Floor Statements

I believe we have other colleagues coming as well. We were hoping to have 30 minutes and possibly more.

I look forward to colleagues who will be joining me to express strong support for the budget that has been reported out of the Senate Budget Committee. I first want to thank our chair, who has done a yeoman's job in putting this together. She has had so many different assignments dealing with the budget and efforts to come to responsible reform and put our country back on the right track in order to bring down the deficit and grow the economy. One more time she has stepped up to the job. So I want to thank our chair for all of her efforts.

Let me start, first of all, by saying this is very simple when we look at what we are talking about in this budget. As I said also, I want to thank the ranking member for his courtesy throughout the budget process. While we have very different views, this was done in a very professional and courteous way on all sides. I really appreciate that.

But this is a very different view, both in what we debate and how we view this budget, which is a values document for the country, and the budget that is being debated in the House of Representatives. It comes down to something very simple. Our budget strengthens the middle class. We believe it is critically important that we grow the economy from the middle out. That means making sure folks who are struggling to stay in the middle class have a fair shot, people trying to get in the middle class have a fair shot, and that we grow the economy by understanding the economic engine of America comes from having a strong middle class.

On the other side, the Republican budget just plain simply protects the special interests, special interest deals in the Tax Code and other special interests in other kinds of policies. It is just very different and does not grow or support the middle class.

I also think it is very important that we not just talk in theory but talk about what has happened in the past and what has worked and what has not. We should do more of what works and less of what does not work. We need to start by looking at what happened as we came into 2001.

I was fortunate to be a new Member of the House of Representatives in 1997 when, under President Clinton, we all worked together and balanced the budget for the first time in 30 years.

I came to the Senate in 2001. We were debating the largest budget surplus projected in the history of the country. That is where we were. The question was, What kind of economic policies, what kinds of approaches will be put in place to be able to manage that fact, that we had the largest budget surplus projected in the history of the country?

There were two proposals put forward at that time. When you look at the way the debt was going from 2001, it is amazing. If we had only taken a different track than what happened. I remember as a new Member, a new Democrat, that our leader on our side of the aisle, Senator Conrad, came forward with a proposal that I believed was eminently reasonable. He said: Why do we not take that budget surplus and divide it into thirds: one-third of it for strategic tax cuts to grow the economy; one-third of it for strategic investments in education, science, R&D, moving the economy; and one-third to prefund the liabilities for Social Security for the next 75 years.

Imagine if we had done that. Instead, what happened was the surplus was put into a huge supply side tax cut, benefiting, as we know now, the wealthiest in the country, adding to a situation where the wealthy have gotten wealthier and wealthier in the last decade, the middle class has shrunk and shrunk, and more and more people are struggling today. So it was all put into a large tax cut, and then we proceeded to go into two wars that were not paid for, a Medicare prescription drug plan not paid for, and nothing else paid for for a decade. We ended up with the largest deficit in the history of the country. That is what this President walked into. That is what we have been faced with.

Now, when we look at where the debt has come from, and why it is important that we focus on the economy, we know the biggest piece of where the debt came from was the tax cut geared to the wealthiest Americans, which has been famously called trickle down economics. The folks in Michigan are still waiting for it to trickle down.

Then we saw the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are so appreciative of the President leading us out of the war in Iraq. We are closing down the war in Afghanistan. So that piece is being addressed. We have addressed the tax cuts at the end of the year, to ask those at the top to do more of their fair share. So that is being addressed. We go on down to the Recovery Act, which was so important to be able to try to focus on the middle class and get things going again. We did have some success with this. Then the other piece, the 30 percent of what is happening right now is the economic downturn.

So as we go forward today, even though we have addressed the high-end tax cuts, the wars ending, we no longer see the rescue-and-recovery measures. The economy is still 30 percent of our deficit. Frankly, we will never get out of debt with 12 million people out of work, which is why we, as Democrats, have made sure we are front and center focused on jobs and the economy in this budget.

We have to create opportunities for jobs for small businesses, for manufacturers, for the private sector, for entrepreneurs to be able to be successful so we have strong economic growth while we are putting forward a balanced budget. That is what we are attempting to do. That impacts what we do in this budget.

In fact, the efforts we put together--we know what happened when the President came in: 700,000 jobs a month being lost, the banks and financial markets in big trouble. We all know the story of what happened and what the President walked into on day one. But we have been focused on supporting an economic growth structure that would create jobs, create jobs. We are seeing that turnaround from the lost decade of jobs. We saw certainly in manufacturing huge job losses from 2001 on up to 2008. We know what happened with the automobile industry, which, by the way, because of our rescue efforts and support for them, is roaring back now and creating jobs. By the way, tremendous private sector investment is coming into the city of Detroit. The private sector is helping us turn that around. We are very proud of that. We are also seeing now jobs being created. As fast as we want? No. But we understand we have to focus on these numbers, which is creating jobs, if we are going to, in fact, get out of the deficit hole.

We have to reduce the deficit if our country is going to be more competitive, and we have to grow more jobs. We have to create opportunities for middle-class families. We know we need progrowth policies such as the ones in our budget that focus on innovation, education, rebuilding America through infrastructure, whether it is our courts, whether it is our roads or rails or water and sewer projects or what we do on technology. To compete we have to build, and we have to focus on what will create jobs.

We are now at a spot where we know if we focus, as we are in our budget, on growing the economy from the middle out rather than the top down, based on what was done in the 1990s when we did that, when we balanced the budget in the right way by investing in the future, investing in education, investing in innovation, and then also making smart cuts to balance that out, we balanced the budget. We had 22 million jobs that were created.

That is what this budget does again. It is focused on those policies that worked, not just debate back and forth in theory, but policies that actually worked in the 1990s to balance the budget, to grow the economy. We saw the policies being advocated by our friends on the other side. We did that already. We did that 2001 to 2008.

I do not know about anybody else, but I know people in Michigan do not want to relive that. That was not our idea of economic growth. It certainly did not balance the budget. It put us in the largest deficit in the history of the country.

So the budget in the House says: Boy, if you liked 2001 to 2008, you are going to love this. Two million jobs next year alone are lost in the Ryan Republican budget. And similar policies are being advocated by colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Let me just take a moment; I see my colleague, Senator Reed from Rhode Island, is here, who I know wants to be a part of this and is such an important voice. But let me just say a couple of things. We understand we need to make smart spending reductions in order to balance the budget. In fact, we have already started doing that. One of the things which is so frustrating to me is to hear colleagues talk about spending cuts without acknowledging what we have done for the last 2 years. So we already know we have put ourselves on a path for $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction. And 70 percent of that has come out of services for the middle class, the most vulnerable. It has been cuts in spending for things that would actually grow the economy, innovation and research.

I am desperately concerned as chair of the Agriculture Committee because we have seen agricultural research decimated around issues of food safety and pest and disease management and other critical things, on invasive species, that we may not feel right away but are things that will affect our future. So we have already seen major cuts.

At the end of the year a small amount of money, 30 percent of the deficit reduction, was done. We have actually been asking those at the very top, who have the most benefits from the tax cuts, the most benefits from the efforts to rescue Wall Street, the most benefits in general, just to do a little bit more--30 percent of what we have already done. So what we have said is that going forward, the final amount we need to do, between the $2.4 and $4 trillion, we are insisting that be done in a balanced way and not one more time to come back on the middle class who have already had the brunt of the sacrifice, the brunt of the cuts. It is not fair.

So we have replaced across-the-board cuts. We have had colleagues in the last few days complaining about the sequester cuts. Please vote for this budget. It stops those across-the-board cuts and puts something in that is much more common sense.

Those across-the-board cuts would cut 750,000 jobs this year alone. When you add what the Ryan Republican budget would do in the House, that is another 2 million jobs next year. It is a jobs killer.

What we are saying is replace it with a responsible, balanced approach. That is what we need to do, but it does it in a way that sets priorities.

The House says spending cuts again. This is predominantly education, innovation, construction. They also include eliminating Medicare. There is no way our majority will support this policy.

There is a whole range of things that hit the middle class, seniors, veterans, and vulnerable citizens. We say our cuts will be different. We are willing to make priorities and smart cuts on the direct spending side, but there is a whole range of things we can do in the special interest deals and Tax Code for the other half.

I totally reject the idea which has been put forward here so far today that our budget somehow raises taxes on the middle class. That is absolutely false. We have report after report after report which indicate by closing loopholes which are sending jobs overseas, cutting subsidies that aren't needed anymore, such as the top five wealthiest companies in the world, the top five oil companies--there are trillions of dollars in savings. Do this by cutting things that aren't necessary and are special deals in the Tax Code. We say half of the amount needed, yes, should come from there.

On the other side of the building, what we see is a very different picture. The Ryan Republican budget, when they look at their tax cuts, 55 percent of what we are doing in tax cuts goes to the top 1 percent. I feel this is Groundhog Day over and over. It is the same thing we have heard over and over. Give it to the top, it will trickle down. We did that. It did not trickle down. At least it didn't hit Michigan.

This budget does it over and over. Two-thirds of what they do in the House goes to the top 5 percent of taxpayers. What is left for middle- class families? We say something very different to grow the economy. We say we need in a global economy to outeducate, outinnovate, and outbuild. The President has said that over and over and our budget invests in those things that allow us to compete, grow the middle class, and create jobs while doing what we need to do to make smart, commonsense decisions on spending in the Federal Government.

Here is what I am worried about. Right now, when we look at U.S. investing in research and development, compared to what is happening around the world, the greatest country in the world, the United States of America, is down. We are losing ground on investments while everybody else races to be like America--everybody else. China wants to be like us and have a middle class. They are investing in innovation. We see proposal after proposal after proposal to cut our ability to compete for the future. This is why the Senate budget prioritizes research and development by replacing the devastating across-the-board cuts with a balanced and responsible approach which preserves $10 billion in R&D funding every year and for the future.

We continue support for medical research, one of the areas where we are the leader. We strengthen the National Institutes of Health. We have increased investments in renewable energy technology. There are so many opportunities for us. I am very proud today Michigan is No. 1 in new clean energy patents, and new ideas are coming. It is part of the economic engine which is bringing jobs back to Michigan.

Investing in our 21st century manufacturing sector is also here. Senator Baldwin put forward a proposal on manufacturing hubs which I strongly support. Other colleagues, Senator Coons and others, have supported the manufacturing extension partnership to help small manufacturers as well.

We are also investing in exports and opening markets abroad. We know when American companies are able to increase their exports by $1 billion, they create 5,000 new jobs.

In infrastructure, we need roads and bridges. The chair of our committee is a strong advocate for ports as well in the global economy, being able to export and import. That investment in rebuilding America is in this budget. The American Society of Civil Engineers just released their report card, and they gave America a D-plus. We are not going to outcompete the world with a D-plus on infrastructure.

This budget makes historic investments in our workforce. We know from hearing from CEOs that workforce development education is absolutely key to our future.

Before asking my colleague from Rhode Island to join in this discussion as well on jobs--I speak as the chair of the Agriculture Committee--I thank the chair for including in our efforts creating a 5- year farm bill, which not only participates in deficit reduction of $23 billion but is twice what we would be required to do under sequestration.

The farm bill is a jobs bill. I don't know of any other bill that has an impact on 16 million jobs in this country. The farm bill does. It supports agriculture and rural America. The farm bill is a part of this effort.

My colleague from Rhode Island is deeply involved in efforts to create jobs, balance the budget, and reduce the deficit. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to join in a colloquy with Senator Reed at this point. He has been a champion in job creation, and I am very grateful he came tonight to join us.

I wonder if my colleague would allow me to ask a question.

Did I hear correctly that the Republican budget would give an average of $400,000 in additional tax cuts?

I thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. When I think of him, I think of his advocacy for our men and women who make up our troops--and I know our budget chair as well-- and his strong leadership on veterans issues.

I think about $400,000 being an average tax cut for a multimillionaire under this budget versus what will happen to our veterans or folks coming home from the war and now trying to get a job, trying to do what they need to do to get back into the community and society and so on, and I wonder--the Senator has been such a leader on this and, of course, has experience with his own distinguished career in the military--if he might speak about those issues, his own experience with people coming home. Are they getting the $400,000 tax cut?

Might I ask through the Chair if we could have a few more moments.

I would simply, first of all, again thank our chair, who understands and gets this, not only about how to grow the economy and the middle class and in a commonsense way to balance the budget, but she has been such a leader on veterans issues and reminds us every day about those coming home and what they need, as does Senator Reed as well, with his own service as well as his efforts with regard to our veterans.

I would be happy to defer to Senator Reed, if he has additional comments. I didn't mean to interrupt him before. If he has additional comments to make, I would certainly allow for that, and then I would be happy to wrap up at some point.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island again for his comments, his leadership, his advocacy for our military men and women and our veterans, and for the economy, for people who need help. As he said, there are a lot of people on the edge right now trying to just hold on, to stay in the middle class, or trying to get in the middle class, and our budget is for them. It is about growing the economy from the middle out.

What makes us different from other countries around the world is that we don't have just a few very rich people and a lot of poor people. We have had a robust middle class. People in Michigan feel that eroding every day, so we need to be laser-focused on making sure we keep that strong middle class that not only grows the economy but creates opportunity for young people to grow up and go to college, to dream big dreams and know that in America they can succeed and be whatever they want to be, that they have a shot. That is the American dream, and that is what we are fighting for.

Our budget, bottom line, strengthens the middle class. It creates opportunities for people to work hard no matter where they live, what their background is, so they have a shot at making it. We believe that to our core.

The Republican budget is represented by the House budget, and the proposals here on the floor on the Republican side are geared to the wealthy and the well-connected, the special interests of this country, to keep their special deals going. Let's try trickle-down economics one more time. It didn't work from 2001 to 2008. We lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. But, hey, why not try it again? Well, we say no, let's use something that has worked.

So let me in conclusion say again that the Republican tax cuts represented by the Ryan budget--55 percent of the benefit goes to the top 1 percent. As my friend the Senator from Rhode Island indicated, those at the very, very top are getting $400,000 in a tax cut, and $400,000 is more than the vast majority of Americans and certainly the vast majority of people in Michigan make in a year. Can we afford to do that? Is that the right priority?

I find it so interesting that we had a colleague speaking passionately for the past couple of days now about his concern about closing airports in rural areas. I have those concerns about closing rural airports. Well, our budget doesn't do that. Our budget invests in infrastructure and keeps those open, as opposed to the across-the-board cuts that have been objected to by the Senators trying to make changes in the budget this year and the Ryan Republican budget in the House.

We believe strongly that we should build a budget in the future on what has worked in America, and what has worked is strengthening America with investments so we can out-educate, out-innovate and out- build to win in a global economy. That is what this is about.

Our businesses tell us they are concerned about getting the right workers for the right jobs. It is a major issue right now. That is something we have a responsibility to be a part of.

The Democratic budget invests in education, invests in innovation, and invests in building for the future. I worry every day about this kind of a chart that shows that the United States of America--not a third world country--is investing less in research and development than competitors around the world. It makes no sense. The innovations are here. The smart scientists are here. The cutting-edge technology is here. And we need to keep it here. Our budget places a huge value on it.

Then, finally, it is all about jobs and making sure when we figure out and when we look at how to balance a budget, that we understand we will never balance a budget with more than 12 million people out of work. We have to focus on jobs and growing the economy. We have to.

Thirty percent of our deficit right now as we look at this going forward is in the slow economic recovery. We know it was bad prior to 2009 when President Obama was elected. It has gotten better, but it is not where it needs to be. And it won't be where it needs to be unless we invest in innovation, in education, and rebuilding America's infrastructure. That is what we do. This budget makes sense. This budget is for middle-class families all across America.

I urge my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, I rise today in celebration of my staff member, Melissa Dore, who is retiring after working with me throughout most of my years in the U.S. Senate.

Melissa started as a staff member in my East Lansing office and immediately impressed us with her ability to connect with people when they called. Hers was often the first voice constituents heard when contacting me and her natural ability to be compassionate and empathetic made their first impression a good one.

Melissa's compassion and tenacity made her a natural choice to work with those who contacted me for help with their Social Security or Medicare benefits. Time and time again, I have seen her go to bat for people and get answers about their cases and resolve very tough problems. Melissa is someone who cares deeply and her commitment shows in the results she gets for people. There probably isn't a week that goes by where we do not receive a thank you note or I don't get stopped by someone who tells me about the difference her advocacy has made.

My staff and I will miss her presence in the office and her passion for helping others. I also know that the many families in Michigan whose lives she touched as well as those she worked with in agencies and in my office will miss her.

After leaving the Senate, Melissa looks forward to spending more time with her family and dogs, traveling and going to her cottage in Northern Michigan. She is very creative and I know her passion for quilting will result in many beautiful creations.

I am sad because I am losing a valued member of my staff, but I am happy to see her move on to new life experiences, and I wish her the best of everything.

Madam President, as I rise to talk about the budget that was released in the House of Representatives, I want to first commend our chair Senator Mikulski and ranking member Senator Shelby for working together. I could not agree more with what Senator Shelby said about getting back to regular order and getting back together. This is an example of what we need to do. I want to commend both Senators.

We obviously have very different points of view. People can come together and listen to each other and be willing to compromise, which is not a bad thing. I don't know any part of life where we don't compromise. I have been trying to figure that one out. When you have children, wouldn't it be nice not to have to compromise? Somehow we always have to. I want to commend both of our leaders on the Appropriations Committee.

I am very hopeful we can return to regular order and hash out our very different perspectives and very different views of the country. I think we have seen that today with Chairman Ryan with the Republican budget. We will see a different view tomorrow with Chairman Murray coming through with a budget as we work through the budget in committee this week and then on the floor. This way reasonable people can sit down and listen to each other and find a path forward.

Most importantly, I think if we listen to the American people we represent--their values and their priorities--we can move forward. I do feel strongly that what has been released today in the House is the wrong set of values; it is the wrong approach. Actually, I am surprised we are seeing the same kind of budget we have seen for the last couple of years come out of the House--particularly one where the public spoke so strongly against the foundations of what is in that budget. It has been called a balanced budget. It is anything but balanced.

Overall, it is my understanding that there is an identification of some $5 trillion that will be cut in spending, but nobody says where. Then they say: Oh, the budget is balanced. Well, as our leaders on appropriations know, we actually have to get in and say where it is going to be cut so we can balance the budget, which this does not do. It does not balance the budget, and it is certainly unbalanced when it comes to the values represented in the budget.

I have to start with the one issue that is so concerning to me, and that is the whole question of Medicare. Once again we are seeing in the Republican budget of the House the effort to eliminate Medicare. It basically eliminates Medicare as an insurance plan. It basically says: You go out and find private insurance. They changed the names to different things. They tried to make it sound better, but it all comes down to the fact that people will be given a voucher. Good luck trying to find private insurance.

It was the private insurance sector and the lack of affordable insurance for seniors which created Medicare in 1965. As we get older, we lose more health care because we are more expensive to cover. Before Medicare, it was very difficult to find affordable insurance. In fact, it was impossible for many people. As Americans we came together and said: If you are 65 or older or if you are disabled in this country, you have the right to have insurance and health care available and affordable to you. We created a health insurance system called Medicare. By the way, Medicare costs dramatically less to administer than any private sector plan. We are talking 3 percent or 4 percent to administer Medicare as opposed to 15 percent, 20 percent, 25 percent going to administrative costs and profits and so on. So it is very efficient.

There are issues we need to address, and we have been doing that. In fact, we have put in place cost savings over the next 10 years by eliminating overpayment to insurance companies that do what is called Medicare Advantage. It is interesting that while Chairman Ryan and the House Republicans say

they are going to do away with Medicare, they put the $700 billion we saved by stopping overpayments to insurance companies--as well as doing other things for prevention and cost savings--in their budget. After criticizing it, they want the savings, but they turn around and want to eliminate Medicare. It is a very interesting combination of things here that is a hocus-pocus kind of approach with smoke-and-mirrors as far as how they are coming up with their budget.

The bottom line is very clear: It guts Medicare. It guts Medicare, but not in order to fund or strengthen Medicare services or health care services in some way. The astounding thing is they continue to put forward a budget that guts Medicare in order to continue tax giveaways for the very wealthy and well-connected people in this country. It makes no sense. It makes no sense, and our budget will be very different than this one.

Medicare has been a great American success story. Medicare and Social Security have lifted a generation of Americans out of poverty. It has given them the ability to live longer and healthier lives. It has allowed my mom, who is on her way to 87, to play with her now great- grandchildren. By the way, my three grandchildren are the most beautiful children in the world. My mom is able to play with them and be healthy and active because of something called Medicare which was put in place to give her the opportunity to pay into a system so she could have health care and be able to live a longer life. That is a great American success story.

We know we are living longer. The greatness of Medicare is that people are healthier and living longer, and so we know we have to do some refiguring here and have some savings. We are already doing that. Over the next 10 years we are putting in place $700 billion in savings by focusing more on prevention. We are focused more on wellness visits and helping people on the front end before they get very sick, as well as cutting overpayments.

We are now hearing that Medicare is going to have a $500 billion savings as well, and that insurance rates and growth have actually slowed. We are seeing the actuaries reconfigure the savings. CBO, the budget office, reconfigured the cost of Medicare and Medicaid to create more savings because of things we have begun to do. Thanks to health care reform we are able to focus more on prevention and people being able to see a doctor. We are able to do all those things that save money without cutting health care for people.

We are very committed to making sure we have savings in Medicare and that we strengthen Medicare for the future. Whatever decisions we need to make, we need to do that for Social Security and other areas as well. The difference we have is, we think it should exist. We think it should exist as a health insurance plan. I cannot imagine any way in which our Senate majority would ever vote for what is in the budget that was released by the Republican caucus today. So we are looking at very different priorities.

In the area of Medicaid, we are also looking at very different priorities. The majority of Medicaid, in terms of the number of people, are children; the majority of money under Medicaid is actually spent on seniors--on nursing homes, people who are in extended care facilities, and so on. Again, when we think about the budget being released in the House of Representatives by Chairman Ryan and the Republicans, they go right to Medicare, eliminate Medicare as an insurance plan, and then they block grant and cut Medicaid, which goes to the poorest seniors in nursing homes, so they get a double whammy in the budget that has been released by Chairman Ryan and the House of Representatives.

We also know they are slashing investments for middle-class families as well as the vulnerable, as well as public safety, police, and fire. I just left my mayors from Michigan coming in and talking about what has happened to them on the frontlines. We have trickle-down cuts, and they end up with it all in their laps, having to figure out how to provide local services. When we talk about the fact that there would be dramatic disinvestments or cuts in public safety, police, fire, and so on, they are appalled and desperately worried about how they are going to make sure they can respond to the people who live in their communities.

In education, cuts, of course, to Head Start, financial help for people to be able to go to college, all of which are good things.

Roads and bridges.

Another piece that is very concerning to me is our nutrition programs which have been put in place for families who have challenges. People have lost their jobs and they need some help with putting food on the table for their families. We are seeing that program, the SNAP program--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--gutted with $160 billion--$160 billion in cuts that would leave millions of children, millions of families without help. Interestingly, the spending on the nutrition programs, on SNAP, is actually going down. Why? Because it is there when people need it, when they have a crisis, and then the spending is not used when families go back to work. So we are seeing over $11 billion in decreases in spending because the economy is improving and people are going back to work. That is the way we want to bring spending down.

Interestingly, within my purview as chair of the Agriculture Committee, I am also deeply concerned about the cuts in the Republican budget in the House to crop insurance. Within our farm bill, we have two disaster assistance programs. One is for families, which is nutrition assistance. It goes up and down with the economy. The other is crop insurance for farmers and ranchers, which goes up and down with the economy.

We have had huge droughts and late freezes on our orchards and others where folks have been decimated, but because of crop insurance this year, rather than doing ad hoc disaster assistance all over the country, we have crop insurance. People buy crop insurance are covered if they need it, and we have been able to see farmers sustain themselves because crop insurance has worked. So crop insurance costs again go up and down based on whether there are disasters. Supplemental nutrition goes up or down whether or not there is a family disaster. Both of those are hit in this budget and make absolutely no sense.

I can assure my colleagues that in the farm bill we will present again to colleagues as we did last year--and we are so grateful for the bipartisan support we had--we will strongly support efforts around crop insurance as well as nutrition.

Finally, let me just say that very different values are presented in the budget presented by Chairman Ryan and the Republicans in the House by going after the middle class, actually raising middle-class taxes in order to fund more tax breaks for the wealthy and the special interests in the country; gutting Medicare and using that money for additional tax cuts for the very wealthy; gutting our investments in science, innovation, and education to grow the economy in order to pay for more tax cuts for the wealthy.

This story seems to go on and on and on. It always comes back to the same place: The wealthy, the well connected, the special interests do very well. Middle-class families get hit, seniors get hit, the vulnerable get hit, children are hit and are asked to pay the tab for trying to bring down a deficit that, frankly, they didn't create. So that is the story in the House.

Our chairwoman of the Budget Committee, Senator Murray, will present a very different story tomorrow, one that is focused on growth in the economy, supporting the middle class, protecting Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security for the future, and making investments that grow the economy.

One of the things I know after working on the issue of jobs for a long time is that we will never get out of debt with 12 million people out of work in this country, so we better be focused on jobs and supporting the private sector to create jobs--large businesses, manufacturers, small businesses, partnering on innovation, education, and so on. That has to be part of our long-term strategy to get out of debt as well as making smart cuts and other kinds of smart investments.

Again, I come to the floor to commend colleagues who are on the floor showing the right way to do things--to work together, to listen to each other, to work across the aisle on a bipartisan

basis to get things done. We have a very different picture going on in the budget committees. We have a long way to go when we start with eliminating Medicare as we know it, but the House Republicans are saying, no, we want to strengthen Medicare for the future and keep it intact for seniors. All the other issues we are in a very different place. But I think it is very important that we make a commitment to listen to each other and do our best to find a path forward. We need to find a path. People are counting on us to get things done. They are counting on us to both grow the economy and create jobs and have a strong middle class and they are counting on us to reduce the deficit, all of which we can do if we are willing to work together and listen to each other and find a path forward.

I thank my colleagues for giving me the time. I wish to congratulate them again on the work they are doing. I ask that we work together as we go forward in completing the task on growing the economy and reducing the deficit.

Thank you very much.

Mr. President, this year marks 65 years since the State of Israel was born, and I wish to speak today about the importance of that occasion and the celebration that will take place in communities all across the world.

Our country has a deep friendship with Israel, dating back to just 11 minutes after its creation on May 14, 1948, when President Harry Truman became one of the first world leaders to recognize Israel's independence.

Our two nations have always been friends and allies in our struggle to make the world a safer place. I am proud of our long friendship and our shared values.

When Israel was founded, the Jewish people finally had a home. The new State provided not only a refuge to Jews who survived the unprecedented horrors of the Holocaust, but also a place to begin anew. Even in such a tough and unforgiving climate, the Jewish people knew they could build a country that could help change the world.

The Walk the Land 65 project is the perfect way to celebrate Israel's anniversary. The theme of this year's walk is to celebrate life, and people all across the world will join together and walk through their communities by honoring Israel's gifts to the world, especially those regarding life: creating life, sustaining life, saving life, preserving life, enhancing life, protecting life, improving life, cherishing life, nurturing life and beautifying life.

As a collaboration between the Afikim Foundation, the World Zionist Organization and the Israel Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, Walk the Land 65 is showing the world just how important Israel's contributions to the world really are.

I am pleased to see walks taking place across my home State of Michigan: in Flint, Grand Rapids and Metro Detroit.

Every religious, cultural and ethnic group across the State is an important thread in Michigan's rich cultural fabric. We in Michigan are proud of our Jewish communities and their contributions to our State.

One important attribute that the people of Israel share with the people of the United States is our system of values. Both countries are lands of freedom and democracy. While these two countries were formed at very different times, they both uphold and honor critical freedoms-- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and government by the consent of the governed.

This foundation has led to a country that truly celebrates life and works to improve life across the world. Israel began in a desert, but today, it is a fountain of culture, innovation and industry.

This didn't happen overnight, though. David Ben-Gurion and the founders of Israel had a great vision for their country. They built Israel from scratch, turning the arid land into fertile farms and thriving cities.

Israel is a leader in innovation for creating, sustaining, preserving and saving lives through its work in agriculture and health care. It is also enhancing life through its innovation in technology, alternative energy and so many other fields.

Today, Israel is among the top three countries in the world in terms of patents per capita, and number one in terms of startup businesses per capita. Israel is also a leader in clean energy research and development, and is helping to create the power the world needs.

The Israeli people are leaders in celebrating life, as evidenced by their humanitarian works and their pioneering medical advances that will save and improve people's lives, and they are making a real difference throughout the world.

Israel continues to serve as a shining model of democratic values, and an important presence in the region; it shows the world that democracy can survive--and--thrive anywhere people wish to be free.

I am proud of our friendship, and I am proud to help celebrate Israel's 65th Anniversary with the Walk the Land 65 Project.

Congratulations to the people Israel and everyone involved in this wonderful project.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Michigan. This is the day he has cast his 12,000th vote. What is most significant is not the quantity of his votes, but the quality of his votes. Each one of those has had Michigan's face on it when he cast those votes.

As our majority leader indicated, Senator Levin has been a champion for the automotive industry, manufacturing, his beloved Detroit, our beautiful and wonderful Great Lakes, the Department of Defense and, more particularly, the men and women who serve us every day.

I rise on behalf of everyone in Michigan to say how proud we are of Senator Levin. We have great confidence in his judgment, integrity, and hard work. In my book, there is nobody better.

Of course, I am very thrilled with the wonderful family he and Barbara have. He is ahead of me on grandchildren, but I am working on it. He is not only someone with the right ethics, integrity, and love for his family, nobody fights harder and does the right thing for Michigan more than Carl Levin.

I join in congratulating him. Once again I want to say it is not about the number of votes but the quality of votes. Every one of those 12,000 votes has had Michigan's name on it.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I am so pleased to be joining colleagues in celebrating the anniversary of the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and to move on to what we need to do on full paycheck fairness with the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

I wish to start by thanking our leader, the dean of the women in the Senate and the House, the longest serving woman, who is Senator Barbara Mikulski. She has led us through the Lilly Ledbetter legislation and is now leading us as we move forward to the next step in making sure women receive equal pay for equal work. Her extraordinary leadership is something that has touched every woman, every man, and every family in America. I wish to thank her for her leadership, as well as the efforts of all my colleagues.

It has been nearly 50 years since President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law--a law that made it illegal for an employer to pay women less than men for the same work. With the stroke of a pen, he ushered in a new era of opportunities for women and the American economy as a whole. In those 50 years, many millions of American women entered the workforce and we have truly changed the nature of employment in our country, including in the Senate, where we now have a woman sitting as the distinguished Acting President pro tempore, and we have 20 women who are a part of leading the country through the Senate, with 7 of us now chairing committees.

I remember coming to the Senate in 2000, when it was the first time we had enough women to even sit on every committee in the Senate. Imagine that. It was the first time our experiences, our voices, our backgrounds, our values, and our priorities were represented on every committee. So we have come a long way since that time 50 years ago, but there is more to do.

In 1963, women were often very limited in the jobs we could participate in. There were outrageous working conditions and limitations that made absolutely no sense. Today, nearly 40 percent of full-time managers in our country are women. I am proud to look around my great State and see two of the great universities in our country-- the University of Michigan and Michigan State University--both led by women presidents. We are seeing women moving up in every area. We have made great strides, but we also know pay for women continues to be unequal, even though we have seen strides being made. That is why the Paycheck Fairness Act is absolutely critical.

This bill gives women tools to negotiate better pay and it stops employers from using workplace gag rules to prevent women from discovering their pay is actually less than the pay of the men working beside them. It strengthens the remedies women can use when they are discriminated against and ensures that discrimination based on sex is treated the same as any other kind of discrimination in the workplace.

Four years ago this week, we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that overturned the Supreme Court's decision limiting the ability of women to get justice when they were discriminated against. At that time, Lilly Ledbetter did not know for a couple decades that she, in fact, was being paid less than the men she not only worked with but supervised. When she went to the Supreme Court, they said: You can't come before the Court. You have no standing because you should have done that 20 years ago. But 20 years earlier, she didn't know.

We have fixed that loophole in the law, but now we need to go on and completely revamp and be focused on putting in place all the tools available to women to keep the promise of the law that was passed 50 years ago, which is equal pay for equal work.

In my State of Michigan, women are paid only 74 cents on every dollar that a man makes. Even though we have made strides, we are still at 74 cents of what a man makes. And women are either participating as the sole breadwinner in their families now or part of a two-parent family trying to hold things together and make ends meet.

It is not fair to the family that one of those who are working is only getting 74 cents on a dollar of what males in the workplace are getting. Over a lifetime, in Michigan that 26-cent difference equals over $\1/2\ million that women are losing because we don't really yet have equal pay for equal work in every part of our economy.

When we look at this, it becomes very much about whether women are going to be able to pay their mortgage, their rent. When you walk into the store, the grocer doesn't say: You only have to pay 74 percent of the cost of this because you get paid less. The last time I looked, we pay the same for gas, food, rent, or the mortgage, and yet too many women find themselves disadvantaged because they are not being paid equally for their work. That is just not right. Everybody knows it is not right.

The Lilly Ledbetter Act took an important step 4 years ago in overturning a situation that the courts I believe inaccurately, unfairly decided as relates to women. But the Paycheck Fairness Act gives women the tools they need legally to be able to remedy unequal pay situations and have the confidence that we are going to truly enforce equal pay for equal work in this country.

Fifty years ago, Congress and the President came together and agreed that women should get equal pay for equal work. Right now, we need to reaffirm that. We need to make it real for all women in every part of our country who are working hard to make ends meet, to take care of their families, and to be able to move forward and realize their dreams. Passing the Paycheck Fairness Act is going to bring us closer to that reality.

I again thank the senior Senator from Maryland for her incredible leadership in bringing us to this point with the Lilly Ledbetter Act and now taking the next step, which is to realize the dream of 50 years and longer in America, which is to fully benefit from the ideas, the strengths, and the talents of every individual and to make sure they are equally paid for what they are worth.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 9 p.m., with all other provisions remaining in effect.

Madam President, I am here tonight to talk about agriculture and the 16 million people all across our country who have jobs because of agriculture. What I am very concerned about is the way in which an extension is being talked about as part of the larger package this evening that goes against my wishes, the wishes of our committee, the chairman in the House--Chairman Lucas and I--our four leaders, working together on an extension that works and extends all the programs for agriculture through the end of the fiscal year, giving us time to pass a farm bill. Again, I am very concerned about what I am hearing this evening.

Let me first go back and say how appreciative I am and proud of all of us in the Senate for having passed a farm bill last June. We all know what it did--more reforms than we have seen in decades, $24 billion in deficit reduction. I understand the proposal now--the negotiations going on are attempting to find ways to pay for some provisions in the large package. We sit here with $24 billion in deficit reduction in a farm bill that has reforms in it that support our farmers and ranchers across the country but reforms through consolidation, efficiencies, and cutting subsidies that we have agreed should not be paid, that the country cannot afford to pay to farmers who do not need them. We worked very hard on that. We passed that in June by a large bipartisan vote. We worked together in committee in a bipartisan way.

It is deeply concerning to me that instead of working in a bipartisan way, as we have done throughout this process--even though the House never took up the bill that was passed out of their committee in a bipartisan way, we here have worked in a bipartisan way until now, until this moment, at the eleventh hour, as we are dealing with very important issues--whether we are going to make sure middle-class families do not see tax increases starting tomorrow. And no one has fought harder to make sure the middle-class families of Michigan and across the country get those tax cuts than I have, and we know we need to get things done, but we also need to make sure that in the end we are not putting agriculture farmers and ranchers at a disadvantage in the process.

So we on a bipartisan basis--in the House, in the Senate--worked together, knowing, when it became very clear that the House leadership, the Speaker, had no intention of taking up the farm bill in the House despite the fact that farmers need the certainty of a 5-year farm bill and disaster assistance--when that became clear, we turned to the

next responsible approach, which was to work together on how we could keep in place farm programs, making sure we address what is now being called the dairy cliff in terms of milk prices that over time would go up--not immediately but over time--if nothing is done; disaster assistance; and keep in place the provisions of the farm bill that we passed that we agreed were important for rural communities, for energy security for our country, for jobs, for farmers and ranchers.

Now I understand that the Republican leader has insisted in his negotiations that only part of the farm bill be extended for the next 9 months--not all of it, not all of the pieces that affect rural America and farmers and ranchers, but only part of it. They call that a clean extension because of the way the funding and baseline work. I call that--well, I will not say what I would call it, frankly, except to say that this is bad news for American agriculture and certainly for the people whom I represent in Michigan.

Now, why do I say that? Well, first of all, in our extension, we make sure we keep our commitment on disaster assistance. We passed an important disaster assistance bill a few days ago here in the Senate. I supported that, but agriculture was not in it. The majority of the counties in this country suffering from severe drought, cherry growers in my State being wiped out, other fruit growers having problems-- nothing for agriculture. Well, we in our extension make sure for this year and next that livestock and fruit growers have the disaster assistance we passed in the farm bill, and we pay for that.

We also make sure we continue to have an energy title in the farm bill. Now, when we look at getting off of foreign oil and creating real competition, advanced biofuels are doing that. We are now creating jobs across Michigan and America in something called biobased manufacturing, using agricultural products to offset petroleum and other chemicals and products, and we are creating jobs. We are doing that in part through support from the energy title of the farm bill.

The Republican leader's way of extending the farm bill would have zero--there would be no energy title, zero. That is absolutely unacceptable. We also would not see the full conservation title extended, key areas involving protecting land and open spaces that I know Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever and others who hunt and fish care deeply about in terms of protecting our open spaces.

Other areas that protect our land and our water would not be extended under this partial farm bill extension. We would not see critical research for organic or specialty crops that are so important that create almost half the cash receipts in agriculture in the country. We would not see that support continue.

There are multiple things that would not continue, not because we have gone through a process to eliminate them--in fact, 64 Senators in this body voted to continue them, and in some cases to increase funding in those areas while cutting back on the subsidies that we should not be spending money on. But here is what happened under this extension.

The subsidies we agreed to end continue. It is amazing, you know, how it happens that the folks who want the government subsidies find a way to try to keep them at all costs. Not in the light of day. They could not sustain a debate in the committee or a debate on the floor where we voted to eliminate direct payments. But somehow they are able to come back around at the end and keep that government money, even when prices are high, even when no one could look straight in the face of any taxpayer and say they ought to be getting that subsidy.

Yet under the Republican leader's partial extension of the farm bill, those subsidies we voted to eliminate would be fully continued. Now, in our version, agreed to by Chairman Lucas and me, put on the calendar by Speaker Boehner, on the suspension calendar in the House by the Rules Committee in the House, agreed to on the calendar in the House, we would shave a portion of those subsidies to make sure we continued to fund all of the farm bill for the next 9 months until we can once again come together and write a farm bill.

But I have to say, as someone who has been operating in good faith in the committee and on the floor, to find this situation occurring that is not agreed to on a bipartisan basis, not put forward on a bipartisan basis, I find to be absolutely outrageous. It makes you wonder what is going on here. If in the end, the things we agreed to, the things we worked hard to develop into a farm bill that saves $24 billion, at a time when we are--right now people are sitting in rooms trying to decide how to get deficit reduction. We passed something that saves $24 billion in a fiscally responsible way, cutting programs. We cut 100 different programs and authorizations. We went through every single page of the farm bill, which is what we ought to be doing in every part of government to be responsible, to make the tough choices, to set good priorities. We did that.

Now, at the last minute, none of that matters? They are trying to stick in an extension that only extends part of the farm program and keeps 100 percent of the direct subsidies going. That is amazing to me, I have to say. That is absolutely amazing to me. I want to hear someone justify that on the Senate floor.

We are going to hear all kinds of things. Well, the extension involves possibly a budget point of order. This whole bill coming to the floor is going to have multiple points of order that we are going to have to waive. This is not about procedure or budget points of order, it is about whether we mean it when we say we want to reform agriculture subsidies; whether we mean it when we say we care about rural America and farmers and ranchers who want to know that they can have the certainty of a 5-year farm bill and not just limp along.

I can see it coming, limping along, limping along, extension after extension, just like we seem to see happening everywhere here. I thought agriculture was the one area where we were not going to do that. I was so proud when we came together on a bipartisan basis and worked together. Regular order. The leaders, both sides, this is the right way to do things. It was regular order, 73 amendments. We went through it.

I would be happy to.

Yes, I would say to my friend and strong advocate on these issues, it is not. Those disaster provisions are not in the extension he has arbitrarily on his own put forward.

If I might respond, yes, that is exactly what is happening. Without consultation with me or with the chairman in the House, we now have a partial extension of the farm bill. These are complex issues that involve a lot of pieces when you try to extend all 12 titles of the farm bill. They not only do not extend all of the titles, but they do not include critical disaster assistance, which, as the Senator knows, our farmers and ranchers have been waiting for across America.

I would say to my friend and colleague from Oregon, there is no way to explain this. None. There is absolutely no way to explain this other than agriculture is just not a priority. I mean, despite our best efforts and our working together to get something done, it certainly has not been a priority in the House with the Republican leadership. It has been on the committee. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with my counterpart in the House. We have worked together on a bipartisan basis. But we could not even get a bill taken up in the House.

I do appreciate the fact that when they did not act in the House, that they have agreed to do the extension that we put together. At least that is what they were willing to do. I honestly never thought the problem would be here in the Senate because we had passed a farm bill. We passed a farm bill. We passed a farm bill with disaster assistance, with $24 billion in deficit reduction, in a strong bipartisan way, with supportive words in terms of the process from the leaders.

I am so shocked to see that the problem now is here in the Senate with the Republican leader. There is just no excuse for this.

In this extension that he has proposed, the subsidies, called direct payments, that we have all agreed should not be given during high prices and good times to farmers, extend with absolutely no reductions. They are fully extended for the next 9 months, and who knows how much longer. I am sure the folks who want to have them are going to try to just keep blocking farm bills and doing extensions as long as they can in order to get the money--$5 billion a year--$5 billion a year that we have agreed in taxpayer money should not be spent.

Now, I also want to say, it is not that we do not need to support agriculture. I know my friend agrees with that. Whether it is disaster assistance, whether it is crop insurance, we need to give them risk management tools, conservation tools. We need to make sure we have strong crop insurance. We need to make sure that there is disaster assistance there. But in good times you should not be able to get a government check when prices are high, which is what some in agriculture have been doing and getting and it is wrong, and it is fully continued in what the Republican leader has proposed.

If I can say to my colleague, I certainly cannot indicate what the intent is of another colleague. But I will tell you that my mom always said: Actions speak louder than words. So I can tell you that the actions here, the actions that have been occurring, go in the opposite direction, both of supporting farmers and ranchers in a comprehensive way by fully extending the farm bill for the next 9 months and by allowing the complete, 100 percent extension of subsidies that we voted to eliminate.

I can tell you, that does not make any sense to me. It certainly goes against what I have heard over and over on the floor, and I also find it just amazing to me that when we--by passing the farm bill, if the farm bill were included in this agreement, we would have $24 billion more in deficit reduction to be able to report to the American people.

They are saying no. I do not understand that.

Yes. In fact, the organic provisions are not funded, are not extended. So, again, when we look at the future of agricultural choices for consumers, this is not extended.

I would just say to my friend from Oregon that it makes no sense. This is certainly not about fairness. It is not about an open process. I mean, when the Senator mentioned earlier that we had worked in a very open and transparent process, we did. Throughout the committee, throughout the floor, even those who didn't support the farm bill indicated they supported the openness, the due process, the ability to provide amendments, to have them voted on up or down.

Now to take what was the consensus view of what things should look like and basically throw it out the window at the last minute makes me wonder what the motivation is here. What is really going on? All I can see is that in the end, what we have is a situation where the government subsidies we eliminated are extended 100 percent, and those who behind the scenes have been trying to continue to get the government money appear to have been successful, at least with the Republican leader.

Again, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership on disaster assistance, on support for the organic agriculture community, and for others that benefit from his leadership, forestry and other areas. The Senator from Oregon has been a very, very strong leader, and I thank him for his words and for his actions in standing and fighting for the people we are supposed to be fighting for. I mean, the farmers and ranchers across the country, like every other American right now, are shaking their heads: What is going on?

I know there is a lot of work going on to come up with a larger agreement, but for those of us who care about many things but want to make sure agriculture is not lost in this, I am deeply concerned. This is the second largest industry in Michigan. It is the largest industry for many places in the country. Yet I don't see agriculture being the priority it needs to be either on disaster assistance or help for those who have been hit so hard by drought or by an early warmth and then a freeze in the orchards. Where is the willingness to stand and support farmers and ranchers across the country?

Well, I used to be able to say and I have said up to this point: Well, the support was in the Senate, where we passed a bipartisan farm bill and we worked together very closely to do that. But tonight I find that rather than proceeding in a bipartisan way, which has been what we have done, rather than consulting with myself as chair in the Senate and Chairman Lucas in the House, we see that a proposal which neither one of us has put forward or supported and which is adamantly opposed by many people is now being offered as the approach to extend part of the farm bill, picking and choosing arbitrarily what should be extended and not, not doing disaster assistance, and not being willing to shave off even 2.5 percent of these government subsidies in order to be able to fully fund an extension for the next 9 months--2.5 percent. Mr. President, 2.5 percent is directing us, is what we are talking about in order to be able to extend critical, important priorities for people across the country. This is for consumers, for farmers, for ranchers, for people in this Chamber. I can only assume, based on what I see, that this is the effort of the group that has been trying very hard to make sure that their subsidies continue and that they continue unabated 100 percent, and this is their opportunity.

When we are trying to do deficit reduction, which I find amazing this is in the context of a deficit reduction package--and I am still going to be looking to see where the deficit reduction is. But the deficit reduction package--it will not accept $24 billion in savings in agriculture. Now, instead, it puts in place policies that will take us in the exact opposite direction. It is very, very unfortunate.

I have been spending the day expressing grave concerns. I will continue to do that. There is absolutely no reason this can't be fixed before the proposal comes to this body. It absolutely can be fixed. People of good will in agriculture have worked together every step of the way, certainly in this Chamber. We can continue to do that if there is a desire to do it. I hope there is because there is a tremendous amount at stake.

Let me say again that 16 million people across our country pay their bills because of income they receive through agriculture or the food industry. Small farmers and large farmers want the certainty of a 5- year farm bill, and they also want to know we are working together with their interests in mind. I hope we can still see that happen.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I first wish to thank Senator Merkley, who has been tireless in bringing forward the issues of farmers and ranchers in Oregon. And to my colleagues who are here on the floor from New York and New Jersey, I had the opportunity to be in New Jersey with Senator Menendez and to see firsthand, also with Senator Landrieu and Senator Tester. It is very, very clear that this is a horrific situation and deserves our attention and support.

What we are doing with this amendment, as modified--and I want to thank Senator Blunt for working with us and cosponsoring the amendment--is to basically take what we have done and already passed in the farm bill and putting it into this very important disaster assistance bill.

In the spring, we experienced late freezes that wiped out many fruit crops in a number of States, including Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania. In my home State, we had a 98-percent loss of cherry crops, and they don't have access to any crop insurance. We are talking about those who don't have that option to be able to help mitigate their losses.

In the summer, we saw the worst drought since 1956. It left crops withering in the field. All across our country, over 80 percent of the contiguous United States experienced drought conditions. Eleven States still have exceptional drought conditions, and there are 17 States with severe drought conditions.

I can't imagine having a disaster assistance bill come through this Senate without including help for our farmers and ranchers who have been hit so very hard this year.

I urge my colleagues to support our amendment and thank my colleague very much for allowing us to offer it.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a truly remarkable member of my staff who is leaving the Senate.

Amanda Renteria came to my office as a Legislative Assistant in 2006, and has been an integral member of my staff for the last 7 years, including serving as my legislative director and then my chief of staff for the last 4\1/2\ years.

A proud graduate of Stanford University and Harvard Business School, Amanda brought a wide range of experience with her to the Senate.

After graduating from Harvard, she worked in the private sector for a while before going back to California and working as a high school teacher and coach. She then worked for the city of San Jose before coming to Washington.

And I am so glad she did. She has been my right hand through some very challenging times.

When I asked her to become my chief of staff in 2008, she agreed and promised to stay through the 2012 election. But neither of us knew what we would face between then and now.

Amanda was with me through the Wall Street collapse and our work to reform our financial system, and her business background was an invaluable resource to me during that difficult time.

In the fall of 2008, the American auto industry nearly collapsed, and as I fought to save our automakers and the more than 1 million workers who depend on it, Amanda was right there by my side, working to make sure we kept manufacturing things in this country.

She was there as we worked with partners in the State and here in Washington to make sure the people of Michigan had a fair shot at turning things around and getting back on their feet.

During the debate on health care reform, she was a critical part of my effort to make sure we kept health care affordable, that we protected coverage for mental health care, that we closed the donut hole for seniors, and she worked with her counterparts in other offices and with industry leaders to get the best possible policies to help every family get the health insurance they need.

And in the middle of all of that, she found time to have her first son, Diego, and prove how important it was that women have access to maternity care, something I was very proud to fight for in the health care law.

And when I became Chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, she led the effort to put together an amazing team of policy experts that accomplished a legislative achievement that is rare these days--a bipartisan deficit reduction bill that passed the Senate with strong support from both parties.

And as we worked so hard all year long to pass a Farm Bill, she and her husband Pat found time to have their second son, T.J., who we were so happy to welcome this fall.

I know the people of Michigan--and this country--join me in thanking her for everything she has done during her time in public service. She may not have been born in Michigan, but after all she's done for the people back home, she's earned herself a ``Pure Michigan'' reputation of hard work and dedication.

Amanda will be missed in the Senate, but I am honored to have had her serve as my chief of staff.

Mr. President, I rise also to congratulate and thank a terrific Senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and to wish her much success in her further efforts. I know she will provide great leadership in whatever she is doing. It has been wonderful to watch over the years, seeing the pictures of Bailey and Houston and how they have grown, celebrating and going to baby showers. On top of all the other accolades today, Senator Hutchison is a devoted and wonderful mother to two beautiful children.

As everyone has said, she is the first and only woman to represent Texas in the Senate and will always have that distinction of opening doors and barriers. I know she agrees with me that once the doors open, we want to make sure more women are able to walk through that door as well.

I wish to congratulate her for all she has done. We have come together to fight for opportunities for women around the world at the Senate Women's Caucus on Burma and other efforts she has led. I am very supportive of adding her name to the spousal IRA law. I think that is a very fitting tribute, and I am hopeful we can get that done as well.

I just want to congratulate her.

I do want to have the opportunity to talk about something else, but I see my friend wanting to say a few words.

Mr. President, I also wish to speak about the importance of passing a farm bill today and thank the Senator from Texas for her support as we passed a strong bipartisan farm bill in the Senate back in June when sent it over it the House of Representatives.

We have had 80 days since the farm bill expired. That is 80 days that farm families and small businesses have been holding their breath and wanting to know what is going to happen in rural America and agriculture across the country. I have not given up, nor have other colleagues here. Certainly, my partner here in the Senate, Senator Roberts, and our partners in the House, including Chairman Lucas and

Ranking Member Peterson, all stand ready if we can get a positive signal from the House Republican leadership to get this done. There is no doubt in my mind that we can do it. For everyone listening, the issue is not differences in the commodity title, which I have every confidence we can come together on and work out; the question is, as we are seeing efforts being worked on for a larger deficit reduction package, whether the House leadership will think rural America and agriculture are important enough to include. That is the question. It is whether the savings we have achieved in deficit reduction by eliminating unwarranted taxpayer subsidies and creating other efficiencies and tackling waste, fraud, and abuse, whether that is worthy of a priority in the effort that is being worked on. We have continued to point out the fact that the 16 million people across America who work because of agriculture deserve to be a priority.

I thank our leadership and the leadership across the aisle for making it a priority of this Senate back in June. I thank my colleagues on the committee in the House for making it a priority and for passing a bipartisan bill in July. For the life of me--I am appalled continually that the Republican leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives does not consider the security and the livelihood of 16 million people who live in rural America across this country to be a priority.

We are including a final list of things that need to get done. We are not giving up. We are coming back next week, and we are going to be here, and we are ready at any moment to be able to do what we need to do.

Across this aisle, colleagues have worked in good faith in the Senate, and I am very grateful. I appreciate the support of the Presiding Officer in urging that we get this done. We have colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have come together to make tough decisions. We are willing to make some more, but we are not willing to give up on 16 million people who live in rural communities--small towns such as where I grew up in Claire, MI--who are counting on us to do the right thing and to give them the ability to plan, the ability to get help for the disasters they have seen, and the ability to know they can move forward and care for their families.

We have a disaster bill right now on the floor. As chair of the Agriculture Committee, there is no way I am going to allow a disaster amendment without being able to offer an amendment that relates to agriculture disaster which we have fully paid for in the farm bill.

So we are willing to do two tracks here if we come together, which I hope we will, on a disaster package. Certainly, people in rural America--farmers, ranchers across this country--have felt the disasters other communities have felt. So I am proud to join with Senator Merkley and Senator McCaskill and others in putting forward the portions of the farm bill that deal with disaster relief as part of this package which is now moving forward. I hope we will have an opportunity to vote and come together on that, which is so important. That does not negate the need to get a farm bill done or our desire to do that or the fact that we are laser-focused until the last moment we have available on getting it done.

Let me remind my colleagues that farming is the riskiest business in the world. There are a lot of risky things we can do. There are a lot of disasters that have happened.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to join with our colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, last week to visit some of the coastline in New Jersey and to be a part of a group that looked at the devastation there. And there is no question, it is up to our country at times such as these, when people are wiped out, their homes are wiped out, it is our responsibility to come together and to act on behalf of citizens in those States. I strongly support doing that. It is also our responsibility to acknowledge and recognize and help others around the country who have similar disasters.

As I said before, there is no business that is riskier than farming. Thank goodness we have people who are willing to stay in farming and ranching regardless of what happens with the weather. Thank goodness we have a strong crop insurance system in place, and we strengthened that even more, which is incredibly important, in this farm bill. But we have had disasters happen that need to be addressed for those who farm for us.

In the spring we experienced late freezes in Michigan and in New York and in Pennsylvania that wiped out food crops. A lot of small family farms, farms in northern Michigan, were wiped out. In my home State, late freezes and a spring frost caused them to lose practically their entire crop right off the bat. It warmed up, the buds came out, and then they had a deep freeze that killed everything. Our growers produce 75 percent of the U.S. supply of cherries. That is around 270 million pounds. The cherry producers experienced a 98-percent loss.

In our amendment in the disaster bill and in the farm bill, we give them some help because they spent the rest of the crop year this year having to pay to maintain the orchards and the trees, eating the costs and hoping the trees will bounce back next year and produce a crop. So they have all the costs of maintaining everything but no revenue coming in.

Cherry producers were also forced to fight spreading diseases such as cherry leaf spot and bacterial canker, making the trees even more costly to maintain and at risk of loss. They didn't just lose their crop this year; they had to invest a lot of money to save their orchards without having any dollars coming in. We give them some help. It doesn't cover all the losses but some help to be able to stay in business. We do that through the farm bill.

Apple producers in most areas of Michigan and in New York and in Pennsylvania had about a 40-percent production, so they lost 60 percent. Think about a business losing 60 percent of its income for a year or, in the case of cherries, 98 percent. We have things in place to support them when that happens. That is why we have disaster assistance, and that is why we have other things as well. We have something called the farm bill when things like this happen in agriculture or disaster assistance for agriculture, as we are proposing assistance for.

Also, in the summer we saw record-breaking drought, as we know. We heard story after story about families whose crops were left withering in the fields, entire corn crops devastated in Iowa, and wildfires in Colorado killing 2 people and forcing residents to evacuate over 34,000 homes. Drought and wildfires cost the State of Oklahoma more than $400 million this year alone according to a report that has just been produced by Oklahoma State University. That includes crops and livestock, property loss from wildfires, and emergency costs.

I have heard so many times from my friend, the distinguished ranking member from Kansas, about what has happened in Kansas. We had the opportunity to be there and to hear from people directly in Kansas. My staff has walked in the field and seen that there is nothing there because of the drought and what it means.

This year represented the worst drought since 1956. That is a disaster. At the height of the drought this summer, over 80 percent of the contiguous United States experienced drought conditions--80 percent. We still have 11 States with exceptional drought conditions and 17 States with severe drought conditions. Seventeen States across the country, in the Northeast, the Midwest, the South, the Great Plains, the Southwest, and on the west coast--every region except the Pacific Northwest has suffered from long-term drought.

Sixty percent of the farms in the United States experienced drought this year, and we saw severe droughts in 57 percent of farmland acres. By the end of this last October, over half of the pastures and ranges in the United States were rated poor to very poor. And 1,692 counties in the country, spread across 36 States, were declared a primary disaster area because of the drought.

By the way, there are a whole lot of issues around weather that we need to be talking about and dealing with, and we need to be doing that in the new year.

So this is what is happening for farmers and ranchers. On May 20 only 3 percent of our corn crop was rated poor or very poor, but by the end of September over 50 percent was rated poor or very

poor. Our cattle inventories were at a 60-year low as farmers and ranchers have had to sell off their breeding stock because they don't have the hay or grazing land to feed them. Low water levels in the Mississippi are affecting grain shipments, threatening to affect shipments early next year as farmers try to plant their crops. We have seen reports that grain is piling up in elevators while farmers try to figure out alternative routes of shipping their products to market.

Hurricane Isaac left hundreds of thousands of acres underwater. Hurricane Isaac caused destruction like nothing we could have imagined. As I said, I saw the damage up close from Hurricane Sandy. Weather disasters have destroyed millions of acres of farmland and affected millions of families in every State and corner of this country.

We are considering a disaster bill today. Well, the farm bill is a disaster bill because it not only has disaster assistance but it creates 5-year certainty for our growers, who deserve it. They deserve to know what is going to be happening. They deserve to know so they can go to the banker and talk about their financing for the coming crop year and be able to plan as well as get immediate help.

I support passing a disaster bill, and agriculture should be a part of this, but it is not enough. We need to do that, and we need to have a 5-year farm bill in order to create the certainty we need.

We have spent so much time focusing on how we move forward with agriculture today and create the right kind of risk management tools for the future. I am very proud of what we have been able to do.

We--the members of the Agriculture Committees--have also been, frankly, the only committee to step up voluntarily and say: We will put money on the table for deficit reduction. We did it during deficit reduction talks. We have done it in the House and the Senate as we have written the farm bills. We are willing to be a part of the solution. We are part of the solution.

One of the things I find very frustrating is that if, in fact, it doesn't get done this year, those who don't want reform, those who want government payments even in good times may very well get another year of government payments that we can't afford and taxpayers should not be paying for. So this really is about reform.

I hear colleagues talking on the other side of the aisle all the time about the things we shouldn't be doing and the things we shouldn't be paying for. Well, I would encourage them to join us in the fight to get a farm bill done to stop an area where we have all agreed we should not be providing government payments in the area of direct payments. I know there are those in the House who want to keep that going as long as possible, but it is not right in an era when we have to make tough choices for families and every other part of the budget to allow that to happen.

We passed a reform bill. We tackled fraud and abuse in nutrition. We consolidated conservation and saved money. We tackled payments that have been given out for years that don't make sense and that the government can't afford. We listened to farmers to strengthen risk management tools, predominantly crop insurance. With all the weather disasters I have described this year, if we can strengthen crop insurance, we are going to give them a better safety net going forward for whatever comes in the coming year.

So there is a lot on the line. There is a lot on the line for 16 million people who have jobs because of agriculture and the food industry. There is a lot on the line for people who go to the grocery store and eat and want to know food prices are not going to go up, that milk prices are not going to go up. There is a lot on the line for people who just want us to come together and work together. In light of everything going on, we did that kind of a farm bill. They did that in the House in committee.

All the Speaker and the leadership have to do is say: We care about rural America. We care about 16 million people who work every day, who are folks who do their jobs, and when the job has to get done, whether it is early in the morning or late at night, they do it, and they expect us to do the same thing.

There is no excuse--none--that makes any sense not to get a 5-year farm bill done, not to make sure we have the disaster assistance that is needed for farmers and ranchers, and not to get reforms that cut back on taxpayer subsidies we should not be providing, and the deficit reduction that is critically important as we come up to this fiscal cliff.

I wish to thank everyone in this body for working with us to get a bill done of which I think we should all be very proud. We are going to continue to push as we go forward, hoping that at some moment the House Republican leadership will look around at the small towns in their districts and decide they matter and that they will pass a 5-year farm bill.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I share my colleague's deep concern with the low water levels in the Great Lakes. This is, without a doubt, a disaster for the communities who rely on our harbors and waterways. The Great Lakes provide jobs for more than 800,000 Michigan residents, and low water levels in the lakes are threatening those jobs. The Great Lakes support a $7 billion fishing industry, and a $16 billion recreational boating industry. However, weather disasters this year have resulted in water levels in the Great Lakes near record lows. Normally we count on spring rains and snow melt-off to raise the level of the lakes. But this spring we saw only a 4 inch rise in Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, one-third of the normal level. And for the first time on record, there was no spring rise in levels of Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie. Due in part to the summer heat wave, at the height of which every single one of Michigan's 83 counties was declared a disaster area, 2012 was also marked by evaporation rates over 50 percent above average for the 4 largest lakes. There is no question that the shipping channels and harbors of the Great Lakes are in distress. We cannot reverse the drought, but we can support the dredging projects necessary to ensure that the 139 Federal harbors and waterways in the Great Lakes region can continue to serve our Nation's economy.

Let me just take a moment and thank Senator Merkley, Senator Baucus, Senator Wyden, and Senator McCaskill for joining, and I know others will join us as well. We are still working very hard to complete the farm bill and have the House take action. But in the meantime we have disasters that have occurred, and these provisions are lifted directly from what we have already passed in the farm bill that addressed what has happened in terms of livestock, drought, fires, and assistance for fruit tree growers. We will be speaking at a later time about this, but these are essential to be included for thousands and thousands of farmers and ranchers across the country.

I thank my colleagues for allowing us to step in.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today, as so many colleagues have done throughout the day, to pay tribute to a tremendous colleague whom we lost yesterday, a friend to all of us, someone from whom we have all learned a tremendous amount, on both sides of the aisle, about how to work together, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. He was an outstanding Senator, a cherished colleague, and a dear friend.

We all know he dedicated his life to serving our country, first as a soldier in World War II where he put his life on the line for our freedoms, for our country, and then as a Member of Congress for 53 years. Senator Inouye was Hawaii's first Congressman. Think about that, the first Congressman. Today marks the first day in the history of our country that the State of Hawaii has not been represented in Congress by Danny Inouye.

He also had a special connection to my home State of Michigan, and Senator Levin and I have both been very proud of that fact. He was a patient at a hospital in Battle Creek during World War II where he met Philip Hart and Bob Dole. Can you imagine those three great men coming together serving our country, wounded, doing rehabilitation at a hospital together in Michigan and all going on to be involved in public service as Senators?

That building is still standing. It is no longer a hospital; it is another Federal building. It is our great honor in Michigan to have that building named the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center, honoring all three of these outstanding leaders.

Senator Inouye was a great mentor for me as well as so many of us in the Senate. Coming to the Senate, he always encouraged me during the elections. He always told me to hang in there, that things would go well and it would be great. He was always a person with a smile on his face, encouraging each and every one of us. He was there encouraging me when we were fighting for our economic lives in Michigan with the automobile industry, saying it was going to be OK, that we would be able to get through it, and that things would be better on the other side. He was right, with the help of so many people here and the President.

He also has consistently said to me: I want to help your city of Detroit. I want to make sure I do everything I can to support that great city. He has been a wonderful friend and supporter on that front as well.

He also received a distinguished honor given by the Arab-American community in Michigan after he helped us establish the first National Arab American Museum. After 9/11 when there were stories of young Arab- American children and girls who were being harassed or attacked while wearing their traditional garb in school, he called up leaders in Michigan to tell them they had his support as a Japanese American, knowing what he had gone through in a very difficult time in our country's history. He showed incredible support to a great part of our Michigan community.

He is beloved by so many around Michigan, but no more than those who are in the Arab-American community who are business leaders, community leaders, who found themselves, just because of their heritage, in very difficult circumstances. He has shown great support to them and was a great role model to them. I was proud to be a part of honoring him a few years ago in Michigan with the highest award coming from that community.

He touched lives everywhere he went. He served with quiet dignity. He had a strong, firm conscience. He has set an example for each one of us. He was a true patriot and a true American hero in every sense of the word. The Senate and the American people will miss him greatly. My thoughts and prayers are with his family this evening.