then. looking at the subset, you say it could take the last sentence of paragraph 72 there is a danger that lobbyists and media companies and in house and commercial lobbyists presumably have more power over politicians and lobbyists in how the sectors -- have you seen evidence of that danger being realized? >> i repeat what i said earlier which is i am echoing my early assertions that the press and the media are in a unique position which no one else possesses. ..

it's more of a generic approach. >> now turn now, mr. clegg, to the bskyb bid, which is sort rise. >> nick clegg is not only deputy prime minister, he's also the leader of the liberal democratic party. tomorrow prime minister david cameron testifies. we will have live coverage at 5 a.m. nation. we return now to nick clegg's appearance at the inquiry with

the connection between the media and british politician. we will leave this and about half an hour when the u.s. in. >> mr. clegg, the bskyb bid, three job questions first of all. your news about news restlessness of news constantly pushed the challenge all practice way of

generally admire that. competition, plurality, the need premise that a healthy in which you just the form that people have. >> thank you. the second journal issue, the setting aside the technical legal test under the enterprise

act, which governs plurality and the did. did you have a personal view about, from a policy perspective and so on. quizzical at the beginning

after it became clear there was murder, what the conservatives announced a few weeks after the th

>> news corp., wouldn't? >> news corp., sorry, yes. >> and a third general question, the extent to which you and other senior liberal democrats were lobbied, and his general question of lies to coalition against the bid, and news corp. >> yes. throughout all this.

made their views known to us on the. evidence -- versus the rest of liberal democrats to be open to that. favorable treatment in the first redible threat.

s and claims and counterclaims. objective quasi judicial manner. ischarge his quasi please, at just four or five e-mails in the exhibit krm-18, which tends to be under your tab 14, mr. clegg. these are the michel e-mails. specifically four or five relate what arguably can relate to you.

the first one is this his pr opd file, page 31664. >> yes. spent this is the eighth of november, 2010. it says for disaster you appear an intervention notice with mr. cable promulgated. it purports to be a pr to be a l with doctor cables main adviser, but we see at the bottom that he also has follow-up for schedule with david and mr. clegg on this. was that reference to you, could well be a reference to your visor, but do you happen to know >> ever serving no follow-up

act between exhibits to mr.. december, page 01677, relates to but i suppose the question for is, were there, on our after none whatsoever.

around the creative industry. you will know, as per tim's and recollection of the meeting. >> does this assistance at all with the last point, they need to support nick, which goes against his election promise, will be very tough for him. been concerned about sometime

an substance by can imagine why them. >> thank you. the next one may not be as controversial. 01681, the 19th of december, 2010. the chief of staff, is in its?

>> yes. >> he was very surprised when i pointed out to them that cable came to take a decision with influence to enter it is not a matter, it's a matter for the sector estate in accordance with what he is saying was entirely >> yes. was very keen vince cable should

at hand in vince cable's office. and the last one, mr. clegg, the fourth little paragraph down, don foster supporting the remedy and he is writing a memo to clegg to welcome it. to the best of your recollecti written to you which welcomed it might understand is don foster writing.

memorandum from the secretary of state, i think it's one of the ones which set to the prime minister. he explains that the issue seems to have died, looking back to the fact he had independent advisors at every stage seems to be decisive. certain none of the newspapers, talking about this now. i did hear -- criticizes partly it is don foster was on the site and recommend. --

[inaudible] >> okay. in the point you make to you, apparently, is the matter had been transferred or referred, pardon me, it would almost ou direct, direct input. >> to further e-mails from mr. michel relate to you in some way. tab 12 now at page 011832, the 13th of march 2011.

there was a piece here in the financial times about the onus of the bid had been taken to the fight -- principally aimed at lib dem in piece. what mr. michel tells mr. smith, he knows that you and chris my emotions are in reaction to i simply have no idea how that relaxed about the big?

about, a greater scrum of people should recognize -- certainly mr. fred michel which was spring conference? >> yes. yes, which was in, i remember the conference very well because completely dominate by something totally different which was a on higher education funding reform.

>> the view you are expressing it, which is page 13675, there was an e-mail which was sent on your behalf añ the nñbottom of the page, thenññ ninth of march.n=n=n=n=n=n=nñn=ñ .=u ineffective said the undertakings were carrying out.ñ consultation, that theyn>n>n>n>> generally would be welcomed, in> paraphrase, but have to benínínv nvcarefully considered by the regulars, et cetera.  that a fair summary? >> yes. i mean, i didn't see this. it was written on my behalf by someone in my parliamentary office. there was a great flood of e-mail coming in on this and i think the intent was to provide a factual description of the state of decision making at tha time, which was these

undertakings in lieu, and the response as far as i relent, ofcom in the oft saying that in their view those undertakings i view helped to address their previously published concerns on the issue of plurality..>.>.>> >> thank you. and under.> tab 15, just draw y> attention..>.>.>.>.>.>.>.>.> these are various text messages sent by mr. michel do i thinkn

that the exclamation mark. what he is, i don't know what -- exercise black male a pond which is published. bskyb, heady? >> no, sir.

completed a joint press number 10. constituents and the comments that day in a moment. january, 2011.

do with what i mentioned on. >> thank you.

with the prime minister, conference. normal, he's a liberal democrat was right that i should hear

serious issue. he, one way forward would responsibility from himself to department.

made it responsibility for the decision. think prime minister and i had now florida o'donnell who is me. that was quickly emerged of for culture media and

decision, decision was taken toward the end of the day. >> do you know whose idea it was now read subsequently that it was jeremy hayward. the prime minister and i would've talked about in our may, the exact chronology,

prepared, as you would in this case we did several times during the course of with this objectively and apparently, what do you know didn't have but i remember just operating on legitimate question

elevant process stands and stood. >> you worked on the assumption, but nothing more than that, is that right? >> nothing more. i -- i think i was told that ere were some comments on t public record from -- >> we will lead this leveson and gregory at this point as the u.s. senate is about to gavel in to start the day. a programming know. you can see this hearing with the deputy prime minister nick clegg and all the previous

hearings online at c-span.org. more debate is expected today on the farm and food programs bill. votes are expected. one offered by new hampshire democrat jeanne shaheen, the other from kentucky republican rand paul. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, give us today the measure of grace we need to obtain your promises. lead our lawmakers to so embrace these promises that they will

accept your guidance, obey your word, and walk in your way. lord, give them the grace so to run that they may reach their goal and so keep the faith that they may be true to you to the very end. make them wise with your wisdom, strong with your strength, and pure with your holiness. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god,

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 13, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to move to calendar number 250, s. 1940. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 250, s. 1940, a bill to amend the national flood insurance act of 1968, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: madam president, the senate will continue to debate the farm bill today. we have a couple of votes lined up. we expect to have those this

morning. last week in a moment of candor, house republicans led by representative cantor admitted they have given up legislating until after the election, although there is far more work to be done, they have said we're going to have a time-out. there is so much to be done -- i repeat -- especially building on 27 straight months of private-sector job growth. republicans in the house are lurching from one recess to the next recess. long recess. they don't take short ones. they take long ones. last week an unscripted moment was a window into today's republican party, a party that obviously cares more about winning elections than creating jobs. a couple of days ago we got another frank assessment of the republican agenda. former florida governor jeb bush

said monday that his father, george h.w. bush, and ronald reagan would not fit in today's republican party. and he went on to elaborate about some of the issues that they are simply headed in the wrong direction. governor bush said today's g.o.p. is defined by -- quote -- "an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement." end of quote. he's right. the republican party no longer has room for moderates or anyone unwilling to march in lock step with the radical tea party. that's apparent every day on capitol hill, more so in the house than in the senate, but it's now infected the senate. it was obvious from the first weeks this have congress that the house was taken over by extremists with no desire to work for the sake of the economy and no concept of the meaning of compromise. and, madam president, legislation is the art of

compromise. but over the last year and a half, it's become clear that republicans in the senate are enthralled to the tea party. we see the extremism in this tkhaeupl -- chamber, i just mentioned that, where republicans blocked or stalled most every job-creation measure we brought to the floor. and we see it on the mccain trail where mitt romney told a crowd he -- on the campaign trail where mitt romney told a crowd he opposes hiring more teachers, firefighters and police officers. putting more teachers on the payroll used to be something democrats and republicans could agree on. all over the country things are happening just like happened in nevada a couple of days ago. let's see, it must be about the third or fourth-largest school district in the country, the clark county school district, indicated they were going to lay off 1,000 teachers. they were able to, because they're not filling some

positions because of retirements, they were able to have to only lay off about 400-some-odd people. it's happening all over the country. sending more cops out on patrol used to be something that joe biden -- i can remember when he was down here fighting for his cops program. police departments in nevada loved the opportunity to get more people on the street. that is the way it was all over the country. we used to fight to get more cops out. now we're doing everything we can to stop the layoffs, and we can't do enough because we can't get a bill passed over here to help. hiring more brave men and women to fight fires, save lives used to be a goal democrats and republicans could agree. not now. it is because of global warming, there are fires raging all over the west. i talked to senator bingaman

yesterday, from new mexico. that fire in new mexico is 400,000 acres, and he said we have another fire that's broken out of only 40,000 acres. the news this morning out of colorado, one person killed, scores of buildings, homes burned to the ground. the tankers that they're using to fight these fires are old. one of them crashed in nevada last week killing the pilots. but today's radical republicans have another agenda. not hiring more cops. not doing something to stop the teacher layoffs. but their goal is to drag down the economy because it's good

for their politics. they believe the more horrible the economy is, the better off they're going to be in november. they love bad news. but we still have the fact that even though there were more than eight million jobs lost in the bush administration, we've been fortunate to bring back 4.3 million of those jobs. but we could have done so much more with the jobs measures we brought before this body that were lost on procedural grounds over here. yesterday governor bush said his father and president reagan, neither of whom could have won a republican primary today, both -- quote -- "sacrificed political points for good public policy." and i believe that.

you know, i was not a pal of ronald reagan's. i met him and worked with him. but paul lack -- paul laxalt, who i retired and i ran for his spot, was his friend. and ronald reagan would not have put up with what is going on today because there is no question that this country came first, not elections. i have great admiration for the first president bush. i have as my private possessions a couple of handwritten notes that he wrote to me. he would not put up with what's going on today. he was a pragmatist. he wanted to get things done for our country. he wasn't an ideologue. he was conservative, and certainly no one is better qualified to be president than the first bush. congressman, head of the c.i.a., head of the republican national committee, vice president,

ambassador to china. he was interested in his country, not elections. he was a republican, but you could work with him. today's republicans aren't interested in good policy, and obviously they aren't interested in creating jobs. they're too obsessed with defeating president obama. that's their number-one goal. but don't take my word for it, madam president. the minority leader said so himself. this is what he said: the single-most important thing we want to achieve is for president obama to be a one-term president. that's a quote. america's battling its way back from the greatest recession since the great depression. and although we've created 4.3 million private-sector jobs, there's so, so much more to be done. i just left a meeting with people interested in

infrastructure. we have 70,000 bridges in america that need repair and replacement. not 700, not 7,000. but 70,000. and the highway bill is hung up over in the house someplace. they aren't focused on jobs. they have been too busy checking the political score board. would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. the following hour will be controlled by the leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the democrats controlling the final half.

the clerk will call the roll quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: tomorrow the president plans to deliver a speech to once again tout his favorite approach to the economy. i say that because aides say we shouldn't expect much new in the speech. we can expect more of the same,

more government, more debt and higher taxes to pay for it all. now according to news reports, some democrats are starting to get a little weary of this approach. a number of folks who worked in the clinton administration have suggested something more positive, but others are pleading with the president to double down on the message that government is the answer. so far it appears as though the hard left wing of the party has the upper hand. as a liberal columnist recently suggested in "the washington post," "let's turn reagan's declaration on its head. opposition to government isn't the solution." opposition to government is and remains the problem, according to dion. that's what the president seems to be doing, drublin drubling dn

the same solutions that are keeping the economy mired. they seem blind to any failure or excess and they make no distinction between the things the government has done well in the past and things it doesn't do well now. they have no limiting principle whatsoever. this is their logic: you like the hoover dam, you should support bureaucrats making higher salaries and benefits and the taxpayers who are paying for them. if you like the intercontinental railroad, you should support a $1 trillion stimulus bill. if you like the g.i. bill, they believe you must also embrace a debt-to-g.d.p. ratio that makes us look like greece. these folks seem to have no limiting principle whatsoever what it comes to the growth of

government. they've got blind faith in it. it's the only thing they ever seem to want. and they're completely out of touch. the president wants you to believe that the reason we're in this economic slump is because states and local governments have been laying off government workers. but what he doesn't tell you and what the mer american people wot hear him say is that for every government worker who has lost a job, 11 private-sector jobs have been lost. for every government worker who's lost a job, 11 private-sector jobs have been lost. and another thing you won't hear the president say is that the public-sector employment is just over 4%. while all other private-sector industries are at least twice

that. so government employment, madam president, isn't the problem; it's the private sector that is suffering and it is that sector where we need to focus our priorities. so the battle lines are clear. after three and a half years of failures, democrats have one suggestion: more of the same. the president see abovecc repackage it however he wants tomorrow, but that's what it amounts to -- more government, more debt, and fewer jobs. and that's not what americans want. now, republicans have refused to go along with this aprofess and will continue to oppose it until the democrats recognize what most americans already seem to know: government isn't the answer to what ails us. government isn't the answer to what ails. it doesn't mean government doesn't do some things well.

it means government has its limits. and we've reached them. i saw a storyline this week about a high school in utah. it said the school has been fined $15,000 for selling carbonated drinks. the school has been fined $15,000 for selling carbonated drinks. why? because federal nutrition guidelines say the school can't sell sugary drinks during lunch hour. a student could buy them before lunch and drink them during lunch, but it can't buy them during lunch and drink them during lunch. the government won't allow it. now, madam president, we're not talking about the intercontinental railroad here. we're talking about a government that has no sense of its own

limits under the constitution. and a president who doesn't seem willing to embrace anything that doesn't start and end with a government bureaucrat calling the shots. it's time for a change. and here's what i would suggest: one, the democrat-led senate should pass a budget. hasn't done so in three years. two, the senate should tank the 28 job-related bills house republicans passed that are collecting dust over here on the majority leader's desk. three, we should pass comprehensive tax reform. and, four, entitlement reform. this nation will not be ail to get out from under the -- able to get out from under the mountain of debt without addressing the out-of-control spending related to these programs. they're simply unsustainable.

but as i said yesterday, without presidential leadership, it simply can't happen. the same failed policies are not going to cut it. the only question is whether democrats in washington are capable of seeing that. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: what is the speaker situation? do i have some time now to respond to the minority leader, the republican leader? the presiding officer: currently the time is under control of the republican leader for the next 27 minutes. mrs. boxer: okay. i would ask if i could have two minutes just to respond to my friend. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the senator from california use the democratic time and the time on this side be reserved. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: i would ask that i be allowed to speak on the democratic side's time for up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without

objection. box thank you. i thank the republican -- mrs. boxer: thank you. thank the republican leader. you know, it just stuns me when the republican leader comes to the floor and has his blame obama moment, you know, every day that he can. and i thought this one was really over the top. its as if president obama came in rand suddenly things are not going well. excures me, i was here. i remember when we had surpluses under bill clinton and the dells and the republicans turned it into deficits as far as the eye could see. i can't forecast that because i remember a time, madam president, when there was discussion about whether we really were going to have u.s. treasuries anymore because we weren't going to have debt anymore when bill clinton was president, and the democrats set us on that right course.

we had a balance between investments in our people and fair taxes so that the top 1% paid a fair share, and everybody did well. 23 million new jobs were created with bill clinton. then george w. comes in, two wars go on the credit card, tax breaks to the wealthiest few, the millionaires and billionaires, on the credit card; and suddenly we have a crisis, no regulation of these sophisticated securities. my friend in the chair knows well what happened. no oversight. derivatives, new kinds of securities taking a beautiful home ethic we had and gambling

on it. and what happened? the worst crisis since the great depression. and who comes into office -- president obama takes the oath, and the unbelievable crisis that he inlaterre inherited and the g debt that he inherited and the unbelievable budget deficit that he inherited was just unbelievable. an auto industry going to be gone. my friend, senator mcconnell, has a right to his opinion, and i respect it so much, except he avoids telling the facts about how we got where we are, and the american people do not suffer from amnesia. they understand this. they saw this president, this young president come in faced with jobs -- bleeding 800,000 a month. and, yes, he turned it around. and, yes, he did in fact promote

a reserve could you of the auto industry -- a rescue of the auto industry. we would have been the only great economy that didn't have one if it wasn't for his courage. and, yes, a couple of courageous votes on the republican side joining with democrats. that was a good moavment moment. and yes, as mitt romney said, they could have been gusto, bankrupt. we didn't feel that way here. the president didn't feel that way. so all of this obama-bashing on the floor of the senate is going to continue because senator mcconnell is a very straightforward person, and he said -- and i quote -- not the exact word, the sentiment, close to the exact words -- "defeating president obama is the highest priority of the republicans." and you are seeing that play out on this floor, and i pledged

that i would come here when i could to straighten out the record. so let's be clear. this president took over in the worst of times since the great depression. there have been millions of jobs created, not enough, and i will say this: if this economy sputters, this economic recovery that we're in sputters and has a hard time because of the depth of the crisis originally, the fact that the housing crisis still continues, the fact that there's problems in the global marketplace in europe and all of these factors, i want to say this: i want the person in the oval office to be a person who understands what's happening, and that's president obama, who relates to working people, who relates to the middle class, who's not building an elevator for his nine cars in san diego

-- and that's how i feel. and every time there is an attack on this president, i'm going to come down here and tell the truth to the american people. thank you, and i yield the floor. mrs. hutchison: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mrs. hutchison: madam president, i have heard the remarks from my colleague from california, and i just can't let the record stand that president obama took over in the worst circumstances of our time. really? the debt of this country was around $10 billion -- $10 trillion when president obama took office. in just three and a half years, that debt has almost doubled. we're at $16 trillion and hitting the ceilin ceiling -- it

three and a half years. we are in a debt crisis not from the previous administration. we are in a debt crisis because we are spending too much, we're borrowing too much, and the president keeps talking about more taxes. madam president, just last friday the president came out and said, the private sector is doing just fine. it's government that's in a crisis. well, yeah, government is in a crisis. the private sector is not doing just fine, and the government crisis is not caused because we're losing government jobs. the government crisis is caused because we're spending too much, and we are going into debt that is unsustainable in this country.

for the millions of americans who are oust work in this country -- who are out of work in this country, the president's assessment of the private sector must be like salt poured in a wound. my goodness. we have seen job numbers -- over 8% unemployment -- since the president took office. and the last three months have been not so good. we're still over 8%, and we went up a little bit to 8.2% in may. so the 13 million americans who are unemployed and the millions more who are underemployed or have left the labor force altogether because they just have lost hope, mr. president, things are not fine and the private sector is not fine in this country. and the middle class is bearing

the brunt. on top of the unemployment rate for those who are really in poverty conditions, the people who hold jobs are also losing ground. on monday the federal reserve reported that the median net worth of american families fell 39% between 2007 and 2010. we haven't seen these levels since 1997 -- since 1992. during the same period income also dropped sharply. average household income fell 11%, to $78,500 down from $88,300. the hardest hit? families in the rapidly diminishing middle class. while these statistics are

troubling, there is a concern that cannot be measured in dollars and cents, and that is that families are losing faith in a secure future. there was a time when every generation had a better quality of life and expected a better quality of life for their children than their parents had. that is not the case today. in 2010, 35% of families said they did not have a good idea of what their income would be just for the next year. that was 31% in 2007, 35% now. so the numbers of families that are just losing the faith that their children are going to have a better life than they have had is diminishing.

and how could they be confident? the job creators in the private sector are the ones under siege. i cannot believe the president of the united states is so off base as to say the private sector is doing fine. just this week the national federation of independent business released its monthly survey of small business optimism. survey results continue to be historically low and consistent with the subpar performance of tkpw-d tkpw-d. according to -- of gross domestic product. corals this survey, levels of hiring and spending remain depressed in may. we all know that. and more importantly, so did plans for the future. the same report states expectations for increasing future sales continue to be weak in may or below readings

recorded in any other similar period since 1973. many small business owners are reluctant to expand their businesses or hire more workers. small business owners who expect the economy to further deteriorate outnumber those who think there will be an improvement. madam president, small businesses are our nation's primary job creators. small businesses provide 55% of all jobs in the private sector. small business has created two of every three net jobs in the united states since the early 1970's. so i would say to the president of the united states it is small business that is the economic engine of america, not government. that is the fundamental disagreement that we have with

this administration. we must spur the private sector to create income, growth and security in this country. the private sector is not doing fine. so what should we be doing? to help americans get back to work, we need to address what is causing the uncertainty. why are businesses not hiring? because government spending that serves to crowd out the private sector is increasing. there are tax increases being talked about by the president constantly, so they are looking at looming tax increases, burdensome regulations that they see coming by the piles like this out of the united states government federal registry and

those regulations hamper job growth in this country. then on top of all that, on top of the talk of new taxes, on top of the burdensome regulations that our small businesses face every day in bigger numbers every day, it's the health care law that was passed two years ago this december. if we want people to be hired, we cannot saddle our entrepreneurs and small businesses with new taxes, more regulations, and the costs, the overwhelming burden of the obama health care plan. president obama, in an interview yesterday, dismissed questions from a small business owner about the negative impact of the health care law and what it's already doing to small businesses. now anybody who has paid their part of insurance, if they're lucky enough to be covered,

knows that the premiums have increased and the coverage has decreased in anticipation of the obama health care law adding the new burdens and costs on insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, the costs of doing business in health care are increasing in anticipation of that health care law taking full effect in the next year. i have heard so much opposition in my home state when i travel around from small businesses that are just throwing up their hands and saying i cannot provide the government-approved health care for my employees, which is going to mean i will have a new tax burden for every one of them as they then have to go on the government plan and

fend for themselves. even families are going to have to do it, or they will have to pay a tax. and it's not just a good plan. it's the government-approved plan. so if you provide 35% of your employees' premiums, which is what you can afford, but the government requires 40%, you still have to pay the fine. so small businesses are saying i'm just going to pay the fine because that's my only alternative. and if you have 50 or more employees, there will be costly new federal regulations to comply with, and the financial penalty is so great that we're seeing businesses stop at 49 so that they will not have to hire more workers and, therefore, have a bigger responsibility. i received a letter from a small

business owner in arlington who said it best. did congress and the president know they were going to freeze our country's businesses' ability to help grow this economy when they passed this bill? now i will point out that not one republican in the house or senate voted for this bill in congress. i would have to say to my small business constituent in arlington, this was the democrats in congress and the president's bill. not one republican would support it because of the fear of exactly what's happening, and that is small business owners are losing faith that they will be able to grow. and that's what's causing the economic crisis that we're in with unemployment over 8%. a small business owner in corpus christi, texas, who has 34 employees told my office recently that his company's

cheapest option for health insurance would boost premiums by 44% over last year. madam president, how can they do it? it's happening everywhere. i hear it everywhere i go. clearly this is not the incentive our economy needs right now. we need government to get out of the way of the job creators in this country, not block their path with miles of regulations, new burdens and costs, new regulations, new costs and then the talk of new taxes which is prevalent everywhere. our best hope is that the supreme court will see that this has a constitutional problem, and then we can start again and take a step by step reform that will do what all of us want it

to do. everyone in congress and the president, i know, had the same goal, and that is to have more americans with affordable coverage and options. but, madam president, that's not the bill that was passed, and it's why republicans couldn't possibly support it, because they saw the burdens on families, on businesses, and they knew it was not going to encourage hiring, which is what we need in this country. you know, madam president, we have a chance to start a process that will be positive. we need to do something to spur small business and this economy. one thing that could be done, which is in discussions right now, is the keystone x.l. pipeline, which would create a $7 billion shovel-ready,

privately funded project that would transport over 700,000 barrels of oil from canada to the united states. it would create, it has been estimated, 20,000 construction jobs and as many as 100,000 jobs in the refineries and other businesses. and, oh, by the way, we'd be trading with a friendly partner -- canada -- so that we wouldn't have to import more from unfriendly parts of the middle east. and we would also be able to know that these are privately funded jobs. not one government cent. in fact, it would create taxes being paid to the government because people would be working, and that's the way we should be growing our revenue in this country. but the president suggests a different solution. he says the answer is not to

spur the private sector, because they're doing just fine. he says let's spend more money bailing out the states because they're having a hard time. they are having a hard time. madam president, we can do something for the states, and it's not bailing them out with more borrowed federal dollars that will continue to weigh down the dollar itself. no, no. we can do something for the state governments, and that is stop sending federal mandates that we don't pay for, that we require them to do. put a moratorium on federal mandates on states today, and let's start repealing these federal mandates that we're requiring states to absorb, and it is killing their economies. medicaid and the lack of flexibility in medicaid is the

biggest expense most states have. because it's a federal mandate unpaid for and unflexible. not the choices that states could make to cover the people that need the help. we can help the states but not at the expense of our dollar and our debt. so the president is suggesting more spending and bailing out states, and we're offering a solution that says let's create jobs in the private sector. keystone x.l. is ready to go right now. private sector, 100,000 future jobs, not one penny of federal government. let's take these federal regulations and let's just put a moratorium on more right now. and free our small businesses to be the entrepreneurs that built this country. it is the entrepreneurs that

built this country in freedom. this country has been a magnet for people coming from all over the world because they could do their research in freedom. they could grow in freedom. they could keep the fruits of their labor and give their kids a better chance than they had, which they couldn't get in their home countries. that's what built this country. and, madam president, we can get right back there. but it's not by borrowing more, spending more, taxing more and regulating our small businesses out of existence. madam president, we can do something positive, and it's time that we got started. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: how much time remains on the minority side? the presiding officer: ten minutes. mr. isakson: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that taylor ibraham be granted floor

privileges for the remainder of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i too rise to talk about the president's speech since last friday. the president said he thought the private sector was doing just fine. i was driving in the car when i heard the statement, and the statement took me back because i feared the president might not actually know how the private sector really was doing. and i just two weeks ago spent two weeks on the road visiting with georgians, so i come to the floor to provide some information to the president that maybe the private sector isn't doing that well and maybe there's something we could do about it, and this administration and this senate, because right now we're doing nothing, and america is languishing because of a lot of problems. some of them are our making. but the private sector by definition is everybody other thank the government sector -- at least that's my definition. so will the me talk about everybody -- so let me talk about everybody other than the government sector and why

they're not doing very well. let me talk about the homebuilder i met who talked to me about the fact that he had just sold a home he built. he said the only problem is i couldn't get an appraisal for what it cost me to sel build the house. i'm selling it for a loss. part of that is because of the regulation that's on appraisers right now because of the fear of appraisal fraud. or the farmer i talked about who talked about the indignation he had about a rule that said you had to be 18 years or older to wornwork on a farm even if it wa family farm. the type of overreach that causes people to retrench, not build and expand and move their business forward. or the 81-year-old community banker that i talked to yesterday on the phone from calhoun, georgia, who had a significant amount of his savings invested in the stock of

a community bank that he had been a part of for so much of his life. a community bank that's now you understand a cease and desist letter with the fdic and being manage the under what's called a cease and desist order. the fdic is basically running the bank or limiting its parameters. the bank is dissipating its capital bank and then the feds will come in and close the bank, will transfer its assets to a bigger bank, will give them an 80% loss share guarantee and the bigger bank will foreclose on the bank and sue and move forward. what was intended by dodd-frank to empower smaller banks has dong the opposite. the bigger banks have gotten bigger. the smaller banks have become fewer and american capital investment is less. or the hospital visited in thomasville, georgia, just finished its completion, the archibald center. talking about the difficulties they were having with employees and the fear they had that the

national labor relations board ruling on health care was going to be the law of the land where just nurses and the emergency room or just nurses in the i.c.u. could be i am munized, somebody else would not. can you imagine a hospital or department store where there was a union in the nursing department, a union on the loading dock, microunions. you couldn't operate. i could go on and orntion but in those businesses that i talked about, the cities and the people that i've talked to in georgia, the people in the private sector are not doing well and they're not for a fear of overregulation and uncertainty. if we could do anything to empower our economy in the short run, we'd call timeout. we'd say maybe enough is enough. as told a member of the

administration two weeks arc the administration i think wants to eliminate risk. our job is not to eliminate risk, it is to rite mitigate risk. if you eliminate risk, you take the power of investment in the private sector, entrepreneurship, capital risk and tib it out. you can't eliminate risk but you can mitigate it. so let's get back to mitigating risk, make sure we have a safe workplace. let's make sure we mitigate risk in banking but not so we choke out the small family banker. but let's make sthiewr the son of a farmer can work on his father farm. let's make sure that we're not making the private sector's plight worse than it is today. so my message is the private sector is not just fine. it may not be all of government's making, part of it is government's making. we're making it worse. we're trying run a country based on a three-leg stool on a two-legged stool of regulation

and through judicial regulation. cutting out the legislative branch. you know what happens to two-legged stools in they fall oample the privatover.there is t is hurting and a private sector we could help. let's put our nose to the griengdz stone. let's move forward in these months leading up to the election. late change the paradigm. let's empower the private sector not accept that it's doing just fine. the front page of the "usa today," "average family wealth in the last three years declined 39.4%, back to the level of 1992" which means the private sector has lost 20 years of accumulation, equity, and investment in the economy of the last three years. that's unacceptable. it's why we have the depression

that we have in the country. we need to get our shoulder to the grind stone mangeds it work, empower the private sector and once again let the private sector be just fine again because of empowerment of the private sector, entrepreneurship and capital investment. i yield the balance of my time. i yield my time. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president, first as a matter of logistics, i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of senate with the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much, madam president. we are -- one, two, three, four, five, six, including yourself, the senator from new york -- on the floor today on the majority time to discuss the jammed bipartisan senate highway bill. i just heard my wonderful colleague from georgia talk about how we're doing nothing and america is languishing.

well, one of the things we're doing nothing on is passing a highway bill, which should not be complicated. but it is jammed up by the house republicans. as a result people in rhode island and elsewhere are suffering and i will be here throughout our majority period, and let me -- i think the distinguished senator from minnesota and new hampshire were here first, so let me yield to them first for a few moments each. ms. klobuchar: i first want to thank the senator from rhode island for his leadership in bringing us all together today. we have to get this transportation bill done. this is a bill that passed the united states senate with 74 votes, so we are here today to say to our colleagues over in the house -- and ask our colleagues on the republican side to ask the republicans in the house to get this bill done. cold-weather states like minnesota and for that matter new york -- we say we have two seasons: we have winter and we have construction season. this kind of delay can be crippling. we have a much smaller window of

time to get these construction projects done. we have people waiting in traffic, so we ask the house, why are we making them wait? we look at the costs when we delay construction projects, the cost to taxpayers. everyone knows if you wait too long to work on a project and you're doing something on your house and you wait years and years to get it dorgan the cost goes up. so we ask our friends in the house, why are they allowing this to happen? why are they making this delay? look at contractors, construction workers, engineering firms, they need consistency. why is the house making them wait? look at caterpillar, a business that employs 750 people in my state. they make road-paving equipment. they have a manufacturing facility. i was there addressing the employees. they gave me a pink hat. there are people working all over that k the company. they want to make more gorks

jobs. we ask the house of representatives why are we making these private employers wait? the brill makes critical reforms to our transportation policy. just last week the centers for disease control and prevention release add report announcing that 58% of high school seniors said they texted or e-mailed in the previous month. 43% of high school juniors say they do the same thing. it bill includes provisions to help prevent texting while driving, incentives you yourself, madam president, the two of us together worked ogee the graduated driver's license standards that are in this. why are we making the parents of america wait? it makes reforms to our transportation policy, reduces the number of highway programs from over 100 to 30 so the republicans in the house, house can they explain that they're making america wait to actually reform and make these programs let duplicative? it defines clear national goals

for transportation policy. it streamlines environmental permitting. why would you make america wait? why? that's what we're asking the house of representatives today. no one knows better than minnesota what happens if you neglect your roads and bridges. 35-w bridge crashes down in the middle of a river three blocks from my house. so we ask the house of representatives, why are he making the people of america wait? thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i'm pleased to be here to join my colleagues in talking about why it is so important to pass this transportation bill. and i thank senator whitehouse for his efforts in organizing us. you know, in new hampshire we understand what senator klobuchar was saying about the importance of getting this bill passed, so we can get our construction season under way, because we have a limited amount of time. but in only 17 days this nation's surface transportation programs are going to shut down

unless congress acts to reauthorize them. in march, nearly three hft quarterquarter -- nearly three-s of this senate voted to pass a bipartisan transportation bill that maintains current funding levels and avoid ans increase in both the deficit and gas taxes. this legislation is important as we look at roads and bridges and mass transit that are going to be -- have support. it is important as we look at the jobs in the construction industry and manufacturing businesses that depend on our transportation system. in fact, the federal highway administration estimates that for every $1 billion in highway spending that we support, about 27,000 jobs. i was really pleased last tweak see an overwhelming -- last week to see an overwhelming majority in the house reject cuts on

spending. if that had passed 2,000 new hampshire jobs would have been lost. that sends an important signal that a strong, bipartisan majority in both houses of congress should support funding for crucial investments in our transportation network. i call on the house to work with the senate in a similar bipartisan manner, as we did in the senate, to pass transportation policies that put americans back to work and that generate economic growth. we've seen it in new hampshire where we've got 29 construction projects that are going object on hold if we can't get transportation legislation passed here. we've seen it with interstate 93, one of our main corridors going up and down the middle of our state, which has been delayed because of the delay in passing this transportation bill. if we're unable to set aside

election-year amendments, if we're unable to set aside partisan politics and com come together to do what's right and pass a transportation bill, it will be putting this country in a very difficult situation. the congressional budget office has projected that the highway trust fund will run out of money next year, sometime in 2013 -- we're not exactly sure when. but that will mean funding to states will face drastic cuts without any reauthorization to shore up that revenue. and were the highway trust fund to run out of money, projects across this country would grind to a halt, it would decimate jobs in the construction industry. we can't afford that ands. investing in transportation creates jobs and it creates the conditions for our small companies to succeed. it should not be an issue about politics or partisanship. i urge our colleagues on the

house side -- because they are the ones who are holding this up -- to come together and to pass a transportation reauthorization bill. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: madam president, thank you very much. i want to join senator shaheen and join senator klobuchar and particularly thank senator whitehouse for bringing us together. i know senator boxer was on the floor earlier talking about the transportation committee. we're all here because of the urgency of the conference report being presented to us, so that we have a multiyear reauthorization of the surface transportation promise prams of this country. madam president, let me just point out -- i know a lot of times our constituents are congress fused as to why -- confused as to why legislation cannot move here. but, clearly, the holdup in passing the surface transportation reauthorization

are the republicans in the house of representatives. they are blocking a bill that has broad support from the industries that are affected by it, from the public, and from both democrats and republicans here in the senate. we passed a consensus bill. it's not even bipartisan. it's consensus. we were able to get the right balance between public transportation, transit and highways and bridges. we had the proper balance between how the money is controlled at the state level and how it's controlled at the local level. we've worked out a reform of our transportation programs to do this in the most efficient way. it's being held up for one reason and one reason alone, and that is the politics of the house of representatives republicans. they believe they can score political points by blocking any legislation from moving. let me just underscore the points that my colleagues have mentioned. this bill is all about jobs.

it's all about rebuilding america and saving and preserving jobs. on sunday i was in cumberland, maryland, talking about the first federal highway, the national highway that was built over 200 years ago which was the first subsidized road in america. that brought jobs to our community. it connected the east with the expanding nation. well, quite frankly, this transportation bill connects our nation, and it's important for jobs. in the western part of maryland we have the appalachia highway we need to create, the north-south highway that will affect jobs in pennsylvania, maryland and west virginia. that's what it's about here. a short-term extension costs us jobs. last month we lost 28,000 jobs as a result of not being able to pass a multiyear surface transportation program. we lose the construction

seasons, as my colleagues have pointed out. and, quite frankly, we have the bill before us. we have the votes to pass it. so what we're asking today, we're asking that the republicans in the house release this bill, allow us to move forward so that we can create the jobs for america and the economic expansion for america that we need in modern transportation. that's whatness about, and that's why we are here today to urge our colleagues, the republicans in the house, the extremists that are holding up this bill, this is a bill that's important for our nation, let's move forward with the people's business. with that, madam president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. begich: madam president, thank you very much. to my colleagues, thanks for coming to the floor. to senator whitehouse, thank you for organizing us to come down here on an issue that is really the core of what we do here. we figure out how to build

infrastructure for this country so our private sector can have the infrastructure to work from and play off of. but let's be very blunt about this. let's be very honest about what's happening here. this bill passed, the transportation reauthorization bill, passed this body with 74 votes, a bipartisan effort, hard-fought, incredible debate, worked on many different issues. now it sits in a conference committee with house members led by the republican majority over there, not wanting to move forward. let's be very blunt about this. we have not only that bill over there. we have the vawa bill, postal reform bill, it's all piling up over in the house. people wonder why the economy is having some struggles this last month. well, all the business that we should be doing -- and we're doing it here in the senate. we're passing stuff. it's all piling up over there in the house.

actually, i did a, we call them begich minutes, give or take a second, we call them. i went to the middle of the capitol and described this incident where we passed the bill and i physically had to point to the house side of where this bill is stalled. here we are with a small group within the republican majority over there that is holding the speaker hostage, literally. because they have some views they want to cut the transportation by over a third, which would have devastated the infrastructure of this country. let me tell you from my own experience -- and i know senator whitehouse has heard this, as a former mayor i was in charge of the metropolitan planning organization for our community of anchorage which maintained about at that time 45%, 48% of the population of the state. we were in charge of managing the road money. every time congress delayed their action, were ineffective

in getting their work done, as a mayor we had to put projects off, stall projects, hold projects, tell contractors they can't get working. it creates this uncertainty which at the end of the day does one thing. it costs more money and the people who pay are the taxpayers. so as they sit over there -- and i just saw one comment they want to do another extension. we have had nine extensions. for people who don't know what extensions are, this is where they say we'll do it for another week, another two weeks, another month. these extensions create again more uncertainty and more cost. every time you hear the word "extension" from the other side, that just means you, property taxpayers of this country, you are paying more taxes. that's what that means, clear and simple. extension means you pay more for a project that should have been on the board and moving forward. we have a bipartisan bill, 74 democrats and republicans in the senate voted for it.

it is now lingering in conference. here we are in the midst of a construction season. in alaska, i know my colleague from minnesota has also joined us, we know what construction season is. it's short in cold-climate areas. we need to have contracts in early spring in order to be done in the summer and be completed and down by early october because asphalt plans close and when they close you can't put asphalt on the streets. very simple. we have a limited time. the contracting community is frustrated, angry because they don't get certainty. they can't hire the people, they can't get them to work. so i plead with the folks on the other side, the extreme folks in the republican majority over there that are holding the speaker hostage on this issue, let us do what's right for america. let's make sure these jobs, these three million jobs that could be retained and added move forward, in an economy that every job makes a difference.

and this is three million jobs. let's move it forward. let's quit the politics. what's amazing about this -- and i heard senator whitehouse say this more than once -- if that bill, the senate bill would just be allowed to go to the floor, one person could make that decision. the speaker of the house. if he just said let's get it to the floor and let the votes go where they go, what will happen? i guarantee you what will happen. democrats and a group of republicans will support that bill and pass it. but that's not the issue. we have a very small subset of the majority of the republicans over he there that have told the majority leader you're not moving anything, nothing, zero. because they want the economy -- they're not betting on america like we are. we bet on america. we're betting on the right things here. and what they want to do is cripple this country for their own political gamesmanship. i will tell you and i bet you

every one of my colleagues will say the same thing, when we go back home, when i go back home to alaska, people are fed up with it. they are disgusted by the inability for congress to do their work. but i will tell, and i have told my folks in alaska, the senate is doing their work. we're passing bipartisan bills, but it gets all jammed up with a small group of extreme republican tea party folks who believe the best way to solve the problems is do nothing and that -- and let this economy falter. so i hope that the members will come to their senses over there. i can tell you n.i.h. -- my congressman, republican from alaska wants in bill to pass. he's working to do it. he's on the conference committee. he is one of the republicans that will vote with the democrats to get things done. why? because he likes building things. i like building things. but there are other folks over there that have no interest in

helping this country and making it a better place. i yield my time. i hope folks on the other side in that extreme group will get some sense knocked into them. maybe the american people will do it. i hope so. madam president, i yield my time at this point to my friend from minnesota. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: madam president, i'd like to the senator from alaska and the senator from rhode island. madam president, i'd like to emphasize the need to pass a long-term reauthorization of this surface transportation bill. it's time for congress to do our job. thanks to the leadership of senators boxer and inhofe, this body passed a bill with 74 votes. actually it probably would have been 76 votes. senator kirk is back at home recovering, and we wish him very

well. and senator lautenberg couldn't vote that day. i think he was at the funeral of a friend. it would have been 76 votes. unfortunately, our colleagues in the house were not able to pass a comprehensive reauthorization bill and were only able to join a conference committee after passing yet another short-term extension. i'll repeat myself, it's time for the congress to do its job. as the senator from alaska was saying, my good colleague was saying, the summer construction season is now upon us. in minnesota, that's when we know we can build roads and bridges and build light rail because in november and december it gets cold and snowy. state departments of transportation have already canceled projects because the

house has failed to act. we have already lost thousands and thousands of jobs because for whatever reason the house will not pass a bill that received unanimous bipartisan support in the environment and public works committee, and 74 votes in the senate as a whole. and now speaker boehner has said the house may just pass another short-term extension. now, all of these extensions have whittled away at the highway trust fund, whittled it down to a do i thinkously -- a dangerously low balance of any further extension would put in danger of going bankrupt. this should not be controversial. this should not be partisan. transportation and infrastructure have not been in the past. the senate consensus bill simply maintains the current level of

funding for our transportation system and streamlines many programs to make sure those investments are put to the best possible use. this is infrastructure that we need to stay competitive in our global economy. minnesota is ready to make these investments, whether we're talking about maintaining our bridges so they're safe, expanding the new light rail system in the twin cities, or reducing congestion in our highways, these are projects that will create jobs now and strengthen our economy well into the future as infrastructure always does. on august of this year we in minnesota will mark the fifth anniversary of a tragedy in our state, the collapse of interstate 35w bridge in

minneapolis. the collapse killed 13 people and injured 145. that tragedy should have been a wakeup call in america and in this body. bridges should not collapse in the united states of america. if that was a wakeup call, the house seems to be content to have hit the snooze button and ignore the problem. well, we cannot wait any longer. there is no reason not to pass this bill. frankly, the senate bill is the conservative solution. it is paid for. it consolidates many federal programs and streamlines project reviews. all things that i have heard colleagues in the house ask for. the house negotiators need to

work with senator boxer and senator inhofe and the rest of the senate conferees and come to an agreement that both the house and the senate can live with. if they can't or won't, speaker boehner should, as the senator from alaska just said, he should just take up the senate bill and give it an up-or-down vote. let's prove to our constituents that we can come together and do what's right. let's pass a bill that will create jobs for workers in our states and build prosperity for our future. it's time for congress to do its job and pass the transportation bill without any more delay. i thank my colleagues and yield back to my colleague, the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse:

madam president, let me thank the senators on our side who have come here today during the majority time block to express their support for moving forward on the highway transportation bill. not all of them had the chance to speak because time was short, but i want to have the record reflect that in addition to senators klobuchar and shaheen and begich and cardin and franken, who did speak, and myself of course, senator gillibrand is also here, but presiding -- senator stabenow is here but could not wait, senator mark udall is here, senator kent conrad is here. we are all here because we're very concerned about what's going on with the highway bill. we had a march 31 deadline in order to get things done by the summer construction season that we've heard so much about. we made the deadline. not only did we make the deadline, we made the deadline with a bipartisan bill, with one that was unanimous among both

parties in the environment and public works committee, and we brought it to the floor and got it passed. 75 or more senators supporting it. the house did not do its job. it did not have a bill. it could not pass a highway bill. for folks who have been around here longer than i have, the failure to pass a highway bill is telling. this is not like getting an "a" on a chem stra a chemistry test" this is like failing to shoip -o shoip for class. we probably should have forced the vote. we gave them an extension on the theory that on good faith they would come through. we knew the extension would cost jobs. it has cost jocks. over out of 90 projects slated for this construction season in rhode island, about 40 are going to fall off because of the delay. that's real jobs in rhode island, a state that needs them. and that is true across the rest

of the country. where ever winter falls, this predictment exists. that's why so many of my colleagues were here. now we're closing in on the extension we gave them. i'm here to urge that we give no further extensions. it's either govern or get out of the way to the house of representatives. if you can't pass a highway bill of your own, let the senate bill come umfor a vote. it is bipartisan, it is supported by manufacturers, it is supported by the united states chamber of commerce, it is supported by road builders, it is supported by environmentalists, it is supported by labor, it is a good bill. it had a great process, wide open here on the senate floor. there is no excuse for not taking that bill up. and if that bill comes up, i agree with senator begich, if that bill comes up, democrats and republicans together will give it a massive majority in the house and people will be put to work.

one place where i think we all ought to be able to agree on both sides of the aisle that federal spending is actually helpful and does create jobs is our roads and bridges. we don't expect americans to repair the road in front of their house. we don't expect americans to go and build bridges for themselves. it is a government job to build roads and bridges, and the jam-up that speaker boehner and majority leader cantor have created on this is costing probably hundreds of thousands of jobs right now in this cufnlt why they're doing it, their motive, that's not for me to saivment -- to say. but the practical effect is that jobs are being lost by unnecessary delay, created by republicans in the house, which they could get rid of by simply calling up the bipartisan senate bill and getting a free vote on it and letting it pass and putting americans to work.

i yield the floor, and i thank the distinguished senator from utah for being patient, as i went over my time, i think, a little bit. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i thank my colleague. madam president, last week i discussed some unfinished business that remains for congress and the president to address. specifically, congress must take up a number of tax-related matters in very short order. when i discussed this tax agenda last weerk i referred -- i referred to a chart -- we'll put it up i here in a minute -- and things -- i referred to this chart. "tax legislation 'to do' list." things have not changed since my last remarks. as that chart shoarks the tax extenders which are overdue by almost half a year, not aloan on

congress's to-do list. we need to solve the death tax. the we need to prevent the 2013 tax hikes. as i noted earlier, we have the so-called tax extenders right there. and we have to address the alternative minimum tax or a.m.t., the second one on that list. the issue of the a.m.t. is what i would like to address today. 31 million american families will be caught by the a.m.t. or are already caught. yet congress has done nothing address the a.m.t. the alternative minimum tax is a stealth tax on 27 million families, approximately 3 3.million families paid the a.m.t. last year and they may not be surprised if it hits them again. -- again this year. but for the other 27 million american families set to be ensnared by the a.m.t., this

represents a significant and stealthy tax increase. the a.m.t. burden is in fact far broader than just the 31 million american families in its sights. nearly double that number, 60 million american families, must fill out the a.m.t. work sheet to determine whether they owe an alternative minimum tax. now, while not as bad as paying the tax itself, the task of compliance is just another challenge for american names they don't immediate to have. to get some idea of the magnitude of the a.m.t.'s reach, consider this chart right here. it breaks down state by state the number of american families hit by the a.m.t. when i speak of those now being caught by this tax, i'm referring to those families who make estimated tax payments and who are scheduled to make their second payment tomorrow. last year 3.million families were hit by the -- 3.9 million families are hit/the a.m.t.

it is considerably better than the 3 1 million who will be hit in 2012. the reason we are threatened by such large increase in year is that over the last 11 years congress has passed legislation to temporarily increase the amount of income exempt from the a.m.t. unlike many other provisions of the tax code, the a.m.t. exemption amount is not automatically adjusted for inflation. these temporary exem shong increases have prevented millions of middle-class american families from falling prey to the a.m.t. until now. while i have always fought thor those temporary exemptions, i believe the a.m.t. ought to be permanently preeld. one reason to pursue permanent repeal is the uncertainty the a.m.t. creates for taxpayers when congress must revisit and adjust it every year. unfortunately, a permanent fix does not appear to be

forthcoming. congress has yet to undertake any meaningful action on the a.m.t. president obama has proposed permanently patching or maybe even repealing 5*89, yet when he gives with one hand he takes away with another. he has proposed to pay for an a.m.t. fix with this so-called buffett tax, nothing more than a new alternative minimum tax. the solution to the alternative minimum tax problem surely can't be an alternative or an alternative minimum tax. moreover, the revenue generated by the buffett tax in spite of the suggestion by the president that this tax on the rich could pay for all things good, would not come close to providing the revenue necessary to address the a.m.t. in a meaningful way. despite assurances from the president and his allies that a.m.t. relief is an important issue, nothing has actually been

put forward as a solution for this year. there's been no senate committee markup or floor action. for tax extenders, the a.m.t. patch, death tax reform or even preventing 2013 tax hikes. this year is about half over, and all we have to talk about, all we have to talk about is the need to address the a.m.t. or should i say, all we have is talk about need to address the a.m.t. but a theoretical discussion is not a substitute for reelection, as anyone paying a quarterly payment today will attest to. everyone seems to agree that something needs to be done and done quickly. but the discussion does not go any further from there. we are out of time. the second quarterly a.m.t. payment is due. today taxpayers across the

country are under a legal requirement to pay their estimated tax. they use the form depicted on this chart right here. 2012 estimated tax. and though i hope otherwise, i expect that i will be here again when the third payment comes due saying basically the same thing. now, a question remains about whether people who should be making an estimated tax payment tomorrow actually will. most of these 31 million taxpayers subject to the a.m.t. do not even know they are subject to the alternative minimum tax. so they will not be making that estimated tax payment tomorrow even though they should. and if one fails to pay sufficient estimated tax, or have a sufficient amount of wages withheld throughout the year, then one can be subject to interest and penalties. this is an awful spot for congress to put the american families in.

it is also worth recalling that the i.r.s. cannot just flip a switch and have its systems in place for an a.m.t. patch. this is not done overnight. it takes months, and the congress's failure to act on a timely basis could actually delay the processing of this 2013 refund -- of 2013 refund checks perhaps by even few months. the failure of congress to promptly enact an alternative minimum tax fix would have a cascading effect on our system of tax administration. software providers and tax preparers would struggle to keep up. one of the issues holding back an a.m.t. fix is that many on the other side insist that, unlike new spending proposals or extensionextensions in existingg programs, a.m.t. reform should happen only if it is

revenue-neutral. that means any revenues not collected through reform or repeal of the a.m.t. must be offset by new taxes from somewhere else. notice that i said "not collected" rather than "lost." this distinction is important for the simple reason that the revenues that we do not collect as a result of a.m.t. relief are not really lost. the a.m.t. collects revenues it was never supposed to collect in the first place, and if we offset revenues not collected as a result of the -- as a result of a.m.t. repeal or reform, total federal revenues over the long term are projected to push through the 30-year historical average and then keep going. originally conceived as a mechanism to ensure that high-income taxpayers were not able to eliminate their tax liability completely, the a.m.t. has failed. the a.m.t. was originally created back in 1969 with just

155 taxpayers in mind, 155. a mechanism to e to ensure that high-income taxpayers were not able to eliminate their tax liability completely. the a.m.t. has failed completely. on the one hand, as i.r.s. commissioner every everson told the committee in 2004, the same percentage of taxpayers continues to pay no federal income tax. on the other hand, the a.m.t. is designed to bring in revenues it was never designed to collect. at least 31 million middle-class families are in the a.m.t.'s cross hairs. that was not never meant to be. that's quite a change from 155 rich people who never paid any taxes. and it should serve as a cautionary tale for those who believe that today's tax increase proposals will remain limited to the so-called wealthy.

during the 2008 campaign, president obama advocated for a permanent a.m.t. patch. his budgets have maintained that position. while permanent repeal would not offset the a.m.t., it is the best option. we must absolutely do something to protect taxpayers immediately, even if it involves a temporary solution such as an increase in the exemption amount. of course if we do that, we are going to be in the same fix next year, and i will be making again the same points. this coming friday, june 15, 2012, taxpayers making quarterly payments are going to once again discover that the a.m.t. is neither the subject of an academic seminar nor a future problem that we can put off dealing with. the a.m.t. is a real problem right now. and if this congress was really serious about tax fairness, it does need to stand up appeared take action. madam president, lilled like to

take a few moments to address another matter. the conference committee is currently meeting to produce a transportation bill. as i said ensuring that local communities have a strong voice in the transportation decision-making process is a priority of mine. there are many ways this can be achieved. but one particularly effective method is through the complementation of environmental -- implementation of environmental streamlining. negotiations have still ongoing, so i do not want to go into too much detail. yet environmental streamlining is something that will benefit my own home state of utah and every other state that is currently forced to comply with redundant and oppressive red tape when engaging in transportation projects with the effect. with the federal government. the highway trust fund which funds many transportation programs currently has more money coming out of it than is going into it. and while there are many who want to deal with bloated and

unfocused spending by raising tastles, i disagree. if revenues do not meet outlays, then we should not be punishing the american taxpayer. rather, we should be reevaluating spending priorities. in addition to examining what congress spends money on, we need to ensure that money being spent is spent efficiently. currently, governments at the federal, state, and local levels spend considerable resources complying with federal regulations designed to protect the environment. given that many of these regulations have ak50u78 lated over -- accumulated over time, i am confident that we can scrape many of these barnacles off the ship of state without harping the environment. both the senate and the house recognize the truth of what i am saying and both bills currently in conference reflect this sentiment. both contain provisions designed to streamline or simply -- or simplify environmental reviews with which transportation projects must comply.

in particular, i am appreciative of the efforts shown by chairman mica of the house transportation and infrastructure committee. madam president, could i inquiry how much time i have remaining? the presiding officer: there's no controlled tievment you have the time. mr. hatch: thank you. i don't want to infringe on my colleagues, but let me just say this. i am appreciative of the efforts shown by chairman mica of the house transportation and infrastructure committee for his role in highlighting the importance of environmental streamlining within the conference committee. i hope the rest of my fellow senate conferees are carefully reviewing his suggested language. i know all of us want to do everything we can to expedite project delivery times while minimizing redundant costs. and chairman mica is clearly eager to engaiblg gauge on this topic. president obama has talked in the past about the importance of

funning shovel-ready jobs. well, all we are asking is that when a job is shovel-ready, it move forward without undue and unnecessary environmental reviews. i just want to close with an appeal rooted in my role as ranking member of the finance committee. the highway trust fund is currently on a path to insolvency and the senate bill does not change that. by working with our colleagues in the house, we can make sure taxpayer money is not wasted on redundant and unnecessary compliance and regulation. despite current policy being green in the environmental sense does not mean we have to sacrifice being green in a budgetary sense. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. conrad: mr. president, i come to the floor to discuss the amendment that is pending to

kill the sugar program in the united states. mr. president, my colleagues should know that the domestic sugar industry employs 140,000 people in this country. if there was ever a jobs-killer amendment, it is the amendment that is going to be offered to kill the u.s. sugar program. and in advancing that amendment, a series of claims have been made about the u.s. sugar program that i believe are just false. first of all, it is said that the sugar program has a high cost for taxpayers. that is false. it is said that it keeps sugar prices artificially high. that is false. it is said that the sugar program drives the confectionery

out of the united states that. is false. it is said that the sugar program impedes imports into the united states. that is false. and it is said that consumers will benefit from eliminating the sugar program. mr. president, i believe that is false as well. let's take each of these arguments in turn. first is that it has a high taxpayer cost. well, mr. president, here's the cost, according to the congressional budget office, of the sugar program from 2013-2022. the cost is zero. it is hard to get lower than zero. maybe the square root of zero would be lower. but, mr. president, those who say a high cost to taxpayer, just wrong. it's false. the second claim is that it keeps sugar prices artificially high. well, false again.

mr. president, this chart shows the average retail sugar price in major countries around the world. here's the united states way down here, 59 cents. the global average is 67 cents. the developed country average is 73% -- 73 cents. mr. president, we are below the global average. we are below the average of developed countries. so the claim that it keeps sugar prices high is false again. mr. president, the third claim is that the sugar program drives the confectionery industry out of the united states. wrong again. here is what is happening to the u.s. chocolate and nonchocolate confectionery production in the united states since 2004. you see the trend line? it's up. more production,not less production. mr. president, these are facts

and facts are stubborn things. let's go to the fourth claim, that this sugar program in the united states impedes imports. boy, this is maybe the biggest whopper of all. mr. president, here are the facts. the united states in the nerd from 2008-2009 -- in the period from 2008-2009 through 2010-2011, is the biggest importer of shiewger in the world. so this program is impeding imports into the united states? well, if it is, it isn't doing a very good job of it, because the united states is number one in imports of sugar in the world. mr. president, the final assertion -- before we get to

the final assertion, let's look at what other countries that produce sugar -- poor countries -- are saying to us about our sugar program. because the argument made on the floor is we are hurting poor countries with our sugar progr program. maybe we ought to listen to what those poor countries say. here is their organization, the international sugar trade coalition represents sugar produces in 17 developing nations in africa, asia, the caribbean, central america and south america. here's what they say. -- and i quote their letter -- "the u.s. sugar policy contained in the farm bill passed by the senate agriculture committee is important to sugar producers in developing nations because it provides a guaranteed level of access to the u.s. sugar market at fair, predictable prices. attempts to weaken this policy through amendments on the senate floor would not only harm u.s. farmers but also poor growers

from developing countries where sugar is a key economic driver." these are the poor countries that produce sugar who are saying to us, keep your sugar program because not only does it benefit you but it benefits us. let me go further in their letter: "ending the sugar program would reward only a handful of large food companies and agricultural superpowers like brazil while punishing some of the world's poorest economies." it goes on to say, "this was what happened when the european union radically altered its sugar policy and thereby lowered standards of living in places like ghana, fiji and mauricies where there's no alternative to sugar cane. second-degreely, st. kitts and nevis had to stop sugar production altogether after 300

years as a result of the e.u.'s reforms." mr. president, let's not make that same mistake here. finally on this notion that consumers are going to benefit by eliminating the sugar progr program -- really? really? let's look at the facts. here's -- the green line is the trend line on retail sugar prices. you see that trend line? that trend line since 2010 is going up. here is what the wholesale price of sugar has been -- flat. you see the disconnection? wholesale price is flat; retail price is up. the fact is that sugar is such a small part of the cost of finished products that it has

almost no bearing whatsoever on retail prices of a candy bar, a box of cereal or any of the other things that sugar goes in. mr. president, the record is so clear on the facts that i would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment being offered to kill the u.s. sugar program, to kill 140,000 good jobs in this country, to kill $19 billion of economic activity in this country. it would be a profound mistake, not only for us but the poor countries 6 of the world who produce sugar, who are calling on us to keep our sugar program, because not only is it important to u.s. farmers, it is important to their farmers as well. i thank the chair. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that the next 10 minutes be provided to senator udall of colorado and

then five minutes for senator gillibrand of new york. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. conrad: i thank the chair and yield the floor, and i thank my colleagues for their patience and their courtesy. mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: let me also thank senator conrad. he's always gracious. he's always compelling and i appreciate the strong case he made for his point of view. i rise, mr. president, as i did yesterday to -- and will continue to do so, to highlight why it is so important that we extend the production tax credit, or the p.t.c., for wind energy, as it's known. senator bennet, my colleague from colorado, joins me in feeling the urgency of the moment. members of both parties have agreed that the p.t.c. is vital -- it's vital for continued economic growth in our country. put simply, the p.t.c. means a good-paying american job. and the longer we wait, the more american jobs we can expect to

be lost in the coming months and weeks ahead. and when i go home, coloradans say to me, it doesn't make any sentence that we wouldn't extend the production tax credit. so over the next couple weeks, i'm going to come to the floor every day to talk about how the wind production tax credit affects each state across the country to drive home the point that real american jobs will be lost if we don't take this commonsense step. the p.t.c. has meant economic growth in colorado. we have a favorable business climate in colorado and we have tremendous wind resources. and, in fact, if we harness the wind potential that's there -- similar to the wind potential that's off the shores of the presiding officer's state -- there's enough wind power to go way beyond our needs. in colorado's case, 25 times over the state's electricity needs could be met if we harness and harvest that wind. that's an amazing statistic. mr. president, it's generated by

the national renewable energy lab, which we're honored to host in colorado. it's a flagship of energy research, development, and innovation. but as i've said here today, and i've said yesterday, and hopefully i won't have to say it too many days into the future, the strong growth in the wind sector is at risk. thousands of jobs, as you can see in this chart of colorado, have been created across my state. all the way from pueblo in the south central portion of the state to fort morgan up in the northeast to yuma county, way out in the eastern part of the state. these are quality jobs. these jobs support families and communities. i want to put a face on these families and these communities, mr. president. i want to talk about derrick palmer. he lives in greeley, up here in the northeastern part of the state of colorado. he has three children and a wife. he graduated from university of north -- northern colorado in 2011 with a degree in business management, and he's worked at the windsor manufacturing plant. it's a bestes plant that's

manufactured wind blades for the last nine months. he left an excellent managerial job in a service industry and joined vestes because of the strong benefits package that's there for his wife and kids. he loves working there. he's patriotic. he's helping our country become energy independent. but because of our inaction, thousands of jobs like derrick's are in jeopardy, and this industry deserves some certainty, some stability and so do countless families like derrick's in colorado and all over the country. so, mr. president, if we don't act, i fear dire consequences. the c.e.o. of investes i think you have met. he is a wonderful, smart man. he says he expects the wind market in the u.s. to fall by 80% in the p.t.c. isn't extended. 80%. that's a huge number. that's 80% fewer jobs, 80% fewer families pulling themselves out of this recession and 80% less

investment than we have today. all because we're not acting, all because we're not taking the right steps forward. as i close, this isn't a partisan issue. both democrats and republican senators and house members agree that we need to extend this commonsense tax credit. the bipartisan bills to extend it, i have led an effort with six democrats and six republicans here earlier urging us to extend the p.t.c. the solution is simple. we just need to extend the p.t.c., asap. we need to do it. let's do it as soon as possible. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i'd like to commend the chairwoman, the agriculture committee and the ranking member of that committee for their dedicated effort to move the farm bill to the floor to discuss our nation's agricultural policy and for their leadership in championing

so many issues that help america's farmers and new york's farms. i rise today because i really want to make clear to the american people just what is at stake at the heart of this farm bill. it's about a growing economy for our family farms and for our small businesses. it's about reviving world communities and rebuilding a thriving middle class, and the opportunity for all of those who are trying to get there. it's about the health of our agricultural industry, the jobs it provides and the health of our families that it helps to feed. but for the amendments that are being filed today from across the aisle, you would not know it. there are some trying to use this bill to roll back protections for the air that we breathe and for the water that we drink. there are some who wanto use this bill to expand con

seal-carry laws for weapons. we're even seeing attempts to bring in the divisive politics from the wisconsin recall and inject it right into the debate on the senate floor on farm policy. this bill has so much potential to create jobs, to help our farms thrive, to protect our farmers and small businesses from natural disasters, to feed our children, to feed our at-risk seniors, but if we are ever going to reach that potential, we can't afford to get bogged down in these dead-end fights that are meant only to score political points. and worse yet, there are draconian cuts being proposed by some that will take even more money away from those who are greatest in need, taking money away from the supplemental nutrition assistance program better known as food stamps, which literally will result in children going to bed hungry in this country. these amendments simply do not meet the fundamental founding

principles of this nation or who we are as americans. in this day and age, in this country, as rich as we are, to accept hungry children, hungry families, hungry seniors to me is unacceptable. this farm bill started out with a $4.5 billion cut to food stamps over ten years. these cuts must be restored. and while i have fought against these cuts with 13 of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, others are still actually advocating for additional much more extreme cuts. they could even cut the snap program by almost a half. if you have heard from families living off food stamps, as i have, you know that this is something that no one strives for. most have never imagined that they would be on food stamps, that they would need that kind of support, but many have been dealt a very bad hand in this

economy, and through no fault of their own, they are finding they are at need. food stamps are often the last resort for those who are just trying to keep the lights on, put food on the table for their kids and be able to find their way back to that paycheck that they desperately want to be earning. and among all the families relying on food stamps at historical rates, we now are seeing our veterans and their families. now, i can tell you our veterans and their families have already suffered a lot, and for these troops coming home, they're coming back into a very tough economy and are unable to find the jobs they need, and you have to imagine these children of our vets who have already suffered so much, and now they are being faced with not knowing where their next meal comes from. now, for any parent watching this debate today, i just want to ask you one question -- has your child ever said to you mommy, i'm still hungry?

well, i can't imagine what a mother would feel like if she could not hand her child some food. i can't imagine what a mother would feel like if her child said that to her every single night. that is exactly what we are talking about today in this farm bill. as a mother and as a legislator, watching children suffer, watching america's children not having enough to eat is something i will not stand quietly by and watch. under this bill, nearly 300,000 families in new york will become food insecure, and what that translates to is $90 a month that they will have less money to put food on the table, and what that translates to is it's the last week of the month. that $90 pays the grocery bills every single week. so what do these families do when they don't have enough money at the end of the month? despite not being responsible for the economic crisis that our

country has faced, we will be asking these families to share a disproportionate amount of the burden being placed on them, and we know, we know that food stamps are such a good investment into our economy. for every dollar that you put into food stamps, you get $1.71 back into the economy. even one of the best economists, mark zandi, says the fastest way to infuse money into this economy is through food stamps. now, these food stamps pay -- they pay salaries for grocery clerks, truckers who haul the food. the usda estimates that 16 cents go right back to the farmer. now, i know my time is expiring, but i have 13 bipartisan cosponsors for this amendment, and the list keeps growing, with the support from aarp, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops and all those who are fighting on the front line for hunger. our amendment will restore the snap funding back to the

$4.5 billion that have been cut, and it will pay for the food that our kids so desperately need. every child in america deserves to be fed. every child in america deserves to reach their god-given potential. we need to restore these cuts to ensure that. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i rise to discuss a particular amendment, perhaps a couple of amendments, on the farm bill, specifically the amendments to the sugar portion of this. you know, there are a number of titles, this is a big, complicated bill, and there is a great deal of discussion about the many reforms that are contained in this bill, but there is one very glaring exception, one huge program that has no reforms whatsoever in the underlying bill, and it just so

happens to be, in my view, one of the most egregiously flawed programs in the entire agricultural sector, maybe in government as a whole. it's the sugar program. this is a program which systematically forces american consumers to pay much more than the global price for sugar. it's a huge transfer of wealth from consumers, including the poorest american consumers to a handful of wealthy sugar producers. it is completely wrong. it is ill-conceived in the first place, and it is perpetuated in this bill, and i think that's just unconscionable. some of the specific ways in which the existing program has the government completely manipulating the market for sugar include explicit limits on how much sugar can be produced domestically. there is the de facto government-imposed price floor on sugar, rather than allowing

the price to reflect whatever supply and demand would lead to. it puts strict limits on how much sugar can be imported without forcing americans to pay taxes on those imports in the form of duties. it mandates that the government purchase excess sugar and then sell it at a loss to ethanol producers. all of these are features of the existing sugar policy, and all of them are left completely unchanged by this bill. so it is screaming for some amendments to provide some commonsense reforms to this very badly flawed program. and by the way, let me be very clear. the net effect at the end of the day of all of these machinations in which the government manipulates the market for sugar is that u.s. consumers end up paying more, much more, often about double the going rate that everyone else in the world that doesn't manipulate their markets pays for sugar. now, among -- that should -- by the way, that should be reason enough to end this program

entirely, in my view, but there are other reasons. for instance, the existing sugar policy -- as i say, unchanged in this bill -- absolutely is costing us jobs in the united states. it's not even disputable. it is on balance a job killer. it is costing us jobs today, specifically jobs in manufacturing, manufacturing of products that include sugar, of which there are many. here is a simple quote, an observation from the c.e.o. of a candy manufacturer in pennsylvania who uses sugar as an import. he points out that these sugar subsidies artificially inflate the price of one of the staples of the candy industry and forces us and any other companies to choose between absorbing the higher costs, passing the costs on to consumers or producing elsewhere. the fact is that some people inevitably choose to produce elsewhere. the next chart illustrates a

point that has been made by the u.s. department of commerce. we're not just making these things up. many u.s. essentially sugar consuming producers, these manufacturers have already closed or relocated to canada where sugar prices are less than half of the u.s. why? because canada chooses not to have a ridiculous sugar program. and so we lose jobs as manufacturers go to canada, use market-priced sugar at much lower costs, to produce candies, and then import them into the united states. the next chart quantifies this. very simple. for every job that's protected somewhere where they are growing beets or cane sugar, three manufacturing jobs are lost. again, these are statistics from the department of commerce. this is very clear. this is not really refutable. the final chart illustrates this

in another way. the canadian government has figured this out, and they advertise the fact that they have a huge competitive advantage because they choose not to create an artificially high price for sugar. as a result, they -- they are constantly trying to persuade manufacturers to move up to canada where they can have lower costs, and by the way for many of these companies, the cost of the sugar in the united states is the single biggest cost that they pay. the other point that we should stress, that i would like to really underline is not only do we lose jobs systematically because of this program, but it also hurts consumers. i mean, think about it. everybody consumes sugar. there is sugar in so many products that it's absolutely impossible to avoid this inflated cost. and it should really be seen as equivalent to a tax. it's as though the federal government were imposing a tax on sugar. it doesn't work literally that way, but it has that economic effect. it's completely equivalent. and who gets hit the hardest by

this? it's the lowest income americans. it's as regressive a tax as you could possibly have. think about it. wealthy people devote a very, very small percentage of their total income to food. they have plenty of money. they spend it on many other things. but if you're a low-income american, then you necessarily are devoting a very large percentage of your income to food. and so much of it is artificially inflated in cost by the -- our own federal government. this is what's so egregious about it. the g.a.o. said in 2000 that the existing sugar policy forced americans to pay $2 billion in additional food costs. and if you use their same methodology and you move it ahead to today, a.e.i. projects that those costs are now $3.5 billion. this is a simple, straightforward transfer of wealth from low and middle-income and ordinary american consumers to a handful of wealthy producers. it's as simple as that. oh, but there is one other

feature. there is also an ongoing risk to taxpayers. because of that feature that i alludeed to earlier in which the federal government buys what is deemed to be excess sugar and then sells it at a loss to ethanol makers, c.b.o. is projecting that this will lose $193 million for taxpayers over the next decade. mr. president, we have an amendment that would address this. the shaheen amendment, and i think senator shaheen has actually offered more than one amendment on this topic, one would repeal the entire program. i salute her for this, i agree with her, i support that. my understanding is that we will soon be voting on a motion to table that. i think it's quite unfortunate that senator reid would choose to take this amendment off the table so to speak, to put it aside, a vote to table the amendment of course is a vote to kill it and so i think we all to be passing this amendment and end the practice of forcing american consumers to transfer this wealth in this fashion.

but i want to also stress that i'm concerned about the process that's gotten us here. i am concerned that senator reid has intentionally chosen an amendment that's going to be very difficult to pass, as strong as its merits are from my point of view, i know that it's difficult to get a majority in this body to support the full repeal of this program, i hope we can succeed in that but i don't know that we can. if we cannot, senator shaheen has another amendment that i've joined her on which would push back some of the excesses of this program. push us back to where we were back in 2008 prior to the most recent farm bill. it makes modest changes and scales back some of these excesses, and i certainly hope that we get a chance to vote on that. if we can't pass full repeal, we have every right, by argue every responsibility in this body to try to at least improve on what is such an egregiously flawed program. again, i would underscore the fact the current bill is silent,

in other words, it perpetuates, it continues this really spectacularly flawed program that is so unfair to american consumers. we will have an opportunity to vote later today on a motion to table. i hope we defeat the motion to table so we can take up this bill and -- take up this amendment and do away with this program. but failing that, mr. president, it's very, very important that we have an opportunity to at least amend the program. with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: thank you, mr. president. i'm pleased to join my colleague from pennsylvania, senator toomey, to talk about what really is an egregious oversight in the underlying marshal that we're -- farm bill that we're considering. this morning the senate is going to have the opportunity to vote on an amendment that repeal the sugar program. as senator toomey has pointed

out, i submitted several amendments, one would reform the sugar program and the one that we're getting a vote on this morning is the one to actually repeal the program. i, like senator toomey, hope we will get a vote on both of those. but i certainly hope that people will vote against the tabling motion to repeal the sugar program. the underlying farm bill that we're considering reforms almost every farm program that we have. every farm group has had to sacrifice with this farm bill so that we can reform these programs. unfortunately, there is one glaring exception to these reforms, and that is the sugar program. we need to reform the sugar subsidy because it costs consumers and businesses $3.5 billion each year in the form of higher prices. that's almost double the world average, and we can see from

this chart, this looks at sugar prices over the last 30 years since 1981. this is the world price for sugar, and this is the u.s. price. we can see demonstrated very graphically -- no pun intended -- that we are in america paying almost twice what the world price is for sugar. it also costs us about 20,000 jobs every year, and we're doing all this, we're affecting consumers, hundreds of thousands of jobs, to benefit fewer than 5,000 sugar growers, to benefit those 5,000, all of us are paying more. and we've been paying more as this chart clearly indicates, for the last 30 years. now, how does the subsidy program work? senator toomey, i think did a great job of explaining it but it essentially minutes the market it.

it controls -- manipulates the market. it restricts how much sugar comes into the united states from outside the country and sets a floor on sugar prices by providing a government guarantee to sugar growers on what they're going to get paid and it requires the government in some cases -- i mean this is what's really outrageous. it requires the government to buy sugar off the market and then sell it to ethanol plants at a loss to taxpayers. and the proponents of this program say it doesn't cost us any money? well, what our amendment would do is phase out this outdated program over the course of a couple of years. now, i want to respond to some of the claims that we've heard from those who support this sugar program. the first is that it doesn't cost taxpayers any money. well, if you ignore the fact that consumers are paying out of one pocket, they may not be paying as taxpayers in taxes but

they're paying out of the other pocket as consumers, but, in fact, that's not even accurate when it comes to taxpayer dollars. a recent study by iowa state university showed that the program costs $3.5 billion a year to consumers in the form of higher prices. and the congressional budget office estimates that this program will cost taxpayers directly in the coming years. c.b.o. has scored this amendment as saving millions of dollars for taxpayers in the next decade. so repealing the sugar program according to c.b.o. will save millions for taxpayers in the next decade. now, those who support the sugar program also claim that prices just aren't that high. that consumers actually benefit from the sugar subsidy. well, that's absurd. we can see here graphed out very

clearly what consumers are paying. consumer groups like the consumer federation, the national consumers league, they support our amendment because the sugar subsidy costs consumers and businesses $3.5 billion a year. subsidy supporters cite a study which was paid for by the sugar industry to support their data. well, it's not accurate. using data from usda shows a very different story because for wholesale prices, which represent two-thirds of the sugar bought by businesses in the united states, the effect of the sugar program is obvious. and it's hard to argue with this drastic difference as displayed on the chart. what we have is really a hidden tax that's designed to benefit a

small, powerful interest group. and, again, studies have found that consumers are paying that cost to the tune of $3.5 billion a year. so now the supporters of the sugar subsidy also say that this program doesn't get in the way of job creation. well, this is an argument that just doesn't hold up when you look at the facts. multiple studies have found that we are sacrificing hundreds of thousands of jobs by keeping sugar prices high. in 2006, the department of commerce found that for every job protected in the sugar industry, three were lost in manufacturing. a recent study from iowa state university found we are sacrificing 20,000 new jobs created every year due to the sugar subsidy program. so losing 20,000 jobs every year

because of the sugar subsidy. there is no evidence that sugar reform is going to hurt job creation. in fact, it's going to help. we have a small business in new hampshire, a family-run business called granite state candy. they've been doing very well. they would really like to expand. but because of the high cost of sugar, they're having trouble thinking about how they're going to pay for that. and there is nothing more definitive than the illustration senator toomey showed earlier today that i showed yesterday on the floor that's from a brochure, a canadian brochure designed to attract businesses in the confectionary industry to come to canada. and it points out how much less they're going to pay -- here it is -- points out how much less business is going to pay for sugar in canada and how much more beneficial it would be for companies to do business in

canada rather than the u.s. it says very clearly, consider these hard facts: sugar refiners import the vast majority of the raw materials at world prices. canadian sugar users enjoy a significant advantage. the average price of refined sugar is usually 30% to 40% lower in canada than in the united states. most manufactured products containing sugar are freely traded in the nafta region. so if you need any other evidence, that's it. it's clear. we are losing those jobs. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote against tabling this amendment today. this may be our only chance to reform the sugar program in this farm bill. tabling this amendment would be a vote to support special interests, those fewer than 5,000 farm growers, sugar growers, at the expense of over 600,000 employees in the food industry and millions of

consumers. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak against the paul amendment, amendment 2182, which would cripple the food stamp program. i have to tell you that there's an aura of wonderment around here that says look, let's cut food stamps for hungry families and for little children. we have these -- thing ary companies to --agri companies to take care of, thing ary gays bises to make sure -- agribusinesses to make sure they can feed their children. the fundamental test for any family is to put food on table,

to make sure that their children get the nutrition they need. when tough economic times hit, families can find themselves struggling to meet their most basic needs. the food stamp program was created so that even in the toughest of times children in this country do not go to bed hungry. a picture of a child reaching out for food, the old stories about mottoes on cereal programs where -- talking about satisfying the brother's hunger. it was an old, old remark, remarkable display of what it is that comes to the fundamentals. of taking care of or letting

families that need help get some. especially in this area. it's appalling that our republican colleague from kentucky has proposed an amendment to cut more than $300 billion from a program that's a life line for many families. these are heartless cuts, would punish families that need help the most. we're debating a bill that contains billions in support for big agricultural companies, but instead of targeting the subsidies they get from the federal government, from the taxpayers in the country, republicans say that we ought to cut programs for hungry children. i wonder if those who want to cut the food stamps program would participate in a real way and say to their little

children, say to their family, look, just to show that we're serious, just to show that we really care, limit the amount of food that you're going to give your children, that the amount of food you're going to give the elders in your household. to say that they're serious about this. hungry children didn't cause the recession or the deficit. and cutting food stamps will not solve our debt problem. but hungry children don't have lobbyists so programs like food stamps end up on the republican chopping block. heroic, muscular men and women say yeah, we want to make our country fiscally sound so let's take the food stamps away from people who could be starving. the paul amendment would cut support for food stamps by

almost 45% next year alone. and the consequences could be devastating. more than 46 million americans -- the numbers are staggering -- including 800,000 people from my state of new jersey. we are a state that has about nine million people living there. we're saying 800,000 new jerseyans are dependent on food stamps to make it through the month. half of them are children and, you know, when you look at this -- this placard here, can you imagine asking a mother, telling a mother that she has to tell her kids that they have to do more with less, more with less food so that maybe others -- other businesses can continue to get subsidies, those in the agribusiness? republicans should say to these

families, we're not going to cut corporate subsidies, no, no, we have to do that. we have to make sure that the rich won't pay more in taxes. so, please, understand, as we take food off your terrible, as we say to our kids, eat less, get thinner, get trimmer, get -- let -- stop doing your homework because you're too tired, or stop complaining because you don't feel well when the food quantity is not sufficient. on average, the food stamp program provides assistance of just $1.50 per meal. a buck and a half. there's not much there to cut. the republicans, who are so eager to cut food stamps from children, should try living on $1.50 per meal for the next month and let them then report how -- how it feels, how their

kids survived with less food than they can consume -- that they need. then we'll see how eager they are to cut the food stamps. the republican approach would hurt those with the least to protect those with the most. that's not what this country's about. too many of america's families are still struggling. too many parents are still looking for work. too many of our children are still hungry. the food banks across the country are getting ever more attention and visits. republicans should offer them help. show some heart. this isn't an accounting organization. we're not here to just balance the books. yes, we've got to balance the books. that's what -- i come from business and i know what you got to do. but that means that we wouldn't be servicing our democratic structures, our -- the people in our society who need help. republicans should offer them

help. instead, they offer them deeper poverty and greater hunger. mr. president, the bottom line is this. at a time when 50% of food stamp recipients are children, it would be a moral stain on our country's character to cut this program, and that's not what america's about. and that's why -- not why those of us here serve. the children who would be harmed by reckless cuts can't speak for themselves but we shouldn't need to hear their crying voices to know what's right. i urge my colleagues, listen to the conscience -- listen to their conscious and defeatheir e paul amendment. i want to conclude by saying how disappointed it is to see a $4 billion reduction to the food stamp program in the farm bill, and i'm proud to join senator

gillibrand in introducing an a.m. to reverse these cuts. we're -- introducing an amendment to reverse these cuts. we're going to try to make that happen. with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. a senator: mr. president, i rise today in opposition to an amendment that would eliminate the sugar program and i urge my colleagues to table it at this time. ms. klobuchar: as we continue our work on the farm bill, as we debate these amendments, i think my colleagues should keep in mind at every moment that this proposal contains $23 billion in cuts that was brought together on a bipartisan basis and that two-thirds of those cuts, $16 billion, are on only 14% of the bill and that is the farm program. two-thirds of the cuts, $16 billion on the farm programs. and it is supported, this bill, by 630 conservation groups, the nutrition groups, a number of them. obviously they'd like to see

changes. people want to make things better. but if we don't get this bill done, you can imagine what's going to happen to school hot lunches and the like. now, unfortunately, in eliminating the sugar program would actually hurt jobs in america, and i want to -- i know senator conrad was here earlier putting the facts out, but people need to know the facts. this is a zero-cost program that supports 142,000 jobs and generates nearly $20 billion in economic activity. this is the kind of value we're looking for. i believe we need to be doing everything we can to maintain programs that are working for our farmers in an efficient way. programs that are supporting jobs and putting dollars into our economy, especially those programs that do not cost money. most of us here can appreciate the value of a strong farm safety net. during our discussions in the agriculture committee, i worked with chairman stabenow and other members of the committee to make sure that the bill provided for that safety net so that the

livelihoods of our farmers can't be swept away in the blink of an eye by natural disasters and market failures. because you know what? we as a country do not want to be dependent on foreign food like we're dependent on foreign oil. the sugar program has played its own key role in shielding farmers but a different and more predictable kind of risk that they face. i'm talking about the risk of competing against heavily subsidized sugar from foreign countries. let's put it this way -- if you don't like being dependent on that kind of foreign oil, you're not going to love being dependent on foreign sugar. past u.s. trade agreements have already opened our domestic market up to foreign sugar. over the last three years, the u.s. on average has been the world's largest sugar importer, supplying nearly a third of our total sugar needs. since 1985, we have had 54 sugar factories close due to sustained low prices. once these jobs are gone, they're gone forever. this is why we need to continue the sugar program in the 2012 farm bill, one that supports

american sugar beet and sugar cane producers while ensuring an abundant supply of sugar for consumers and manufacturers. mr. president, we must continue this program. now, look at what's happened. the global retail price for sugar is 14% higher than it is in the u.s. in other countries countries, the average price is 24% higher than it is in the u.s. some people have blamed farmers for the high cost of sugar foods in the grocery store, but look at the numbers. for example, a $1 candy bar has about two cents worth of sugar in it. a $3.50 carton of ice cream has about 10 cents worth of sugar. so ending the sugar program is not the solution that will keep food prices competitive. it is the opposite. this is an important program for our country. i don't think that if changes want to be made to it, that it shouldn't be -- the answer should not be to eliminate it, and that's why i ask my colleagues to join me in tabling this amendment as we work

together in the future to make sure we preserve american jobs. the sugar industry supplies american jobs. just ask the people in the red river valley in minnesota and north dakota. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: mr. president, i thank my colleague from minnesota for her comments. this is an amendment that has come up on a -- on a regular basis. always started from new hampshire. always defeated by the united states senate. and i encourage my colleagues to table reed amendment number 2393. this measure's known as senator shaheen's amendment to phase out the federal sugar program. first, i'd like to commend chairwoman stabenow and ranking member roberts for their work on the underlying bill. they proved that the agriculture committee has -- is able to take a serious look at the farm bill programs and improve what was working while cutting what

wasn't. the sugar program is an excellent example of what works in the farm bill. since its early years, the sugar program has evolved to ensure that beet and cane growers can continue to provide the united states with the safe and reliable source of sugar products. i underscore "reliable" because sugar is a unique commodity. not only on sugar crops extremely limited in their seasons, but an added component is that both sugar beets and cane must be processed immediately after harvest. processing involves what is essentially a refinery. in wyoming, we have three facilities that process sugar, all of which are grower owned and operated. you can always tell it's october back home when the large piles of sugar beets begin to appear outside the sugar plants. workers race to produce raw sugar before the beets go bad. any number of complications can spoil the crop and put the sugar refineries out of business. such unique conditions produce risk that's not common with our agricultural commodities, because much of the year's sugar

is produced in such a small window, a sugar program is needed to stabilize the price of sugar through the entire year. this policy benefits the very people that opponents of the sugar program wish to protect. with stability in the sugar markets, confectioners, food manufacturers and beverage makers have a steady supply of quality sugar without wild price swings. not only are u.s. sugar prices stable under the program, but the united states offers sugar users some of the lowest prices in the developed world. i also wish to add that the u.s. sugar program works to ensure that other nations have access to sugar markets. some claim that the u.s. sugar program is a protectionist policy. this couldn't be more false. 17 of the largest sugar exporting countries in africa, asia, the caribbean, central america and south america have all expressed support for the u.s. sugar program. as a matter of fact, the united states is the second largest net importer of sugar behind only

russia. the program's operated to ensure we fulfill our trade obligations, especially within the w.t.o., and continues to provide a sugar market for developing nations wishing to export their product. final 8ly, the u.s. sugar progrm has been run for the past ten years at zero cost to the u.s. taxpayer, and the u.s. department of agriculture predicts it will remain that way in its current form for at least ten more. as other colleagues have mentioned, this is all while the u.s. sugar industry has helped to generate nearly $20 billion in annual economic activity in our country. wyoming offers just a few examples of how much of an economic impact the sugar industry has on rural communities across our nation. as i mentioned, the growers and local communities in my state own the plants that refine the raw sugar we use every day. those plants produce jobs and keep economic activity local. with all the inherent risks in sugar production, these communities are able to continue providing the united states with a safe and reliable supply of

sugar for the united states. the u.s. sugar policy not only helps growers but keeps prices low for consumers. some american food manufacturers will claim that it's the price of sugar causing them to shed jobs or move overseas. however, sugar represents only a small portion of the input costs that go into food production. instead, it's the cost of labor, environmental standards, and regulatory burdens that play the biggest role in whether u.s. firms can compete with food markets overseas. in recent years, u.s. candzy productiocandyproduction has acp and the u.s. sugar program has played its role by keeping prices stable. with that, i ask my colleagues to table amendment number 2393 and keep the programs that work in this farm bill. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: thank you. i rise today to support and

underscore the points just made by senator enzi which support the u.s. sugar program, which he indicated has operated successfully at no cost to the american taxpayers, consumers or food manufacturers. as you know, the sugar beet industry is very important to my state, idaho, bringing in approximately $1.1 billion in revenue every year. history has shown that grocers and food manufacturers do not pass their savings from lower ingredient prices aalong to consumers. for example -- prices along to consumers. for example, from the summer 2010 until now, producer prices for sugar have dropped nearly 20%. in fact, the u.s. sugar program remains crucial because other nations are implementing trade distorting subsidies for their otherwise uncompetitive sugar industries. this world sugar price, as is soften debated in these halls, suffers from government-backed dumping that protects sugar producers overseas to the detriment of american sugar producers. hence, the need for the u.s. sugar program.

consumers in the rest of the world pay on average 14% more for sugar. in the developed world, 24% more for american -- than american consumers pay. in america, sugar is a readily available and affordable produ product. critics of the u.s. sugar policy make the argument that the program causes disastrous shortages in u.s. sugar supply, which flies in the face of reality. u.s. farmers and producers have proven themselves time and again to be the most efficient in the world, but they cannot be left alone to face a trade market undermined by foreign government manipulation. nothing could be further from the truth, and the latest numbers released by the u.s. department of agriculture underline that. the usda now estimates that there's enough sugar surplus to give every man, woman and child in this country nearly 12 pounds of sugar on top of what they already consume. this is enough surplus sugar to fill the capitol dome