Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise because middle-class families are counting on the House of Representatives to do the right thing between now and the end of the year, which is just 19 days away. The House needs to pass the middle-class tax cuts we sent them back in July.

Families need help. When we talk about the fiscal cliff, the most important one is what families are struggling with every day, and we have just 19 days until the taxes on middle-class families will go up by an average of $2,200 if the House of Representatives doesn't act. We need to make sure that 98 percent of the American public is protected from tax increases. As we know, we passed the Middle Class Tax Cut Act on July 25. So far, the House has not acted. Nineteen days. They have 19 days until the end of this year in order to act. Time is running out.

Now, we know there is a larger discussion going on that is incredibly important--how we put together a deficit reduction plan for our country, a long-term plan for fiscal solvency and for our economy. By the way, we will never get out of debt with close to 12 million people out of work, so we better be focused on jobs and the economy, as I am each and every day.

We know we need a larger plan, but when we look at the three legs of the deficit reduction stool that everybody talks about, there has been action on two of them. There needs to be action on the third as we go forward to put together the final plan. The first step was an agreement we made last year to cut spending by about $1 trillion. So that was the first piece, the spending cut reduction. Secondly, we needed to find savings in Medicare, which has lengthened the Medicare trust fund by 8 years. We know there is more that can be done as we look at savings going forward. We passed over $700 billion in savings by protecting and strengthening benefits for seniors by cutting overpayments to insurance companies and making other reforms to strengthen the system and create more efficiencies.

We have seen step 1 on spending reductions of $1 trillion. We have seen step 1 on ``entitlements,'' as we speak of it, which is Medicare savings coming the right way, not by cutting benefits or raising the Medicare age, which I strongly oppose but, instead, by creating savings by cutting overpayments to insurance companies and other efficiencies. But what happens on the third leg of the stool, which is the requirement that the wealthiest among us come to the table and be part of the solution on revenue? That is the third leg of the stool. We continue to see no willingness to take action there.

We find ourselves in a situation where in 19 days the average American will see their taxes go up by, on average, $2,200 because the House of Representatives has been holding middle-class families hostage to their own politics. What are we talking about when we talk about $2,200? I asked folks around Michigan: What does that mean to you? One constituent said that is 4 months' groceries. Four months of feeding her family is what we are talking about if the House of Representatives does not act.

Mr. President, $2,200 would buy 650 gallons of gas. For the average commuter going back and forth to work every day, that gets them back and forth to work for 3 years on the tax increase that middle-class families are facing if the House does not act.

Mr. President, $2,200 will buy families in Michigan 550 gallons of milk for their families. We are talking about a lot of money that is at stake for families.

In many cases that number is higher than $2,200, and House Republicans are holding families across this country hostage at Christmastime over a fight about whether millionaires and billionaires in this country should pay a little bit more to solve our long-term deficit problem.

It is unbelievable to me that we continue to see this kind of inaction coming from the House of Representatives. We all know this can be done in just a few moments. We can send a very strong message to 98 percent of American families, 97 percent of small businesses, that they can go into the Christmas season knowing they are going to continue to get tax cuts in the new year.

I can assure you, in times when families are struggling now, when they want to provide a good Christmas for their families, we are seeing things like layaway--layaway is back because families are having to use a longer time to pay for toys and clothes and other things for their children for Christmas. Mr. President, $2,200 is a lot of money. There is a lot of uncertainty right now because the House of Representatives has not acted. It is time to get this done.

Everybody says they support the bill we passed. We have a growing chorus of colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle in the Senate and in the House--we have business leaders and people across the country--who all agree we are never going to be able to address our deficit reduction problems without those who are wealthiest among us helping to solve the problem. That is all this is about.

The House needs to get this done. Then we know there is a larger piece. All three legs of the deficit reduction chair need to be addressed, but now the only one where nothing has been done is asking people who are most blessed economically to chip in a little bit more.

Right-To-Work Laws

If I might add one more thing that relates to something else happening in Michigan that goes to the heart of the issue about whether we are going to have a middle class in this country, and that is what the Governor and the

Republican State legislature have done in passing the most divisive piece of legislation I can remember in my lifetime in Michigan. It is called right to work. It is really a right to have a race to the bottom. It is not about economics, it is about politics, plain and simple.

Instead of coming together and doing the right thing, we see the State legislature pursuing a political attack. Over and over, families in my State and across America, middle-class families, are being asked to sacrifice, to bear the burden for whatever is happening. They are fed up, and they have every right to be.

There are huge crowds at the Michigan State Capitol Building in Lansing showing how frustrated, how angry people are that one more time, in an age where we have Citizens United and the Supreme Court saying corporations can give not only unlimited dollars to campaigns but secret money; in an age when the House of Representatives in Washington is willing to protect millionaires from chipping in to solve our deficit problem at all costs, even holding middle-class families hostage--over and over again, working people are saying: What is going on here? We will not have an economy if we do not have a middle class, if people do not have money in their pockets to be able to buy things, to be able to drive the economy, to be able to take care of their families.

In Michigan it is one more blow to the whole process of whether we are going to have voices of working people at the table in the workplace able to effectively negotiate good wages, good benefits, safe working conditions, and know that everybody in the workplace who benefits from that is going to chip in to be able to make sure that continues.

We know all across the country we can either have a race to the bottom or a race to the top. When we see wages going down in places where this kind of legislation has been on the books across the country, we know what has been done in Michigan is going to be one more step in creating that race to the bottom. We see wages for union and nonunion workers go down when we have that kind of a race to the bottom. We see health benefits and pensions decrease. We see lower consumer spending because middle-class families have less money in their pocket.

These kinds of laws hurt families. It is not about economics or freedom, it is about raw politics. Workers need to have confidence they will have a voice in the workplace and they will have a decent wage and benefits they can count on to be able to have a good life for themselves and their families.

That is really what this is all about in so many ways, where families are under attack right now. Middle-class people, trying to hold it together, people trying to figure out how to get into the middle class, who have been knocked down over and over. It is time to stop saying the words ``middle class'' and actually believe and act as if it is important to our country--because it is. It is essential if we are going to have a quality of life and an economy and have families who know that the American dream is not just a couple of words, but they have the ability to create the American dream for their families.

We have 19 days for the House of Representatives to pass the middle- class tax cuts that we sent to them in July, July 25; 19 days before families see their taxes go up and they believe one more time, at least in the House, that they do not get what is happening to families.

I strongly urge the Speaker and Republican leadership to bring up this bill right away, get it done, and let families know they will have economic certainty--at least related to their taxes going into the new year.

I yield the floor.

I wish to take a moment to thank our distinguished colleague and my dear friend for his wonderful service. We serve on three committees together. It has been my honor to serve on the committee Senator Conrad chairs, the Budget Committee, and to have him serve as a senior member of the Agriculture Committee, which I chair. Both of us sit on the Finance Committee together.

Today he has done what he has always done for us, which is to provide vision, common sense, intelligence, and a lot of numbers. They add up, and they make sense. In listening to Senator Conrad's farewell speech, I want to thank him again for giving us a path forward. He is someone who will forever be in Senate history as one of the great statesmen of our country, someone with intelligence, respect on both sides, compassion, and a fighter from North Dakota like I have never seen. He is someone who serves in the best tradition of what it means to be an honorable public servant.

He has been a role model for me all the way through to this point and a dear friend. I wish him, Lucy, and Dakota--he is, in fact, the 101st Senator--wonderful opportunities going forward in the future. The Senator from North Dakota will be greatly missed, but his contributions will forever be a part of the positive tradition of this great body.

Will my colleague, the distinguished assistant majority leader, yield for a question?

Is it also correct, basically, if we had voted, we would have guaranteed we would not place the country again in a situation of defaulting on our bills; that we would send a message that we can work together--the fact that we were willing to accept the Republican leader's proposal and be willing to send a message that as a Senate we want to make sure we have fiscal stability, we are paying our bills, that this could be one step forward in making sure we can resolve the fiscal issues for the country? Isn't that the Senator's view of this as well; that, in fact, it would be an important message about stability?

I also have to say, I share the Senator's amazement that the leader would, in fact, object to his own proposal and now be filibustering his own proposal that we were willing to accept as a bipartisan, good-faith effort for the country. Didn't he just take us in a wrong direction?

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

Madam President, I rise today to once again speak about the fact that in July, July 25 of this year, the Senate passed a middle-class tax cut bill guaranteeing that the first $250,000 dollars of income any American has would be exempted from any tax increase. We all know that the vast majority--in fact 98 percent--of Americans, makes less than that amount of money. We are talking about 98 percent of Americans receiving tax cuts under that proposal.

Back in July we passed this proposal, and it is now still waiting in the House of Representatives. So far the House leadership has refused to even let the bill come up for a vote, even though we all know that there is a majority of Members in the House who would vote for this and guarantee that as we go into Christmas, middle-class families across America would know they would have $2,200 in their pockets, more in their pocket right now, next year, than they will have if their tax cuts expire. We have passed this bill, and we are urging the House of Representatives to do the right thing and to pass this bill.

Even Republicans in the House say they support this effort. We all know that Representative Tom Cole from Oklahoma said last week, ``I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now.'' It is a pretty good deal.

Let us start. We know we have a large deficit reduction effort that needs to take place. There is a lot of give and take that needs to take place. We know what the elements are. But let us do step one, which is something overwhelmingly we agree with. The Senate has passed it on a bipartisan basis. There are enough votes in the House of Representatives. Let us get that piece done and not hold middle-class families hostage to the idea that the wealthiest among us should get additional tax cuts. Let us agree that 98 percent of families in America should be secure in knowing they are not going to have $2,200 more taken out of their pockets next year.

Now, we have just a few days to get this done. In fact, right now we have 27 days until middle-class taxes go up. In 27 days, we will see taxes go up for middle-class families. So this needs to get done now.

There are numerous House Members now agreeing with us--Republican House Members--and I commend them. In addition to Representative Cole, Representative Walter Jones from North Carolina said yesterday that he would vote for the Senate's middle-class tax cut bill. Representative Steve LaTourette, Representative Charles Bass, Representative Mary Bono Mack, Representative Mike Simpson, and Representative Robert Dold have all said the Senate plan is a responsible approach that protects middle-class families from a massive tax hike.

We now have a situation where the Democratic leader in the House is putting forward what is called a discharge petition. As our distinguished Presiding Officer knows and as I know, having been House Members, if a majority of the House signs a petition, that can essentially force a vote even if the Speaker and the Republican leadership don't want to bring it up.

I am hopeful that 218 Members on both sides of the aisle will sign this petition and that we will be able to guarantee before Christmas that middle-class families across this country are not going to have to worry about spending $2,200 more on taxes next year. We need to get this done, and I am hopeful that the House Members will sign that discharge petition if the Speaker does not take this up.

What does this $2,200 mean? It is the difference between paying the bills or not. It is the difference between getting ready for Christmas--buying the tree and the decorations and the presents. So many families these days are back doing layaway, which, for me, when my kids were little and we were trying to budget and figure out how to do things, meant picking out something back in September or in the summer and putting it on layaway and hoping to pay for it so the kids would have the Christmas I wanted for them. Families are doing that today, budgeting every single dollar to make sure they can provide the Christmas they want for their children. As they are budgeting all that, they need to know

they do not have to budget a tax increase starting in January, which is what will happen if the House doesn't act within the next 27 days.

One constituent of mine indicated to me that $2,200 was 4 months of her grocery bill. That is a lot of money. We are talking about 4 months of her family eating. We have also figured out that $2,200 would buy 650 gallons of gas. For the average commuter, that is enough gas to get back and forth to work every day for 3 years. That is a lot of money-- $2,200, 650 gallons of gas. And $2,200 will buy families in Michigan 550 gallons of milk for their families. So we are talking about a significant amount of money for the average middle-class family, those aspiring to get into the middle class, and those struggling across the country. This is a lot of money for the families we are talking about.

The Republicans in the House can stop this tax increase if they want to. They have 27 days to do it, 27 days to stop a tax increase on middle-class families, 27 days to stop an increase and make sure $2,200 more is not taken out of the pockets of families next year.

Let me stress again as well that we are talking about middle-class tax cuts that would allow every American to get a tax cut on their first $250,000 of income. For the majority of people--98 percent of Americans--that is their income, or less. They do not make more than $250,000 a year. But for everybody who does, it would continue to make sure their taxes don't go up.

For those above that, we would say: You know, for the last decade you have had extra tax cuts, and we are going to ask you now, in the face of the largest deficits our country has ever seen, to do your part, to share in solving the problem.

I know an awful lot of people who are ready to say: Absolutely. I want to do my part.

That is what we are talking about--those wealthiest few being at the table to do their part so we can solve the biggest deficit crisis we have had as a country.

So we are talking about every American earning $250,000 or less or earning an income of $250,000 or less being exempt from tax increases, and that covers, as I said, 98 percent of Americans.

There is agreement on both sides of the aisle. I congratulate and appreciate very much Senator Snowe's comments in which she indicated we should just get this done. She said Americans should not even be questioning that we will ultimately raise taxes on low- to middle- income people. We should take it off the table while grappling with tax cuts for the wealthy.

I couldn't agree more. We are going to miss Senator Snowe in the Senate. She, as usual, is right on the money in terms of the common sense of this situation.

In July the Senate passed a middle-class tax cut. I believe we now have a majority in the House of Representatives, on a bipartisan basis, believes middle-class taxpayers should get tax cuts next year. The House needs to bring it up and vote on it now so we get that off the table. That is step one.

Then, of course, we have larger issues on which we have to agree. We have to sit down and come together on those issues. Last year we agreed on $1 trillion in spending reductions. This step gets middle-class taxpayers off the hook, being held as pawns, held hostage to whether the wealthiest among us will get additional tax cuts next year. Let's just say middle-class families get $2,200 next year, they get to continue their tax cuts, and then we will go on to the next step.

It seems to me--and we certainly saw this as we were doing the farm bill--you don't have to agree on everything to do something. You start with what you agree on. Everybody says they agree middle-class families in this country should get tax cuts next year and beyond. Then let's just do it. What are we waiting for? Let's do that, and then we will look for the next set of issues we can agree on to solve the large problems we have in terms of our fiscal situation and economic growth, by the way, because we will never get out of debt with 12 million people out of work. So we better continue to be focused on jobs, which I know is a huge focus for our caucus--making sure people can lift themselves out of poverty into the middle class and have the opportunity for good-paying jobs for themselves and their families.

So we have a lot of issues to talk about, but since everybody says they agree middle-class taxpayers should not get a $2,200 tax increase next year, why don't we just do that? We shouldn't have to run the clock out and get closer and closer to the holidays, closer and closer to Christmas, with families not knowing what they are going to have to budget for next year. Let's just do it and let families know we can actually work together and get things done because that is really what people are asking us to do.

I believe that is the message of this past election, that people want us to sit down and be reasonable and work together. They also sent a message through the reelection of our President, who campaigned saying the wealthiest among us should be part of solving the problem and can afford to pay a little more to make sure we are not asking middle-class families to bear the entire burden of resolving the deficit in our country. The President won. The public said: Yes, that makes common sense. Everybody ought to be participating, not just middle-class families or senior citizens, who have been hit the hardest in the recession. With everything that has happened in the last decade, they have been hit the hardest or carried the brunt of it.

We are simply saying: You know what. Everybody ought to be in this. As Americans, we all benefit from this great country, the blessings of this country, and everybody ought to be part of the solution.

So I believe that was a very strong message. I believe it was a very strong message to say people want us to work together.

I also know, in looking at the proposal the Speaker has given, it is a nonstarter, saying we are taking off the table any effort that would stop more tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, and instead what we want to focus on is closing loopholes and deductions, because that falls right back to the middle class again--home mortgage deduction, college deduction, the mortgage tax relief bill I have which makes sure that in a short sale or another situation where a family is coming to some agreement with the bank on loan forgiveness, they do not pay taxes on that as income. So we have a whole range of what they call tax deductions they can close that fall smack-dab on the middle class, and that is a nonstarter.

In conclusion, let me say once again that we have 27 days to stop a tax hike on middle-class families across America--$2,200 that will hit people next year. It makes no sense. If they pass the Senate bill, they will be guaranteeing that 98 percent of American people don't have a tax hike. We need to get it done, and I would urge in the strongest possible way that the Speaker bring this up right away and pass it.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to bring attention to a critically important piece of legislation the Senate has passed and the House needs to pass immediately. It passed the Senate with bipartisan support. There are those on both sides of the aisle in the House of Representatives who support passing it. I am here to urge, in the strongest terms possible, that the Speaker bring up this bill before the House and get it passed.

Many people, because of my speaking in the past, may think I am referring to the farm bill, which I also believe we need to have the House take up and pass because of our bipartisan work. But I actually am referring to the fact that we have only 27 days until we go over the fiscal cliff. For middle-class families what this means is 27 days before their taxes go up on average $2,200.

What we are talking about is the fact that we passed a bill. We did not just pass a bill, we passed a bill in July. July 25 of this year the Senate passed a bill to extend tax cuts on all income up to $250,000. That is for anyone. It is now sitting in the House and everybody agrees middle-class families should not get a tax increase. Yet they have not taken it up. This needs to be taken up and passed before the end of the year so we can make sure middle-class families do not get caught in what we are talking about, which is the fiscal cliff.

For a family on a budget, $2,200 more in taxes means a lot of things. It means a lot of things as families are trying to figure out how to pay for Christmas this year. It is not an accident that we

are seeing layaway becoming very popular again as families are trying to figure out how to make sure their children have the Christmas they want to give them, yet juggle their cash flow situation in trying to figure out how to pay for it and pay the bills. That $2,200 will make a huge difference to millions of families. It is the difference between just paying the regular bills--utility bills, the mortgage, the rent, the car payment.

There is absolutely no reason families should find themselves in this situation right now when they are worried about this, absolutely none. As I said before, we passed a bill on July 25--not August, not September, not October, July 25--to get this issue off the table. We know there are broader issues on which we have to come together. There has to be a balanced approach, we know that, on long-term deficit reduction. But we said in the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, we do not want middle-class families caught in the middle of that. We do not want them being held hostage in order to get an additional tax break for multimillionaires.

It has been 132 days since the House Republican leadership got that bill. For 132 days they have been refusing to take it up. I commend the Democratic leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, for now bringing forward a discharge petition to bring that directly to the floor. I think it is widely believed--I certainly believe--that there are enough votes on the floor of the House to pass this, to make sure middle-class families do not see an additional $2,200 coming out of their paychecks starting in January.

For 132 days families have been waiting for their own economic certainty. Yet it still has not been taken up in the House. Christmas is 3 weeks from today. This is the worst possible time to create uncertainty for families across America. We also know this is about hurting the economy. It is a drag on consumer spending not to continue the tax cuts--consumer spending which makes up about 70 percent of the economy. So there is a direct relationship between what happens in growing the economy and what happens for middle-class families. Now we have 27 days for the House to get this done. There are 27 days to stop holding middle-class families hostage while we work out a larger agreement on what needs to be done on deficit reduction. All we need to do is to pass the Senate bill.

Let me repeat. By extending this particular bill, every American will get a tax cut on their first 250,000 in income. The good news is that involves tax cuts for 98 percent of American families; 98 percent of American families will be protected from seeing any kind of a tax increase--and 97 percent of small businesses, by the way. So if someone has $1 over $250,000, they would not be protected from a tax increase. They would get the first $250,000 in tax cuts, but they would not get additional bonus tax cuts on top of that. This makes sure 98 percent of the American people do not see their taxes go up, and those who benefited the most by the tax cuts in the last decade will be able to step up and be part of the solution on deficit reduction, which the vast majority of people in this country agree is fair.

People in Michigan are worried about what is going to happen. They come to me in the grocery store. I received many e-mails and calls to my office and meetings, on Facebook and Twitter. People in Michigan understand that $2,200 more coming out of their pockets next year can be devastating.

Terri from Lansing told me she unexpectedly lost her job when her company went out of business and had to struggle in foreclosure, similar to many people, and used her Roth IRA to get by. ``I am part of the baby boomer generation and now I live paycheck to paycheck, just barely surviving.''

Two thousand dollars makes a huge difference.

Zelda from Washington writes that $2,200 is our groceries for 4 months; 4 months of groceries for Zelda's family. That is what we are talking about if the Senate bill does not get passed by the House.

Carol from Michigan writes:

I am a retired grandmother getting a State pension and

Social Security. I also have three teenage grandchildren

living with me.

That is not a new story for many people--``three teenage grandchildren living with me.''

Any increase in anything might break me.

Thomas from Grand Rapids writes:

I will most likely have to find a job to make ends meet. So

much for being retired.

Again, so many families, so many individuals find themselves in this situation. They think they have planned for their retirement and now cannot count on what they thought would be there. They watch this and the fact that we have a choice to make sure tax cuts continue for 98 percent of the American families, middle-class families, that everybody gets a tax cut up to $250,000 a year. Yet the House Republicans will not even bring it up for a vote because they want extra tax cuts for multimillionaires? They look at that and they say: What, are you crazy? This makes absolutely no sense.

President Obama ran on a plan to end the tax breaks for millionaires; basically, that plan that passed the Senate, by the way, on a bipartisan vote. He ran on a plan that would say those savings would then be applied to deficit reduction. We know that is so critical.

We saw what people thought about that. He was reelected by a wide margin. The American people want us to come together, to work together in a bipartisan way to reduce the deficit, and they support the approach that starts by making sure middle-class families are not once again asked to pay for the full burden of what needs to be done. They support an effort that says extend tax cuts for middle-class families and ask those at the very top who have gotten extra tax cuts to forgo those and chip in to be part of the larger deficit reduction solution.

Unfortunately, yesterday Speaker Boehner ignored this when he offered a Republican counterproposal to the President's proposal that would essentially raise taxes on middle-class families and cut Medicare for our senior citizens. As Senator Reid said yesterday, ``It flunks the test of balance.''

To get the kind of revenue to reduce the deficit that is needed, that we all agree has to be done, their plan does some radical things. Their idea of revenue is to continue the tax cuts for any income above $250,000 for multimillionaires and, instead, to get rid of tax deductions used by middle-class families. So middle-class families might not have a mortgage deduction on their home that millions of people rely on; the student loan deduction for middle-class families that is allowing college to be more affordable; the charitable giving deduction that middle-class families rely on when they donate to churches and other nonprofits; the marriage penalty; the child credit; the mortgage tax relief deduction I offered to make sure if someone has to do a short sale at the bank, they do not pay extra taxes.

That is important for everyone to understand; that we--and I am speaking now as a Senate majority--are not going to balance the budget on the backs of middle-class families. We are not going to balance the budget, reduce the deficit by asking middle-class families who had the biggest hit of anybody with everything that has happened in the recession--and I certainly can speak for Michigan on this--we are not going to put the burden on middle-class families one more time. That is not what this is about.

On election day 60 percent of voters said they wanted to end the extra tax breaks for people making over $250,000--for income over $250,500. Yet the House Republican leadership wants to welcome middle- class families into the new year by having their taxes go up on average $2,200. As Zelda from Michigan said, that is 4 months of groceries. No way. There is no way I am going to support letting that happen.

Thankfully, we do have Republican colleagues who join us wanting to get this passed. We did in the Senate and those speaking out in the House and I commend them. Congressman Tom Cole from Oklahoma stated the obvious last week--and I encourage and congratulate him for speaking out. He said Republicans should immediately extend the tax cuts for families making under $250,000 a year. That is what he said. I agree with that. His Oklahoma constituents praised him. His constituents praised him. Unfortunately, his leadership dismissed him. The Washington Post reported that 70 percent of the calls to Congressman Cole's Washington, DC, office are positive and that 90 percent of his calls back home in Oklahoma--90 percent--have supported his position.

Congressman Cole knows he should be listening to his constituents, and he is. If we all listened to the people we represent and if the House leadership listens to the people of this country and those they represent, they will pass the bill we sent to them in July.

If taxes go up for middle-class families on January 1, people are going to know who is responsible for letting that happen. I urge House Republican leadership to take up S. 3412, the Middle-Class Tax Cut Act, pass it now, so the overwhelming number of families in this country have certainty going into this important holiday season and into the new year, so they can enjoy the season without knowing that their taxes are going to be going up on January 1. As of today we have 27 days before the vast majority of people in America--98 percent--see tax increases occur. It makes no sense, there is no reason for it to happen, and we have already passed a bill. If the House passes a bill, that is step one. Step one very clearly says we are all together on supporting the middle class continuing their tax cuts. We know there is more to do. We are fully prepared to do that. But step one is to make sure the middle class is not held hostage while the debate goes on about what should happen for the wealthiest few in this country.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Udall amendment, of which I am very pleased to be a cosponsor. I want to start, though, by thanking our terrific chairman, who we are so proud is from Michigan, and the distinguished ranking member for all their hard work in putting together what is incredibly important to support our troops and what they need, for their families' needs, and giving us tools for a strong defense.

Part of having a strong defense is making sure we give the military the flexibility they need and deserve to use the fuels that make sense for them and not tie their hands for any reason. As we go forward, we know there are opportunities to both save lives and dollars by using a variety of fuels. This amendment, by striking language that stops the military from having that flexibility, is very important.

We all know our dependence on oil has serious costs in terms of dollars but, more importantly, in terms of lives. One in every 50 convoys results in a U.S. casualty. We lose an American life from every 50 convoys. Since 2003 more than 3,000 troops have been killed in those attacks. Most of the time, military leaders will tell us: We are moving troops and moving fuel to be able to support the troops. So we need to give the military opportunities, whether it is from new kinds of hydrogen fuel cells or biofuels or advanced batteries.

There is a tremendous amount of work that is happening in Michigan through TACOM and TARDEC, which

are the arms of the Army that are doing the very important research and development of new technologies, and they have now developed advanced battery technology they are using in the field that will save money and lives. So these are important things to be doing as we move forward to the future, and the Udall amendment would guarantee we can continue to do that.

The Navy estimates that they spend about $84 billion--$84 billion-- every year protecting oil supplies. Think about that--not being able to do what we need to do on the front lines in terms of defense but just protecting the oil supplies, shipping lanes, and commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf region alone.

Again, this amendment would save lives, save money, and it would allow the Department of Defense to move forward on these new technologies, such as hydrogen, E85, and biofuel blends for flex-fuel vehicles such as the ones we are building in Michigan. These new technologies are our future. They are our future in jobs, and they certainly are our future as it relates to saving dollars and getting us off foreign oil and, as I said before, are so important to our military and to all of us in saving American lives.

The operational benefits of using different kinds of fuel are enormous. We have research going on in Michigan right now around advanced batteries. I was pleased to be there at the launch of the first advanced-battery Jeeps going into the field, allowing those convoys of trucks to be brought down to a much smaller level and thus stopping the endangerment over the years of thousands of our troops. Shorter supply lines means more flexibility for our men and women in uniform and less danger for them on the front lines.

I strongly support the Udall amendment. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. This will give our military the flexibility they need to accomplish their mission. Why in the world would we want to limit the flexibility of our military as they move forward to the next generation of new technologies to save dollars and lives?

Mr. President, I thank my friend from Colorado, Senator Udall, for speaking on this important issue, and for his constant advocacy of the wind production tax credit.

We have entrepreneurs right now in Michigan and all across the country who are working hard to invent our clean energy future.

I am thinking of companies like Ventower in Monroe, that just opened their 115,000-square-foot wind turbine tower manufacturing facility last year.

They have hired 150 people to build those huge wind towers that you see along the highway. These are good-paying jobs of the future.

Energetx Composites is another company in Michigan that used to manufacture luxury yachts. They took their experience with light-weight materials and now they are producing the blades for the wind turbines, and they have also hired workers in Michigan.

Astraeus Wind and Dowding Industries are doing the casting work and manufacturing the hubs that allow those blades to turn and produce energy. These are huge items--some as big as a house--and they need people to build them, and ship them, and that means jobs of the future in Michigan.

It also means a future that we can hand down with pride to our children and our grandchildren. It is a future with a strong middle class. It is a future where the American dream is alive and well.

We have been through tough times in Michigan, but wind power has been a bright spot. This year, we more than doubled our wind capacity in Michigan.

We now have more than 200 turbines running in places such as Gratiot, Huron, Misaukee, and Sanilac Counties.

We have another nearly 300 turbines coming online in the Thumb area-- one of the areas of strongest growth in the State. And all of that development means thousands of jobs in Michigan that depend on wind energy technology.

But if Congress doesn't act by December 31, those businesses will see their taxes go up. To raise taxes on the innovative companies creating the jobs of the future? That doesn't make sense. That is why it is so critical that we extend the wind production tax credit.

At a time when our companies are competing with other countries over this technology, we cannot turn our backs on them.

China is spending millions of dollars every single day to beat us on clean energy. They are investing in companies, building plants, and making every effort to lead the world in this technology.

We are in a race, and we cannot afford to lose.

I urge my colleagues to pass an extension of the wind production tax credit.

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to the former chair of the Agriculture Committee and a very distinguished Member who leads in so many areas, whether it is our dairy producers, whether it is organic farmers, whether it is nutrition entitlement. We wouldn't have the 5-year farm bill that we passed in the Senate without Senator Leahy's leadership. So his words are very kind, but I am very appreciative of all he has done.

I so much appreciate our senior Senator from Vermont coming to the floor and speaking out about the need to get a farm bill done. That is why I am here today as well--to echo the Senator's words from yesterday and today. We need to get it done, as we all know. We have seen 45 days since the farm bill expired, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever not to get this done.

Before speaking about that, though, let me also thank our chairman from the Judiciary Committee for his words about the Violence Against Women Act because every victim of crime, every victim of domestic violence needs to be covered under this law. I am very grateful for all the Senator has done to make sure all victims are covered, and that is another bill that needs to get passed in the House of Representatives.

In talking about the farm bill, I also want to say congratulations to another distinguished member of my committee, Senator Grassley, for his 11,000th vote, which he cast last night. I know Senator Harkin was here on the floor as well speaking about that--two incredibly talented members of the Agriculture Committee. I wish to congratulate Senator Grassley, who has been a real champion and leader on the reforms that are in our bill--really some historic reforms in the bill. He has led that effort, and I congratulate him as he has reached a very important milestone.

Farming is the riskiest business in the world, and this year it is even riskier. I believe that because of what is happening with climate change, it will be even more risky in the future. It is incredibly important that we step up and get a farm bill that gives our farmers the tools they need to manage their risks.

In the spring, we experienced late freezes that wiped out fruit crops in a number of States, including in Michigan, where our cherry growers were just about wiped out and currently have no access to crop insurance, although part of our farm bill is creating a path for them. We are very pleased to be creating a path for them to have crop insurance, but it was devastating in the spring.

Then this summer there were recordbreaking droughts that left crops withering in the fields, and in our bill we address issues of drought for lifestyle producers, which is incredibly important and, by the way, fully paid for by the savings of our bill.

Then we saw Hurricane Isaac flood croplands, and Hurricane Sandy has caused destruction like nothing we could have imagined.

In a year when there were so many reminders of the need for risk management for our farmers, there is absolutely no excuse not to finish the job and get a farm bill done by the end of this year. I am optimistic we are going to be able to do that.

I hope my colleagues will remember how we came together in June to pass the bipartisan Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act in the Senate. I thank my ranking member and colleague Senator Roberts for his leadership in this effort. We truly did this together, working across the aisle, listening to all the Members of the Senate. As you know, we eliminated 100 different programs and authorizations that did not make sense anymore or were duplicating something else. We streamlined programs to make them work better for farmers and ranchers and we saved taxpayer money and cut $23 billion in spending.

At this time, when we are looking at coming up with a way to reduce the deficit and put us on a path for balancing the budget, I cannot imagine why we would not want to take the savings from our bipartisan farm bill and include that in this much needed agreement that we need to come to by the end of the year.

This was not only a bipartisan effort but, because it was deficit reduction, it is one of the few deficit reduction bills--maybe the only one--we actually have passed this year, and we need to make sure it gets all the way to the finish line. We cannot afford to walk away from the reforms in this bill. We cannot afford to walk away from our dairy farmers who are right now operating without any kind of safety net. The current policy does not work for them so just extending that makes no sense. It is a disaster waiting to happen. We cannot afford to walk away from our dairy farmers.

We cannot afford to walk away from livestock producers who need the permanent disaster assistance we passed in the Senate farm bill. By the way, it is in the House bill that came out of committee. That is also bipartisan.

We cannot afford to walk away from the critical priorities in conservation of our land, air, and water, of energy, not only of biofuels but the new jobs available in bio-based manufacturing, which I am seeing happen in Michigan as well as all across the country. We cannot afford to walk away from support for our specialty crop growers, fruit and vegetable growers, so important for our families' health and for the economic strength of our country as well. Also, as to forestry and nutrition, which affects so many families and so many children in schools, we cannot afford to walk away from important funding and policy reforms in each one of these areas.

We just need to get this done. This is not rocket science; it is a matter of making it a priority and spending a little bit of time and getting it done. Voters in the election made one thing very clear. They want bipartisanship. They want us to work together as we have done in the Senate, both in the Agriculture Committee and on the floor, to be able to get a 5-year farm bill. They want us to simply get things done. The House of Representatives has a chance now to follow our lead, to pass a bipartisan bill that reforms agricultural programs, that cuts the deficit, ends direct payments and other unnecessary subsidies, and gives farmers the risk management tools they desperately need going forward.

Everywhere I go I hear from farmers who say they need us to get this done. They get up early in the morning. They work hard all day. They come home late. When there is work to be done, they do it. They have to do it. They do not put it off until another day for whatever excuse. They do what has to

be done, and they expect us to do what has to be done.

Now we are 45 days past the expiration of the last farm bill. We are looking at January and beyond when a series of changes will happen automatically unless we pass a new bill. It will be very difficult on a number of fronts. We could see chaos in the markets and confusion for farmers as we revert back to what is called permanent law, which is a collection of policies from the Depression era. They are poorly suited to the way agriculture is done today. Again, it makes no sense.

We cannot let this happen. There is no excuse for not getting the bill done by the end of the year. We have done it in the Senate when everyone said it was impossible. We put the votes together in just a couple days, with 73 amendments and went through and voted on every single one of them. Then we voted to pass the bill and got the job done. Now it is time for our House colleagues to do the same. I am looking forward to working with the leadership of the House Agriculture Committee. I have great confidence that we can sit down together and produce a final bill to bring back to the Senate that will allow us to get this done before the end of the year.

Now is the time to do it. I urge our House colleagues to put this on the top of their list.

Madam President, first, I did come to the floor to talk about the urgency of the farm bill, but I also want to thank my friend and colleague from Colorado, who chairs our conservation subcommittee, for the tremendous piece of work on the conservation title in the farm bill. I thank him for all of that effort and also say to him I understand what is happening in Colorado. As he and I know, we passed disaster assistance--a permanent livestock disaster assistance program--in our farm bill, along with help for food growers in Michigan and other places.

We are totally committed in the short run to helping those who have the riskiest business in the world, which is farming and ranching in this country, but we also know what they want is the economic certainty of a 5-year farm bill. So I thank my friend for all of his efforts and in coming to the floor.

I want to say, for the record, there are 10 days until September 30-- 10 days until the farm bill expires and 16 million people in this country who rely on agriculture for their jobs or their livelihood are put in limbo. That is the reality of where we are.

We worked so hard, on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, to pass a farm bill,

and we did that as quickly as we could so the House would have time to act and we could actually get things done in the summer before we got involved in what would be happening in the fall, with all of the critically important end-of-the-year issues that have to be addressed. So we passed a bill in June, as we all know, on a bipartisan basis. It took a lot of work.

I continually thank everyone who was willing to hang in there with us to get this done--my ranking member, Senator Roberts, and our two leaders for giving us the time to do this. We worked hard and we got it done and we sent it to the House. Then the House committee went to work and they passed out a bipartisan bill. Never before, that I can remember--and I have been around here a while; this is my fourth farm bill--have we seen a situation where a bipartisan bill came out of committee and yet the House wouldn't take it up. They wouldn't take it up in July, the beginning of August, and wouldn't agree to allow us to negotiate differences over the August break to come up with a way to get this done by the end of this month.

So here we are. The House is leaving today. The Senate is leaving either today or tomorrow or the next day, and there are 10 days left on the clock to provide economic certainty for 16 million men and women whose livelihoods come from agriculture. Many of these men and women watched as their crops withered under the hot summer Sun this year, as days and weeks went by without a drop of rain in the worst drought in 50 years. Yet House Republicans are planning to leave without finishing their work on our farm bill. That is absolutely stunning to me.

The work we did in the Senate passed on a strong bipartisan vote. As I said before, the committee in the House put forward their bill on a strong bipartisan vote. If nothing happens, in 10 days we begin to see a transition over the next few months to what is called permanent law, which goes back to the 1940s.

We had over 90 different groups that came in last week. We had hundreds of farmers from around the country--farmers who got off their tractors, took their time at their own expense to fly in and say: Hey, wait a minute, When there is a job to do, you have to get it done. When the crops are ready to harvest, you don't wait a month. You have to do what you have to do when it needs to be done.

That is exactly where we are right now. They just need to do it. I am confident the chairman and the ranking member, working in a bipartisan way, could do this in 1 day. I really believe they could do this in 1 day. It is not as if there is a lot of other substantive work going on in the House. So 1 day. If they decided today: Okay, we are going to get this done before we leave, they would create a situation so our farmers, who are planning for next year, who have to go in and sit down with their banker, will know how to plan and what tools they have available. These are people who have been hit hard, have been devastated by disasters.

In every single one of the counties in Michigan, 83 out of 83 counties, there has been a disaster declaration. They are looking at us and saying: Thank you for what the Senate did, but why won't the House act? And, frankly, I don't know why the House won't act. But they should, because they are leaving an awful lot of people hanging.

We know the consequences of not acting are that we begin to unravel a set of policies that need to be in place for production agriculture, for conservation, for local food systems, for energy, and for nutrition. We know also if we step up and do what we worked so hard to do in the Senate we will get the added plus of $23 billion in deficit reduction. The only thing that has passed the Senate that has bipartisan deficit reduction is our farm bill.

We know we need to make reforms. That is why we eliminated four different subsidies, moved to a risk-based, market-based system, based on crop insurance providing tools for farmers to make sure they can make their own planning decisions, not plant for government programs, but make their own planning decisions and then have tools to support them and to manage the risks that come. We certainly know now, because we have seen this year, what kind of devastating risks may come for our farmers and ranchers across the country.

I have gone through so many times what is in our farm bill that I will not do that now, except to say we have more reform--in fact, the Wall Street Journal said there is more reform in this farm bill than any in decades. We are proud of that. We have more in deficit reduction than in anything else we have passed. We have policies for the future. We have listened to farmers who said crop insurance is the most important thing for them in being able to manage their risk. We have focused on local food systems, providing schools with the ability to purchase locally and support their local farmers. There are energy opportunities for the future and bio-based manufacturing, where we truly can make things and grow things and grow the economy and grow the middle class of this country. There is rural development, where millions of Americans live--for small towns, such as Clare, where I grew up--with the ability to fund infrastructure--water, sewer, Internet--and have a business loan financed, and all those things that go into rural development. We provide for telemedicine to create a quality of life and health for seniors and families.

All those things are involved in what we call the farm bill. All of those things were passed in the Senate. We did what I believe the American public wants us to do, and I certainly know people in Michigan want us to do--to make tough decisions, to evaluate what works and what doesn't work and to cut out the duplication. We eliminated over 100 different programs and authorizations and we streamlined. That is what folks want us to do, and we did it. Now it is time for the House to do their job.

The reality is, even though there are 10 days until the end of the month, the Speaker said they are going home with no action. So the real number is zero. We are out of time for farmers and ranchers and their families, and, frankly, for all of us. If we are fortunate enough to have lunch or breakfast today, we ought to care about the farm bill and the people who provide us with the safest, most affordable, and abundant food in the world. That is what we do in this bill. We are proud of it. And the House of Representatives should be ashamed of themselves for leaving town without supporting rural America.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I first wish to thank Senator Harkin as chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and past chair of the Agriculture Committee for his words of concern regarding the House budget as it relates to agriculture. I share those concerns and I thank him for speaking out on that. It is just one more reason to pass a farm bill. We need to get a farm bill done right now.

Let me say to all of my colleagues, and particularly in the House because we have done our job in the Senate and we are ready to complete the task of getting a farm bill, we now only have 17 days, 17 days until the current farm bill expires on September 30. Seventeen days. We know as a practical matter, because the House says they are leaving next Friday, it is actually shorter, but we have 17 days before the end of the month, before the current policy expires and we begin to see a phase-in of policies that end up going back to 1949 by the first of the year on subsidies and planting restrictions and a whole range of things that cost a lot of money and make no sense.

I am asking that the House come together, as we did in the Senate when we passed our bipartisan farm bill on June 21, and pass a farm bill in the House. We passed the Agricultural Reform, Food, and Jobs Act by a bipartisan vote of 64 to 35. I believe the votes are there in the House of Representatives if there is a willingness to have a bipartisan vote. I believe that together, Democrats and Republicans, there are enough votes to pass it, and the House has time to act. They are completing the continuing resolution today, and my understanding is there is nothing else of substance that is on the agenda for next week. And even if there was, 1 day--1 day--is all we are asking, 1 day to bring up and do the work for rural America, for agriculture, ranchers across the country, to create a 5-year farm bill policy that includes disaster assistance that will work for all parts of agriculture. We are asking for 1 day.

Farmers across the country have been hit hard by disasters, as we know--very, very hard. It has been devastating for many of our ranchers and farmers between late frosts and the severe drought this year. We need to get a farm bill done. Why is that? Because the farm bill is also a disaster bill.

I can speak from the standpoint of Michigan, where the warmth in March and then the late deep freeze eliminated almost all of our tart cherries. We are No. 1 in the country in tart cherries. We do not have any. Sweet cherries, apples, peaches hit, grapes, and that, along with the drought, means that every single county in Michigan is under a disaster declaration right now. We address that in the farm bill we passed.

By the way, disaster assistance is in the farm bill the Senate passed, fully paid for with savings within the farm bill.

We reinstate the livestock disaster program, and we make it permanent. We make it permanent. We support specialty crop growers who need crop insurance and do not have it now, such as our cherry growers. Tart cherry growers cannot purchase crop insurance because there is no crop insurance. In addition to helping them in the short run, we need to make sure we are ready for the future, and we do that in this bill.

We put in place a new dairy program to make sure we are not seeing farmers go bankrupt. And our Presiding Officer from Vermont certainly understands and has led efforts. I remember 2009, 2010, what was happening, what we had to do. We know the current policy is a disaster waiting to happen for dairy. So kicking the can down the road, doing some long-term extension, and not taking any action on the farm bill is a disaster for diary, which, by the way, is the No. 1 single commodity in my State as well.

We need to get the farm bill done.

We make sure those who have lost crop this year because of the early warm spring and late frost as well as our livestock operators and others get help not just for the future but this

year, 2012. That is in the Senate-passed farm bill. It is also, by the way, in the House committee-passed farm bill, which is what the Speaker and the Republican leadership should be taking up on the floor of the House.

We also strengthen conservation, which is so critical because unlike the Dust Bowl of the thirties where soil was swirling around and all that was happening at that time, despite the horrible drought, soil is on the ground. Why? Because of conservation efforts and policies that have made a difference. We need to continue and strengthen that as we do in our farm bill for the future. It is critical that we move forward on conservation.

So the House taking up a farm bill addresses the disaster assistance that needs to be addressed for our farmers and ranchers in a responsible way. It is paid for within the savings of the farm bill. And we make sure we do not have other disasters happening by not moving forward with improvements in policy for commodities such as dairy.

I am proud of what we did in the Senate. It was bipartisan. We tried very hard. I worked very hard to create an opportunity where there was enough time in the summer for the House to be able to take action. We moved, as we all know, quickly, both in committee--Senator Roberts and I and all of our colleagues, with the leadership support on the floor, moved quickly in June to pass a bill so that there would be all of July and the beginning of August until the break for the House to act so that we could then go to conference committee in August and come back right now and pass a final farm bill, which is what should have happened. So now we are in plan B, which is at least--at least the House of Representatives ought to be doing their job in passing the farm bill so we can work on this in October and come back in November before the full Congress.

I commend the leadership of the Agriculture Committee in the House and have great confidence that, working together with them, we can come together on our differences and put together a responsible, effective deficit reduction farm bill in the final analysis. But we can't get there until the House gives us some kind of a bill to work with.

So I am asking the Speaker, I am asking the Republican leadership to take just 1 day, 1 day for rural America, 1 day for farmers and ranchers across this country so that we can address disaster assistance and long-term economic policy for rural America.

The House leadership, the Republican leadership heard yesterday from hundreds of farmers from all over the country that we need a farm bill now. There were over 80 different groups who put that rally together to make it very clear that they do not want a stopgap measure, that they do not want to kick the can down the road or do another 1-year extension; they just want us to get it done and to get it done right now. Many of these farmers are in the middle of harvest. It is the earliest corn harvest in 25 years because of the drought. They took time from work to come here at their own expense, their own time to give a very clear message to the House Republican leadership. It is time to get this done.

Frankly, it is past time to get it done. We have heard that the House wants to do a 1-year extension of current policy, but we are not going to support that. Do we really want to continue for another year the subsidies, such as the direct payments we eliminated in the Senate farm bill, the subsidies that go to people regardless of whether they are even growing the crop for which they are getting the subsidies? We eliminated four different subsidies and instead listened to farmers across this country to strengthen crop insurance. That is what we heard from Michigan to Kansas, from California to all across this country, that we need to strengthen crop insurance, and that is what we have done.

Do we really want to be in a situation where one more time there is not action on deficit reduction? The one piece of legislation we have passed in a bipartisan way that reduces the deficit of this country is our farm bill. Amazingly, we have $23 billion in reduced spending, in deficit reduction, which goes away with an extension. It won't happen if we kick the can down the road, so we need to get this done.

I understand there are some in the House who don't believe we ought to invest in any kind of agricultural policy. I know there are those who think we shouldn't invest in nutrition or conservation of land and water or agricultural policy or energy jobs or a whole range of things, such as rural development, supporting our small rural towns. I understand they do not want to do a farm bill. I also know there are some folks who don't like the reforms we have. They want to continue those payments. I understand that. But I believe the majority of people in the House, just like the majority of the people in the Senate, will come together if given the opportunity and vote for reform, for deficit reduction, for a strengthened crop insurance program, other risk management tools for our farmers, a disaster assistance program that is permanent for livestock producers, help for our food growers, strong nutrition policy that includes focusing on waste, fraud, and abuse, rural development, and a streamlined, more effective conservation policy that creates flexibility and tools for our farmers as well as those who want to hunt and fish and protect our open spaces. I believe a majority of the House wants to get that done.

I think it is very important, with 17 days left, that we remember what this is about. There are 16 million people in this country who work because of agriculture--16 million people. We talk a lot about jobs and job policies. I don't know of any we have debated on this floor that have impacted 16 million people and their families, and we came together to get this done because we understood that.

Right now, despite the best efforts of the Committee on Agriculture in the House on a bipartisan basis to report a bill, the House leadership--the Republican leadership--will not take 1 day--1 day--to focus on 16 million jobs, economic development, quality of life in rural America for those who have been hit so hard by this economy, and the jobs of the future we have in this farm bill. Time is running out. Time is running out. We need to get this done. We understand that.

Farmers know that when there is work to be done, they can't kick the can down the road. When a crop is ready for harvest, a farmer can't say: Gee, I am tired; I will do it next week. When the crop needs to be harvested, they have to get up and go do it. They do what needs to be done. And we had folks who came here yesterday, who left their fields and who basically said: Even though I have a lot of work to do at home, I have to go to the U.S. House of Representatives to tell the Republican leadership that it is time to get the job done.

Mr. President, I would like to put into the Record a letter that was sent from 13 different leadership organizations on agriculture in this country. I will explain what is in it, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated September 7, 2012, to Senators Reid and McConnell.

Mr. President, this letter was sent to Majority Leader Reid and Republican Leader McConnell on behalf of the American Farm Bureau, American Soybean Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union, National Milk Producers Federation, National Sunflower Association, Northarvest Bean Growers Association, United Fresh Produce Association, U.S. Canola Association, U.S. Dry Pea and Lentil Council, and the Western Growers, all saying: Don't do something short term; do the farm bill. They are all saying: Don't do some short-term effort that is only focused on disaster. Don't do an effort that does not complete the job.

In regard to consideration of the House-passed disaster measure, they say:

We strongly urge you to refrain from this as we fear that

passage of a bill similar to the House bill could result in

further delays in completing a full 5-year farm bill.

These provisions retroactively are in the Senate-passed bill and the bill reported from the House Agriculture Committee. They are paid for within the context of the farm bill. And they know, as we know, that in the final bill we present, they will be included. We certainly are going to include comprehensive disaster assistance, but they are asking us to do it in the context of a 5-year farm bill. That is what everyone is saying in farm country, in rural America, that it is not enough to just do a little bit here and there. And on top of that, it is not necessary. It is not necessary. We have a comprehensive disaster assistance bill within the contents of the farm bill. So does the House committee. We just need 1 day. There are 17 days left, and we are asking the House Republican leadership to invest 1 day in American agriculture, and I hope they will do it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I wish to thank my friend from Montana, who, by the way, is a farmer. I have called him more than one time in Montana, and he has said: I am in the field. I am getting off the tractor. So he speaks with great authority. And the answer is yes, there is comprehensive disaster assistance paid for in the savings of our farm bill.

It goes away. There is no $23 billion in taxpayer savings if we don't pass the farm bill.

No question, we would be paying for disaster assistance. By the way, the reforms go away, and I know the Senator from Montana supports the reforms in the bill. We would see those subsidies continue--direct payments and so on--and we would be rolling back to a whole era of planting restrictions and huge subsidies back from the 1940s and 1950s.

The Senator raises a very important question because economic certainty means that farmers and ranchers are going to be able to know what is happening next year and can go to the bank and get those operating loans and plan for next year what they are going to plant. All that certainty will be gone. Everybody talks about how we need certainty for the future and the economy, and I couldn't agree more. This will do more to disrupt rural America and our ability to have a stable food supply and agriculture than anything else.

Madam President, as we come back into session this evening and into September, as Chair of the Agriculture Committee I have one message for colleagues in the House of Representatives--for the Speaker, for the Republican leadership--and that is, we need a farm bill now.

We have 20 days until the farm bill expires--only 20 days. If that happens, if the Republican leadership does not work with us to pass a 5-year farm bill, they are going to reset the clock for rural America all the way back to 1949. Because if the farm bill expires, we go back to Depression-era policies that include government planting restrictions and expensive price supports--absolutely unacceptable.

Some of those policies even reference prices from before World War I. This would be terrible for our family farmers and ranchers. It would throw the markets into complete disarray. There is no reason this should be allowed to happen. The full Senate has worked together and passed a bipartisan farm bill. The House Agriculture Committee worked together and passed a bipartisan farm bill. It is time for the House to complete its work. The House Republican leadership has refused to let the bipartisan bill come up for a vote.

Despite our best efforts in speaking with colleagues and working together over the August break to try to come up with a way to get this done, we find ourselves in a position now where our only opportunity is for the House to take up the bill that was passed by their committee and get this done. I have never seen a situation where a farm bill-- this is my fourth one I have been involved with--comes out of committee on a bipartisan basis, and then the House will not take it up, which is exactly where we are.

Instead, they sent us a so-called disaster relief bill that, unfortunately, only helps some livestock producers with the drought this year. It does nothing for the rest of the Nation's farmers who have been hurt so badly this year by frost and freezes. Our farm bill does that. In fact, our farm bill is better for livestock. It is a permanent livestock disaster assistance program with a better structure and support than that which was sent by the House of Representatives.

A full 5-year farm bill gives much more comprehensive disaster assistance to livestock producers and to other farmers who have been hit. Other farmers who have watched as their crops withered under the unforgiving Sun want to know that not only will we have a 5-year policy in place, but that we are going to strengthen crop insurance, which is really the backbone of supporting farmers in these kinds of situations.

We strengthen crop insurance and expand it so more farmers can have access to risk management tools on their farms. That was the No. 1 issue that we heard in all of our hearings, to strengthen crop insurance. And that is what we did. That is one of the reasons we need to get a 5-year farm bill done.

I am looking at my colleague from Iowa, the distinguished Senator who chaired the committee before me. I know he shares the same feeling that I do, that we need to get this bill done in the House of Representatives.

We know our farm bill also fixes dairy support so dairies do not go through what they went through in 2009, when thousands of farms went bankrupt. Frankly, not changing the policy for dairy is a disaster waiting to happen. So we need to get the farm bill done.

We also reform programs. We know we have ended direct payments and altogether four different subsidies, saving $15 billion while strengthening crop insurance. We streamline and address duplication, crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse. In the end, our bill saves $23 billion for taxpayers--$23 billion to pay down the debt. The only real deficit reform we passed in the Senate was our farm bill, which we worked on together.

Unbelievably, the House Republican leadership still stands in the way of passing our bipartisan bill or their own committee's bipartisan bill. On Wednesday we are going to see thousands of farmers around the country coming to Washington with a simple message: We need a farm bill now. Members are going to have visits from farmers and ranchers from their States. House Members will be hearing from members in their districts. They have one simple message. Those farmers knew when there is work to be done you do not put it off to another day. Not if you are going to be successful as a farmer. And we shouldn't be kicking the can down the road either. They can't say: I don't want to harvest my crops right now. I think I will do it in a few months or next year or tell the banker to wait until later so I can figure out what I have to make decisions on for next year. They know that when the crops need to be harvested, the work needs to get done now.

Well, we have 19 days left. This is day 20. We are going to count it down every day because we have to get this done in the House of Representatives. We did our job in the Senate on a bipartisan basis. I was very proud to join with our colleague Senator Roberts and all of our committee who worked so well together and worked so hard, and I again thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for giving us the time to get it done. We got it done, and we did it in enough time to give the House time to do it in July before the August break. But that didn't happen. Now it is time to get it done. The House Agriculture Committee did its job. It is time for the House Republican leadership to schedule a vote to get this done, to support rural America--our farmers and ranchers and families who are counting on the safest, most affordable food system in the world to be able to continue. We don't need to kick this can down the road and create another crisis for farm country.

Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues who are waiting to talk about another very important subject. I appreciate their giving me the time for a few words.

I would be happy to yield.

Absolutely. We had the support of farm groups and conservation groups all across the country.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. And because of the wonderful work of the Senator from Iowa on our school nutrition efforts and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, we had the strong support of families, educators, and schools across the country.

Absolutely.

Well, the distinguished Senator is absolutely right. One would think this would be the time to just pass it. And frankly, if not, because we know the House committee has a little different view on commodities, we offered to sit down all through August to work that out so we could come back now and come up with something that was a compromise. But the House committee wasn't able to do that because they do not have the support of the leadership to get that done. So here is where we are. What I know is that we have to have movement. We have to have the House act or we are not going to be able to get this done.

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

Madam President, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to support the nomination of an outstanding judge, Gershwin Drain, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. We will have an opportunity to vote in a few minutes. Senator Levin and I join together in the strongest possible recommendation to our colleagues on this nomination. I have known Judge Drain for many years. I can tell you he is a very impressive individual with a long record of excellent public service. He has served in the district court, the Detroit Recorder's Court and the Wayne County Circuit Court.

He is active in the community. When I am in the community and have the opportunity to be at events that are important for people, for families, for communities, for children, for economic development, Judge Drain is always there, supporting the efforts of Detroit and of Michigan.

He is of course dedicated to his incredible family, who I know is very proud of him, as we are. But don't take my word for it. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Judge Drain ``qualified'' to serve on the District Court. He was named a ``Man Of Excellence'' by the Michigan Chronicle newspaper, and the Detroit News named him ``Michiganian of the Year''-- both very prestigious recognitions in Michigan.

This is a very important judgeship that has been vacant for more than 2 years. It is important for people in Michigan and throughout the eastern district to be able to have the full measure of justice they expect and deserve when coming before the court. It is very important that we fill this vacancy.

I am appreciative and proud that the President of the United States has nominated him. I appreciate the support of the Judiciary Committee in bringing this nomination forward and the agreement to allow us to vote on this nominee.

Judge Drain has the qualifications, the experience, and the temperament for this very important position. I strongly urge my colleagues to support his nomination and to vote yes when it comes before us in the next few minutes.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

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