yang, precisely the opposite has been occurring, especially since most favored -- that we are actually keeping the dictatorship afloat because they have carved out the elite. they reward the elite, and through corruption and gross human rights abuses, especially to torture, they're able to keep the dictatorship intact. if you would like to speak to that. >> thank you, thank you. i think -- mr. chairman, thank you. i think the chinese government would learn a lot out of taking a few pages of history from south africa. when the south african apartheid regime fell, many black africans were very, very angry at the way they had been treated by the regime that had just been overturned. and the with the south african government decided to do was to have a truth and reconciliation committee. one of the things that's clear

when you study china and modern chinese history is, the chinese communist party is terrified of the chinese people. they think that they may be thrown out of power for not being sufficiently nationalist nationalistic. day, and the chinese people are terrified of the communist party and the power that they have. the only way out of this dilemma of absolutely polar opposition and fear is for some sort of reconciliation committee to come into place and you begin to examine the charges that chinese people feel they have to lay at the base of the communist party, and have the communist party be held accountable for those crimes which they have committ committed. >> i actually did was add a quick point on to your question about what happens if there is no real audible human rights

related intervention from president obama this coming weekend. i think it's two different problems. one is that it conveys such a lack of seriousness of purpose to fail to take that opportunity. i can't help but wonder for an administration that has said repeatedly in public that it takes a whole of government approach to promoting human rights issues, i can help but wonder what was on jack lew's agenda couple weeks ago? what was on tom donnelly's agenda? what with the human rights issues in taking up? it's very hard to know that. and if you say that you are going to make vigorous human rights diplomacy a part of all of your actions, and then it's often hard to know does work, it's very easy to walk away and say, i didn't get challenged. why should i dig into this terribly cicely? that has related problem which i think is ratifying a sense of incredible exceptionalism that

the chinese communist party holds a. they may have signed on to human rights covenants but it's different. cannot be challenged on that i think only reinforces that since come and so it's incredibly important to finally push back hard and clearly in a way that is audible, not just the kind of people that were sitting in this room but a much broader audience in china which is looking for some kind of leadership, some kind of responsiveness to speak to the kind of problems getting with every day. [speaking chinese] >> translator: i just put some additions. [speaking chinese] >> translator: in the past lots of american officials, including congressional representatives them when the again with the chinese communist government, there was a few of those officials were very hard,

like piece of iron board, and they have the same opinions. [speaking chinese] >> translator: in the first 20 years after june 4 massacre in 1989, indeed that was a sad situation, but in the past four years also even -- talking about human rights and universal values. [speaking chinese] >> translator: so we should let president obama know this is a good opportunity, because there is a voice for human rights there. we could hear it even more the civil rights talk among the

chinese government. [speaking chinese] >> translator: so if we talk about human rights now, emphasized that. it will have more impact to those officials, which also would have more impact to the people inside china. >> i would like to add a few words. and i do believe that this right when president obama meets with president she, not only he needs to emphasized the human rights important for china, but they become a crucial, a necessity for american securities to do so. i want to find all of us president abraham lincoln in his second inauguration speech about lack of justice to free the slaves had caused severe casualty and loss during the

war. and he said, fondly we hope, fervently we praise that this mighty wall may speedily pass away. yet it's god's will that they will continue into all the wealth -- 250 years of unrecorded -- until every drop of blood drawn with it, with flashes shall be paid by another drawn with a sword, as was said 3000 years ago. so still it must be said, the judgment of the lord, true and righteous altogether. and as rumor saying china day, they finished their first summer. they have five more. in america, country is most summer rains in the world, post-16 of them. is china going to arms race against america? died has give us a blueprint

that is how to achieve peace. i know today we use words human rights, democracy to place the fundamental truth by god, i think is important, go back to that. isaiah 32, 17, god said the truth of thy righteousness will be peace. it's the fact will be quietness and confidence for ever. so the past -- the path to peace is to act justly, love mercer, with our lord our god. the timing for president obama to uplift and honor the tradition of faith america's -- one nation under god, is because this is the first beginning of president xi jinping's legacy. and he is eager to learn, eager to build out relationship with america. america must stand strong. not just for this country but for the world.

>> doctor yang? >> at this point i want to address why -- in the international community. actually i have been amazed by this belief, believe by world leaders, policymakers and scholars. it goes as follows. that because china will punish those who take a strong stance on human rights with growing economic power, affecting their all employment -- relations with china, the human rights issues should take a back seat. that's a myth. but this myth is anything but tested. there's no evidence to show it. we should ask. i have a lot of questions year. we should ask what do you think the world leaders, china will do in response to a strong human rights at that? do you really believe that china

will -- a country -- i bet because the country demands better treatment of its citizens? how much will affect the real economy? for example, the training economy? and are you willing or able to accept what is to come? how much will that affect china's economy? and what that means to this regime. we all know that they're the only thought a the legitimacy for this regime to continue his economic well being. so i think that is the things that we would try to jeopardize. questions are, with china be willing or able to accept -- [inaudible] let us say how much we spend on iraq war which toppled a dictator. if china can with his economic power, how much we're waiting to paid to help topple china's

dictatorship? how much less the american taxpayers will pay for the spending of defense if china becomes democracy? so we should consider this question. some fear is self-imposed fear. we have to test it. this means to break it. i do have a positive expectation of otherwise, just to give you a couple examples. number one, someone was awarded 2010 nobel peace prize. china's garment came out to sanction for this award. and just four days after award ceremony, december 14, china norway strikes deal. that's in "wall street journal" but i read the first paragraph, okay, beijing, china oilfield is

limited to a unit of one of china's largest oil companies have signed a long-term oil contacts with norway's, demonstrating that beijing -- [inaudible] may not stop major commercial deal. and most recent example, both the congress and executive branch took very strong stance on his case last year getting and successfully to trinity what happened afterwards? you have normal relationship, trading relationship. nothing effect relation for the two countries. and also i went back in may of 2011 to check, come to a staff

member in, you know, trade with china about -- [inaudible] imported to china. he told me it is official. china's officials who show them how to get around, you know, the sanctions. so they have to go to hong kong to avoid the sanctions. so i think this means we have to test. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank each of you for your testimony. and, obviously, highlighting this on an ongoing basis, the chairman has been very vocal for a number of years on human rights violations and how we need to continue to not only hide something like that but address it. and i guess my concern with this hearing today is that i've been in this very room here in a number of issues over the last

month, months would have been child abduction, whether it be human trafficking, whether it be one child policy. a number of human rights violations and religious freedom violations, not only in china by any number of countries. and yet finding a way to make that part of our negotiation or part of our foreign policy is very difficult to put them. so doctor yang, you mentioned it had happened economic component. and i would be interested, dr. richardson, for you to comment on that. how do we highlight it more than just having president obama mentioned this week in terms of that it's important? how do we get beyond the rhetoric and make sure that we let them understand that it is a critical thing that we wanted to emphasize and have corrected?

>> well, one of the things, again, i would go back to south africa. in the pressure to get south africa to change its government of apartheid and abandon it, there were very strict trade regulations that american companies were willing to agree to to force the south african government to change its policy towards black south africans. and these policies were very effective. so i think on a smaller scale, american states and cities and corporations could put a selective pressure on parts of the chinese government that deals with foreign trade to force them to adopt a more humane human rights policy. >> dr. richardson? >> i have a long list of suggestions. i would give you my top three.

there are certain issues or any government that are discovering and i want to avoid talk about in public. you can retrofit is do they know which government your talk about, i think there's the report issued the chinese government itself have to be made inescapable topics and conversation at every senior level some regards what it's about security issue, intelligence issue, trade issue. it should be some combination of issues related to ethnic minorities, individual cases or certain key aspect of the rule of law. this not difficult to figure out and spent a whole of government approach. i'm in favor of a whole government affair because bureaucrats in china a very good at thwarting those conversations. try to have a conversation with a different part of the chinese government, justice, public security, and it's a very commodity tends to be a very different conversation.

some cases much more effective, but doing that will requires that the president instructs cabinet members to do this and creates an expectation that they will follow through on it, and they will be expected to report back. but i think there's so much to be said the idea of setting up benchmarks on certain key issues. there shouldn't be endless around, for example, labor dialogue that don't have built into them specific concrete steps the chinese side needs to take no for there to be another round for dialogue. our single biggest complaint about the human rights dialogue is that having them at all only a partial whether or not they're useful has become deliverable in and of itself to send it to get one scheduled to take place becomes the gold rather than to insist on certain kinds of changes being made. >> so what you're saying is set a benchmark and then say we want to see these concrete, these

three or five parsecs concrete steps toward reaching that benchmark, be part of our foreign policy? >> imagine there were some folks at the wto for human rights issues, there are standards that must be met. if one or doesn't adhere to those there are consequences, right? obviously were not goin going to establish deputy on human rights issues but it's the same logic that an organ of the next phase of discussion have to show some commitment, some seriousness of purpose to change. not just the dialogue becomes an endless series of diplomatic interactions in and of themselves. >> one of the things that we look at, and doctor aikman mentioned south africa, but one of the issues we have is really one of stability, of the government right now wants to have a stable environment if there's any free flow of information, via the internet. and, obviously, dissension of that creates i guess more

freedom of speech which creates perhaps an unstable environment within china, china or the china government. should those be, should be one of the benchmarks that we look at, is internet freedom and the ability for free speech in promoting that as part of human rights? dr. yang? >> i have a very specific suggestion for congressional resolution. maybe by ideas are wild, but i've been thinking a major, a tax benefit, and china is huge. although the government all have same nature, but violations very from place to place. so we made each year single out a memberfe, where

human rights record is really bad. and those american businessman doing business in these provinces will not enjoy a tax benefit, whatever there are. and encouraging internal competition on human rights records. >> so what you're saying is there's enough of a difference of human rights violations within provinces, within china the judges said that? >> yes, there is a variation. and we will encourage provincial leaders to compete for human rights records. >> ics and nods their from dr. richardson and dr. aikman, you would concur with that? >> yes. i think is quite compatible with china's disparate state governments competing with each other for foreign business, to be able to reward those provinces that are more

favorable to human rights by giving them economic benefits, and by withholding them from the really strict regimes in other provinces. >> yes, the local government officials, you know, we have two criteria and for promotion of local officials. one is a gdp, the other is stability. the gdp is a very important thing for local officials. specs of which provinces would be most problematic when it comes to human rights? >> beijing of course is very problematic, and another one, and china we have -- [inaudible], all since recently to 10 years. all were movements. and the release. resume their activism. and being arrested again and sentenced to long prison terms. so they can do the study very

easily to come up with a record for each province. and is it possible for congress to introduce such bill i think will help china to improve human rights very effectively. >> mr. chairman, can i have one more question, please? so, if you can comment, each one of you, and discuss perhaps the relationship between human rights and democratic government versus the government that is there now, are they mutually exclusive? do we have to have that -- i'll start out on your in, dr. richardson. >> you've hit upon a personal pet peeve of mine. i mean, look, it's black letter and national law that governments are meant to be formed by free and fully -- free election but the last time i

checked, the function of the 9,850,000,000 people the right to vote, not premised on soliciting their views. the fact that the u.s. and many other failed to note that as they regularly do around the world is to me yet another example of chinese exceptionalism. do we know if the chinese people allowed to vote freely tomorrow who are what they would choose? i think that's very hard to say, but is the current, could it bee legitimate called a representative government? no. >> dr. aikman? >> yeah, i think there were many components to a free society, free elections are obviously very important. but the rule of law these even more important. if you have a society which has innumerable elections and doesn't have the rule of law, the protection, but property rights to the protection of the right of free speech, the right

of religious expression, you can have all the elections in the world and you won't have freedom. china needs to be held to account on standards of the rule of law as much as standards of political democracy. >> yes, i would like to make a comment. man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of god. i do feel in the past 24 years u.s.-china relations is mostly based on economic relationships, bread, and not on the valley and the word of god. and i do believe the leaders of china are eager to search for a system that could really secure, create a just nation. that the tiananmen movement started on the e., the death of a reform leader, and he advocated for thre reform, econc reform, political reform, and spiritual reform. but, unfortunately, jen shopping

only wanted one regime, economic reform. it did not work. the most pitiful thing is that on do we know in our work, they know it did not work. when i learned one of china's governments supported economists, coming to know christ jesus, it was very powerful who said in a recent meeting with me, in 1992, after 19898 had him and master there was extreme massive control against the whole country, just everybody was in depression. said deng xiaoping started, visited the south and start the reform. so a lot of people getting more wealthy and the country, prosperous. however, for the time when they reached 1997 they realized they still have a problem, and the gap between rich and poor burpee, large. so he was sent out to chinese

government and tanks to america to search for will be the right way to build up this country? he had a great conclusion to key said, he said as an atheist at that time, he wrote his essay free economist with or without church. with his permissiopermissio n, i paraphrase his findings. he said one of the biggest difference between america and china was different building, skyscrapers? know. no. was because additional wealth? no. was it because the different sides of innovation? because a different market economy? no. different political system? not really. so at the end is because different and the quantity and presence of the churches which appear anywhere in every corner of america cities, towns and suburbs. it was the fear of god, and that was absent in china.

fear of god to america's crime rate lower and relative government told collapsed and is the church and police of gothic kept america hopeful people and profit compared to china's a kind where people over there often get rich not because of the hard work and innovation but for open robbery with power and connection. china has no good faith of rule of law in business activity. there's no fear of god. they feel they can do whatever they want the people live in this eve to each other to make quick bucks. and there's no fear of facing god's ultimate judgment. that is the value how america was founded that's the value america forces do not talk so much everywhere, not immediate, not an educational, not in business, not in government, not in foreign policy. so takes me 20 years to come to america, had to finally, to find

christ to my own home countries christian bureau who endured prosecution, who suffered in prison three times, but god has this mere something one time he was in prison, he refused food and water for 74 days. we know it's a physical miracle that he survived, did not die. god enabled him to live to tell the story. the third time he was imprisoned his leg was broken. he heard him to god and told them to 8 a.m. inward he was able to walk the three medical gates and able to get to freedom. he arrived to a place where the address came to me in is a dream, and they're the brothers and sisters received intensive brother, the lord told us he would be coming here today. we have prepared you a hiding place. within half an obvious able to go to safe place. than it was then he realized his leg was fully healed.

it's that -- >> i'm out of time so i will yield back to the chairman, but thank you so much. >> you are very welcome. thank you. >> i have a question that i don't know if it's been asked, i apologize, thank you i had to run down to a function. i want to know from our standpoint what we can do to facilitate more freedom of expression in china. so often i think to be honest when the -- we are naïve on what to do. we do the wrong thing and we typically, i will stick our foot and mouth or whatever. i want to know from your standpoint if you all just give a quick summary what we should be doing. because i think that would tear the chairman and myself and others. i apologize for our ignorance but we just look from the outside, and as you are, your correspondent, i read your magazine at the time. your magazine by the way has changed dramatically. but that's where we get

information so we don't know what to do. i apologize for that standpoint but we need your feedback. >> well, forgive me for being the first to respond, it's a good question. i always think that the best thing for people to do when a country exercises of oppression and denial of free speech over its own people is every time a representative of that country comes outside of his country, and you have a chance to speak to that person, complain. complain, tell them this is wrong, this is not right. this is against civilization. it's against decency. it's against truth. you goin claim to want of a gret civilization. how can you have a great civilization if you constantly suppress truth? grow up. and i think you have to be very

aggressive about this. >> to bring freedom, especially international freedom, such as -- talk about online freedom act, that's really important, and that's very good way to push for the progress for freedom in china. [speaking chinese] >> translator: nowadays the chinese government used internet to make their suppression, but meanwhile, the chinese people also used internet and put pressure back to the chinese government. so that's most powerful way. [speaking chinese] >> translator: however, due to lack of freedom on internet, so,

therefore, when the government is competing with chinese people, the chinese people are put at disadvantage in the government. [speaking chinese] >> translator: there are lots of people who blogs nspg. however, those speeches immediately elated by the chinese internet police. and so, therefore, this effect is very limited. >> but is the sum the technology you speak of suppress other chinese people by yahoo!, google and other companies? [speaking chinese]

>> translator: we know there are lots of american companies, internet companies doing business in china. however, they do except the restriction from the chinese government and, therefore, they have sort of a censorship which is screening incoming for the chinese. >> by the way, you can put me on your bill. i appreciate that. dr. richardson, do you have any comments on how we could improve our communications? >> i think your suggestion i would add to that, partly because i think there's been tremendous interest shown particularly by chinese internet users and everything from photographs of gary locke buying his own coffee to the posting of tax returns of senior u.s. officials online. the more people like you make yourself available for web chats, make sure that important discussions get translated into

chinese. we are obviously big fans of both the language and services that make it possible for people to listen to. i think demonstrating how people in the u.s. use those mechanisms both older own officials to account but also to gimmicky with people are interested in talking to people like you to normalize that idea, and is really useful and helpful. >> actually i watched cctv which i'm probably one of the only few people. go ahead. >> the last thing that we actually can do, i support the idea, internet, proponent for people to remain connected in china. and the u.s. government had some family to support software with which the chinese from inside china can get around it by law. but i heard that very small percentage of money put into

good use. site don't have a number. spent it's shocking our government would waste money. >> i think congress should continue to push for that and get more funding for the development of software. never do, i think there is some idea we should promote -- 5. all the chinese officials, whether they have all opinions be used in line and garment or not, they can express it through the. they can publish their papers here. they can run website and everything here without censorship. but when u.s. officials hurtled in china and, usually their speeches are censored. i think, mr. chairman, you have -- 5. so i think of course complete reciprocal is impossible but we have to promote this kind of

idea. when the delegation of officials dollars from this country travel in china, their communication should not be censored. so that's the reciprocity i think we should promote. >> yes. i am really grateful. we are willing to stand up for those people, the people cannot act on our behalf. so thank you. and it reminds me of a story what we do to make things effective with leaders in china to receive a message we want them to receive and here conclusion's, whatever you do, do it in the name of the lord jesus giving thanks to god, the father, through him. i remember man is not present here and is a flavor of defending the pressures and shinseki told me they are of a leader, when he called on the

half of the few church believers who were being priced in china, the chinese embassy said, it's our internal affairs. it's not your problem. and this leader said it is my problem. they are my brothers and sisters in christ jesus. and it was such a strong silence from the chinese leaders say but i believe that word, such a hard, such as though but i also heard stories when recently senior chinese leader being visited by people believe in christ jesus and when lunch was served, when they prayed. the chinese leader in turn was in tears. he said i've never heard people pray for me and my family in such a way, and especially never let anybody pray even for the people who make the food. so while we truly live in a place and people really notice, and the document has been advocating for the model for

china -- south african model for china, forgiveness, truth and wreck the association. i also study what caused the. i studied desmond tutu's book. i read from cover to cover, and also president nelson mandela. nelson mandela came out from prison after for you to his first words were i forgive them. and we have had the spirit of jesus christ because he forgives us, therefore we are all equal centers. we can forgive each of the. it's only been on that date we can have two reconciliation. and last june 4 i made a statement and sent out to chinese newspaper, chinese community, that i forgive them. i forgive the leaders who ordered the massacre. today i'm going to do that again. i forgive them. spent i think it. and speed i know also that god

dearly loves children, and got busy waiting for them to know. >> i know the home churches are growing, and very quickly spent supposedly hundred 25 million people. >> the leaders are very wealthier christians. the onward i'm not great in chinese is -- thank you so much for coming. i just thank again the chairman for his wonderful leadership on this. and we continue to struggle for freedom and appreciate all your efforts. thank you. >> thank you. mr. weber. >> that's not the only word you know in china. [laughter] i'll direct this question to i guess everybody on the panel. was emergence of the free markets, the free market foster less government oppression and more human rights? why don't we start down here, dr. richardson?

>> well, we're a couple of decades into the reform era, and several people have noted we have seen -- >> chinese leader get while the? >> welcome we sing extraordinary economic growth. but in some i think indirect ways have given some people in china more control over their daily lives, although i think that mostly means in a practical sense that people can live outside of certain kinds of state constraints. constraints. >> obviously there's different levels of because you're talking about dr. yang was the provinces, that actually some have less human rights violations. and you want to hit them with a different, american countries with a different tax cut, is that what i understand? >> i would just add i think alongside that economic development, that alone has brought with it some fairly uncorrected serious human rights

abuses in addition to being a model impose on certain parts of the country who have no ability to benefit from it, and have no ability to opt out of it, such as in tibet. so i think i rising gdp isn't necessarily indicative of a greater compliance with the rule of law. several people have mentioned -- >> dr. aikman pointed out earlier the greatness of society depends on truth, honesty and modest. i kept waiting for me say truth, justice and the american way mac by the truth of the matter is, in china those officials define their own truth. now, you said they believe in scientific truth, but what she was described is the moral truth of the universe, if china doesn't believe in moral truth and they get to define their own truth, then i would submit to

you that of the two, the moral truth from that of the lord jesus as she pointed out, is indeed tantamount and having a sweeping, i do want to start preaching of you but i think a sweeping revival in china. and then we usher in human rights, we usher in the sanctity of life. and let me just ask you all a question. of these five institutions, let's take the christian church, let's take the free market that i just talked about, free market in china. let's talk about world opinion. let's talk about u.s. policy. that would be us. and let's talk about the chinese people. of those five, would be your opinion? what is your opinion, which is the most able to influence chinese government? i'll go back through them. the christian church, free market that we talked about, world opinion, u.s. policies,

chinese people? most influential. >> mr. cotton, if i may respond, i think history has shown amongst other things that capitalism is completely compatible with authoritarian governments. the nazis managed to have a very authoritarian government and the very successful capitalist system. so capitalism was sought for a long time to be the catalyst for real freedom, but it didn't improve to be so in china. i think you have to change the thinking come the spiritual values of the civilization that contains them. and china will never ever become a great power and a respected power unless it changes its

moral values and accepts freedom and reconciliation, ma and the values of truth and justice. i think nothing will happen unless those these -- unless those things take place. >> free market, jenna sticking, helps reduce a government's repression. but the problem with china, there's no free market there. there's no free market there. there's tremendous government intervention in the market, inc. economy. if you have a friend here is doing this in china. the first thing, the first business have to do is try to find relationship in the government. so there's no free market. there is a big gap between wealthy and poor. that's not outcome market. that's outcome of policy. >> but to create that kind of

free market were actually that gap gets close and the reality, as john kerry -- >> of course i think the five things you just point out all help to influence china. but ultimately most important factor is chinese people themselves. >> so how do we get in them more involved in taking this fight to the government leaders? >> so, what we're doing today is one of the most important things we do. we should voice, you know, help to voice people's voice to go to cannot have a voice in china. and tried to apply pressure to the china's garment do that liberal, some space that people, people of foreskin going to ultimately the most important thing is the chinese people themselves. they have to grow democracy, and

democratic forces must be transom into viable opposition, and for all that is decent international support. our work will become much more -- >> is that having? >> it's happening. >> sunday come in behind it and say world opinion is very important, we have to stand up and say we support -- >> of course china is open. china cannot close its door. so china is open. we get information from outside world. so the leaders understand how democracy works. a lot of people have misunderstanding, thinking that they don't know how democracy works, why democracy is good for the people of china. because so sometimes it is because, simply because they do know, they know very well how

democracy works. they resist the democratization. so i think -- [inaudible]. so all five sectors are important, but ultimately we need people to grow. we need a group of leaders who can transform the greatest -- >> who can't evangelize those people. >> literally. >> we will move over to ms. ling spent thank you so much for your face and your warm encouragement and the fellowshi fellowship yor shameless but i want him more and more u.s. leaders like yourself lift the name of jesus of. you listed five things. what can influence leaders of china. i couldn't write fast of to list all of them come and my general

impression, all of the among the idle strict there's only one truth, that is jesus christ but how do we convey that? got seven revelation, they trying to over him which -- >> by the word of the mouth and the testimony. >> amen. amen, jesus. we've got to share our personal testimonies how gods grace saved us. because the leaders of china, they are just like us. they are created in god's image and the have a hard searching for truth. and i come my heart broke because i come in 989, before the massacre happened i went to search. i want to tell him that we are not against him. we -- [inaudible] we want peace spent is the church growing in china speak with yes spent you said 125 million? >> absolutely. and i stayed until 6 a.m. at tiananmen square but i state that tiananmen square because i heard rumor that america would

come and displaces only. america did not come. i was devastated to realize america did not come. but i am rejoicing, god has come to china. china. >> his kingdom is not of this world. >> am. his kingdom is not shaken. >> let's move over. >> thank you. [speaking chinese] >> translator: so-called free markets, you could get more -- democracy. that's just an excuse made up by big american companies the wants to do business in china. yes, do not want to pay a price for human rights. >> do you usually have this problem of speaking his mind? go ahead.

[speaking chinese] >> translator: whether the new rules and to do business is totally reliant on people in power, and then this country would never have true free market. [speaking chinese] >> translator: more than 10 years ago when we had this debate of permanence and nomar trade relationship, we have talked about, yeah, even with trade and what we would have is

just true big class in china but another free market. [speaking chinese] >> translator: you could only get true free market and also a sizable middle class when there is rule of law, there's a free speech as well as there is fair treatment. [speaking chinese] >> translator: so let me emphasize what i just mentioned earlier, to have a true freedom in china you must have free

speech by the chinese people. and we already have a sizable presence on the internet, and they could put a lot of pressure on the chinese government. >> so let me say this again, i'm going to be through, mr. chairman. i appreciate your indulgence. back to dr. aikman who said the chinese government fears being thrown out of power, as i recall, because they don't display in of nationalism, or something to that effect. and so how do we get it, and i understand the internet and importance of the internet, and ms. chai, the free market is used by god, to further peoples, countries, he lists some up and he put others down by the. >> i agree. >> you and i are on the same page. >> thank you spent but what i

want to say is that what we need to be able to support the chinese people are going to have, they'll have to rise up and they have to make this their aim and ago and make it known to the government that the chinese government, that they won't stand still for. we will have to do our part whether it's with trade sanctions or whether it's with encouraging evangelism, whether sending missionaries over there. sometimes i think they need to send missionaries over here. and i think we also need to make sure we can encourage the internet so that the word gets out more and more and more. but i think we need a marriage if you will, a partnership of policy, world opinion, internet. and the chinese people taking the lead in making their government to understand that this will longer be tolerated. is that fair? >> if i could comment, i think one thing the chinese people don't want to see is a violent upheaval in their own society.

i -- >> when you say chinese people, government are all chinese? >> all chinese. i visited china in 1993, and i talked to many chinese intellectuals, some of whom had studied in the united states and europe. and i said to them, don't you want to have political democracy in your country? and they suggest -- >> but not at the price of -- >> not quickly, not quickly. because the explosion of anarchy that would emerge from people who have no experience of self control in a political environment, no idea that you have to restrain yourself and allow other people to have their opinions. without those constraints among the people, i don't think you'll ever have saved democracy in china. >> so was it franklin who said that he who would trade security for liberty would have new?

>> quite correct. >> [inaudible]. [speaking chinese] >> translator: lots of people did not realize the chinese people have to be divided into three major classes. [speaking chinese] >> translator: those superrich people are less than 1%. of course, they do not what he any change in china because they really enjoy their life. [speaking chinese] >> translator: so 10% of so-called middle-class, they not happy with communist rule. however, indeed for the own sake they do not want to see china in chaos. [speaking chinese]

>> translator: however, the very majority of chinese were very poor and cannot afford to spend their children to school or handle medical care, and whatever sense, they want to see china -- [inaudible] that's opportunity to have a new government to try. [speaking chinese] >> translator: those are three classes are totally different. they do not have common language. [speaking chinese] >> translator: unfortunately, when the foreign journalists, foreign people went to china, chinese government was carefully arranged you to meet with a

first class and second class. and instead of third class. [speaking chinese] >> translator: and the very important is still the class, the only tickets becoming a mindless on the internet. [speaking chinese] >> translator: and for the very reason for the chinese government even -- people of same we have to reform is because they knew if you do not reform the people will revolt and they will topple down the government. [speaking chinese] >> translator: so, therefore, i know there's a friend come he is indeed a good person tries no china better. but when you're in china, at least listen to the taxi drivers, see what they talk about.

[laughter] >> public opinions. listen, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> let me think of her distinguished panel for your lifelong leadership on behalf of chinese human rights and rule of law and basic freedoms. i would say to dr. aikman, i know you're talking about a very swift transfer of power, but obviously all chinese people demand and any freedom from torture, cruel and human treatment. and any freedom from religious persecution which would include the christians, the muslim uighurs, those were tortured and treated with infinity in china today. immediately inform coerced publishing control and forced abortion or any freedom from censorship and surveillance which is, you know, these surveillance of people, i think the number that you put dr. yang was 39 million informants nationwide in your testimony. freedom from the exploitation of

labor where only a few benefit from the labor of the many. and so many other freedoms the need to be immediate and durable and sustainable. so i want to thank each and everyone of you for your testimony. our hope i think collectively is that president obama will be very robust and very clear in his representations on behalf of human rights, particularly some of those who have been long-suffering in the jails of china, to be free. he has a huge opportunity, as i think was said, president xi is brand-new. he will be listening. what he cares out to be what really animates the mistakes of american and so many other free countries, and that is human rights are indivisible and they are every persons, every man, woman and child birth right.

it belongs to them. so thank you for your testimonies, and this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> booktv is live all weekend from "chicago tribune"'s printer's row lit fest. saturday start at 11 a star and authors include walter jacobson on chicago life. also shelley murphy on gangster. and live sunday starting at 11. live this weekend on booktv on c-span2. >> live to the u.s. senate now as lawmakers are preparing to start their day. general stages of the first, with more work on the farm bill expected around 11:00.

no bill has been reached yet on and in which total olver 200. senators will break between 12:30-2:15 eastern to attend weekly party caucus lunches. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. i will lead the senate in prayer. let us pray. because of you, god most high, we have strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow. your presence sustains us even in the midst of storms. because of you, of god, we face the future confident that you will guide us with the same love with which you've sustained us in the past. bless our senators. may your spirit be with them and may your love follow them and

their families this day and always. today, we also thank you for our pages and the good work they do. as their graduation date approaches, bless them with the satisfaction that comes from work well done. we pray in your mighty name. amen. please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., june 4, 2013. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable william cowan, a senator from the

commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following remarks -- my remarks and those of senator mcconnell we'll be in a period of morning business for one hour. the majority will control the first half, republicans the final half. following morning business the senate will resume consideration of the farm bill. the senate will recess today from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for our weekly caucus meetings. mr. president, first of all, thank you very much for giving the prayer. our pastor was supposed to give the prayer; was not here. you stepped in and did a wonderful job. we're all very proud of you, and on today especially proud of governor deval for appointing you. you've done a remarkably good job. we know in two or three weeks there is an election to fill

this job but you're known to be one of the nicest and competent people i worked with here in congress. thank you very much. mr. president, this week we will say goodbye in the senate to a valued friend and a colleague, senator frank lautenberg. a funeral for frank will be in new york. he's a great american success story, and the senate's last world world war ii veteran. as i indicated, tomorrow we will be in new england to recognize his passing, the celebration of his life. and later in the week it's pretty clear that he will be buried in arlington friday afternoon. senator lautenberg loved this institution, where he spent more than three decades. he understands its work must go on despite our sorrow.

this week work continues on the farm bill that will create jobs, reduce taxpayer subsidies and -- increase taxpayer subsidies and reduce the deficit. we're trying to come up with a finite list of amendments. i'm going to give the managers as much time as we can to reach an agreement to reach a finite list of amendments on the farm bill. i won't file cloture unless i have spoken more than once before the day is out to senator stabenow and senator cochran because i would hope that i wouldn't have to file cloture on this legislation tonight. we need to move forward, though. it's important to leave ample time for debate on the bipartisan immigration bill reported by the judiciary committee a few weeks ago. the senate must move before the end of june to protect students from the rising cost of education by keeping the loan rates low. if we don't do something about that before the end of this

month, it's going to more than double rates. if we do nothing, it will double the rates. if we do what the house wants, it will triple the rates. so we can't do that. college is already unaffordable for too many young people, and if congress fails to take action this month, i've indicated, and certainly i underline and underscore the fact that the price tag will go up significantly for them. with what the -- what is suggested by the house in the legislation they've passed, they will add about $6,500 to the average student's loan bill. that proposal would be worse than doing nothing, worse than letting rates double next month. so i hope my senate republican colleagues will instead support our efforts to give middle-class families security by freezing rates for two years without

adding a penny to the deficit. this is the kind of proposal we need to keep our economy growing. i'm going to do everything i can to have a vote on the student loan bill this week. if the republicans want to put forward here in the senate what they think should be done, i'd be happy to have a vote on theirs and a vote on ours. but even if we've not completed action on the farm bill or the student loan proposals, we're going to bring immigration to the floor next week. the immigration system is broken. it needs to be fixed. i'm grateful that senator mcconnell has said that he wouldn't oppose moving to the bill. at least that's the way i read in the press, he doesn't believe we'll need to do cloture on the bill. i hope we don't need to to get on the bill f. we do, i will do that. i know he can't control virtually every more than, but i would hope we can move forward and start the debate on this bill. during the recess, mr. president, i had the opportunity to appear at a number of events in nevada, and

each one of those events, the topic of conversation was immigration. i appeared at an event in las vegas where we had 1,000 or 2,000 people on the streets and it was really a moving event. this has always been a personal issue for me as i've said many, many times, mr. president. my father-in-law emigrated from russia. i've seen firsthand with the huge increase in people coming to nevada over the last 15 or 20 years, the large numbers of people who have been devastated by our broken immigration system. i personally devoted more time to immigration reform than any other issue over my career in congress. but each time i meet with my constituents, they're desperate for commonsense reform. each time do i that, my passion for fixing our immigration system which is broken is

renewed. mr. president, this becomes personal for a lot of reasons, but i always remember -- and there was a lot of anti-immigration stuff going on here in congress -- i went home to my washington home, and my wife said remember who i am. remember who i -- why i am here. my dad came from russia, or words to that effect. i got the message very quickly. from that brief conversation with her, i became an advocate for fixing our broken immigration system. now, i believe that my father-in-law contributed a lot to this country, but i know one thing he contributed. his only child is now the mother of my five children and the grandmother of 16 grandchildren. so this issue is something that's important to me, and i admire and respect the work of

the eight senators -- four republicans and four democrats. so we need to move forward on this legislation. it's so very, very important. i appeared not only at that huge event in las vegas where there are thousands of people. i appeared in a catholic church last week in reno. 1,500 people filled that church. people were standing outside. the 1,500 didn't count toward those people who were outside. this is a forum organized by faith leaders, not just catholics. all faiths were there who believe immigration reform is not a political issue but a moral issue. they don't believe it's an economic issue or a political issue. i repeat, they believe it's a moral issue. and i agree. catholic priests from carson city shared the story of his grandparents who emigrated from italy. so, mr. president, as i've already indicated, like my

wife's parents who have indicated from russia, my father-in-law at least, my mother-in-law barely made it here before she -- she almost was an immigrant but she was a little baby born someplace in canada. mr. president, families coming here from other countries need to understand what the law is, and we're trying to determine that. that's our job. today immigrant families come seeking the same thing as generations before them, just like my father-in-law israel goldfarb who came here and changed his name. he became earl gold. that's the only person i ever knew. he died as a young man. he didn't get to enjoy his grandchildren. so, mr. president, there are lots of reasons why we have to fix the broken immigration system we have and help the many that are undocumented here get right with the law. it's time for reform that helps

them contribute fully to their communities by learning english, paying taxes and starting down the pathway towards citizenship. the bill we have from the judiciary committee is not a perfect bill, mr. president, but we don't have them here. there's never been, in my more than three decades here in congress, never been a perfect bill that came here. the founding fathers could envision nonperfect bills. they knew that's how we would get things done, by compromise. legislation is the art of compromise. so it's up to us to ensure america remains the land of opportunity where people born within our borders as well as those who seek a better future on our shores. finally, mr. president, on another subject, ads have been run on tv and radio and newspaper ads about the democrats needing to follow here in the senate regular order. and we have don that.

-- and we have done that. but now my republican colleagues are silent. we've been waiting for months now to allow them to allow us to go to conference, for regular order. they are refusing to go to conference so that we can come up with a budget that we can negotiate with the house as to what we should do. now, mr. president, it's obvious why we are not being able to go to conference. it's so obvious. the speaker does not want us to go to conference, and the republican senator is trying to protect him, in his unwieldy job he has over there, trying to protect his job and what they're trying to do from the tea party people that are wreaking havoc with our country. we should be able to go to conference. republicans have come here and said, republican senators, let's go to conference. what's stopping us from going to

conference? i just told you what's stopping us from going to conference, and it's really being detrimental to our country. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i want to associate myself with the remarks of the majority leader with regard to our late colleague frank lautenberg who was indeed a member of the greatest generation having fought in world war ii, and also distinguished service here in the senate. i would also like to mention to my friend, the majority leader, before he leaves the floor, that i had indicated to him before the recess that i intended to bring up each day going forward a commitment he made to the senate back in january of 2011 and again in january of 2013, the last two congresses, the beginning of the last two congresses, with regard to using the nuclear option to change the rules of the senate. the most important currency of

the realm here in the senate is your word. and my good friend, the majority leader, said in january of 2011 -- and i quote -- "i will oppose any effort in this congress or the next to change the senate's rules other than through the regular order. it was not a contingent commitment. it was not a contingent based upon my judgment about good behavior. it was a commitment. and then again in january 2013, in an exchange the majority leader and i had on the floor, i said i would confirm with the majority leader that the senate would not consider other resolutions relating to any standing order or rules of this congress unless they went through the regular order process. that was my question to my friend, the majority leader, to which he replied, that is correct. any other resolutions related to senate procedure would be subject to a regular order process, including consideration by the rules committee.

so, mr. president, my point is a commitment has been made, an unequivocal commitment has been made. and in the senate, of course, how we deal with all issues are related to keeping our word. and it will be important for the senate to understand before we go much further this year, just what the majority leader's intentions are. is it heman to keep his word issued in january 2011 and january 2013 or not? i think the senate is entitled to an answer to that. all senators would be interested in answer to that. but particularly the minority would be interested in an answer to that before we go any further into this session. now, with regard to the loan rates for students, i think it is troughing not interesting toe go into this needless controversy, one of the driving reasons for the increase in

student loan rates -- two of them are directly related to the passage of obamacare. in obamacare the democratic majority, without a single republican vote, abolished the student loan program. the government took it over and raised the rates. so that's one reason rates are going up. the second reason is the medicaid mandate. the medicaid mandate which the supreme court said is optional but states are now wrestling with whether or not to accept this additional responsibility for vast new numbers of americans who would receive a free health care card. the two biggest items in every state budget are medicaid and education. as medicaid expenses rise, what state governments all across america have done is reduce educational funding to public colleges and universities. in response to that the colleges and universities raise tuition.

so the generation -- the new generation coming along is getting it both ways: the rates are going up and the tuition is going up. so they have to pay back more at a higher rate, all related to something young people had nothing to do with, which was the passage of obamacare. now, washington has had to grapple with a lot of big issues in the past few years, and we've had some pretty heated debates, because there were real philosophical differences over how to address those challenges. those why it's so nice to work on an issue where the two parties are in relative agreement. we're not that far apart on this student loan issue now. neither party wants to see the rates rise in july, and both the president and republicans generally agree on the way to make that happen. so there's no reason we should be fighting over this issue at this particular point. there's no reason the president should be holding campaign-style

events to bash republicans for supposedly opposing him on student loans when we're in agreement on the need for a permanent reform. when the plan reput forward is actually pretty similar to his own -- when the plan we put forward is actually pretty similar to his own. yet that's just what we saw down at the white house last friday. having a true policy debate is something but provoking a partisan squabble for its own sake is frankly just ridiculous. our constituents sent us here to govern shal, not try to pick fae fights in some crusade to restore nancy pell low toy her -- to restore nancy pelosi to her speakership. here's a quick rundown of where we are on the issue: there's a senate democratic plan that everyone knows is just a

political bill, a short-term fix that would only apply to less than half of the students who plan to take out new loans -- new loans. and it would impose permanent tax hikes -- permanent tax hikes in return for a temporary plan for students. another temporary fix paid for with a permanent tax hike. even the president has dismissed this approach, so in nig in my t is really not worth much of a discussion at this point. the proposes that republicans put forward are actually closer to what president obama has asked for. we both agree on the need for permanent reform that takes the decisions on interest rates out of the hands of politicians. the house has already passed a bill that would achieve those two goals. and senate republicans have put forward a bill that is also similar to the president's proposal, as both our plans would employ a variable market rate that, like a mortgage, doesn't change over the life of

an individual student's loan. the president said he opposed a bill that didn't lock in rates. our's gives students the certainty the president agrees they should have. if the president were really serious g about getting this do, he would have spent that time ringing up senators to see how he could bridge our relatively small differences and not having a press conference and bashing congress. young americans already have enough to worry about. they don't need washington creating even more problems for them. the unemployment rate for 20-24-year-olds is over 13%. in kentucky it is more than 14%. and once many students graduate from college they face a highly uncertain future. so the president has a choice to

make. does he push some campaign issue for 2014? or does he want to address a problem here and prevent the rate increase? mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be this a period of morning business for one hour with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the majority controlling the first half. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, i've listened carefully to the statement made by the republican leader, and it was interesting to me when he talked about the issue of increased costs for colleges that the tuition has gone up and we have a student loan issue that's coming up on interest rates, perhaps doubling. and it was interesting that the republican leader said, and the root cause of the problem --

obamacare. well, it turns out, if you listen to the statements and speeches from the republican side of the aisle, if your car won't start, obamacare. too many pop-ups on your computer? obamacare. basically, it ounc out that evey problem in america can be traced to obamacare. obamacare, of course, is the health care reformage of the health care reform act which said incidentally that students in college can stay on their parents' health insurance plan until they reach the age of 26. obamacare. it also said that those who are receiving prescription drugs under medicare will pay less. obamacare. it went on to say that you can't discriminate against people when it comes to health insurance, if they have a preexisting condition. obamacare. so what we hear from the republican side of the aisle, any problem we have -- too much rain in the midwest? obamacare. it reefs a point wher reaches at

strains credibility. july 1, the interest rates on subsidized loans double -- double -- from 3.4% to 6.%, if we do nothing. now, the republicans in the house of representatives said, well, we've got a better plan. it is a plan which the republican leader in the senate just spoke to. we're going to move the interest rates, we're going to tag them to this, peg them to this ... the next thing you know, the interest rate coming out of the republican bill this the house is higher than 6 -- the republin bill in the house is higher than 6.8%. if we did nothing, as topped the republican plan, student -- as opposed to the republican plan, students would be better off. we're going t to do our best to make sure we preserve the 3.4% interest rate on subsidized student loans. is it important? it is critically important. look what's happening to students across america today. a lot of young people listen to

their parents, listen to their teachers and all their friends say, go to college, get a degree. it's good advice. then they go to sit down and figure out what it is going to cost, and it turns out to be pretty expensive. i look back on my college education -- i won't tell you what my student loans will, but i was scared to death when i ended up with this huge student loan at the end of law school, when i accumulated it all together. i sawed to my wife at the time, i don't no if we'll ever be able to pay this back. it's so big. it was $8,500. but it was more than half of my first year's income, putting things in perspective. now look what students are faced with. the average for-profit college costs $30,900 a year in tuition and fees. now, these for-profit schools i'll talk about in a minute are the most expensive schools in america. they're the ones who are trying to lure students into their

schools that they're offering. the biggest ones are the university of phoenix, which has more students than the combined enrollment of all the big ten universities; kaplan university, which owns "the washington post"; devry and others. they can't wait to see these students coming out of high school and to sign them up for these for-profit schools, the most expensive schools in america. there is something else -- they have the highest student loan default rates. they charge the students too much for tuition, offer them too little by way of education and training -- a lot of kids drop out and even those that it be can'--that finish, can't find a. they default on their loans. but take look at the cost of education in general. most students, unless they're lucky with parents that have a lot of money in the bank, have to borrow money. and if they have to borrow it, the question is what do they pay when it comes to the interest on the student loans?

private loans -- not the government loans, but private college loans -- can have interest rates up to 18%. so unless you've taken a course in consumer economics or business in high school, you may not know what the difference is between 3.4% interest on your loan and 18% interest. believe me, it's dramatic. and so students are faced with this reality. the question obviously is what's goincongress going to do about ? if we're going to continue keeping the interest rate at an affordable level, 3.4% for student loans, then we're going to have to take action before july 1. if we do nothing, it will double. if we do nothing, students are pay thousands of dollars more in paying off their loans. how big is student loan debt in america? student loan debt in america is larger than credit card debt. it's over $1 trillion. and one of the fastest-growing

areas of debt in america. and as students get encumbered by this debt, obligated by this debt, many don't realize what they're up against. this is not like any other loan you can take out. any loan that you take out for a car or a house or to buy a washer and a dryer, is dischargeable in bankruptcy. if your finances go completely in the tank and you go to a bankruptcy court, those other loans go away. but not student loans. there are only four things that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy -- taxes that you owe the government,a,al, alimoni, ad taxes for education. debt to go to school is a

decision for a lifetime. when the parents sign hon as guaranteguarantors, they are a e hook, too. if a student ends up dropping out of school, plenty of debt, no diploma, they're in bad situation. still have to pay off the loans. what we're trying to do on the democratic idea is to keep the interest rate on these loans as low and affordable as possible. i think that's only reasonable. why make it any harder for these students and their families? the republican side, sadly, more than doubles the interest rate on student loans. that's a worthy debate. i know the side that i'll be on. i think most americans know what side we should all be on. try to keep the cost of these loans closer to being under control, try to keep them at the 3.4% level. now jack reed of rhode island recently introduced an act which would prevent the interest rate hike by moving federal student

loans back to the market-based variable rate as it was prior to 200. jack reed's bill would offer adjustable interest rates for loans with a cap of 6.8% for subsidized loans and 8.25% for unsubsidized and parent-plus longes. rates would be set every year based on the 90-day treasury bill plus a percentage determined by the secretary of education to be necessary to cover program administration and borrower benefits. the bill is revenue-knew travmen-- the billis revenue-ne. it will allow current students to refinance their loans. many students signed up for loans that were a bad deal and they want to change them, but they are a stuck with them. this reed bill gives them a chance to refinance. congress should consider a long-term interest rate fix, but we need to act quickly to stop the interest rates from doubling on july 1. we have a good short-term patch

that will extend the current 3.4% interest rate for two years, maybe a year or two years. the bill is fully paid for by closing three tax loopholes. senator mcconnell was on the floor complaining that we are doing tax code changes to pay to keep the interest rates low. here are a couple of changes. our proposal would include a tax on the oil and gas companies for tar sands so that they would put more money into the oil spill liability trust fund. that's one of the things that senator mcconnell said is not appropriate. the other one would close a tax loophole that allows nonu.s. companies to reduce their u.s. tax liability on income from their sales in the u.s.. i don't think that's unreasonable, particularly if the money we're getting from that will help subsidize a low interest rate on student loans. this bill is a temporary solution, i understand. but it's going to save students in my state like illinois

$1,000, at least $1,000 by keeping the interest rate low in terms of what they'll pay back over a lifetime. the complicated proposal that came out of the house of representatives, the republican proposal, as i said, will more than double the interest rates for students that they're going to face. parents are going to have to have a higher liability on their loans that they sign up for for their students in their family, and that to me is not a good outcome either. there have been proposals that have been pushed by some of my republican colleagues, senators coburn, burr and alexander which would adjust interest rates annually for subsidized and unsubsidized loans. and it would be like the house bill, house republican bill, an increase of 3% over the ten-year treasury rate. there are no caps incidentally on where that interest rate is going to go, so the students could have a liability much greater in the future. here's what it boils down to. if you believe that education is

important -- and i think everyone does -- if you believe college education is a ticket for a better life and a better opportunity to contribute to this country -- and most people do -- we want to make sure it's affordable for students from working income homes and middle-income homes. that's why we want to keep this interest rate low. the republican proposals, all of the republican proposals dramatically raise the student loan interest rate beyond the level democrats are pushing for. we've heard a lot of comment on the floor. there will be a lot of debate on the floor about a lot of other issues -- the i.r.s. and other things like that. they're all worthy issues worth talking about. but if you talk to the average family in my state of illinois and around the country they're going to tell you something like a student loan debate is much more important to them partisan we want to be -- much more important to them. we want to be on the side of working to help middle income and those families working for a

living, give those families a chance to send their sons and daughters to college to have a better life in the future and don't burden them with a loan that is impossible for them to pay back. i want to close by saying a word about one category of schools that i mentioned earlier. the for-profit schools. we have in our country not-for-profit schools that include private universities as well as public universities, colleges and universities. then there is a for-profit sector of higher education. i mentioned the leaders earlier: university of phoenix and kaplan and devry, three of the biggest in the united states. currently our federal government is subsidizing these for-profit schools in ways that most taxpayers wouldn't believe. right now what these schools are bringing in is 75%, 80%, 90% and 95% of their revenue directly from the federal treasury. students turn over their pell

grants, sign over for their government loans and all of this government money flows into these for-profit schools. many of these schools offer valuable courses, but many of them are worthless. many of them, unfortunately, burden these young people with debt and offer them nothing by way of education or training so that they can have a better life. and as a result, the students end up with a mountain of debt they can't pay back and they default on the debt. here are the numbers to keep in mind. three basic numbers which explain the for-profit education industry in america. 12. 12% of high school graduates go to for-profit schools. 25. 25% of all the federal aid to education goes to for-profit schools. over $30 billion a year to for-profit schools. they would be the ninth-largest federal agency, if you took for-profit schools in the private sector over $30 billion, they would be the ninth largest but they are a private company,

for-profit company. the third number to remember is 47. 47% of all the student loan defaults are by students in for-profit schools. that number tells the story. these poor students are being loaded with debt, and they're being given an education that isn't worth it. at the end they can't pay back their debt and they default on those debts. that's the reality of where we are today. in just a few weeks -- july 1 -- if we do nothing, interest rates on loans at all schools for government loans are going to double. if we do something we can continue to protect students. but in addition to that, we have to do something about higher education and what's happening here. it isn't just the for-profit schools, many of which are ripping off these students. it's the overall cost of higher education. it is going beyond the reach of average families across america. i look back to my own life experience and thank goodness, i had a chance to borrow the money and go to school, get an education, end up, as i say, with a full-time government job.

but the bottom line is other people deserve the same opportunity. and if you aren't from a wealthy family, you should be able to borrow the money to be able to get through school and make a success of your life. let's do our part here. let's stand behind working families. let's support the democratic approach which will keep the interest rates at 3.4%. let's reject the republican approach that would more than double these interest rates on these students and their families. let's give these young people a fighting chance to get a good education and an opportunity to prosper in this great nation. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, last week we lost a chicago original. father andrew greely was a catholic priest in chicago and a man of great accomplishment. he was a best-selling author, college professor, newspaper columnist and a sociologist at the university of chicago. most importantly, according to father greely, he was -- quote -- "just a priest." andrew moran greely was born in oak park, a suburb west of chicago. by the time he was in the second grade at saint an geles elementary school he knew he wanted to be a priest. after being ordained he served as assistant pastor and studied sociology at the university of chicago. he was released from archdiocese and duties to pursue academic interests in 1965 but remained a

priest for the rest of his life. although he never led a parish he regularly filled in at saint mary the woods church in edge brook and he would lead mass, priest, hear confessions and officiate at weddings and baptisms. what brought him international recognition was his work as a writer and author. he built an international assemblage and fans. of the 60 novels he wrote some were considered scandalous with their portraits of hypocritical and sinful clerics. his clear writing style, consistent themes and celebrity stature made him the leading spokesman for generations of catholics. father greeley enjoyed being a commentator on current affairs. he divided his time between chicago and the university of

arizona. he achieved prominence as a journalist writing for the chicago sun times and contributing to american and international publications. his weekly columns touched on all sorts of issues from critiquing the catholic church to the war in iraq. father greeley was unapologetic in a tell it like it is chicago style. he wrote about allegations of sexual abuse by roman catholic priests. his thoroughly honest and powerful reporting alerted the nation to the scandal way ahead of many others. it forced the church to acknowledge that it had a problem and a problem it had to solve. his opposition to the war in iraq and a war on terror was so deep deep-seated that he wrote it in a book entitled "a stupid and unjust criminal war." he gave me an autographed copy

of that book. father greeley rarely held back from saying what he thought. he was criticized for never having had an unpublished thought but his ability to convey his opinion was also what made him successful in connecting with readers all over the world. he had a popular approach to writing that interested people on issues that they normally wouldn't connect with. he attended quickly prep in chicago and received a license from st. mary mundaline and ordained in 1954. he continued his level of learning by earning a masters degree and doctorate. with a study on the effect of religion on the career paths of 1961 college grads. his scholarship led to his long time position as a senior researcher on the staff of the university's national opinion research center which surveys american opinion on religion and other issues. later in life, after finding

success as a novelist and published sociologist, father greeley created a foundation to help inner city kids with a grant to distribute money to catholic schools with high minority enrollments. his other life long love besides the church, family and his writing was the great city of chicago. he was a classic example of what chicagoans call a lifer, someone who never felt at home anywhere other than the windy city. father greeley was fond of the architecture and sculpture that topped ordinary buildings around chicago places where ordinary people lived but which were adorned with beautiful workmanship. he would take pictures and love to show them off. avenues fan of the chicago bulls and bears and never stopped praying that the cubs would one day win another pennant. he wanted people to think of him as an honest and humble priest but he was one of a kind. he touched and enriched so many

lives. i remember having lunch with him several years ago. he was just one of a kind. a catholic priest who was part of the world, part of the world's conversation, but still dedicated to his vocation. i send my condolences to his sister mary dirkin, five nieces and two nephews. he blessed us with his presence for many wonderful years. his passing is a great loss to the people of chicago and to his friends and fans all over the world. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask consent to speak in morning business up to 12 minutes. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. vitter: skao*u me, mr. president. in that case, mr. president, i ask consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: now i ask consent to speak in morning business for up to 12 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask further consent to bring on to the floor and display a box of home keys which i'll explain in a moment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, as is obvious, the people of south louisiana

have been through a whole lot in the last several years. hurricane katrina, hurricane rita, many significant hurricanes since then; most recently hurricane isaac and the b.p. oil disaster, to name just a few really trying tragedies. but now, mr. president, having survived all of that, having endured through all of that, many residents of south louisiana think they face a challenge that is even greater, and that is completely, wholly manmade. and that isthe challenge presenw changes to the national flood insurance program, which many south louisiana residents fear could make their staying in their homes that they built following all the rules every

step of the way, could make that unaffordable. and that's a crying shame, mr. president. we must avoid that happening at all costs. first of all, mr. president, let me underscore, i talk about the folks of south louisiana because i represent them, because they've been through so much. but this is a national concern which potentially affects tens of millions of residents all around the country in every one of the 50 states. and that, too, is a reason we must solve this problem. and again, mr. president, it's simple: when we reauthorize the in the flood insurance program last year, when we finally got passed only renewing that program by fits and starts for a very short-term period, we put into the law several reforms that were supposed to make the program fiscally sound.

however, as some of those reforms were beginning to be implemented, they threaten to produce sky-high flood insurance premiums that no one at the time we debated these changes -- no one at fema, no one in private insurance, no outside expert -- forecast. and these sky-high premiums, if they're allowed to happen, threaten two things. first of all, they threaten, as i said, many good, hardworking taxpayers, residents, who have followed all the rules every step of the way in building their homes, in renovating their homes, in buying flood insurance. it threatens their being able to stay in their homes. it threatens the affordability of their living that big part of the american dream. and, second, mr. president, that threatens making the national flood insurance program sound, because if significant numbers

of folks can't stay in their homes, can't afford flood insurance, can't pay into the system, and, therefore, leave the system, potentially turn over their keys to the bank, walk away, certainly leave the national flood insurance system, perhaps leave homeownership, that is a big defeat for the fiscal soundness of the national flood insurance program as well. about two and a half weeks ago, mr. president, i was in a middle-class neighborhood in st. charles parish, louisiana, up the river from new orleans. and i stood in the driveway of a home owned by homeowners who are facing just this crisis, just this challenge. now, as i said a tiew minutes ago -- as i said a few minutes ago, they have survived a whole lot over the last several years -- hurricane katrina, hurricane

rita to their west, many hurricanes since then, most recently hurricane ozzie, and the b.p. oil spill, the b.p. disaster. they have survived more than they ever imagined was possible in a lifetime, and yet now they're fearful that their greatest challenge is yet ahead, and their greatest challenge is completely man-made, the fact that some of these new changes to the national flood insurance program could cost them their house, could make their staying in that solid, middle-class neighborhood at their house unaffordable. when i was there, when we were talking about this challenge with many, many local residents and leaders, those homeowners presented me with this box of keys. it's pretty heavy, but i want you and everyone on the floor to see. these are hundreds and hundreds

of house keys that have been put in this box by homeowners who face the same threat, who say, if the right reforms and changes aren't made, they're handing over these keys, they're handing them over to fema, they're handing them over to the federal government, they're handing them over to the bank because their homes will no longer be affordable. they have to have flood insurance, if they have any mortgage -- virtually everybody has to have a mortgage to afford their house over time -- and if flood insurance rates go sky high and are literally unaffordable, they'll be handing over these keys for good. now, mr. president, they all know and expect that they're going to have -- that there are going to have to be changes in the program and some significant

increases for the program to be fiscally sound and pay for itself. they're not arguing with that. i'm not arguing with that. what we're arguing against is completely unaffordable premium increases, things that were literally drive mil drive middls families out of their homes and neighborhoods and make their american dream completely unaffordable. that shouldn't be allowed to happen, shouldn't be allowed to happen because it's wrong to give them that uncertainty and that future when they have followed the rules every step of the way, as they existed under the national flood insurance program, under their mortgage, under everything else. and it shouldn't be allowed to happen because it will mean we will never achieve fiscal sustainability for the system if thousands and tens of thousands and potentially hundreds of thousands of people aren't the country exit the program, as is

threatened to do. we need to take action to be able to ensure these homeowners that that won't happen to them. and with that goal in mind, mr. president, i'm pursuing several things. first of all, some of this can and must be fixed administratively at fema. and i've led several delegations to fema to talk about this, to demand that they do what they can under their authority, particularly under the so-called lamp process, to make sure they get it right, particularly in drafting and issuing new flood maps. lamp is a new process that is under way at fema under which they're supposed to take into account, in making new maps, all flood protections, all features that were there on the ground to provide homeowners under that terrain flood protection, even if it is less than a 100-year level of protection.

fema is still in the midst of their lamp process. they're not finished by a long shot. and we have to make sure that fema gets that right, builds all protections and features in their new maps before any of those new maps and any of those new rates take effect. that's just the biggest example of what fema needs to do to get it right, what they can do under their thomple authority. part of this challenge is definitely administrative, and that's why i've led those tbriewps to fema and -- those groups to fema and that's why fema needs to get it right. that's also why i'll be presenting this box to home keys to fema later this week at the request of these louisiana homeowners. now, mr. president, the other part of our challenge is that we get it right legislatively, because, in addition to everything fema can and must do, therthere probably also needs te

changes to ensure that homeowners aren't thrown out of their homes because flood insurance is now unaffordable. and that's why i've teamed up with the senior senator from mississippi, thad cochran, in introducing the vitter-cochran measure to fix these provisions in the national flood insurance program. it will do several things, at least four, that are significant. first, ensure that communities who are developing new maps by the end of this year will be able to maintain the old grandfathered rates that are subject to change in section 207 of the act. second, the bill would allow a five-year phase-in of actuaria actuarially sound rates. third, the bill would authorize state and local governments flexibility to directly

subsidize homeowners' flood insurance properties if that can be part of the solution as well. and, fourth, it would require a minimum of 25% of mitigation funding go directly to homeowners in a given year for programs and help that directly impact homeowners, like home elevation. i'll be advancing that bill along with thad cochran, along with many other interested members, and i will also be looking for amendment opportunities to advance those ideas and those provisions as well. and certainly i'm joining with my other colleagues from louisiana, from the sandy hit area in the northeast, from all parts of the country to advance these fixes. senator landrieu has an amendment on the farm bill, on the senate floor now, that i am a cosponsor of. i am certainly working with her and many other members to get

this fix, to get it done, to reassure these threatened homeowners that help is on the way. mr. president, we need to do this. we need to preserve the american dream and treat these people right; not make their middle-class momes an homes and middle-class neighborhoods, all of a sudden, through no fault of their own, unaffordable. and we need to do it, for the very goal of putting the program on a fiscally sound footing because if we have tense or hundreds of thousands of -- if we've tend o tens or hundreds of thousands of families turning their keys into fema or the bank, the program will never get to the fiscally sound basis. you'll have people no longer able to pay premiums. we need to get it right for them, we need to get it right

for the american dream, and i look forward to working with all of our colleagues in doing so. because again, mr. president, i started at the beginning talking about what south louisiana has been through -- many hurricanes and the b.p. disaster and more. but this is not a parochial issue. it is not a katrina issue. it is not a sandy issue. it is far broader than that. this movie is coming to a theater near you, and i urge you to learn about that threatened impact on your constituents, on your homeowners, and to immediately join me and many others in this effort. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i join others of our colleagues in mourning the passing of our friend and former colleague, senator frank lautenberg. senator lautenberg joined this body in 2003 for the second ti time, and i was immensely struck by his tenacious work ethic and deep-seated devotion to the people of the state of new jersey. these are attributes that would serve all of us well and served him well and are something we can alls and should all aspire to. -- and are something we can all and should all aspire to. senator lautenberg's legacy will for every be woven in the fabric of america's history. his work on the g.i. bill's

rights has ensured that america's fighting men and women receive the support that he need when they come home and the opportunity to become part of the next greatest generation. with his pass, the senate has lost the final member of what tom brokaw called the greatest generation, the generation that my dad served in as part of the army air corps flying b-17's in world war ii, my father-in-law who landed on utah beach on the second day of the normandy invasion. these were great americans and it is due to their sacrifice and contribution they made to our way of life that has made it possible for america to remain the envy of the world. we're also reminded that our time here in this chamber is fleeting, and we should be humbled by that reminder.

there have been 43 new senators come to the united states senate since 2007 alone. the reason i counted that up is because that was the last time we took up immigration reform, a subject we're going to turn to here perhaps next week. 43 new senators since 2007, and perhaps we'll have 44 by the time we turn to that topic next week. we're reminded that it is our duty as americans to ensure that this chamber will host future generations of great americans as well. as senator lautenberg goes to his rest, my prayer is that his loved ones can take solace in the fact that he played such an important part in the great american story with honor and integrity. mr. president, on another topic,

the events of the last few weeks have thrown a spotlight on a culture here in washington that i think threatens the very fabric of what i just spoke about that senator lautenberg fought for and contributed to, one that would hopefully instill confidence in the american people that what's happening here is in their best interest and that people realize that we are -- we're the employees of the american people, here to serve their interests. and that should be our primary focus. but unfortunately, we've learned that a culture of intimidation has arisen in washington that unfortunately has become all too pervasive and threatens to be that cancer that cannot only destroy the public confidence in their federal government, but also destroy the nature of our democracy itself.

we've learned that i.r.s. agents -- we don't know how many yet, but we do know that some were deliberately targeting different political groups because of their political activities. of course remember that this is activity protected by the first amendment of the united states constitution. and if it weren't for the political activity of the american people, we wouldn't have the great democracy which is the envy of the world. but we've learned this -- learne internal revenue service was asking these different groups inappropriate questions about their donors, positions on various issues of the day and the political affiliations of its officers and directors. we've learned that these abuses went far beyond two rogue employees in the cincinnati field office and that the i.r.s. headquarters in washington was involved as well. of course the initial story that this was confined to a couple of

self-starters and free agents in cincinnati was laughable. we've all known bureaucracies enough to know that no one, particularly at a lower to midlevel, instigates any sort of initiative as bold and as toxic as this without some sort of approval from on high, whether it's implicit or explicit. we've now learned that senior officials in the i.r.s. knew about these abuses at least two years ago, and yet failed to notify congress or the public. we've learned that one activist in texas, one of my colleagues, catherine englebreak in houston, texas, was targeted by multiple federal agencies, including the i.r.s., the f.b.i., the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms and osha. we've also learned that the environmental protection agency is yet another agency that has

discriminated against political organizations that they don't happen to agree with. we've learned that the obama administration in the form of the justice department has treated a reporter as if he were a criminal simply for doing his job. i've seen the explanation of the apologists at the justice department. they said just because they identified james rosen as a potential criminal coconspirator, they never intended to prosecute him. well, this is part of an affidavit designed to get at certain records that mr. rosen and his family maintained. invade their privacy. and it makes no sense that they would claim in this affidavit in order to get the search warrant that was a criminal coconspirator and at the same time say they never intended to prosecute him. those are simply incompatible and inconsistent. we've also learned that the department of justice has conducted a disturbingly

intrusive and broad investigation into the phone records of journalists who work for the associated press. it the department of health and human services we've learned that kathleen sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, has literally been raising money from private companies that she is responsible for regulating in order to fund obamacare. that's a conflict of interest, is the most charitable thing you could say about that. and we further learned that this culture of intimidation has also given way to a culture of coverups and misinformation. we've learned more about the obama administration's dishonest portrayal of the september 2012 terrorist attack that killed four americans in benghazi, libya. we've learned that the obama state department punished u.s.

diplomats, whistle-blowers for cooperating with congressional investigators. sadly, these abuses are part of the larger pattern that goes back several years. for example, in 2010, when we were considering the matter of obamacare, various health insurance companies began alerting their customers about what they believed the impact of obamacare would be on them. and that specifically, if passed, it would force them to raise premiums on their own customers. secretary sebelius at the time threatened to punish these companies and bar them from participating in the obamacare exchanges if they followed through in communicating with their own customers about what the impact of this legislation would be on them. by the way, the same i.r.s. official who led the division to target political speech is now in charge of administering large portions of obamacare, which

depends upon the internal revenue service to implement so much of it. at a time when the internal revenue service has lost credibility with the american people, it has no business administering a law that will affect one-sixth of our national economy. the same culture of intimidation that we've seen at health and human services and at the internal revenue service has also been prevalent at the justice department that should be the bastion of justice and equal treatment under the law, but sadly is not. the case of fox news reporter james rosen is only the latest example. in recent days we've learned that d.o.j. officials tracked rosen's movements, got a search warrant to examine his private e-mails and even obtained his parents' phone records and treated him like a criminal, which is quite remarkable because, as i said, he was simply doing his job.

mr. president, i'd ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: as the washington correspondent for "the new yorker" magazine noted -- quote -- "it is unprecedented for the government in an official court document to accuse a reporter of breaking the law for conducting routine business of reporting on government secrets." now i believe national security leaks should be investigated, but what about going after the leaker? we recognize that when you target reporters, it's especially sensitive given the role of reporting the news and the freedom of the press guaranteed by the constitution, and the need of our society to maintain the kind of openness that only comes with a free and robust press. in addition to an overbearing surveillance of individual journalists, the obama justice department also targeted whistle-blowers in the notorious fast and furious investigation. this is where guns were

purchased in bulk in the united states and allowed to walk into the hands of the drug cartels in mexico. one department of justice official, a u.s. attorney in arizona, tried to smear a whistle-blower by leaking a private document. the defense -- the department of justice inspector general called this behavior -- quote -- "inappropriate for a department employee and wholly unbefitting a united states attorney." close quote. meanwhile, a separate justice department official was forced to resign her position when she was caught collaborating with left-wing bloggers to slander both whistle-blowers and journalists. so as you can see, my conclusion that there has been created a culture of intimidation is not the result of one incident but a number of incidents and data points when connected, i think,

clearly paint that very sad and troubling picture. as we can see, this culture of intimidation has become entrenched at federal agencies and departments all across the obama administration. this culture of intimidation was troubling before the i.r.s. scandal broke and it's even more troubling given all that we've learned in the past few weeks. i hope congress will do its job on a bipartisan basis as the finance committee under the leadership of senator max baucus and orrin hatch have already done on the i.r.s. matter, investigate it in a bipartisan way to get to the bottom of this, recognizing that this kind of abuse of power on the part of the internal revenue service can be turned not just against conservative political speech, but also people on the political left or anybody in between. , which should not and cannot be tolerated. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a

quorum. i withdraw that request for a quorum call. #. mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i thank my colleague and couldn't agree with him more on a number of things that he listed. particularly what i'm finding out as i travel across the state of indiana and talk to hoosiers, this health care program, so-called affordable health care act, which is anything but affordable, is having an enormous negative impact on the decision of employers, on health care providers, on average citizens relative to what is coming down the line here in the next several months and into year 2014. it is a colossal mistake of legislation. it is a mess. it is distorting this economy. it is keeping people out of work. it is keeping employers from

being able to hire new workers. people are trying to manipulate the system now because what is being imposed on them is tkra draconian and unsustainable and unaffordable. that's why we need to officially call this the unaffordable comprehensive health care reform rather than the affordable act. it's unaffordable. but that's not why i came here today. i came here today to talk about our current fiscal crisis. you know, that's sort of taken a back seat to the debates that we've been having here on the floor, even though they are necessary. immigration coming up. the farm bill that we're currently dealing with. gun issues and others. but the looming dark cloud issue, the big bear in the closet is our fiscal crisis. and it's not going away. now, last friday the social security and medicare trustees issued their annual report on the long-term financial status

of the health and retirement security programs. and there was a little bit of good news. that is that the current numbers that exist out there in the rate of spending, down on these programs had slowed somewhat. but it's not the kind of news that we ought to celebrate. some are saying that just takes the pressure off. we don't need to do anything about structural reform for our mandatory spending for our entitlement programs because, look, i mean we just had a good report here. so let's just get back to regular business, and we'll worry about this later. well, the fact remains that the mandatory spending is not only unsustainable, it is having an immediate impact and will continue to have an even greater impact on other functions of government that are deemed essential and necessary because

as the cost of funding for the mandatory systems continues to rise and dramatically in future years, with 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. let me repeat that. 10,000 baby boomers of retirement age each day. adding to the cost of medicare and medicaid and social security. now we've known that this was coming for years. we've known it's been coming for decades. that amazing number of people that were born postworld war ii now have worked their way to the point of retirement. and we've known this ever since. it's had an impact on our economy, whether they were babies needing more cribs and diapers or whether they were young children going to elementary school and we needed more schools, going to secondary colleges and universities, we needed to expand those.

working their way through the economy, having children. a dramatic impact with this bulge of baby boom babies growing up and working their way through the system. well, it's retirement time, and yet while we knew all this was coming, congress has repeatedly, and the administration has repeatedly said we'll deal with this later. it's a crisis we know, but it's just too tough to deal with now. and what i' what i'm afraid of is this latest report that came out, which provided a little bit of relief, a little bit of wiggle room but did nothing to solve the long-term problem, i am concerned that it will be used by the political body to say we don't have to do anything now. what's the impact of this? the nonpartisan congressional budget office repor reported ear this year that spending will

consume 91% of all federal revenues ten years from now. already it's putting the squeeze on discretionary spending. because what this means is that all other spending priorities are being squeezed out by spending on medicare, medicaid, and social security and some of the other mandatory programs. if you are interested in a strong national defense, in maintaining that, in a solid education system and maintaining that or growing that, infrastructure, bridges, paving roads, medical research, food and drug safety, homeland security, border security, which is absolutely needed and we're going to have to spend more money on if we're going to go forward with the immigration reform, and many other programs -- so whatever your interest is, and whatever demands there are in terms of the need for effective and efficient and yet necessary federal programs,

these are everyday get being squeezed -- everyday getting squeezed in terms of the amount of resourcesources to do this. why these groups don't form a coalition and march to the halls of congress and demand that we take the actions now on this runaway mandatory spending because it is simply wiping out their programs is beyond me. but it is the nature of the political beast to postpone the tough stuff, to not have to get to the point where they have to tell anybody "no" because we want everybody to love us so they'll vote for us in the next election. it is incomprehensionable that -- it is incomprehensible that we continue to put this off, day after day, month after month, year after year, election after election. how many times have we heard people say, we will do that after the next election? that was the mantra in the 2012

presidential election. well, no, you see the president couldn't step up and do this and the ruling party couldn't step up and do this because we had a presidenpresidential election as is now time d to do this now. as soon as that takes place, then we will have a period of time where we have new members in or we won't have the pressure of an election before us and we'll address this problem. we will, here we are now into the sixth month of this year when everyone knows that the first 100 days of a new administration or a repeated administration in this case is the best time to enact long-term good legislation that addresses major problems slip-sliding away. the days are counting, and we continue to debate and talk about and interject issues here that, yes, have importance but

don't begin to rise to the level of importance of the need to address our fiscal situation. now, the other thing i don't understand is why the young people of this country around standing up and demanding that we take action, because we are taking money away from them and diminishing their future. we are leaving them with a debt burden that they may not be able to pay. the international monetary fund put a report out recently that, to cover current obligations for young people, we will have to pay -- they will have to pay -- they, not us -- they will have to pay either 35% more in taxes to keep these mandatory funds alive and solvent, or receive 35% fewer benefits. and this is at a time when our nation's youth already face an unemployment crisis.

it is unconscionable -- it is immoral for us to defer and delay and to simply say, well, we can't take care of that now and then move on through our life, reap the benefits of -- that come from some of these programs, and then hand it over to our children and say, good luck. you're either going to pay a third more in taxes or you're going to get a third less in benefits -- lifetime savings, social security, for your retirement, health care coverage for your later years. good luck with that one. but we just couldn't summon the will to do it. we just couldn't bring ourselves to make the hard choices. i would ask unanimous consent for an additional three minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, thank you. are we going to step up to the plate and be responsible? what is our legacy going to be

here, for those of us who are serving now? what are we going to tell our grandchildren and children? sorry, just weren't able to do it. too tough politically. we were worried about the folks back home. they might not take it the right way. this requires a little bit of sacrifice to saving th save thes before they go broke. but, no, just couldn't do it. the president really awol on this, hasn't stepped up. we thought sure after the election, not being elected again, we will get some kind of leadership. i see it slip-sliding away and now we are faced with that ultimate day of crisis when it hits and we have to make painful choices because we have no other choice. so why don't we take the rational approach? why don't we have the leadership that steps up and says, this is what we need to do? and why don't we put the interests of the future of america and the interests of the

future of our children and grandchildren and succeeding generations ahid o ahead of ourn political interests? it is selfish not to do so. i think it is unconshockable and im-- i think it is unconscionable and immoral to do this. i am going to continue to urge the president to work with us. i am not making this a partisan issue. we're working with people across the aisle that understand this, want to do something about it, but we know we can't get it done without the president taking leadership and standing up and working with us. there is a little bit going on right now, but here we are six months later and we're not making the progress we need to make. in the end maybe we'll pass some kind of tepid legislation, a little patch here, a little patch there, cover the scratch. we'll deal with the big thing later. we just can't do it now. for the sake of the future of this country, for the sake of our children and grandchildren,

for living up to our sworn oath to do what we need to do, to continue this great story of democracy in this nation, we need to step up and do this. these real estate forms are necessary. we all -- these reforms are necessary. we all mow it. we kno-- we all know it.we knowo whatever is necessary to make the tough choices. interestingly enough, that legacy, if we stand up to $it, will be forth -- it we stand up to do it, will b will be worth r consequences or decisions we make. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 954, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 73, s. 954, a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2018.

the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first, i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i would ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. mr. president, we are proceeding. i see my distinguished ranking member on the floor. we are proceeding on our work on the farm bill this morning, as we are moving through. we have a lot of discussions going on on working to get agreement on both sides to be able to offer a number of amendments for votes. we certainly are going to do everything we can working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. it is critical that we complete our work ideally this week. and i appreciate our senate majority leader understanding what i say over and over again,

which is this is a jobs bill. 16 million people work in this country because of agriculture and the food industry. this is their economic development jobs policy, and it is very important that we complete our work, as we have done this last year. let me remind colleagues again that we -- a year ago, most of us are here at that time -- a year ago we worked very hard. in fact, other than the budget resolution, i think we may have the record, mr. president, for most amendments that were voted on on a piece of legislation. i don't know for sure, but i think it rates right up there. 3 differen73 different amendmens vietnamed on last year -- 73 different amendments vietnamed on last year. -- 73 different amendments we voted on last year. we are back again working

through additional ideas, additional amendments that people are interested in. and it is very, very important that we complete our work so that hopefully when the house brings the bill to the floor and we're encouraged -- we're hearing that within a couple of weeks it will come to the floor of the house -- that when they complete their work, we can actually go to conditions, get o conference, get a bill on the president's desk. farmers and ranchers have to do the job in the morning whether they feel like it or not. if the job is in front of them, they've the twthey have got to d get it done. this is a time to complete a five-year policy and we intend to do that and get it done in time so that the right kinds of decisions can be made. let me stress again that this bill is the one bill that's come

before the u.s. senate and passed last year that has real deficit reduction in it. we have looked at every page of what's called the farm bill. we have called ours agriculture farm, food, and jobs bill. it is about reform. reforming policies, cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, counting more accountability. it is about food policy for our country, nutrition policy for our country, and it is about jobs. and so we have scoured every page actually in our process ended up cutting over 100 different programs and authorizations by either combining them, cutting down on the duplication and paramilitaryworkpaperwork,elimit work anymore, if it doesn't work from a taxpayer standpoint, if

it doesn't work from the standpoint of agriculturalals, we eliminated it. we took what are currently 11 dink definitions of what is "rural." we had local mayors, local township officials telling us that they appreciate -- they count on rural development as their economic development arm for grants and loans, for small businesses, for water and sewer projects, road projects, whatever is done in smalltowns, rural communities across the country, usda rural development is there supporting those local efforts, but they said, could you give us one definition of "rural" instead of 11, so we can figure out the paperwork and now how to interact with the usda. sounded simple, wasn't simple. but we've actually gotten it down to one deaf first, -- but e actually gotten it down to one definition. we have $2 4 billion in

bipartisan deficit reduction. we have in fact put together something that is four times more than required of the across-the-board cuts in what's been dubbed sequestration. so rather than just doing what we are required to do under the law that established sequestration, we've gone four times more and created policies supported by farmers, ranchers, those involved in conservation, those involved across our country in every part of the farm bill. we have 12 different titles. each one could actually be a separate bill if we wanted to, that deal with a wide variety of topics from our traditional commodities, where certainly there is a lot of debate. we have eliminated subsidies called direct payments and moved to crop insurance, where it is based on risk. farmers share in the cost of the insurance.

there is no subsidy given. you get help if you have a disaster. if something happens on the weather or there is some other kind of disaster yo, then, likey other couped o kind of insuranct helps cover the risk. conservation and bringing together 23 different programs. we cut it down to 13, consolidated, streamlined, did a better job with more flexibility for communities, and have created a conservation title supported by more thank 650 different conservation and environmental organizations across the country. specialty crops. half of the cash receipts of the country roughly are something called fruits and vegetables and other specialty crops. we strengthen those efforts that are very important. local food systems, farmers' markets, areas that are very important in growing and certainly address the health of our country. i mentioned rural development,

an energy title that we've not only focused on in terms of energy efficiency for our farmers on the farm, bioenergy, biofuels, but also a new area of reducing our reliance on petroleum by using agricultural products and by-products in manufacturing, called biobase manufacturing. and that's an exciting new area for jobs for us. we're seeing a lot of different possibilities in the area of soybeans. we're seeing soybean oil used to replace petroleum oil in things like foams. if you sit on a number of -- if you buy a number of different vehicles today, and certainly in every ford vehicle i know being produced -- ne chevy volt -- new chevy volt -- you're sitting on soybean foam instead of petroleum foam. it's biodegradable. there's a lot of jokes about sitting on soybean.

but the reality is that this is something that is creating a market for growers. it's biodegradable, gets us off of foreign oil and is creating jobs. a lot of possibilities in this bill for new jobs. we focus on trade, the one area where we have a trade surplus in our country is in agriculture. we in fact are feeding the world and working with those around the globe to develop their own food systems. i'm very proud of the role that american farmers play in addressing hunger around the world as well as international food assistance. so we could go on and on. the bottom line is this is a bill with tremendous impact. 16 million people in the country directly impacted in terms of their job. every american, if you had breakfast this morning, thank a farmer. if you have lunch today, thank a farmer. if you have dinner today, thank a farmer. we have the safest, most affordable food supply in the world because of a group of

people that go out and take a risk against the weather, which is getting tougher and tougher as the climate is changing, they're willing to go out there and continue to be in this business. and our bill supports them with tools to help them manage their risk, through insurance that helps them manage their risks on the farm in terms of keeping the soil on the ground as well as protecting our water, protecting our air. those kinds of tools are critically important as well. this is a bill that we worked on now twice in the last year. last year and this year, and we're looking forward to having the opportunity to bring this to completion to work with our house colleagues in a bipartisan way, to provide legislation that's good for those directly involved in agriculture, that's good for consumers, that's good for taxpayers as we look at ways to reform our government, to

work more efficiently and effectively on fewer dollars. so, mr. president, we look forward to continuing throughout the day working with colleagues. we are hopeful we will have amendments to bring forward. but we do understand that we have got to move forward and get this done. i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: