 2006 it shipped over $123 billion in goods, paid $21.5 billion in salaries to 400,000

american workers and was responsible for a total of two million american jobs. it pays its employees on average $84,156. that's 1.85 times the national average. and more than 80% of medical device companies are small businesses employing 50 people or less. yet, this is the industry that president obama decided to target. this is the industry that every senate democrat voted to tax when obamacare passed the senate. there are over 120 medical device companies in my home state of utah alone. let me tell you, they know what is going to happen if this tax goes into effect, and it is not going to be pretty. i think that the president must know this. he and his advisors must know what a disaster the medicine

cabinet tax and the medical device tax are as both fiscal and health policy. but yesterday they doubled down on them. their statement of administration policy threatened to veto the house bill. it is clear to everyone that the u.s.s. obamacare is a sinking ship, but the president seems committed to going down with it. obamacare needs to go. all of it. the law created a web of unconstitutional, misguided, unrealistic and costly regulations, taxes, fees and penalties. that web must be pulled down in its entirety whether by the supreme court or by a republican congress and president romney. there are few policies more emblematic of that law's failures than the medical device tax and restrictions of over-the- counter medications, and i commend my friends in the

house for repealing them today. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. coons: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i ask unanimous consent that proceedings underred quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coons: republicans and

democrats alike have made it clear that they support an all-the-above-energy strategy. serving on the energy committee with me there is broad agreement on the need of an approach that will develop secure, home broken energy for our nation. i believe an across the board policy that accepts the likely reality that accepts the current dependency on fossil-based fuels going on as well as the vital need to develop new promising energy for the future is essential. such a policy will provide certainty to our markets, opportunity to our families and companies and communities and ensure that we're not, as some would say, picking winners and losers in the energy space. yet there is today an obstacle standing in the way of a truly comprehensive strategy that at least both parties say they want. it's a provision in our federal tax code that has its metaphoric

thumb on the scale, tipping the balance in favor of traditional fossil fuels. that's why i am so glad i've been able to work with my colleague and friend, senator moran of kansas, to today introduce bipartisan legislation that will level the playing field and bring parity to one piece of federal tax policy relating to energy. mr. president, investors in oil, natural gas, coal and pipelines have for nearly 30 years been able to form publicly traded entities called master limited partnerships or m.l.p.'s. these partnerships include a pass-through tax structure that avoid double taxation and leaves more cash available to distribute to investors. they have for investors the liquidity and the return that's commonly associated with equity and the tax advantage that's associated with partnerships. and they have been able to aggregate and deploy a

significant amount of private capital in the traditional fossil fuel marketplace, roughly $350 billion today across 100 m.l.p.'s. they have access to private capital at a lower cost, something that capital-intensive alternative energy products in the united states badly need now more than ever. as a result, m.l.p.'s should be a great source for raising private capital for clean energy projects as well as they have been for fossil fuel projects. the only problem is, under current law only fossil fuel-based energy projects can attract this type of energy, investment can take of these so-called m.l.p.'s. we are currently in our tax policy working against our broadly stated commitment as a country to an all of the above energy policy which explicitly excludes clean energy projects from forming m.l.p.'s. this inequity is starving a

portion of the very sector it needs to build and grow and compete. so, senator moran and i along with other colleagues decided to fix it. we came together seined it was time to level the playing field. sometimes when i have the opportunity i've gone for a run here in washington or even better, in my home state in delaware, and something any runner can tell you is that going up and down hills is what saps your strength. when a surface is flat, you can go farther, you can go faster, and it's the same, mr. president, with our federal tax code. and when it comes to evening things out we have two choices. we can either lower everything to a common level by eliminating m.l.p.'s, by saying this tax advantage shouldn't be given to its traditional beneficiaries in gas and oil and coal or we can raise the level of opportunity and attract greater investment by broadening the fields that can take advantage of m.l.p.'s to include wind and solar,

biomass, geothermal, cellulosic, biodiesel, in my view, the better strategy, the better approach is the bipartisan one that takes our colleagues at their word and says that we intend to stop picking winners and losers and instead really embrace an all-of-the-above energy strategy. senator moran and i have chosen this option and believe that raoerpb eliminate -- rather than eliminating m.l.p.'s, bringing together and making everything renewable on the same level playing field as fossil fuels has a better future for the american economy. this is a relatively straightforward proposal. our bill will bring new fairness to the tax code in this specific area. it recognizes revenue from projects that sell electricity or fuels produced from clean energy sources as qualifying m.l.p.'s. this change will encourage investment in domestic energy resources and could bring substantial new private capital

off the sidelines to finance renewable projects ranging from wind and solar to geothermal and cellulosic ethanol just at a time when we so badly need them. harnessing the power of the private market is essential if alternative energy projects are to grow and create jobs all across america. two experts in energy finance, felix morman and dan reiker wrote an op-ed this past week in "the new york times" endorsing this legislation. they said -- and i quote -- "if renewable energy is going to become fully competitive and a significant source of energy in the united states, then further technological innovation must be accompanied by financial innovation so that clean energy sources gain access to the same low-cost capital that traditional energy sources like coal and oil and gas have traditionally enjoyed." in a search for common ground on energy policy, this kind of

simple fairness is the sort of thing i hope we can all agree on. that's why the m.l.p. parity act carries the strong support of a wide range of business groups, financial experts and energy organizations. david crane is the c.e.o. of fortunate 300 company n.r.g. energy. it has assets across a wide range of traditional fuel sources and clean and alternative energy sources. mr. crane said -- quote -- "the m.l.p. act is a phenomenal idea. it's worked well and has been extremely beneficial to private investment in the oil and gas base. the fact that it doesn't currently apply to renewables is a silly inequity in our current law." we're also grateful for the support of national organizations like the american wind energy association, the solar energy industries association, the american council on renewable energy, and many others, and thank them for their hard work in promoting this commonsense energy future for our country.

i'd also like to specifically thank dr. chris avery and fran versmonsteller and josh freed of third way for bringing the first policy-makers on how master limited partnerships can be a great financing vehicle for clean energy. mr. president, i have no doubt that there is significant growing opportunity worldwide in alternative fuels. there is a clean energy future coming. the only question is whether american workers, american communities, american companies will benefit from this or will simply be bystanders and watch our comet tors pass us -- watch our competitors pass us by. i think if we're going to lead we have to work together. the private sector can and will provide the financing and researchers to develop critical innovations and deploy them, but the federal government, the congress in particular, must set a realistic and positive policy

pathway to sustain these innovations and let the market work to its fullest potential. the master limited partnership's parity act moves us toward that goal. by leveling the playing field for fair competition, this market-driven solution could provide vital and needed support for the kind of comprehensive energy strategy we need to power our country for generations to come. 10 many us who will support this bill also support the p.t.c. and other clean energy financing vehicles. others may not. on the specific question of master limited partnerships, the bill that we introduce today simply allows us to come together in a bipartisan way to open it up to all energy sources and to build a sustainable energy financing future on this platform. once again i want to thank my cosponsor, senator moran, and i look forward to working with all of my colleagues on the energy committee and throughout the senate and the house to move forward this important legislation. with that, mr. president, thank

you very much, and i yield the floor.

mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: madam president -- iks. the presiding officer: the national is not in a quorum call. so you may speak. mr. grassley: since we're talking about farm legislation as well as nutrition legislation, i think i should be very transparent when i talk about this and tell you about my background and lifetime in farming because i don't want to say something about farm bills that people don't know where i have i'm coming -- where i'm coming from and then find out later that i'm a farmer and might benefit from some of the farm programs. so in the vein of transparency and accountability, i would say that since 1960 when my father died, i've been involved in

farming. since 1980, i've been involved with my son robin renting my farmland, farming what we call in iowa 50/50 farming, you might call it a cropshare. basically that means that he and i are partners and i pay for half of the expenses, and i get half of the crop to market, and he gets the land rent-free, and that when you're crop-sharing or when you're 50/50, that means that i'm not an antibioticee landowner collecting cash rent, that i've got risk, and with risk you assume that maybe you might get a crop or not get a crop. and if you don't get a crop, you don't get your rent as a landlord. same for my son. he has risk as well, and if he doesn't get a crop, he won't

have to pay rent, but he isn't going to have anything to live on if he doesn't have a crop. so, that's kind of the situation that i've been in since 1960 when i was farming on my own and then in partnership with my son. in the last seven or eight years we've had a grandson, patrick grassley, a member of the state legislature, join our farming operation. and you know what i've found out with having a grandson in the farming operation, they don't have a lot of work for a grandfather to do. so last year about all i did was fall tillage. so with that background, then i want to go my statement. growing up on my family farm outside of new hartford, iowa, where i still live today, i grew to appreciate what it means to be a farmer. the dictionary defines a farmer

as a -- quote -- "person who cultivates land or crops or raises animals." end of quote. but that definition doesn't come close to fully describing what a farmer is. being a farmer means someone willing to help a cow deliver a calf in the middle of the night when it might be 5 degrees outside, a farmer is someone who is willing to put all of their earthly possessions at risk just to put a bunch of seed in the ground and hope that the seed gets rain at just the right time. farmers work hard cultivating crops and get the satisfaction of seeing the result of their hard work at the end of each crop season. they take great pride in knowing that they're feeding this nation and a farmer in iowa produces enough food to feed 160 other people. so, obviously, we export about a third of our agricultural

production. and farmers tend to be people who relish the independence that comes with their chosen profession. they're people with dirt under their fingernails, and he also work -- and they also work very long hours and often are underappreciated for what they do to put food on america's dinner tables and they receive an ever-shrinking share of the food dollar. at this point i would speak about a fellow senator. i won't name the fellow senator, but he's from an urban state. and throughout our years of service here, i like to say to him, you know that food grows on farms? and he says, oh, does it? well, the other night at the spouses' dinner we had, he came up to my wife and said, you know, i know food grows in supermarkets but chuck thinks it grows on farms. so, that's the kind of camaraderie we have around here on agriculture, and i'm very flayed to havglad to have it bes

say agriculture is probably a little bit ease year in the united states senate -- easier in the united states senate because i believe every united states senator represents agriculture to some degree. maybe not as much as dhow in the mid-- as much as i do i they doe midwest, where i com from. whereas in the other body, no the house of representatives, i don't know an exact figure, but i would imagine that there's probably only 50 districts that really are agricultural-oriented districts and the rest of them are very urban or suburban. so we have an understanding of how important it is. and when i talk about it, you know, i don't mean to be talking down to my clerks but i do think i -- to my colleagues, but i do think that i understand agriculture. and not that other senators don't understand agriculture, but i think if you've been

involved in it for a lifetime, like three or four of us here in the senate have been, it means a little more towvmen to you. farmers have chosen a line of work that comes with risk, risk that is inherent in farming and often ousoften out of their con. i digress a little while here to show you there are a the love things in -- there are a lot of things in agriculture that are beyond the control of farmers. i am not just talking about hail and drought. just think about nixon wanting to get reelected so bad that he freezes the price of beef. now, only for a short period of time, maybe three or four months, because they wound found out it wasn't -- because they found out it wasn't working the way they wanted it to. but ey iowa was number one in bf production up to that time. after everybody got squeezed out of the beef business because of

the freeze, we went from number one down to number 13. now i think we're back at about fifth or sixth in the production of beef, as just an example. or when soybeans were being exported and they got up to 13% -- $13 a bushel in 19 -- i think it was 1973 or 1974. maybe it was -- let's see, i'm just trying to think. was nixon president or ford? but one or the other -- they decided, well, it's going to drive up the price of food in america, so they forbid the export of soybeans. and they fell from $13 down to $3. or carter decides that it's wrong for russia to invade afghanistan and, by golly, we're selling them wheat, and we aren't going to sell them anymore wheat, so the price drops. and i suppose i ought to think of a lot of things more recently. but there's a lot of international politics that

affects farming. right now with iran and sanctions and oil, to what extent that affects the price of energy and agriculture is a big production of energy. so what i am he trying to say -- so what i'm trying to say to you with just a few examples is that there are so many things that are beyond the control of farmers that if you ever wonder why we have a farm safety net, that's it is. that's it. and why do we have a farm safety net? for national security? because, as you know, as napoleon said, an army marches on its belly. you go the to go got to have fo. if you don't have food, you don't have very good national security. or how long can a submarine stay -- a nuclear submarine stay under water? forever except it it runs out of food, it's got to come up.

or what about the old adage of, nine meals away from a revolution? as a mother and dad you can't get food for your kids for three days and they're crying, you might take any action to make sure they get it. so i think that having a sure supply of food is very essential to the social cohesion of our society. now, we don't worry about that in america, do we? because you go to the supermarket and the shelves are full. but there's a lot of places in the world where you don't do that. there's a lot of places in the world where you pay more than 50% of your income on disposable income on food, and in america it is about 9%, 10%, or 11%. so there's plenty of reasons to make sure that we have a sound agricultural system in america and we ought to make sure that

we take that seriously, both from a national security standpoint and for our social betterment. if we want a stable food supply in this country, we need farmers who are able to produce it. when they're hit by floods, droughts, natural disaster, wild market swings and unfair international barriers to their products, farmers need the support to make it through because so much is beyond the control of farmers. most farmers i know wish that there wasn't the need for a government safety net but they appreciate that safety net when they do need it. and for decade after decade, congress has maintained farm programs because the american people understand the necessity of providing a safety net for those providing our food. that's not to say that each and every farm program ever created needs to continue. in fact, there's a lot of things

in this farm bill that we have before us that bring reform and some programs not reauthorized that prove what i just said, that just because we've had some for 60 years doesn't mean you have to have it for the next five years of this form program. just as there are shifts in the market, sometimes public sentiment towards certain farm programs also shift. take direct payments, for instance. there was a time and place for direct payments to help farmers through some lean years, but now times are okay in the agriculture industry and the american people have rightly decided it's time for farm payments to end. also with a trillion and a half deficit every year, it's also a reality that those payments can't continue from a budget point of view. so the senate committee has responded and we have proposed eliminating the direct payment program, and many farmers agree

direct payments should go away as well. there are other reforms the american taxpayers want to see. there is no reason the federal government should be subsidizing big farmers to get even bigger. i might repeat myself as i go through my statement, but i want to say here, you know, a farm safety net ought to protect the people that don't have the ability to get beyond these things that are beyond their control, whether it's domestic politics or whether it's natural disaster or whether it's international politics or energy policies or all the things that can happen. there's some farmers that might not get over that hump. that's beyond their control. a problem that's created that affects them financially. but there are some farmers that have that capability, and i

think traditionally we have geared the farm program -- not enough, my point of view -- but guaranteed -- geared the farm program towards a safety net for small- and medium-sized farmers. and we have a situation where 10% of the farmers in recent years, the biggest farmers, are getting 70% of the benefits of the farm program. and -- and it -- there's nothing wrong with getting bigger. i want to make that clear. in fact, in agriculture, with the equipment costs, you've got to get bigger. but the federal taxpayers should not be subsidizing farmers to get bigger. and it isn't just a case of a principle not to do that, it's the economic impact that when you do that, that you find that -- that the government subsidy to the big farmers that go out and buy more land, drives up the price of farmers -- farmland or drives up the cash

rent in a particular area and consequently, then, it makes it very difficult for young people to get started farming. and we want to be able and we have to pass this on to the others. many farmers understand that in order for us to have a farm program that is defensible and justifiable, it needs to be a program designed to help these small- and medium-sized farmers who actually need the assistance getting through rough patches out of their control. so what i've been trying to do for years finally got put in this farm bill -- to put a hard cap on the amount of money that one farming operation can get so hopefully we cut down that 10% that gets 70% so it's more proportional to the benefit of small- and medium-sized farmers.

and that's in this bill at $50,000 per individual and $100,000 per married couple for the payments under the agricultural risk coverage program that's in this bill. now, i know that to a lot of people listening, that $50,000, that $100,000 is too -- too much but -- and it's even too much for most iowans. but there are some sections of this country, like the south and west, where you'll find our fellow senators -- i don't know how open they're going to be about this -- but behind the scenes they're really raising cane about this $50,000 cap that we have. and i just about got this put in the present farm bill in 2008 except i had -- i had 57 votes. but you know how things work around here. you've got to have 60 votes to get something done if people want to push the point, and so i didn't get 60 votes.

and now it's in the farm bill. and i don't know who's negotiating around here on amendments but there's going to be somebody trying to take this out of here, somebody from the south, i would imagine, take this $50,000 cap out. and i expect to have the same considerations for this not being taken out by a 60-vote margin as i was kept from putting it in five years ago. because if it had been put in five years ago, we would have saved $1.3 billion over the period of that period of time. taxpayers are equally tired of reading reports about how so many nonfarmers receive farm payments. i've been working to get reforms in the farm payment eligibility for years, and just as the tide has turned on the status quo for direct payments, the tide has turned on program eligibility. the bill contains crucial reforms to the, quote, unquote,

"actively engaged" requirements. these reforms will ensure farm payments go to actual farmers. the american people are not going to stand idly by any more and watch farm payments head out the door to people who don't farm. in other words, if you aren't out there in -- working the land, you're on wall street or something and you've got farmland in the midwest, you shouldn't be collecting these farm payments. there have been -- there have been some people complaining about this payment limit reform as that i've talked about. they -- reforms that i've talked about. they complain it will detrimentally change the way some farm operations do things. well, if they mean it won't allow nonfarmers to skirt around payment eligibilities and line their pockets with taxpayers' money meant for actual farmers, then the answer's yes, that's what those reforms will do. these -- but let me make it

perfectly clear. the reforms contained in this bill will not impact a farmer's ability to receive farm paymen payments. furthermore, the reform will not affect the spouse rule. in other words, if the husband and wife are together in the farming operation and some senator comes around and tells you that the -- that the spouse that's working beside the other spouse in this farming operation can't -- can't get the benefit of it, they are wrong. these reforms reflect what we hear from the grass-roots, which is, congress needs to be better stewards of the taxpayer dollars. that's true if we're talking about farm programs or any other federal program. those who are against these reforms are asking the american people to accept the status quo and to continue to watch as farm payments go to megafarmers and

nonfarmers. we cannot and will not accept the status quo. in other words, 10% of the biggest farmers getting 70% of the benefits of the farm program ought to end. the agriculture committee should be proud of the improvements that we're making to payment limitations in this bill. with these reforms, we bring defensibility and integrity to this farm bill. plus the fact that it's probably the only bill that's going to pass this year that's going to cut any programs and it's going to do that by $23 billion. in fact, without these reforms in the farm program, i wouldn't be able to support this bill. i urge my colleagues to voice their support for these important payment limitation provisions and join with me in resisting any attempt to weaken these reforms, particularly from people in the southern states that say that somehow you ought to still continue to have these megafarmers get these millions

of payments. i yield the floor 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: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president, i wanted to discuss today several amendments i have to the farm bill now before the senate. what might surprise many people to learn is that the overwhelming majority of funds in the farm bill are not spent on anything to do with farmers

or even agriculture production. for instance, crop insurance amounts to -- which is a big part of the new bill and is progress i think, the crop insurance provisions amount to just 8% of what we'd be spending. horticulture is less than 1%. but a full 80% of the farm bill spending goes to the federal food stamp program. yet 83% of the small savings that are found in this proposal come from that, $23 billion in cuts, none of which occur next year out of almost $1 trillion in spending over ten years are taken -- over -- almost $1 trillion are taken from the farm provisions. so about $23 billion in cuts,

most of that are taken from the farm provisions, the 20% that goes to that. food stamp spending is virtually untouched. i believe they proposed $4 billion in savings in the 80%, in the food stamp program, and $17 billion out of the 20%. so overall, the legislation will spend $82 billion on food stamps next year, $82 billion, and an estimated $770 billion over the next ten years. so to put these figures in perspective and they're so large it's difficult to comprehend, we will spend next year $40 billion on the federal highway program. but $80 billion on the food stamp program. food stamp spending has more than quadrupled, four times, fourfold since the year 2001.

it has increased 100% since president obama took office, doubled in just that amount of time. there are a number of reasons for this arresting trend. while a poor economy has undeniably increased the number of people who qualify for food stamps, this alone does not explain the extraordinary growth in the program. for instance, between 2001 and 2006, food stamp spending doubled by the unemployment rate remained around 5%. so from 2001 to 2006, we had a doubling of food stamps while unemployment was the same. when the food stamp program was first expanded nationwide, about one in 50 americans received food stamp benefits. today, nearly one in seven receive food stamp benefits.

we need to think about that. this is a very significant event. we need to ask ourselves, is this good policy? is it good for america? not only is it a question of do we have the money. the second thing is, is it going to the right people? is the money being expended wisely? is it helping people become independent? is it encouraging people to look for ways to be productive and be responsible themselves for their families? or does it create dependency, part of a series of government programs that in effect aren't beneficial to the people who actually benefit from them in the short term. three factors help explain this increase. first, is that eligibility standards have been significantly loosened over time with dramatic drop in

eligibility standards in the last few years. second, it has been the explicit policy, goal of the federal bureaucracies to increase the number of people on food stamps. bonus pay is even offered to states who sign more people up. states administer this program. and third, the way the system is arranged with states administering their program but the federal government providing all the money, all of it, they -- states don't match food stamps. states have an incentive, don't you see, to see their food stamp budget grow, not shrink because it's more federal money coming into the state for which they have no -- which they pay no part of. so that means overlooking, i'm

afraid, i hate to say, dramatic amounts of fraud and abuse because the enforcement and supervision is given over to the states. so i filed a modest package of food stamp reforms to the farm bill which will achieve several important goals. save taxpayer dollars, which is a good thing. reduce the deficit. achieve greater accountability in how the program is administered. confront widespread waste. direct food stamps to those who truly need them. and help more americans achieve financial independence. i guess i'm the only person in the senate who's ever dealt with fraud in the food stamp program. when i first -- shortly after law school when i was a young federal prosecutor, i prosecuted fraud in the food stamp program. later i came back as a united states attorney, and we saw drug dealers selling food stamps.

we saw various other manipulations of it. and as attorney of -- attorney general of alabama for a period, i was involved in enforcing integrity in the program. so i know the benefits food stamps play to people in desperate need. i know it's helpful. but i know americans know. they see it every day, that there are abuses in this program. it's the fastest-growing entitlement program bar none, and we need to look at it. and i understand there are some that are opposed to even saving $4 billion over ten years out of the food stamp program. we're spending 80 a year? three or four years ago we were spending 40. we can't do better than that? so it's now -- food stamps is the second-largest federal

welfare program following medicaid. if food stamp spending were returned next year, if we next year were to go back to the 2007 funding levels and you agreed to increase it for ten years at the rate of inflation, that would produce an astonishing $340 billion in savings to the united states treasury. and we've got to have some savings because we don't have the money to continue spending at the rate we are. food stamps are one of 17 federal nutritional support programs and one of nearly 80 federal welfare programs. so there's no confusion, these figures count only low-income support programs -- so there's no confusion, these figures count only low-income support programs. they don't include medicare,

social security or unemployment benefits. collectively, our federal welfare programs constitute about $700 billion in federal spending and $200 billion in state contributions to the same programs. that's about $900 billion on federal-state combined programs, most of it federal, $900 billion is about one-fourth of the entire federal budget. so an individual on food stamps may receive as much as $25,000 in various forms of financial assistance for their households from the federal government, as much as $25,000. in addition to whatever salary they may earn or part-time work or full-time work and any support they may receive from their family or community. so, in other words, this is not

normally our only source of income for a person. changes in eligibility have been eliminated -- changes in eligibility for food stamps have eliminated the asset test for food stamp benefits, which brings me to the first of four amendments i've filed. number one, let's restore the asset test for food stamps, like it always was. this change has been quite significant. through a system known as categorical eligibility, states can provide benefits to those whose assets exceed the statutory asset limit as long as they receive some other federal program. why is this? i don't know. it makes no sense to me. if you qualify for another

program, you automatically get food stamps. categorically you're eligible to get them. one state went so far as to determine that individuals were food stamp eligible solely because they received a brochure from another benefit program in the mail. well, that meant there's more money from the federal government coming in to their state, more benefit. i guess they see it as an economic benefit. it didn't cost them any money. the money came from washington. according to the congressional budget office, the simple process of going back and restricting the categorical eligibility problem that's now springing up would produce $12 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next ten years and should not eliminate a single

person who qualifies for food stamps. all it would mean if you qualify for something else, but if you qualify for food stamps and fill out the proper form, you get it, like everybody else has to do. second, there is the heating subsidy loophole. 15 states are using a loophole in order to get more food stamp dollars from the federal government. they do this by mailing a very small check -- get this. they mail a small check often less than $1 a month under the low-income home-energy assistance program, the liheap program. and anyone who receives that check, which may be as little as a few dollars a year, becomes eligible to claim a lower income on the basis of home energy expenses, even if they don't pay those expenses.

so this reform will require households that receive food stamps to provide proof of payment for their heating or cooling in order to qualify for the deduction. if the government is paying for your heating, you shouldn't say i need food stamps because i've got a big heating bill if the government's paying for it. but this clever maneuver designed by states, frankly, deliberately to extract more money from washington, free money for their states, is not good policy for america. it's not right that some states get more under the food stamp programs by using this technique than other states who don't use this abusive practice. so closing this loophole will produce $14 billion in savings over the next ten years. and that's a lot of money.

number three, let's end the bonuses -- the bonus payments that are going to states for increasing the number of people who sign up. we ought to be giving bonuses to states who identify people who are abusing a program and bringing those down, if anything. states currently receive a bonus payment for enrolling individuals in the program. those bonus payments highlight the perverse incentive states have to expand food stamp registration rather than to reduce fraud and help more people achieve financial independence. we need to be focusing on helping get people to work, to being productive, bringing in far more money for their families than food stamps would bring in. that's the focus of american vitality and growth. so that's number three. number four, let's implement the e-verify program for food stamp usage.

this amendment would simply require the government to use a very e-verify program to assure that adults receiving benefits are in fact lawfully in the country. this is a commonsense thing to do at a time when we have to borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend in this government. we spend $3.7 billion, we take in $2.4 billion. we borrow the rest every year. we can't afford to be providing incentives, benefits, bonuses and payments to reward people who have entered the country illegally. we just don't have the money. also beyond first steps, the best way to achieve integrity in the food stamp program is to block grant it to states. send so much of the program, a

fair percentage to each state and let them distribute it. this will provide states with a strong incentive to make sure that each dollar is being appropriately spent. they don't have that incentive today. it's no damage to a state if somebody's getting the money improperly or getting more than they are entitled to. but if a state is administering the program and some people are getting too much and other people are not getting enough, then the state has an incentive to make sure the abuses stop and the aid goes to the people who really need it. and that's the kind of program we need in america. one that works. it has incentives built in to make the program have integrity. the house budget adopts this reform. they like to complain about the house and say the house doesn't know what they're doing. this is a commonsense reform.

i'm proud of what the house did. they did exactly the right thing. senate democrats, of course, have not even written a budget in three years. so it has become clear, if we go through a financial analysis, a budget debate in this congress that we could save a lot of money by ending the abuses in the food stamp program, and it would help us do other things the government needs to do. so it would also become clear that we will run out of money to pay for this program if we don't make changes. we are in a financial situation that's so grave, as every expert has told us, we're on an unsustainable path and we've got to get off of it. if we don't, we could have another financial catastrophe like we did in 2007, like they're having in europe today. that is very possible. so we've got to reduce our

deficits and we've got to reduce abusive spending. reforming the way we deliver welfare is the compassionate course. it's not mean-spirited to say that people who are not entitled to the benefits don't need the benefits, should not get them. there's nothing wrong with that. there's nothing wrong with having incentive in your program, not to see how many people you can put on food stamps, but to see how many people we can get to work and be productive and create jobs. and the result of welfare foreman -- welfare reform in 1996, if you remember that, and many do, was less poverty, less teen preg unanimous circumstance more work and more -- less teen pregnancy, more work and more people caring for themselves. we've flipped back, in my opinion. we've moved back from some of the progress we made in the 1996

provisions. unfortunately, since 1996 members in both parties have failed to protect these gains. the welfare budget has swelled dramatically. oversight has diminished. standards have slipped. so we now found ourselves in need of welfare reform for the 21st century. we just do. it's the nature of any business, any government that programs once established continue beyond rationality and need to be reformed periodically. so it's time to reengage the national discussion over how the receipt of welfare benefits can become damaging not merely to the treasury, but also to the recipient. left unattended, a safety net can become a restraint, permanently removing people from the workforce and federal programs unmonitored can begin to replace family, church, community as a source of aid and support. we need to reestablish the moral

principle that federal welfare should be seen as temporary assistance, not permanent support. the goal should be to help people become independent, self-sufficient. such reforms made sincerely and with concern for those in need will improve america's social, fiscal and economic health. empowering the individual is more than sound policy. it remains the animating moral idea behind the american experience. our natural -- our national exceptionalism. we believe in individual responsibility. we believe in helping people in need. but we don't believe in creating circumstances where decent, hardworking people, who work extra, who save their money, who give up vacations and going out to eat so they can take care of their family, are also required

to support people who are irresponsible. that's not a healthy situation for us to be in. so we need to strike the right balance. we help those people in a need and create a government and a social assistance program in america that benefits the people we seek to benefit and benefits the united states treasury at the same time. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to share these remarks and would yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you,

mr. president. i come to the floor fairly often to share letters i get from people in ohio. and i've -- especially when it's an issue that's on the tips of so many young people's tongues and on the minds of so many young people in our state. i spent much of the last month visiting with students on college campuses, at wright state university in dayton, at hyrem college in northeast college, county community college in cleveland, at the university of cincinnati, at ohio state university. just this last monday, i was at owens community college in toledo. and i just hear over and over and over about the debt that far too many of our young people bear when they get out of school. we have -- today's the last day, last session day, for the pages on the winter term, if you will. they -- i hope that -- i hope they aren't -- that the burden

of debt on them -- they're still four, five, six, seven years, depending on how fast they go through college -- away from absorbing that debt and going out in the workplace. perhaps more years than that. but i -- i worry for them, as i worry for so many of my constituents from cleveland to cincinnati and ashtabula to middletown and gas poe lease to was -- ga gallipolis to assian. because the average student in school who's borrowed money owes $28,000. if we're not able -- this is a small step but it's one more piling on of debt. if we're want able to freeze -- if we're not able to freeze interest rates on stafford loans, which is what my legislation will do with senator reed of rhode island and senator harkin of iowa, to freeze interest rates for at least another year, these students will be faced with another thousand dollars in addition to what they're already facing. and it's -- it's really become a moral issue. when we turn over to our

society, to these young people, they come out of school, if they face this kind of debt, $20,000, $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year, means they're less likely to buy a house, means they're less likely to start a business, it patrol means they're less likely to start a family. and do we want to do that to a generation of smart, young, enthusiastic, talented people instead of giving them a bet launch in their -- for their lives in their 20's and 30's. and that's why it's essential we do this. and, mr. president, this goes back to -- we actually -- two years before the presiding officer came to the senate in 2007, we passed this -- this freeze. president bush signed legislation that senator kennedy and i and others in the help -- education, labor, and pension committee worked on, to freeze these student loan interest rates for stafford subsidized student loans at 3.4%. but if we don't act -- it was a five-year freeze. if we don't act by july 1, 2012, five years after we passed it, it's going to mean these loans are going to double. and, again, it's a thousand

dollars more per student. so i won't speak long. i just wanted to share a couple letters that i've gotten from people in ohio, from -- and this doesn't just affect the students. some 380,000 college students in my state that it affects. but it doesn't just affect these students. it affects their -- their families, their parents, sometimes grandparents have sent us letters about how -- how serious this is for them. and i'll send -- i'll read two letters. jeff from lorain -- happens to be my home county -- "i've been a lifelong resident of lorain, ohio. my daughter graduated tops in her class from southview in 2008. they just graduated from college with a bachelor in math -- a bachelor's degree in math and a minor in political science. she graduated cum laude. she maxed out her stafford loans and these helped her to attend college." jeff writes, "i've worked in factories all my life, the last two years at avon lake ford plant so we're able to help

some --" because these are good union wage jobs. i don't know that necessities the union but most people at avon lake are. "but the major work was done by our daughter with her focus and hard work. she's moving to grad school but at some point she'll have to start repaying these loans. do we want to burden these bright, young minds with loan payments that are so large they will weigh them fmly for large portions of their young adult lives? were these loans designed to help students who don't come from families with large disposable incomes? are they to be used as a way to make money off our young people trying to reach their potential?" in addition to five years ago in -- in the last couple of years, one of the good things president obama did about this was he helped people get into the federal loan, direct loan program so they were no longer borrowing from banks at much, much, much higher interest rat rates. so college is too expensive. the states don't put enough money into -- into colleges so that the colleges don't charge such high tuitions. tuitions have gone like this over the years. but at least we were able to cut

the -- to make a big difference on interest. this is our chance to do it again. we shouldn't let jeff down and his daughter down and others. other letter i'll read is marceline in wilbur force. i'm 60 years old. i went back to school to get a job that would not continue to destroy my physical health. my previous jobs for companies like b.p. and wal-mart were devastatingly hard on me with little or no medical help. i returned in hopes of obtaining employment that will position me to be gainfully employed for the next 15 or 20 years. i'm supporting my two grandchildren and my son while he tries to degree -- tries to gain a degree of his own. i see no possibility of retiring before i die. i see no possibility of paying off my education before i die." this is a 60-year-old woman writing. "when i started my education, i could justify the cost but i've seen it go up -- i've seen it -- i'm sorry, i've seen it going up yearly to the point i see no way of paying for it now, especially if interest rates continue to

climb. i can't conceive how the young people will be able to repay their debts. i'm very concerned for them. this burden will place on them as they go forward is heartbreaking." mr. president, this is the story you'd hear it in anchorage, you'd hear it in fairborn and nome. i hear it in toledo, lime, mansfield, i hear is in sandusky. and it's incumbent upon us, it's a moral question not to load up more debt on these young people so they can really develop their talents in a way that not only will help them individually, not only will help their families but will help our society prosper. we know what the g.i. bill did in the 1940's and 1950's and 1960's. it not only helped millions and servicemen and women and their families, it also lifted the prosperity of the united states of america. we owe this generation no less than that, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: