vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, on this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 41. under the previous order

requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. mr. sanders: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: madam president, i want to bring up amendment numbered 2310. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from vermont, mr. sanders, proposes amendment numbered 2310. the presiding officer: may we have order in the senate, please? take your conversations out. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you, madam president. madam president, this amendment is cosponsored by senators boxer and begich and is supported by over 40 pro-consumer organizations throughout the country, including public citizen, u.s. perg, center for food safety, and many, many others. this is a very conservative

amendment. it says that the american people should have the right to know what is in the food that they and their children are eating, and if that food contains genetically engineered products. this amendment grants states the authority to label genetically engineered food. it is not a mandate. it grants states that right, something which, by the way, is now taking place in 49 countries throughout the world. if the people in england, germany, france and dozens and dozens of other countries have labels allowing their people to know if they are eating food with genetically engineered products -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sanders: states in the united states should have that right. i ask for a yes vote. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: first, madam president, i want to thank the senator from vermont for his wonderful leadership on so many issues in this bill. i must reluctantly ask for a no

vote. consumers certainly need to have available information. we need to make sure it's accurate, according to the f.d.a., after they determine that. and i would make one other point. you know, american farmers are feeding the borld with seven billion mouths to feed, this is harder every day. science and innovation is very important to that. recently, i talked with bill gates, with the gates foundation, for example, who is doing incredible work around the globe with drought-resistant crops in africa, innovative rice in philippines and bangladesh and so on. this is an issue that needs to be thoroughly studied to make sure we are not hurting those efforts. and i know that the chairman of the help committee has asked that we not do this. it's within his jurisdiction. i would yield time now to senator roberts. mr. roberts: very quickly, they all wear coats and ties in this body. this amendment would put us in lab coats. don't wear a lab coat. vote no on this amendment.

the presiding officer: the question is on amendment 2310. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, on this vote the yeas are 26, the nays are 73. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i ask that we call up amendment 2214 on behalf of myself and the senator from colorado, senator udall. i ask unanimous consent we be given three minutes on this, divided between myself and senator udall. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oklahoma, mr. coburn, for

himself and others proposes an amendment numbered 2214. mr. coburn: i yield minute and a half to the senator from colorado. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i want to thank the senator from oklahoma and rise in support of this important amendment. i'd also like to note this provision is included in larger bill i introduced this week to reform our presidential public financing system and i'd welcome support for that broader initiative. this is a bipartisan short-term step that we can take to preserve more money for publicly funded candidates who are running for president regardless of using -- instead of using that money to fund what we know now as extensive parties in our conventions. so i'd urge a yes vote. this is a way to get our fiscal house in order, it's a small step but an important step. i thank the senator from oklahoma for his leadership in this matter. mr. coburn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. coburn: 99% of the american public has no idea when they check the box that we're going to take actual american taxpayer dollars and subsidize party conventions for candidates who have better already been decided. if we're ever going to lead as a body on starting to solve some of our problems, here's where we should start. this is $34.6 million that gets doled out, not spent in the best interest of the american public, but the best interest of the politicians for the american public. it needs to be changed. it has no effect on security. it has no effect on the present allocation which was made in january to each party. if we can't do this, this little, simple thing of leading by example, then our country is doomed because that means the very significant problems in front of us we can't solve, either. i would appreciate your support and vote on this amendment.

the presiding officer: who yields time? the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i would yield back all time and suggest we proceed to the vote. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on amendment 2214. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 95. the nays are 4. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, i call up my amendment number 2455 and ask that the amendment be modified with the changes that are at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection?

without objection, the clerk will report the amendment as modified. the presidingthe clerk: the senm washington, mrs. murray, prepares amendment numbered 2455 as modified. mrs. murray: i ask further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: i ask unanimous consent that the 60 affirmative vote threshold be waived and it's my understanding we will adopt this by voice vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, the amendment that we are going to vote on is bipartisan, it is fair and it will make sure that congress gets a report on the impact of all aspects of the scheduled automatic cuts. we all agree the bipartisan sequestration agreed to in the budget control act is a terrible way to cut spending. it was included as a trigger in order to bring both sides to the table and ready to compromise, so i remain hopeful that we can get together to get the balanced and bipartisan deal that is going to be required to replace

these automatic cuts responsibly and fairly. but as we work towards that, we all should know exactly how the administration would enact sequestration if we do not get a deal. so i was proud to work with senators mccain, levin and thune to come up with a bipartisan compromise to make sure congress has the information we need on sequestration. from the painful cuts to the defense department, border security, education, programs middle-class families and the most vulnerable americans depend on. i want to thank all of my colleagues for working with me on this bipartisan compromise and i want to thank the families and advocates who called and wrote letters urging us to examine all aspects of sequestration. madam president, i ask unanimous consent to include a statement from levin in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: it is my understanding that senator mccain -- that senator mccain does not want to speak at this time so i would urge a yes vote on voice vote.

the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. opposed, nay. the ayes' pear appear to have it, the ayes do have it. the amendment is adopted. the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: given the work that has been done i want to thank senator murray and senator mccain for their efforts. senator mccain will not be offering his amendment just for the information of the ?alt. and so we will move on -- i believe the next amendment is the rubio amendment. if senator rubio --

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

mr. mccain: by like to thank the senator from washington, senator murray, for this i believe an important amendment so that the american people will know the effects of sequestration. i appreciate the effort that is made. obviously sequestration is going to have an effect across our entire economy, but i would remind my colleagues that the secretary of defense has said that it would be devastating to our national security, i continue to work with the chairman, senator levin in trying to find ways to avoid it but at least the american people will know what the effects of sequestration will be, which i hope will galvanize us into a bipartisan effort to reach an agreement which would then prevent this devastation not only to our nation's security but to our economy. and i thank my colleague from washington and i yield.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: there's nothing pending now on the senate floor. is that right? other than the farm bill? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. reid: we're in between votes, is that right? the presiding officer: correct. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent upon disposition of s. 2340, the farm bill, the senate proceed to the cloture vote on calendar number 250, s. 1950 which is flood insurance. if cloture is invoked, it be in order for the majority leader to lay before the body the house message with respect to 3178.

3187. the presiding officer: is there objection? so ordered. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. i might just indicate to colleagues that we have one final amendment, the rubio amendment, senator rubio will be coming to the floor shortly, and then we'll be going to final vote. i do want to take a moment to thank the leader for -- in the midst of an extremely demanding schedule on things that need to get done in the senate, for giving us this opportunity to come together to get this work done. and we will talk more about who has been involved in it later,

but with all the demands, whether it be flood insurance, whether it be addressing the concerns of student loan interest rates, whether it be small business and jobs, a whole range of things that are very important for us to get done, our leader and with the support of the republican leader, has been willing to allow us to move through 73 amendments, and i would note we started with the possibility of 300, so 73 is certainly better than 300, but we know it was a major, major piece of work and we very much appreciate our colleagues coming together to get this done. i will just remind everyone that 16 million people work in this country related to agriculture, and our food systems, and they're watching us to do the right thing, to work together, to be able to get this done and

create economic certainty for them and food security for our nation. so i just want to thank our leaders for their patience and willingness to stand with us. i see senator rubio is on the floor and i will now defer to him to offer his amendment. mr. rubio: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent to call up amendment number 2166. the presiding officer: the clerk:. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from florida propose amendment numbered 2166. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. rubio: this would allow employers to give merit based increases, even if they're not part of the collective bargaining agreement. essentially this would make the union contract wage a minimum while giving employers the flexibility to reward dill egypt

employees for their hard work. bottom line is that today if you work at one of these firms, the employer wants to give you a raise, they can't do it because it goes above the collectively bargained amount. this amendment would allow them to do that. that's a brief explanation of the amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem. i don't know any colleague, any of my colleagues here who have had unionized businesses to have come to them complaining that they can't give a raise. have you ever heard of a -- complain they can't give a raise? the fact is, collective bargaining agreements already provide and many of them for merit-based performance increases. that's part and parcel of a lot of agreements today. so what this amendment basically does is it undercuts the national labor relations act, that's exactly what it does. if you think we ought to do away with the national labor

relations act and all the benefits and protections it has both for businesses and workers, this is your amendment right here. quite frankly, i can't think of anything that would be more disruptive of a womp not -- workplace than this amendment. when a business and workers have agreed on a collective bargaining agreement, this would destroy that kind of comity in the workplace. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i disagree. we know we'll vote on this matter so i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on amendment 2166. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 4, the nays are 54. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 415, s. 3240, a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2017 and for other purposes.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be ten minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of senate bill 32 h-, as amended. -- 3240, as amended. the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, madam president. and again i want to thank all of my colleagues for their patience in the last two and a half days in voting and debating and working on this agricultural -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. i want to thank all of my colleagues for hanging in there with us and supporting this bipartisan effort on the agricultural reform, food, and jocks bill. i want to -- and jobs bill. i want to as i did earlier, thank senator reid for his incredible patience and willingness to give us this time, for the republican leader

to join in that effort as well. but i especially want to thank my ranking member, senator roberts, for long hours, hard work on this bill to get to this point. it's been truly a partnership with us, and senator roberts is my friend and my partner in this effort, and i'm very grateful. you know, i've said all along with this debate that there are 16 million people in this country whose jobs depend on the strength of the american agricultural economy n. and our food systems. the agricultural reform bill is about standing up for our nation's farmers, our small businesses, our manufacturers, our exporters, and others whose livelihood depends on us getting the policy right. this represents significant reform. it cuts subsidies, it cuts the deficit, it creates jobs. we're ending direct payments in three other subsidy programs that pay farmers regardless of losses or whether or not they're even planting a particular crop. we're putting in place the most

significant payment reforms ever. i want to thank senator grassley for his tenacity, senator johnson for his partnership in that effort as well. we're cutting the federal spending by $23 billion by streamlining, consolidating programs and therefore we're going to have an opportunity to vote on deficit reduction -- $23 billion in deficit reduction, probably the only opportunity to vote on deficit reduction in a bipartisan way on the floor of the senate in the next number of months. we are eliminating more than 100 authorization programs and streamlining others, strengthening crop insurance, consolidating conservation programs, innovative energy programs, and we're continuing the critical work around nutrition to give temporary help to families who have fallen on hard times. we're also creating more opportunities for families to

buy healthy food, local food systems, and to have the opportunity to put fresh fruits and vegetables in our schools and on our tables. you know, madam president, agriculture is one of the few parts of our country where we're running a trade surplus, and we need to recognize that that's also a job creator. the men and women who work hard from sunrise to sunset to give us the bounty of safe, nutritious food that we put on our tables today, they deserve the certainty of this bill. i urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on a very important bipartisan effort and "yes" for the 16 million men and women who bring us the safest, most affo affordable, most reliable food system in the world. thank you, madam president. mr. roberts: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas.

mr. roberts: madam president, when you go back home or if you conduct a press conference or if you have any contact with anybody in this regard about what we're doing here in washington, the number-one question is, why can't you all get along? why can't you quit pointing fingers of blame? why can't you end the rhetoric? why can't you work together? why can't you get something done? we knew we had something special when we had a farm bill and the current farm bill was going to expire, you would go back to a farm bill that nobody wanted or the 1949 act, which is ridiculous, and that we had to move. and the farmers and ranchers and their lenders, everybody concerned with agribusiness knew that we had to have a farm bill. so we went to work and we got a 16-5 vote out of committee. it was bipartisan, and we did it in four and a half hours. that set a record.

i don't know of any time where in an ag committee, house or senate, that it has been moved in four and a half hours. now, two and a half days with 73 amendments, opening it up to everybody regardless of circumstance, regardless if they voted for the bill or not, that's what we've accomplished. two and a half days, 73 amendments. it's what can happen when we break the logjam of partisanship and work together to get something done. and a tremendous amount of credit goes to the leadership of the senator from michigan. i feel very privileged to have worked with her and to work with her staff. they have been like musketeers every night, every morning, meeting. what can we do? how can we fix this? and it's worked. so after two and a half days and 73 amendments, i thank you all for your patience. if anybody did not get an amendment, i'm terribly sorry, i

don't know how i missed you. consequently, on that side as well. let me just say again $23 billion provided in deficit reduction through reduced mandatory spending. the chairwoman is right, this is probably the only time on the senate floor that we'll actually have a reduction in federal spending, make our deficit contribution. this is a good bill. is it the best possible bill? no. it is the best bill possible. and we should move. and we should vote for it. and i urge you to vote for it. thank you very much. i yield back. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president, the republican leader and i would -- we've spoken privately, and we would be remiss if we didn't say something to the entire senate about how we feel about this bill and the leadership that was shown by these two fine senators, and also behind the scenes. we know how hard they worked to get where we are. we've had six good staff

involvement. these staff people aren't fighting with each other. they have causes they're trying to protect for their members, but they do it in a way that's cordial and been nothing but courtesy shown for weeks. i've managed quite a few bills in my day. this is a difficult, difficult bill to have in the position we have it in now. i hope that our friends in the house see what we've done. we're working together. i know they can. i cannot say enough, although i will try, to applaud and compliment senator stabenow and senator roberts. they are both my friends. my view of them has risen appreciably in their legislative methods of getting this done. they have done this on their own. senator mcconnell and i have done what we can, but we've been bystanders while much of this

has gone on. it has been the work of these two fine senators and the cooperation of every member. i am grateful we're at the point where we are today. 2:00 we're going to be able to finish this bill, and it's 2:00 in the afternoon, not in the morning. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: madam president, let me just echo the remarks of my good friend friend, the majority leader. this bill has been handled in a way entirely consistent with the way of the norms and traditions of the senate. members have had an opportunity to express themselves in a whole variety of ways both relevant to the amendment and a few not relevant to the amendment. senator stabenow or senator roberts have worked together very skillfully. this is one of the finest moments in the senate in recent times in terms of how you pass a bill. and i think we're all feeling good about the way this has been handled. i think we're moving back in the direction of operating the

senate in a way that we sort of traditionally understood we were going to operate the senate. i also want to thank my good friend, the majority leader. it's been a good cooperative effort to have a process that respects the traditions of the senate. this is a very fine day in the recent had i try of the senate -- in the history of the senate. i congratulate the chairwoman of the committee and the ranking member. they did a fabulous time. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: who yields time? all time yielded back, the question is on passage of the bill subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a second? there appears to be a second. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 64, the nays are 35. the 6046 vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed. -- the 60-vote threshold having been achieved, the bill is passed. without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 140, an original bill to amend the national flood insurance act of 1968, to

restore the financial solvency of the flood insurance fund, and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: the mandatory quorum call be waived. is it the sense of the? the that the motion to proceed to s. 1940, an original bill to amend the nationalled? insurance being a of 16 to restore the financial solvency of the flood insurance fund, and for other purposes, and for other purposes, shall be brought it a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators who have not yet voted or who wish to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 2. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: mr. president, i rise for a procedural motion and a short statement on the farm bill. on roll call 153 yesterday, i voted yes. it was my intention to vote no on the amendment 153. i therefore ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to change my vote since it would not affect the outcome of the amendment or the bill. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum.

quorum call: ms. landrieu: would i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: i had the number wrong. not 153. it's 143. i voted yes. i'd like to change my vote to no. can i ask unanimous consent? the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. just briefly, i know i have members on the floor or colleagues on the floor that want to speak on other subjects, so i'm going to be brief. i just want to put this into the record, a short statement on the farm bill. first i want to thank the senator from michigan and the senator from kansas. really an extraordinary job. a very difficult bill, very complicated, and difficult because it's not just a republican-democratic debate or democrat-republican debate. it's really a regional debate

that has to take place and there is a lot of give and take. i have been proud to vote for every farm bill that has been before the senate, to my knowledge, but i voted no today, and i wanted to say why. despite the great work of senator stabenow and senator roberts, there was a weak part of this bill, in my view, related to rice farming, and it is such a significant and important part of our farming structure in louisiana that i cast a vote against the bill to send a signal that more work needs to be done. this bill passed the senate with an overwhelming vote. i voted for many of the amendments that i think helped to shape it to be even better than when it came out of committee. we beat back several attacks to uproot, destroy or significantly

modify the sugar program which has been a very important staple in the state of louisiana, one of the nation's great sugar growers. as i have tried to explain to people that continue to attack this program, why would you want to end a program that doesn't cost the taxpayers any direct subsidy in this bill? there is zero money in this bill of billions of dollars for sugar. why would that be? because we regulate sugar differently. there are no subsidies like there are for all the other crops. we regulate it through imports. american -- i'm happy to say, american growers of sugar can provide almost 85% of domestic demand, and so why not use domestic sugar if we can supply our domestic demand? we only import what we need to import. we don't want to flood the market with cheap imports coming

into america and undermining our jobs. i was proud to stand with our sugar industry and beat back those amendments. louisiana farmers and ranchers make a significant contribution to our state, generating over $10.8 billion in economic activity alone. agriculture, including fisheries, of course forestry and with energy is the backbone of louisiana's economy. this farm bill is an important bill. as i said, i'm happy to vote for literally dozens of amendments that strengthened it but held out my final support, hoping that as it travels to the house, the farm provisions related to our rice growers could be perfected. people like to say the united states grows the cheapest, safest and most abundant food and fiber energy supply in the world, and they are right, and the people in my state who do that day in and day out are proud. they have every reason to be proud because farming is more

than a business, it's more than a job. it's a way of life. it's a way of life that is important and precious and should be honored. families -- and some of these spreads have gotten quite large, but there are still many families, cousins and aunts and uncles and fathers and mothers and children that are involved in farming. it is a way of life. in louisiana, in our forest lands and along our coastal lands, these families follow a preferred way of life. even though it means hard work, long hours, high risk and sometimes heartbreakingly limited returns. so from the sugar and rice industry in the south to cotton and poultry in the north and all areas in between, louisiana needs a farm bill that supports all of our farmers. this one failed in one important area, which is why i cast a no vote. however, i want to go on to say that this bill did not

support -- go on to add that this bill did not support adequately in my view the 2000 rice farmers that we have in louisiana. our rice industry generates $638 million in our state alone. we're one of the major, along with arkansas, rice producers. nationally, u.s. rice supports about 128,000 jobs. it's $24 billion of economic input each year. now, this bill did reduce the deficit. in my view, it took a larger chunk out of rice than was asked for any other commodities, and i know some of the peanut growers in georgia have some of the same concerns that we do. so let me reiterate that i hope that the position of our rice farmers and the important industry that rice represents can be strengthened in the house. if so, i will proudly put my name on this bill because there are some very good things that were done to protect our nutrition programs, to help our

middle-class families that find themselves in the unusual situation of having to get some food relief in these difficult times. i want to thank senator stabenow particularly for her help in that way. but for my rice growers, my rice producers, the important mills that we have from crowley, louisiana, to other places. for companies like kellogg in battle creek, michigan, that depend on a strong rice production from louisiana, i cast a no vote. and finally, i'll say i hope that we can find a way to open up some more markets for our rice growers. we're interested, very interested in trade with cuba, and the politics sometimes prevents us from opening up more trade relations with a nation that i know has not met our standard of democracy but most certainly would be an open market for many of my farmers. and so for my farmers that are looking for markets where we can

sell and compete on the world market, if you give us an opportunity to compete and open up these markets, then we may be able to adjust our program. until then, our farmers need the support of other farmers and did not receive it in this bill. i put the rest of my statement in the record and i so appreciate my colleague from rhode island for giving me this opportunity. thank you. mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you, mr. president. 1972 was a watershed year for expanding educational opportunities in this country. the education amendments of 1972 included title 9, now known as the patsy t. mink equal opportunity and education act, guaranteeing educational opportunities for women and girls at federally supported educational institutions. but 1972 also saw within the education amendments the creation of the basic educational opportunity grant. today we know it as the pell

grant. it was named in honor and in recognition of the extraordinary vision and service of my colleague, my predecessor from rhode island, clayborne pell. he authored this provision. 40 years later, we can see how these two key changes to our education laws have transformed our nation and transformed the aspirations of millions of americans. it's also a good time to reflect on the challenges that remain and to renew our commitment to fulfilling the promise of opportunity represented in the education amendments of 1972. senator pell's vision was that no student with the talent, drive and desire should be denied the opportunity for a postsecondary education solely because of a lack of financial resources. pell grants have opened the doors to a college education for millions of americans. in the 1973-1974 academic year,

the first year which is really effective, 176,000 pell grants were awarded. in the school year that began in the fall of 2010, that number grew to over 9.6 million. pell grants constitute approximately 23% of all federal student aid, which includes grants, loans and work study programs. the pell grant is a cornerstone of our federal student aid programs. for needy students, it is the foundation for making college affordable. unfortunately, reduced state support for higher education and rising college costs have eroded that foundation. in 1976, the maximum pell grant was $1,400, which was enough to cover 72% of the cost of attendance at a public four-year college. in 2010, the maximum pell grant was $5,500, which was only

enough ironically to cover 34% of the cost of attendance at a four-year public college. we have seen an erosion of the buying power of the pell grant if we were matching the effort that he initiated in the 1970's, we would provide more opportunity and more support for college students across this nation. senator pell understood that grant aid was critical for low-income students and families. the goal was to minimize the need for loans, and frankly, back in the 1970's, most young people with a pell grant working through the summer, working extra hours they had to during the academic year could pay their way through school, leave school without huge, huge debts. today, regrettably, there are students graduating from schools with $10,000, $20,000, $30,000 worth of debt, because the pell

grants haven't kept up, because the college costs have accelerated, because they have been forced to borrow. today, low-income students, middle-class students rely heavily on student loans to pay college, and we're seeing another burden, and frankly this ripples throughout our economy. in the 1970's, in the 1980's, if you left college owing a few thousand dollars, you could pay that off very quickly so by your late 20's, you were ready to settle down and buy a house. today we have a generation of students that are struggling with debt that might take them ten or more years to pay off effectively so they can begin to buy the homes, to settle down and do the things that are so important to our overall economy. unless we are able to come to an agreement over the next several days, we also face the prospect of seeing the rate on these student loans double by july 1.

that would deal another blow to moderate and low-income families. now, leader reed reid has proposed a very reasonable compromise, i hope that compromise is going to be followed up. i'm hopeful that my colleagues, my republican colleagues can, you know, use this opportunity not only to continue to keep the lending rate low for stafford loans but renew our pledge and commitment to the pell grant. it would be ironic to see on the 40th anniversary of the pell grants a further undermining of the ability of middle and low-income americans to go to college. in fact, this should be opportunity to do much more. senator pell's words ring true today. as true as when he spoke them in 1995, one of the last years of his tenure in the united states senate. in his words, "as i have stated on many occasions, few things in life are more important than

the education of our children. they are the living legacy that we leave behind and their education determines the future of the american nation." he continued, "every day, families are making decisions about sending their children to college. certainly one of if not the major obstacles they face is how to pay for college. the loan is their last resort. it provides the extra but necessary money they must have after exhausting their own resources, obtaining any grants for i which their children might be eligible. increasing the amount that children owe after graduation may well place the dream of a college education beyond their reach. that to my mind, would be a tragedy of truly immense proportions." senator pell was right. increasing student debt especially during these difficult times would be a tragedy for students, their families, and our nation. i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, on our side of the aisle, all of my colleagues to work together to

prevent the increase in the student loan interest rate from doubling on july 1. and that would indeed be a fitting tribute to senator pell on the 40th anniversary of the pell grant. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i am honored to join my senior senator today to commemorate such an important milestone as he has described in american education. it was 40 years ago this week that president nixon signed into law the education amendments of 1972. including a provision establishing for the first time the basic educational opportunity grants which came to be called the pell grant for its sponsor, senator claiborne pell of rhode island. over the next four decades, pell grants would turn the dream of college education into a

reality for millions of americans. today, more than ever, a college diploma is important to a young person's success. with the unemployment rate for those 25 and older with a bachelor's degree less than 4%, and for those -- and over 8% for those with only a high school diploma, the value of that college degree could not be more apparent. higher education provides the skills and credentials that many employers require in today's economy. in the decades following world war ii, the united states government made college and occupational mobility a reality for more americans than ever before. claiborne pell was a veteran of that war and he saw how the g.i. bill enabled millions of his fellow veterans to better themselves through education.

he recognized that many of his coast guard shipmates had just as much talent as his princeton classmates but not the privilege or roofers to go to college. and given the opportunity, this greatest generation would not only provide a better life for their families with that access to college, but they would contribute mightily to the growth of this nation, a growth that we still enjoy today. claiborne pell resolved then that all americans should have such an opportunity and his vision would become a reality for millions through the pell grant. in 1976, the first year the pell grants were fully funded, a full pell grant paid 72% of the cost of attendance at a typical four-yearen public college. today a full pell grant covers just 3 % of those costs but still for many this vital assistance can mean the difference between being able to

attend college or not. as grant aid has fallen and tuition tuition has soared, families have had to borrow to make up the difference to send their kids to college. the total amount of student loan debt carried by americans has recently surpassed $1 trillion, more than americans now owe on their credit cards. i've talked to students around my state and i've read many heartfelt letters. it is clear that pell grants serve as a gateway to the opportunities available with a college degree, a gate that would be shuttle if not for pell grants. i received a letter from phil in wakefield, rhode island, the oldest of five children. last year phil graduated from cornell. phil worked his way through college including summers. his parents chipped in when they could. phil's father is actually still paying off student loans. and phil was lucky enough to

earn private scholarships and receive grants from his school. but he said there's no way my education would have been possible without pell grants. we just wouldn't have been able to afford it. i also heard from anthony who has been working as a waiter in providence, thanks to the pell grant he and his wife jen have been able to go back to school at the university of rhode island for degrees in biotechnology. they say their education will enable them to build a better future together in rhode island's rapidly expanding biotech sector. leanne is a single mother of two from pawtucket, already carrying student loan debt although she hasn't been able to finish her undergraduate program. last year leanne enrolled in the school of continuing education at roger williams university, and when she graduates with a bachelor's degree next year she plans on opening her own small business. none of this would be happening, show she wrote, if

i were not receiving a pell grant. is simple fact is this: pell grants help millions of people achieve the dream of college and improve their prospects for employment. it is a wise investment in the future of our country. congress has in recent years increased the buying power of pell grants, increasing the max grant -- max grant from $4,050 to $5,550 in 2012-2013. we also increased the minimum family income that automatically qualified a student for the maximum pell grant that reflects economic realities. sadly, we are seeing a truly misguided assault on pell grants. the editorial board of "the wall street journal" marked the 40th anniversary of pell grants this week by printing claims about the pell grant that

simply, to be polite, mr. president, do not withstand scrutiny. the journal says the pell program is rife with abuse, with students engaging in -- quote -- "creative accounting to qualify by feigning financial independence." well, the most common way you get deemed independent under the pell grant program is by being 24 years of age or older. hard to imagine doing much creative accounting with your date of birth. the other major proofs of independence are being married and having children. maybe when they said creative accounting they meant procreative accounting. "the wall street journal" implies that better off students can win larger grants by attending more expensive institutions but the cost of

tuition cannot increase the maximum size of a grant. the maximum pell grant, as i said, is $5,550 regardless of the school you attend. and as we all know, $5,550 is far from sufficient to cover the cost of most higher education. perhaps the most misleading claim from the journal is to pick out the period when pell grant costs rose significantly between 2008 and 2010. due largely to the enactment of a funding expansion that has since been repealed and the fact that more eligible students applied for assistance as the economy worsened in those years. but they left out, what they left out is that the congressional budget office projects almost no annual growth in program costs over the next ten years. the republican budget in the house of representatives slashes

funding and eligibility for pell grants and eliminates all mandatory funding for the program over the next ten years. we all understand the need to find savings in the federal budget. we all understand the need to make difficult choices. but of all the bad choices we could make, of all the unintelligent choices we could make, failing to invest in pell grants would really be among the worst. it is frankly shameful that federal financial aid has not kept pace with the rising cost of college. and it is truly misguided to roll back financial aid for a generation of young americans preparing to compete in an ever-more-global economy. we need a highly trained work force. and pell grants are very often the keystone in the arch that

students must build to afford college. as phil and anthony and jen and leanne all showed. mr. president, rhode island is a small state but over the years we've had some towering and remarkable senators. claiborne pell was one. claiborne pell believed as he once told "the providence journal" that government and the federal government in particular can, should, and does make a positive impact on the lives of most americans. the pell grant's positive impact is the people who can't afford college have the chance to go to college. and it lifts off their backs a little bit of that burden of debt. that is something, mr. president, that we want in this country. not just for the sake of the individual pell grant recipient, not just for the sake of the next generation, but for the sake of the good of

our country. i thank the presiding officer and i yield the floor. mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i ask to be recognized to speak as if we were in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: thank you, mr. president. farm bill. well, as you can see from be a ann open senate, i think we have done our work and we have been successful. and most of what we can say on this bill has already been said. as we head to final passage i simply want to reiterate what the chairwoman has said and what

i've said all along 5. this is a reform bill. we cut $23 billion in mandatory spending, those are real cuts, mr. president, no gimmicks. we have eliminated four commodity programs, four. four commodity programs. we have streamlined conservation programs, eliminated numerous other authorizations. in total, approximately 100 authorizations for spending and appropriations are eliminated. now, this is real reform. and, mr. president, i also want to take a quick moment to thank all of the staff that have worked so hard on this legislation. especially the committee staff on both the majority and the minority sides. i especially want to thank the legislative magician, if i could call him that, expert, david chiappa and his staff.

they're no longer here but they guided us through some dument times as he always does, as they always do. i'd like to take a few moments to recognize the moments of my staff that worked on this bill and for me this is a very special occasion. you're only as good as your staff, and i have been blessed with the very best. and i've been a bucket toter. that's what a staff member is. you tote buckets, try not to spill anything. sometimes you're successful, other times you may trip and fall, other times it's just the way it is. i was administrative assistant to senator frank carlson, the only man in kansas to serve as a member of congress, a governor, and a senator. prior to our current governor, sam brownback. i was administrative assistant for congressman kay sebelius on the house ag committee and

learned an awful lot with keith as we went through those days. and obviously if you're from kansas, you are a legislative assistant or a bucket toter or whatever description you want for bob dole forever. just let me say that these people as far as i'm concerned are not only my staff but my family. they have persevered. ann haslet, my chief counsel, in my opinion the best chief counsel in the senate, one of the top legislative drafters in the senate, former director of the indiana department of agriculture under governor mitch daniels. i know when she is at my door, i know i'm going to be told no on something and i actually had better listen to it. eric steiner. eric has charged me with cruel and unusual punishment for putting him in the charge of dairy policy. after the 96 farm bill and all

of that, 2002 farm bill, i said i don't do dairy and then in came eric. he also became a dad for the first time earlier this year as we worked on this bill. talk about working 24/7 and giving up on your family. kyra france, a former bob dole staffer, bob still tells her what to do so she can tell me what i'm supposed to be doing. autumn beast beasley, our southern belle and specialty crop guru has had no flesh sure getting in dodge city and the inside of a meat processing plant, something that should be required of every ag assistant. greg dowel. here is a real kansas cowboy and one of the top ag trade experts in washington. and he still wears his boots. tara smith our commodities and crop insurance expert who helped

me navigate the minefields of both, terry, you've been wonderful. janae brady, the young woman that keeps her staff and my staff organized, andrew velasity, hope i get that right, a great young man and tremendous writer has helped create a research title for the future. max fisher who also became a dad for the third time as we worked on this bill. chris hicks, our other legal counsel, who is a former senate confirmed general counsel at the department of agriculture. and who provides the wisdom of that provision as we work on complicated matters. patty lawrence, our department of agriculture detailee on conservation issues and the ultimate professional. in my personal official we have ryan flicker, a young kansas farm lad who will soon return to

kansas to get married and become my deputy state director. wayne stoskoff who is taking ryan's position. and emily hough and owls my beleaguered community -- pardon me my communications director, sarah little. dear sarah who is never short of work when it comes to cleaning up what i said and what i should not have said and my state agriculture representative, mel thompson, used to work with mel, he was the legislative assistant, i was the administrative assistant with keith sebelius. wouldn't through two farm bills. there no better person to have on the ground than mel thompson. then there's' joel and mike, the two musk tears who saw -- musketeers who saw me every morning and evening. i have a tendency, mr. president, to wander, to reflect on past farm bills and stories, and occasionally give

rants. these are not particularly helpful in regards to moving legislation forward, and so joel and mike would say sir, at least they said sir, sir, keep your eye on the ball. stay focused. where there is a will, there's a way. if you rant, if you wander, you'll be lost in the midst of the desert farm bill purgatory. don't be lost in the desert farm bill purgatory. stay focused. and i try. and i think we succeeded for the most part. i especially want to thank her staff director -- i left a paragraph out. it's for you, madam chairwoman. the chairwoman also has a great staff. everybody likes to brag on their staff. but i know she'll mention many

of them but i especially want to thank her staff director, chris adamo and chief counsel, jonathan copas. they've been professionals all throughout. i don't know what you guys are going to do now that we're not breaking into your office in the morning, afternoon and evening to see your smiling faces and we wonder why on erlt you're smiling. at any rate, thank you for a top job. mr. president, i want to thank all those in the senate legislative counsel and the congressional budget office who have helped us get to this point today. the work behind the scenes, we couldn't be here today without them. as i said again, i view my staff as family, and i thank my family over here for their tremendous work in achieving what i think has been a great first step of the farm bill and doing a great favor to the senate to restore the senate back to the senate. i yield back.

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: madam president, we've been looking forward to this day to be able to have the opportunity to celebrate the successful conclusion in the senate, we have more work to do but for a day we're going to pause and celebrate which what is a very important, very great day after a tremendous amount of hard work that has gone on by wonderful staff, my ranking member working with me, all of our colleagues on the committee. we are so grateful for all of the wonderful effort that's gotten us to this point. i've said it so many times, i'll say it again, 16 million people count on us. they work in agriculture or food-related industries. that's a lot of people. i'm not sure, we've had a jobs bill that has come before the senate that we could say addresses 16 million people's jobs but certainly this is one

that affects every corner of every state. i want to thank everyone in the senate for their patience with us. i want to thank the majority leader for his incredible patience and leadership. senator mcconnell for working with us, and all of those who voted on 73 amendments and everyone who was involved in putting those together and making sure we could -- weekends move through -- we could november through this process. kansas is lucky to have senator roberts as a champion in the u.s. senate and i have been very lucky to have him throughout my side throughout this debate and the work starting in the fall with our deficit reduction proposal up until day. we have come together on a bipartisan basis. i hope we can do that more. i think -- i've heard so many

comments from colleagues in the last few days saying it feels gooding to working through issues, debating issues, having votes, working together and actually accomplishing something. it feels good and we need to continue to do more of it and frankly the american people want us to do more of it. and so i'm hopeful that this will be aa sign as others ooh things have been frankly in the senate moving forward. i'm proud that we have been the ones doing a bipartisan transportation bill, we have been the ones passing other bipartisan bills. this certainly is a very significant milestone in that process of working together. and i'm also very proud of the reforms in the bill we've done on a bipartisan basis. this is $23 billion in spending cuts for deficit reduction. it is true that if every committee within their jurisdiction were to focus on analyzing, reviewing the

programs under their jurisdiction and making tough decisions, ending paperwork, duplication, and so on, that it actually would end up to be a pretty big deficit reduction plan if we all did it within those areas that we controlled. and that's the way we've looked at this process. so we've come up with $23 billion in deficit reduction, and we've done that by ending four different subsidies that folks have talked about changing for a long time. direct payments, other subsidies that are paid out regardless of losses. we've passed a bill that continues support for healthy local food systems, farmers' markets, local food huts. pass passed a bill that strengthens conservation and maintains healthy soil and clean water and fresh air. we've passed a bill that supports america's rural communities. every state, every corner of every state, we have small, rural communities, towns,

villages, counties that are counting on us to continue to have their economic development tool, which is the rural development title of this farm bill. as robust as possible. american energy independence is addressed in this bill. and we've passed a bill in a bipartisan way. work is not done. i wish it was. but this is incredibly important stuff. now our bill goes to the house of representatives. i have great confidence in the chairman and ranking member of the committee. i know they will be successful in moving a bill out of committee, and i'm sure they are going to do everything humanly possible to pass it in the house. i believe ultimately they will because every american is counting on them in order to maintain the food security for our country, and the ability for us to have a strong, successful, safe food supply as well as all the jobs connected to that.

i want to take a moment to thank an extraordinary staff of mine who has worked literally day and night from sunrise to sunset and i think sad added a few -- added a few hours. i think we changed from 24 hours to 30 a couple of times and it's been an incredible experience, and very grateful, truly grateful to all of them. no team does it without a great captain, and i want to thank chris adamo who was with me on the last farm bill when we were together and is now our staff director and he has employed prouded incredible leadership, deep knowledge of agriculture, he tbris brist tremendous leadership to this -- brings tremendous leadership to this process, he has put together a tremendous, tremendous team. i would not be here, we would not be here in the united states senate without his leadership, leadership and hard work and the team effort involved. eye also want to thank jonathan

tapas, my great chief counsel who actually helped bring a baby into the world last august as we were saying why don't we do deficit reduction? hey, lets really be serious about deficit reduction when the seven up -- the supercommittee was put in place. we thank jonathan for his leadership and i have to say just as a point of personal privilege even though he's from ohio, we still welcome him into the fold. so despite the rivalry between michigan and ohio. i want to thank all of our teams as well. i want to thank our commodities and dairy teams. tough work. we changed the commodity title. i think this is the most reform probably -- i don't know if it's ever, but it's in a long time. moving from subsidy system to a risk management system sounds easy, easy to say.

very hard to put into place in a way that makes sense and is fair for commodities and will work in a simple way across the country. and so i want to thank our team. snow schultz -- joe schultz has been amazing. we said so many times i don't know how we're going to do this and he pulled another rabbit out. hat. we thank you, joe, for your wonderful work as our commander in chief economist. and cory clawson, focused on dairy, large farms, small dairies doing an incredible job. marcus graham as well. amazing work and chelsea render. what a great team working on our commodities and the dairy issues. and thank you so very much. we had a great team on title 2. thanks to the t-2 warriors, tina may, amazing, amazing person who reminded me on every other day we had 643

conservation groups groops from every one of the 50 states that were supporting this bill. i have it in my memory was tina said it every time i saw her. the truth is we did have 643 different conservation and environmental groups supporting this bill because of tina may, peggy lee and kevin norton and the incredible work that they brought to what i believe is an extraordinary reform in conservation. we are placing conservation as a priority in a way that has not been in other farm bills. and we will see our country provide better opportunities around land and water and air quality and quantity issues as a result of their hard work. jacqueline snyder and jessica taylor deserve credit on nutrition, healthy food issues in our bill. obviously a major area of debate and it will certainly be going forward how we address

nutrition, how we address healthy food issues, especialty crops, which are so important to me and i know in new hampshire and other parts of the country very, very important. they did incredible work. we had some hard issues to work through on how we could create savings in our bill on nutrition while maintaining the strong commitment to families. so i want to thank them for an extraordinary effort as well. and then each of our team members, there are so many people that did so many wonderful things. jonathan cor donch on whoen kept me out of -- cordon who kept me out of trouble. he counseled me well and gave me wonderful words of wisdom as we moved along both on procedure as well as policy. brandon mcbride, rural

development. we worked through many issues on the floor with members, many issues that members who were not on the committee had that wanted us to work on and develop further and brandon's patience and creativity and hard work really created a rural development title that is extraordinary. madam president, one of the things that we did which may sound easy but was not easy as well is when the secretary of agriculture told me one time that we had 11 different definitions of what rural was. and i said you ought to fix that. and we heard from part-time mayors and village presidents and county commissioners and others saying we'd like to figure this out, how we might use these programs and to support our communities, but we don't know whether we fit under which definition. well, we have one now. and that may sound simple. very hard. and brandon deserves a

tremendous amount of credit and our team for getting us to that point. carla timan, our lead -- on leave at the moment but the a tremendous, tremendous job on livestock. livestock disaster assistance efforts on the energy title. we thank her, -- here, i wish, she's not here, and we thank her so much. ben becker, who made sure we were communicating effectively with those in the media that we were communicating what we were doing, worked extremely extremely hard to make sure that was happening as well. and russ beamer. we thank russ so much for all of his incredible work as we've moved through these amendments and through this process. absolutely invaluable in his work as well. hannah abu el said, again a

terrific part of our team, maureen james, ryan hucker and jesse williams, our chief clerk, nicole herdenstein and jacob cheney and seth bushbalm and elviro zarco. a terrific team, each playing an important role, helping me have the information i need, making sure things were getting done and the team was able to come together. we had two great fellows, lauren reed and matt eldrid we thank as well. also all of the great interns that we've had with us since we began this process. this really is a team effort. extraordinary breadth of jurisdiction under this bill has created the need to really make sure we had the smartest people in the room and, madam president, i really believe that we have achieved that with this great team.

also couldn't have got iten it done without my chief of staff, amanda renterria, the role she played with chris and todd wootden, my legislative director counting votes right up until the final vote, did such a great job bringing that together. bill sweeney, my deputy chief of staff making sure we were communicatingin the right way being able to tell the story of what it means to have a farm bill, what it means to people back home, what it means to every family, every business, every farmer doing an extraordinary job of helping me be able to do that. cullen schwarz who is a terrific, terrific communications director and making sure, again, that we are communicating effectively what we are doing and why we are doing it. and then i want to also thank our team in michigan, led by tressa phetca who made sure she

are focused as i always am on michigan. and our team there, brandon fuens who have done terrific work, cory hall in urban agriculture, all of our team that has made sure that we were communicating at home with our growers. we are proud to say we have more diversity of crops than any state but california. i've always had to pay attention to every page. i've always been jealous of folks who only had to pay attention to one title. we've had to pay attention to everything. the good news is that's prepared me well for assuming the chair of the committee. but i want to thank our michigan staff who is terrific as well. this really is a bipartisan effort. it really, really is. i have such respect and admiration for the staffperson,

roberts staff on the committee led my mike seifert and joel and ann haslett. thank you for all your terrific work and partnership. everyone involved that senator roberts spoke of. professional, smart, dedicated. we have had some tough things we have had to work through both policywise and procedurally and you were terrific, just absolutely magnificent. i am very, very grateful for the wonderful way in which we actually have a team. it's not a democratic team, a republican team. they have a team. i also want to just briefly mention our c.b.o. farm team who we have kept up late at night many, many times as we have been trying to get scores and work through how we fit this all together and maintain over $23 billion and maintain this

deficit reduction. the farm team, they have been magnificent and really worked weekends, going above and beyond for us. thank you and a shout out to everybody who has helped us. michelle and gary from legislative counsel, again, for invaluable assistance. on senator reid's staff, stacy and nathan. i proudly claim stacy as my former staffperson, so i told senator reid i trained her well. we are very grateful again for the incredible team effort there. all of our floor staff, gary myrick, tim mitchell, everyone involved in the majority team that was absolutely essential to us. very long days in getting this done, but everybody hung in there with us and we are grateful. let me say finally this. i want to mention the secretary of agriculture tom vilsack and the usda office of general counsel.

we had a lot of technical needs as we worked through this. a tremendous need for technical assistance and support so that when we are done, as we completed this bill, it actually works. it works for farmers and ranchers. it works from a department standpoint to support farmers and ranchers and those involved in every part of this bill, and we received tremendous help and encouragement and support, and i want to thank them for their leadership. all the members of the agriculture committee, democrats and republicans, their staff, i am very lucky to have had such a tremendous team that is so knowledgeable and has so much experience and a committee that has so much experience. it's been really quite amazing. so, again, as i conclude, madam president, i would just say this is a proud day for those who hear about having the senate

work together well, for producing a product that is one that has real reforms in it, and for something that we can look to the american people with pride at and say we worked hard, we worked together and we got the job done. so i thank everyone, and now we look to our house colleagues and look forward to working with them as they move this forward. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with, and i abe howed to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i rise to speak my growing concern as massive tax increases loom on the horizon and i didn't think the senate has not taken a single vote to forestall what many are calling tax-mageddon. washington tends to be a speak where people talk in hyperbole.

tax increases will hit o. us next year if we don't act. if congress doesn't act to extend the current income tax rates, the relief from the a.m.t., relief from the federal estate tax, and other expiring tax relief measures the result will be a tax increase of more than $470 billion on americans in 2013 alone. over the next ten years this tax increase would result in nearly $4.5 trillion in new taxes on american families and entrepreneurs. this will be the largest tax increase in our nation's history in absolute dollars and the second-largest tax increase since world war ii as a percentage of our economy. and this massive tax increase does not even take into account the new taxes enacted as part of obamacare that will also go into effect in 2013, and it will impose an additional $23 billion

in higher taxes on individuals and businesses. what will these taxes mean, madam president to the average american family? well, the heritage foundation published a study that estimated the tax increase -- the ttach -- i should say the increase per tax return in every state -- in my state of south dakota, heritage estimates that the average tax increase per tax return will be $3,187 in 2013. now, i would say this to my democratic friends who generally believe in demand-driven keynesian economics. the average family in south dakota can do more to stimulate our economy and create new employment by keeping their $3,187 and spending it as they see fit, not as washington sees fit to spend it on their behalf. tax-mageddon is an apt description when you consider the impact of these tax increases, not just on individual families, but on our entire economy.

until recently we could speculate about the impact of these tax increases on our fragile economy, but the magnitude of the damage was not in dispute. not anymore. last month the congressional budget office gave us the most definitive estimate yet of the impact of the nearly $50 $500,000,000,000 when combined with the spending cuts from the sequester. the congressional budget office projects that the combination of massive tax increases and the sequester will result in real g.d.p. growth in calendar year 2013 of only .5%. the picture is even bleaker when you consider that the congressional budget office also projects that the economy will actually contract by 1.3% in the first half of 2013. according to the c.b.o., such a contraction and output in the first half of 2013 would, and i

quote, "probably be judged to be a recession." end quote. so let's be clear about what tax-mageddon means. we are not talking about a slight slowdown in growth of a few tenths of a percent. what we're face something at difference between positive growth on one around which will mean more jobs and higher incomes, and a recession on the other hand. how big is the difference in economic growth next year in we act to forestall the pending tax increases versus not doing anything about it? according to the congressional budget office, if congress acts to remove the tax increases and budget cuts, the growth of real g.d.p. in 2013 would be in the range of 4.4%. this sort of robust growth is a far cry from the lackluster economic performance that we've experienced of late. in fact, g.d.p. growth for the first quarter of this year was recently revised downward to just 1.9%. this is hardly the magnitude of

economic growth necessary to sustain a meaningful recovery that will finally bring the unemployment rate below 8%, something the current meager recovery has failed to accomplish. madam president, we can and must do better, and we can start by ovy, we learned recently that the house of representatives intends to hold a vote on legislation to extend the existing tax rates next month. according to statements by house speaker boehner and majority leader cantor, the house is likely to consider a short-term, perhaps for one year, extension of exist being tax rates as a bridge to fundamental tax reform next year. some may question why we need to vote on an extension of the tax rates now because they assume that these tax issues can simply be dealt with as a part of the postelection lame-duck session. the answer is that we need a vote now because the delay in extending current tax policy is having a very real impact on you

are a economy today. in fact, the congressional budget office again estimates that the mere possibility of pending tax increases and spending cuts will lower u.s. g.d.p. by .5% in the second half of this year. not next year, madam president. this year. the reason for this is simple. americans, whether they be investors, small business owners or simply consumers, stkaupbd that they -- understand they may have a larger tax bill come next year, meaning they will have less after-tax income. faced with that possibility, we shouldn't be surprised if americans are choosing to consume less or put off business investments until they know what their tax situation is going to be. just this week there was a bloomberg article entitled "fiscal cliff concerns hurting economy as companies hold back." the article quoted a senior economist of bank of america who said -- and i quote -- "you don't board up the windows when

the hurricane is there. you board up the windows in anticipation." this economist predicted u.s. growth decelerating to 1.3% in the third quarter of this year and 1% in the fourth quarter. the moral of the story, madam president, is clear. the sooner we act to extend the current tax rates, the better off our economy will be and the better off will be the 12.7 million americans who are currently unemployed. the sooner we act, the better off will be the 5.4 million americans who have been unemployed long term or the 46.2 million americans living in poverty or the record 46 million americans who receive food stamps. i agree with president obama when he said in august of 2009 -- and i quote -- "you don't raise taxes in a recession." president obama from august of 2009. well, if you shouldn't raise taxes in a recession, it stands

to reason thauls shouldn't raise -- that you also shouldn't raise taxes that will cause a recession. i also agree with a number of my democratic colleagues that were recorded earlier this week in an article about these pending tax increases. i agree with senator jim webb who was quoted as saying -- and i quote -- "we shouldn't raise taxes on ordinary income." i agree with senator ben nelson who was quoted as saying "my druthers is to extend tax cuts for everybody." and i agree with former senator pete domenici and former o.m.b. director alice rivlin who appeared before the finance committee earlier this week and who both agreed we need a short-term extension of current tax law in order to get us to a place where we can consider fundamental reforms to our tax code and our entitlement programs. madam president, even former president bill clinton, a major surrogate for the obama campaign, admitted the obvious when he said resently that a short term extension of the tax cuts might be necessary. former president clinton and other democratic members that i

mentioned have not suddenly become supply-side tax cutters, but they realize that it is simply common sense that with the economy slowing, the last thing that congress should do is slam on the brakes by allowing massive tax increases. we were reminded earlier this week just how destructive the proposed income tax rate increases would be on the sector of our economy responsible for the bulk of new job creation, and that's our small businesses. according to an analysis by the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation released on june 18, the tax increases that president obama has proposed would hit more than half -- more than half, 53% to be precise -- of all flow-through business income. the joint tax committee estimates that 940,000 business owners would find themselves subject to higher tax rates next year. does anyone think that with unemployment above 8% for 41

straight months that higher taxes on nearly a million business owners is the right policy? that is exactly where we are headed if we don't act. of course extending current tax law temporarily is only a short-term fix. what is really needed is comprehensive tax reform much like the tax reform act of 1986. real tax reform will drive economic growth higher, will lead to robust job creation and will result in more revenue to the federal government. but real tax reform will require presidential leadership, something that has been unfortunately lacking over the past three and a half years. perhaps next year we will have a president truly willing to commit to tax reform, a president who is not content with simply releasing a 23-page framework for corporate tax reform. until we get to comprehensive tax reform, the least we can do now is to ensure that americans do not face a massive new tax

hike. so in conclusion, madam president, we're facing a moment of truth. we can choose to put our heads in the sand and pretend like tax-mageddon isn't real. we can choose to accept slower economic growth for the remainder of this year and a recession in the first half of next year or we can choose to take action in a way that says loud and clear to all americans that now is not the time for a massive new tax increase. i'm hopeful that we will see a bill from the house of representatives in the coming weeks to extend the tax rates in order to avert tax-mageddon. if the senate majority is serious in the rhetoric of getting our economy back on track, they will allow a straight up-or-down vote on this measure. fundamental tax reform may need to wait until the next congress, but we can and we should act immediately to forestall the looming tax increases that we know will throw this economy back into a recession.

it's not a republican or a democrat thing to do, madam president. it is simply common sense. and i'm hopeful that the democrat majority will allow for a debate and vote on an extension of the current tax rates sooner rather than later. every day that we wait is another day that our economy suffers unnecessarily. madam president, i don't have to tell anybody here if you look at all the economic data that comes in month after month after month, you've got the weakest economic recovery in 60 years. we've got 23 million unemployed or underemployed. we have, as i said, 41 consecutive months now of unemployment over 8% and we've got anemic, sluggish growth projections next year by the congressional budget office if in fact we don't take the steps that are necessary to avert tax-mageddon. madam president, i hope that the house of representatives will vote. i hope the united states senate will follow suit. and i hope the president of the

united states will join us in recognizing that we can't afford to allow taxes to go up. the largest tax increase in american history on january 1 of next year. and we can't wait until a lame-duck session to address it, because every single day that we do americans, investors and small businesses are putting off decisions about hiring, about putting their capital to work and growing this economy. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, next week i'll probably speak more about this. we look at tax policy and debt and whatnot, i would urge that senators may want to look at the article written by walter pinkus in today's "washington post."

the two wars we've been in iraq and afghanistan, the two longest wars in america's history will be noted not just for their length; for the fact it's the only time america's gone to war where we have not had a special tax to pay for the war. in fact, the only time america has gone to war where we haven't had a tax to pay for the war, but we've ended up with a tax cut, and we end up trillions of dollars in debt as a result. i hope we'll come to the time that we'll say, especially wars of choice. these aren't cases where we were attacked. a totally unnecessary war in iraq. totally unnecessary. we went to war in iraq. we said we'll put it on a credit

card. there were no weapons of mass destruction. iraq had nothing to do with tphepb. a -- nothing to do with 9/11. bad guy running it but we have a lot of countries we support with bad guys running them. $1 trillion, thousands of american lives, tens of thousands of coalition and iraqi lives gone. we are -- our children are going to have a $1 trillion bill to pay for it, and we got absolutely nothing out of it. go to afghanistan to get osama bin laden. we got him. we're stuck there for years. maybe another $1 trillion to beef up a corrupt government, and our children, our grandchildren will be given the bill. then we talk about what else can we do that we've not paid for? we should think about it. let me speak about a more

positive thing. earlier today the senate passed legislation to address one of the most significant legislative issues on our agenda this year. it made needed reforms to our nation's agriculture and food system. before i even start, i've been both chairman and ranking member of the agriculture committee, and i think i can say probably as well as anybody here how much to thank the united states senate and the country owes to chairwoman stabenow and ranking member roberts who did what senators are supposed to do. they worked together in a bipartisan way to advance the farm bill, the agriculture reform food and jobs act of 2012. madam president, a lot of what

people criticize about the congress today would disappear if everyone acted the way senator debbie stabenow of michigan did and senator pat roberts of kansas did and working across party lines, across ideologies to try to put together a farm bill that is not a democratic or republican farm bill, but a farm bill for the united states of america. and i am so proud of them. i mentioned earlier today that chairwoman stabenow, i don't know how many times she called me on weekends when i was at my home in vermont or sent me e-mails late in the evening because she was trying to keep this coalition going. and the wonderful staff, mine and others, who worked together on this. but the work of these leaders

and the passage of this bill proves that the senate can act in accordance with its greatest traditions. we can reach across the aisle to pass critical legislation. i said also earlier that senator richard lugar and i sort of traded places back and forth, as earmark chairman or ranking member of that committee -- as either chairman or ranking member of that committee and we passed bipartisan farm bills. we worked closely together with complete candor and honesty with each other, as one would expect from senator lugar. we formed these comprehensive bills. it's not easy. we've got what we have here, a strong bipartisan bill. and so i rise to say i hope the house of representatives will act swiftly to consider legislation that's going to allow us to move to conference. because just as it was important to the united states senate to

get together and pass this bill by an overwhelming majority, the swift passage of this farm bill is essential. the current farm bill expires at the end of september, and before august 31 we have to address the serious problem with dairy policy or our dairy farmers will be left without a vital safety net. now, dairy is a crucial industry in vermont. we've been on a roller coaster. let me show the senate this. this is the roller coaster we've been on in dairy pricing in vermont since january 2000. look at that, madam president. how can any farmer stay in business if this is the way that

prices go? how can they plan to buy new equipment? how can they plan to send their children to school? how can they plan to modernize their farm if they never know what day the prices will be up, what day they'll be down? i hear too often from dairy farmers who meet with me or talk to me when i'm at the grocery store or in vermont just walking down the street, they tell me they're worried about the dangerous roller coaster of prices and these swings that impact both the producers and consumers. for our farmers in vermont, the dairy reforms included in the 2012 farm bill will bring some relief. we have to free our dairy farmers from this destructive cycle of volatile price changes. mr. president, the current -- if anybody is watching this, they will wonder why we've gone from

madam president to mr. president. the presiding officer was the distinguished senator from new hampshire, former governor, senator shaheen, now replaced by the equally distinguished senator from delaware, senator coons. but i'd say this, mr. president, the current federal safety net provides no protection for dairy farmers from this roller coaster price volatility. so let me say again. these are the roller coaster prices in the dairy industry. these are the swings that impacted our producers and consumers. and finally, with a current federal safety net that provides no protection for dairy farmers from this roller coaster price volatility, now we will have some protection that this bill will be passed and signed into law. the 2009 dairy crisis brought plummeting milk prices, but at

the same time it brought sky-high feed costs, and that combined to devastate dairy farmers in ways that many were unable to recover from, many had to close down. let us stop that roller coaster. let's give stability to the hard-working men and women of our dairy farms. and one reason we're able to do this in this bill, dairy farmers came together and they worked together to identify ways to move us away from the regional dairy fights and the constant policy conflicts we had between small and large farms, and the results are the changes included in the 2012 farm bill. and these are going to help both farmers and consumers above away from these price waves. the 2012 farm bill scraps outdated price supports with the middle-class loss contract program. it establishes a new risk management plan that protects

farm income. the margins shrink dangerously. a stabilization program to allow farmers to take a proactive role in easing instability in our dairy markets. and, mr. president, it accomplishes this at a lower cost than the current program that it replaces while contributing to the savings in this bill. it's a voluntary program that could be tailored by the farmer to fit individual needs. dairy is vermont's largest agricultural commodity. dairy products account for upward of 83% or 90%, depending on market prices of vermont's agricultural product sales. i am proud that the dairy farmers of vermont had a voice in developing this farm bill and enacting it is going to bring long-needed relief to the industry.

so i hope the house can now come together in a bipartisan way just as we did in the senate, quickly pass a bipartisan farm bill. republicans and democrats alike in this body came together to show it could be done, and we know the enact of this legislation goes well beyond our farms and our economy, our families and our kitchen tables. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that my whole statement be made prior to the -- part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i rise to congratulate former west virginia governor -- the presiding officer: the senator is reminded we are in a quorum call. mr. manchin: i'd like to have the quorum call vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: i'd like to congratulate former governor gaston caperton. it is my privilege to honor him, a native of charles champion -- charleston, virginia. governor caperton's childhood experience instilled the importance of education at a young able. as a child who struggled with dyslexia, he was able to overcome the hurdles he faced in

the classroom and achieve educational excellence. he earned his bachelor's degree in business from the university of north carolina and has taught at harvard and columbia university. he also holds ten honorary dorral degrees. he served as governor from 1989 to 1997. during his two terms in office, governor caperton made education a top priority and improved the lives of thousands of west virginia students. he supported an 8 hoomed -- 8le hundred million dollars school renovation that benefited two-thirds of west virginia school students, facilitating class rooment upgrades and additional renovations in all of our schools. governor caperton has been recognized nationally for working to upgrade our state's classroom technology, to keep west virginia students competitive and increasingly global economy, in addition he helped raise teacher salaries

from 49th place to 31st place in the nation. governor caperton's leadership in education left a lasting legacy in our state and i am so proud of the work he did for west virginia schools and all of our students. in 1999, gaston caperton was appointed the eighth president of the college board. over the past 1 years, governor caperton done such important work to make higher education available to a greater number of students especially those from underserved areas and that is truly something to be proud of no matter what their background. we need to do all we can to help our students achieve higher education. if we are going to create the jobs and train the work force that make america the greatest nation in the world. since 1999, the college board has reached a total of 23,000 high schools and 3,800 colleges and has served seven million students and parents. the organization continues to

provide college prepare tri materials and has dramatically changed college entrance exams. in addition the college board has enabled student enrollment in advanced placement courses and governor caperton is responsible for more than tripling the number of students from low-income backgrounds taking a.p. courses. governor caperton has continued to be a n champion for students as he supports financial and policy -- financial aid policies and programs while advocating for tuition equity. from his tenure as governor to his work at harvard and columbia universities, to his 13 years of leadership at the college board providing equal opportunities in the classroom has been the driving force behind gaston caperton's career. i am proud to honor this outstanding west virginian and recognize his achievements in the field of education. i am also streal exreel proud to call him my friend as do most all west virginians.

mr. president, i also rise today to express my deep, deep concern. and my disappointment that the special interest groups that a vested financial interest in this issue have derailed a strong effort to fight the prescription drug abuse. it's an epidemic that is devastating communities all across this nation. they got their victory, they got their victory, but not at my expense. the people who will pay the price are the young boys and girls in communities all across this nation who are seeing their families and their schools and their neighborhoods wrecked by abuse and addiction. what my amendment would do is simply this: it would require patience to get a new

prescription to fill their pills. what we have right now in trying to schedule hydrocodone from schedule three to schedule two is the ease of availability and prescriptions being refilled without visits to doctors. the pills would have to be stored and transported more securely and traffickers would be subject to increased fines and penalties. i'm not trying to put anyone out of business. in fighting for this amendment i asked anyone and everyone who was opposed to come to see me and if we could finds a way to work together we would do that. we tried to accommodate groups worried about administrative costs like security costs for scoring hydrocodone or paperwork that would come as a result of rescheduling. but at the end of the day, these groups seem more concerned about their business plans and their ability to sell more pills than the responsibility we all have to protect the future of

this country and the future of the generation we are counting on to lead and defend this country. since the moment the senate adopted my hydrocodone amendment, lobbyists have been durng out in droves to fight this effort to limit people's avanderbilt to -- ability to get pills and abuse them. yesterday they got a victory. when the house of representatives passed a compromised version of the f.d.a. bill that does not contain my amendment and i assume the senate will do the same also. just a few weeks ago, it was a different story. i was so proud when the senate unanimously adopted this amendment because this is a problem that affects every single member and every single state. i don't know of a person, i don't know of a person in this country that doesn't have somebody in their immediate family, extended family, or a close friend that has not been affected by the abuse of prescription drugs. mr. president, where i come from that's an epidemic and it's

an epidemic we all have and we're facing. in fact, prescription drug abuse is responsible for about 75% of drug-related deaths in the united states. 90% in my state of west virginia. according to the white house office of national drug control policy, prescription drug abuse is the fastest growing drug problem in the united states and it's claiming the lives of thousands of americans every day. mr. president, i understand that limiting the access to hydrocodone pills doesn't necessarily fit into the model of selling more product. but i also understand this: that we have a responsibility to this nation and most importantly, to the next generation, to win the war on drugs. i have been a business person all of my life. i understand that in business you have to have a good business plan to be successful. you should also have the ability to alter that plan when necessary, while still being successful. i assure you that this is one of

those necessary times. the health of our country and the public good are at stake. i'm hearing on daily basis from people -- small businesses, medium size, large businesses -- that are having a hard time finding qualified workers, qualified workers who can pass a drug test. we have folks who can't get the type of education they need to be part of the workforce of the 21st century because they're drug-impaired. i've been in washington a short time compared to some of my colleagues, but i've been here long enough to know the pressures that members face around here when special interest groups get entrenched. mr. president, it is no different than your beautiful state of delaware and my state of west virginia because it doesn't look like my amendment will go into this bill, but i can assure you that it will not go away. and neither will the problem of drug abuse. i'm determined to see this thing through. this measure will pass. it might not be this year, might

not be the next, but i assure you it will pass. mr. president, until we do something, there are going to be families that are separated and torn apart because of drug abuse and little kids that come to me and you and plea for help because their daddy is addicted or their mother is hooked on drugs or that they've had a brother or sister or a friend that's overdosed or died. i don't pretend that this amendment will solve the entire problem of prescription drug abuse, but when every law enforcement agency -- listen, every law enforcement agency in america, every one of them to a t that we rely ton fight the war on drugs, has supported this amendment openly and spoken out loud and clear that it would help them tremendously. and i don't know how we can ignore this problem much longer. the fact is we must act. and i can assure you that working together, as we do, we will find a way to move forward with this vital piece of legislation. mr. president, i promise you

this: that i will continue to fight this war on drugs with you, and i urge all of my colleagues to do the same. this is a war that we cannot afford to lose. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i notice the absence of a quorum. oh, i'm sorry. i'm sorry. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: does the senator withhold his call? mr. manchin: pardon? the presiding officer: does the senator withhold his call for an absence of a quorum. the presidin mr. manchin: yes. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. bar. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor to do what i've done since the health care bill was signed into law to offer a doctor's second opinion about a health care law, a law that i believe is bad for patients, bad for providers, the nurses and doctors that take care of are those patients and i believe is terrible for the

american taxpayers. i come to the floor today, mr. president, because the supreme court is soon going to rule on the constitutionality of the president's health care law. the court's decision will revolve around primarily the individual mandate, the component of the law requiring all individuals to purchase not just health insurance but government-approved health insurance. never in the history of this country has the federal government required individuals to purchase a product, to come into your home and tell you you must buy -- and tell you, you must buy a government-approved product. why? well, simply because you happen to be a citizen of the united states. the american people are not happy with this mandate. they -- as a matter of fact, a recent gallup poll found that 72% of americans believe that the mandate is unconstitutional. the results of the gallup poll however are not surprising. as i travel across i would way,

i hear constantly from people who are opposed to the mandate. it is not just the mandate that they are opposed to but specifically the mandate is the thing that brings people all across the country together to be opposed to the law. it's interesting because, as i go and have meetings and it to folks and say, okay, under the president's health care law -- remember the one where he promised that the insurance rates would drop by $2,500 a family? how many of you believed that your own insurance rates go up? and every hand goes up. and how many of you think that the quality and availability of care for you and your family is going to go down? and again the hands go up. so it is not just the mandate, it is the entire health care law that is a problem for patients and providers and the taxpayers. but the mandate is interesting, mr. president. i bring this to the attention of the senate today because president obama at one point was opposed to the mandate.

when he was running for president, during his campaign for the white house, then-senator from illinois, senator obama quipped, "if a mandate was the solution," he said, "we can try to solve homelessness by mandating that everybody should buy a house." now the president's tune has obviously changed. now, i believe the mandate is unconstitutional. i believe that if the court strikes down the mandate, the rest of the law should also be found unconstitutional. you know, during the health care debate two years ago supporters of the law repeatedly stated -- repeatedly stated -- that the mandate was an essential component of the law. so let's review what folks have said. well, secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius attorney general eric holder wrote in "the washington

post," they said "without an individual responsibility provision" -- is what they call the individual mandate -- "the law doesn't work." the law doesn't work. former speaker nancy pelosi also came to the same conclusion. in two separate blogposts she stated that without the individual mandate, the math, she said, behind the health care law does not work. the current chairman of the senate finance committee, senator baucus, also came to this same conclusion during the debate on the health care law. during a committee hearing, senator -- chairman baucus stated that, allowing individuals to opt out, he said, of the individual mandate would -- quote -- "strike at the heart of health care reform." finally, senate democrats in their amicus curie brief filed with the supreme court argued that the individual mandate, they said, is an integral part of the health care law. it seems to me that supporters

of the law from the very beginning of this debate recognized that without the individual mandate, the rest of the health care law would need to go away. now it seems washington democrats are changing their tune and coming to a different conclusion. in a story published by the associated press on june 18 of this year, it was reported that -- quote -- "the obama administration plans to move ahead with major parts of the president's health care law if its most controversial provision" -- obviously the individual mandate -- "does not survive." in fact an anonymous high-level democratic official declared that the administration would move -- quote -- "full speed ahead" -- quote close -- with implementation of the health care law. it seems the administration only views the mandate as essential when it is politically convenient. as i've statisticked many times before, mr. president -- as i've stated many times before,

mr. president, i believe the entire health care law needs to be completely repealed and replaced. this law increases taxes, and it hurts job creation at a time of 8.2% unemployment across the country, at a time when college graduates are moving back home because they cannot find home, when people are underemployed, people have given up looking for work, and yet the health care law adds to the cost and adds to the uncertainty of these uncertain times and a weak economy. the american people want a healthy economy and this health care law is making it worse. if the law's individual mandate is struck down, the president should not implement whatever is left standing. instead he should work with congress, both sides of the aisle, to implement commonsense, step-by-step reforms that will actually lower the cost of health care for all americans.

it seems to be lost on many that the original goal of health care reform was actually to lower the cost of care. that's what the president talked about in his initial speech to the joint session of congress, but it is something that was ignored when the 2,700-page health care law was presented to congress and the american people. americans know what they want. they know what they've been looking for in a health care law, and this isn't it. americans deserve a law that helps them get the care that they need from the doctor that they choose, not that the government chooses, not that the insurance company chooses, the doctor that they choose and at a lower cost. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: