Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Rhode Island for a very eloquent speech--elegant speech too--eloquent and elegant--in portraying what is so frustrating. And that is science knows what is happening. The scientists know what is happening. We have good data points about what is happening to our climate, our atmosphere, our oceans, and yet it seems we cannot do anything about it.

I say to my friend from Rhode Island, I think I was reading recently in a Scientific American magazine, which I love to read every month, that in terms of this whole global climate change, what is happening is that by the time we recognize it is happening--that is broadly, not just the scientists and others who do know what is happening--by the time it is broadly accepted, it will be too late, that we will have reached that tipping point. But the evidence is there for all to see. It is a shame that we cannot do something about it.

The Senator mentioned the fish catch in Rhode Island. I think also in the recent issue of Scientific American was a story about the fisheries and oceans at large, and there were three pictures. One was a picture taken on a pier in Key West in the 1950s showing the size of the fish that were caught. Big. I think the average weight was like 30-some pounds. Then there was a picture taken in the 1970s--late 1970s, early 1980s--now it is down to maybe 15 pounds. Same pictures, same pier, same dock and everything, and now the catch is down to teeny little fish. Same place, same ocean, same waters.

The article went on to point out how, if you look at the first picture, people are very happy. They are happy with this big fish. Then the second page, people are happy with what they caught. And now you have got this little teeny fish and people are still happy, because we kind of tend to accept what it is right now and be happy with what we have got without realizing what we have lost in the past.

Again, I thank the Senator for his speech. We need to do more of that around here. We need to focus on this. We seem to be drifting. You are right, our grandkids are going to wonder why we did not do something.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2012, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a committee hearing entitled ``The Responsible Homeowner Refinancing Act of 2012.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2012, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``Ivory and Insecurity: The Global Implications of Poaching in Africa.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2012, in room SD 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Programs and Services for Native Veterans.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2012, at 10 a.m., in SD 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 24, 2012, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Innovating with Less: Examining Efforts to Reform Information Technology Spending.''

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his concluding remarks regarding the amendment that I assume will be offered by the Senator from Illinois, as it is cleared to be offered.

I thank Senator Hatch for his great leadership on the issue of making sure the American people can have access to healthy, life-supporting vitamins, minerals and supplements, without having it go through untold processes and reviews and approvals by the FDA, and all that kind of regulation.

Senator Hatch was the leader on the DSHEA bill when we passed it in 1994. I was happy to work in tandem with him on that. It has proven, through the years, to be a great success for the American people. The American people all over this country take vitamins and other supplements, and they are living healthier because of this.

I say to my friend that I heard the Senator from Illinois on the floor yesterday give an impassioned speech about a very sad case about a young woman who evidently consumed some energy drinks with a lot of caffeine in them and had heart arrest and died. It is a very sad story. But as sad as that is, you can't keep people from abusing things. People also die every year from aspirin poisoning, where they took too many aspirin.

Reasonableness has to enter into this. We have worked together to make sure the labels are good on all of these things, so that people know what is in them. The FDA has the authority--as the Senator said, every Commissioner has said they have the authority to keep dangerous products off the shelf and to remove them from the shelf. They have all that authority. These cases, as I said, that Senator Durbin brought up are very sad, and you wish it were not so. I don't think it lends itself, though, to overturning what has been working now for 17, going on 18, years and working well for the American people.

I join the Senator from Utah, and I hope the amendment might not come up. But if it does, it does. I am sure there will be some debate on it. I join with the Senator from Utah in urging all Members of the Senate to vote that amendment down. If it comes up, I will move to table that amendment. Hopefully, we can approach this in a much more judicious, responsible, thinking manner.

I say to my friend from Utah--and I know he agrees--we are not taking the position that nothing has ever been changed. We have changed DSHEA in the past to make it work better. We did it after due deliberation, committee hearings, and going through the process to see what it means in terms of access to these products by the American people, to make sure we keep the intent of DSHEA there.

Again, I am more than willing, as chairman of the committee--and the Senator used to be chairman of the committee at one time, and then ranking member--we are always willing to look at these things and have a hearing on them and get more information. Again, I thank the Senator from Utah, who has been a great leader on this issue.

Mr. President, how much time does this side have on the bill?

I reserve the remainder of my time on the bill. If the Senator from Illinois wishes to bring up his amendment, we can bring it up.

Mr. President, again, I understand I have 24 minutes left.

I will make a short general statement about the bill. I talked about it in the past. I want every Senator to know that we are now on the FDA reauthorization bill. This is reauthorizing the prescription drug user fee, the medical device user fees, and then we are authorizing a new program, the generic drug user fee, biosimilar user fee, and so we are on the bill now. There is 30 minutes for debate on each amendment that has been listed. Senators know who they are and what the amendments are.

I want to make it clear that the unanimous consent we just adopted says that all debate time will expire at 2 p.m. tomorrow. So I say to Senators, if you want to take your 30 minutes and debate your amendment, now is the time to do it. If you wait too long, 2 o'clock will come tomorrow, you won't have the time, and you will be limited to 1 minute. There will be 2 minutes on each amendment after that. Those who have amendments and wish to discuss them, you are guaranteed at least 30 minutes, but all time runs out at 2 p.m. tomorrow. If you want to talk on your amendment and make your point, now is the time to do it this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains on this amendment?

Mr. President, I just want to say, first of all, that I have the greatest respect, as he knows, for the Senator from Illinois. He is one of the true consumer champions in the entire Congress and has been for all of his time here. So it is kind of hard to argue against the Senator when he is such a champion of consumers. But on this issue I think we part a little company.

I want to make it very clear that under DSHEA, supplement labels must already disclose their ingredients--must disclose their ingredients. Even when a product is reformulated, if the supplement contains new ingredients, then the label must reflect that change. These were all added to the bill. We added that for consumer protection.

Now, again, it is not as though FDA doesn't know what is out there. Under current law, supplement manufacturers have to biannually register their products. There is a biannual registration requirement right now. So the concern is that FDA just doesn't have the resources to do anything. I have tried--and the Senator knows because he is on the Appropriations Committee--to get more funds for the FDA to do this, but we haven't been able to get the funds necessary for the FDA to even do what jobs they are supposed to do now.

I repeat for emphasis sake that every FDA Commissioner--those appointed both by Democratic or Republican Presidents--have said the DSHEA gives them adequate authority to keep dangerous products off the shelves. So the authority is already there. What the FDA needs is the resources. That is money. That means appropriations. Quite frankly, I don't see that happening this year--that we are going to give them any more. We are just going to give them more of a burden, and I think it will give a false sense of security to people because FDA simply won't be able to do that.

Lastly, as the Senator did say, we do have a voluntary program for ingredients and things with the dietary supplements with the National Institutes of Health that is already in place. That is coupled with the biannual reporting requirements plus the fact every dietary supplement has to have the ingredients listed on the label. So there is plenty of consumer protections out there. It is just that we can't protect a consumer who doesn't want to follow directions, who doesn't want to follow the guidelines listed on the labels themselves. I don't know how to protect people from that. Sometimes we just have to continually tell people to follow the directions. If they follow the directions, they will be fine.

That is why I think this amendment is ill-timed. I said to the Senator, and I mean this, that the Senator from Utah and our committee would be more than happy to have hearings again to flesh it out a little more and to see just what might be possible. But I come down to this as the bottom line: The FDA needs more money and they need more personnel to do this job.

I yield the floor.

Just one minor correction I would make, and that is under the DSHEA law, the FDA must approve any health claims made by any dietary supplement or vitamin. The only health claims they can make are structure function claims, but they have to be approved by the FDA. I just wanted to clear up that point.

I would also say further that I honestly don't know of any vitamin or supplement that is out there in the market that is dangerous if taken as directed--if taken as directed. As I said, anybody can abuse things. But if taken as directed, I, quite frankly, don't know of any supplement out there that is dangerous. Quite frankly, if taken as directed, they help maintain people's health and keep them healthy rather than being injurious to their health.

I yield the floor.

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

Again, Mr. President, I have to ask, how much time remains on the bill for both sides?

Mr. President, I object. How much time is left on the Sanders amendment?

Will the Senator from Oklahoma withhold? We have some people who want to speak. Once the time has run, then we automatically move on to another amendment and could bring up the Senator's amendment at that point.

There is 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment.

Senator Mikulski was here earlier. She wants to speak on this amendment. If we just wait 5 minutes?

I am sorry, I was wrong. I thought the Senator wanted to speak on the Sanders amendment. She wanted to speak on the underlying bill itself?

The Senator just seeks 5 minutes?

Since it is my time, I yield the Senator from Maryland 5 minutes on the underlying bill.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the Sanders amendment?

I will yield myself a couple of minutes.

I join with my colleague Senator Enzi in opposition to the Sanders amendment. We are all disturbed by a lot of what we are reading and these big settlements. I know the recent one a couple of weeks ago on Abbott Labs where part of the prosecution case was actually that this was part of their business model. Then they had to settle it. So this is all very disturbing.

However, that cries out more for, perhaps, looking at the criminal charges and perhaps strengthening some of those things but not taking away exclusivity. If you do that, a lot of times you could take away exclusivity from someone who just committed a misdemeanor. A lot of these settlements were misdemeanor charges where no intent was shown.

A lot of times, if you did this, you might penalize someone who maybe had done something wrong in the past, and now maybe they have new leadership, a new company, and reformed themselves, and now they have to lose their exclusivity? You would not want to do that.

Third, if you do this--I think Senator Enzi pointed this out correctly--if there is no reason to settle, then people are going to go to the wall in terms of defending themselves, and DOJ doesn't have all that kind of personnel and the time to do that. I think we would then have an even worse situation of people committing fraud because then they would know they would not have any reason to settle it whatsoever. Settlement is a good tool to be used by prosecutors to get cases to justice, to make sure consumers are made whole, and to let people know they are being watched. That is what they do.

I think the Sanders amendment, while maybe well-intentioned--I know it is well-intentioned. I know the Senator has all good intentions of what he wants to do. But I think it goes too far and is not the right solution to that problem. So I would oppose Senator Sanders amendment also.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

I think the Senator is making a lot of common sense. The only question I would ask is--and I don't know a lot about this. I haven't read the GAO report. But if, in fact, every employee says, I know they are going to get me on this timeliness. So it is the balance of safety and quickness, safety and expediency. In other words, we try to get a balance. We want devices and drugs approved as quickly as possible, but we don't want to jeopardize safety. Those are the two things we always try to balance here, safety being the foremost. We want things to be safe.

My question is, by enshrining this into law rather than in the administration, would this somehow put more undue pressure on reviewers and others to do something quickly and jeopardize the safety aspect?

Madam President, I join Senator Enzi in thanking Senator Burr for being not only a very valuable member of our committee but I would say the Senator's fingerprints are a lot on this bill we have before us. He has worked very hard on this bill and I think helped to improve it every step of the way over the last year.

I was looking through the list of different things here. Senator Burr was one of the leaders in our working group on the supply chain, which we have in this bill to make sure those things coming from other countries have good manufacturing practices on them and we can keep track of them.

The provision of clarifying the ``least burdensome'' standard on clinical data for device approval was also the result of the Senator's hard work. The Senator was also in the working group on the GAIN bill regarding antibiotic incentives for getting more incentives for new antibiotics. And there was a Burr-Coburn bill regarding enhanced reporting requirements for FDA, and that basically is also included in the bill we have in front of us.

So in every respect, the Senator from North Carolina is a great member of our committee, a very valuable member of our committee. As I said, we are looking at the amendment he has now brought up, and I am sure, as Senator Enzi said, we will be talking about this in the next few hours and going into tomorrow. But I again want to pay my respect to the Senator from North Carolina and thank him for all the hard work he has done on this bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, an inquiry: Is the Senator bringing up-- --no, the Senator does not have an amendment pending.

The Senator wishes to speak on which amendment?

Madam President, how much time is remaining on the Grassley amendments, the amendments offered by the Senator from Iowa?

How much time does the Senator wish to take?

I would ask that 10 minutes of the time in opposition to the Grassley amendment be allocated to the Senator from Minnesota.

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

Mr. President, how much time remains on the two amendments offered by the Senator from Maryland?

Mr. President, I will speak on the time available for the amendments.

Amendment No. 2125

First of all, amendment No. 2125 will help ensure that health care providers, patients, and payers better understand the benefits and risks associated with drugs, especially with respect to those drugs by underrepresented subpopulations.

I believe this is an important and noncontroversial amendment. I hope we can support this amendment.

Amendment No. 2141

On the other amendment, No. 2141, which is the small business report, I think it is important FDA give small businesses a helping hand. I understand each FDA center has a small business office and that each of FDA's five regional offices has a small business representative. This report the FDA would have to submit on the basis of the amendment offered by Senator Cardin would provide Congress with more information about how FDA uses its resources for small businesses to help encourage small companies.

Again, I think this is another valuable addition to our bill and, hopefully, we can support that amendment also. So I thank the Senator from Maryland for his offering these two amendments and for what I consider to be improvements to the underlying bill.

I thank him very much for that.

Mr. President, again, I would say to the Members who may be in their offices that we still have some extra time before we will be adjourning this evening. Again, I would advise Senators that by at least 2 p.m. tomorrow, when the bell rings, we will be moving to voting, if not before then. So any Senator who has an amendment to bring up and who wishes to talk about it, I wish they would come to the floor and do that now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided equally.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky, and I oppose it for several reasons.

I believe I am in the court of equity now: I come with clean hands because I am one of the authors of the Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act, along with Senator Hatch, in 1994. We worked in tandem over a period of a couple of years to get the legislation through. A lot of compromises were made at that time, not only here in the Senate but also with the House when we went to conference. I believe the right balance was struck, and I think it has proven its worth over the years.

We have done some minor modifications to it over the years. As I have often said, when we write laws around here they are not chiseled in stone for all eternity. These aren't the Ten Commandments, they are laws, and sometimes they need to be modified and changed a little bit, usually tweaking. But this amendment basically turns the whole law that we had since 1994 on its head.

We have a process now where the FDA regulates the supplements as foods. These are foods, not drugs. So as

we hammered out this agreement, supplements can make nutrient, structure, function claims without any FDA preapproval. If they want to make a health claim, then it has to be approved by FDA, and FDA has to find that it is supported by appropriate scientific evidence. Under this amendment, substances that today are considered drugs and used to treat diseases as serious as cancer or HIV could be marketed without any rigorous FDA review that we have heard from many speakers here today is the gold standard of drug regulation throughout the world. It would turn our current system of drug regulation on its head. It would be a huge setback for health. It would foster a system rife with potential for health fraud. The big losers would be patients.

Frankly, as someone who is a strong supporter of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, and I would say along with Senator Hatch one of its protectors for all these years, I daresay the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky would destroy DSHEA. It would destroy it and I don't want to see it destroyed because I think it is doing a lot of good for a lot of people in this country. It is working well. Consumers have access to a wide range of safe products. There is no reason to upset its success, because this amendment would do that.

To think that somehow you could go out and make any health claim you want? Back to the days of snake oil salesmen: ``This elixir will do everything, it will cure every ailment you have and turn the clock back 20 years on your age.'' People would buy it, and what was it? It was 80-percent alcohol and 20-percent water or something like that. They made all these crazy claims. We are going to move to that kind of system now? And the only recourse would be to take them to Federal court and then have a trial and go through all that and then, OK, then they appeal it and finally you find out, OK, the court says no, there is not enough scientific evidence to warrant it so you have to take that product off the market.

We are going to do that for every one of the thousands and thousands of different products that are out there? What a mess this would be. First of all, the Federal courts would not have the wherewithal to do every one of those. Second, who has the money to take all that to court? And it would literally destroy--bring down an industry that has done well in this country. The dietary supplement industry, the vitamins and minerals industry in this country, has done a great job and I do not want to see it ruined. This would ruin it.

Last, the Senator from Kentucky talked about increasing the mens rea, the mind; you know, in law school, what your mental condition, what your thought processes were--what was your intent. It would increase it. It would need to be shown to enjoin or prosecute serious violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. I find this amazing. This idea that we need to make it harder to enforce a public health protection statute, not easier, is deeply troubling. I see no legitimate reason to do this.

The goal of this amendment is clearly to render the FDA virtually incapable of addressing industry abuses. I think this amendment would have deleterious effects on the Dietary and Supplement Education Act, and the industry, and also on the FDA's ability to regulate prescription drugs. You can say just about anything about what your health claims would be on any kind of product and the only recourse, as I said, would be to go to Federal court.

Again, this is a consensus measure. We have built a very broad bipartisan support for this FDA user fee bill. It is must-pass legislation. We cannot jeopardize that consensus.

For those reasons, I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky.

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

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

Mr. President, how much time remains on the amendments offered by the Senator from Maryland, Senator Cardin?

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Colorado, how much time does the Senator seek?

I ask 10 minutes of the time from amendment No. 2141 be yielded to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I join Senator Enzi in thanking Senator Bennet for being a very valuable member of our committee and for all of the great work the Senator did on this bill. His fingerprints are all over this bill, and, as he pointed out, it is a great bill. There was great bipartisan support.

I thank the Senator for all of his work in our working groups, especially the drug supply chain. This is a key part of this bill. The FDA will have the authority and the wherewithal to go back up the chain to where these drugs come from. The Senator was the first one to point out to me at the committee hearing that I think about 80 percent of all of the ingredients that go into our drugs in this country come from outside this country, but we had no real idea on where and how, and now we can insist on good manufacturing practices. So I would say this singular addition to this bill can be traced right back to the Senator from Colorado, and I thank him very much for his leadership on this issue and in helping us to get this bill to where we are today. I thank the Senator.

I would like to yield 10 minutes off of the opposition of the Grassley amendment 2121 to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, as the Senator said, his amendment would amend the Controlled Substances Act to make any substance containing hydrocodone--Vicodin--a schedule II drug. As he said, this is presently a schedule III drug. The most significant difference is, for patients, schedule II drugs are not allowed to be refilled. That is the key to the amendment.

I applaud the Senator. I have great concerns regarding the increased abuse of prescription drugs. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

Overdoses involving prescription painkillers are at

epidemic levels--

Epidemic levels--

and now kill more Americans than heroin and cocaine combined.

That is a quote from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to CDC, more than 40 people die in America every day from overdoses involving narcotic pain relievers such as hydrocodone.

For this reason, I applaud Senator Manchin for his amendment and the efforts he has undertaken to reschedule this drug. It is the most frequently abused narcotic and that is a strong reason to reschedule it into section II.

Again, I thank the Senator for this amendment. At the appropriate time I will ask for its adoption. Again, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. This is a great amendment. It improves the bill. It is widely accepted, and the Senator has been on the right track on this issue for a long time. I applaud him for doing this and, believe me, a lot of people in America are going to thank the Senator for getting this drug rescheduled to cut down on the terrible overuse of this drug in America. I thank the Senator very much.

If the Senator would withhold the unanimous consent request.

We have a number of amendments we are putting together, and at the appropriate time I will make sure that happens.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside all pending amendments in order to call up Reed amendment No. 2126, and I ask that the clerk report the amendment by number.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be agreed to en bloc: Cardin No. 2125; Cardin No. 2141; Grassley No. 2121; Grassley No. 2129; Manchin No. 2151, as modified; and Reed No. 2126.

Mr. President, we are finished with business for today. We do have some more amendments to be called up and voted on tomorrow. I understand we are coming in--I do not know exactly what time has been set for the morning, but after the leaders' time has been used, we will be back on this bill.

Again, I remind Senators and their staffs that we have until 2 p.m. for their amendments to be brought up and to be debated. The sooner we get to those in the morning, the better off we will be.

So as soon as the leader time is exhausted tomorrow morning, we will be back on our bill.

So, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call not be taken off our bill.

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

Mr. President, we are now on the motion to proceed, as you know, to the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of

2012, which is basically the reauthorization of FDA for the prescription drug user fees and the medical device user fees. There are a couple of new provisions in this bill dealing with the generic drug user fees and the biosimilar drug user fees as well. So this bill is extremely important.

We have been working in our committee for over a year on it, working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. As both Senator Enzi, my ranking member, and I pointed out yesterday, this has been a true bipartisan effort. We did not divide up in terms of party--Democrat or Republican--we divided up in terms of interest areas, and we had working groups within our committee so that Senators who had a particular interest in one area or another were on that working group. We also had Senators who were not on the committee but who had interest areas in it involved in our working groups. So they and their staffs had full working knowledge of what was going on all the time and it was a true collegial effort. Those working groups completed their work earlier this year.

We also called in all the stakeholders--the prescription drug manufacturers, the pharmacists, the drugstores, consumer groups, and practitioners. So we had all the stakeholders involved in this too. And now we have come up with a bill that has very broad support. I put in the Record yesterday a list of over 100 different organizations, everything from the drug manufacturers to consumer protection groups and consumer groups that are supporting this bill. It has very broad- based support. And, again, I believe that is due to the fact we proceeded on the reauthorization of this bill in the time-honored tradition of the Senate, which is for the committee to take the reauthorization prospect, to do its due diligence--and we did that for over a year, as I mentioned--and to make sure people were involved at every step of the process on both sides of the aisle. We brought in the stakeholders and continued this effort, as I said, for over a year to the point where we now have a bill that is broadly supported.

As I said, everyone has a common interest in ensuring our products don't hurt patients. I have said in our hearings, and I continue to believe, safety is the paramount consideration. We cannot sacrifice patient safety on the altar of other considerations. Patient safety is still the highest standard, the highest mark at which we aim our sights. But getting the products to patients quickly is also important.

I have heard heartwrenching stories of patients desperately waiting for treatments, and of inspiring accounts of small startup companies seeking to fill the needs of these patients with innovative medical products. Patient groups and industry alike have stressed the need for efficient FDA processes to get products to patients quickly.

Again--and I will be pointing out later also--FDA does a very good job of getting products, both drugs and devices, to market quickly. In fact, of the 154 drugs approved in both the United States and Canada, in a study done by the New England Journal of Medicine, 132 were approved here first. So we have not been dragging our heels and FDA hasn't been dragging its heels in terms of getting the job done.

Some say, well, sometimes products get approved more rapidly in Europe than they do here. That is true, but it is important to note that foreign approval standards are different. So it is kind of an apples-and-oranges kind of comparison. The FDA here approves drugs and devices based on their safety and effectiveness--safety and effectiveness. Are they safe and do they actually do what they say they are supposed to do?

Other countries--basically in Europe--only consider safety and not whether the device is effective. So as long as it is safe, they approve it. So, yes, they have a shorter approval time, but they don't take into consideration effectiveness.

I strongly believe the United States should keep this high standard of both safety and effectiveness. It is important to know if a device is effective because that affects a patient's decision whether to accept the device's risks and whether to forego maybe alternative treatments.

FDA officials testified before our committee this year. They submitted documentation showing that 95 percent of medical device applications were reviewed within the deadlines set in the past user fee agreement. Now, despite all this good work FDA is doing, patients were sick or dying. Promising therapies can't be approved quickly enough. So the bill we have before us will continue to support the agency and its good work, but it will allow for some very big improvements.

The medical device industry has agreed to double its user fees, to pay twice as much, and in return the FDA has agreed to speed review times, increase transparency, enhance communications--all of which will get devices to patients more quickly but still keep safety in mind. So anything we can do to both streamline the process, get drugs and devices to patients sooner, and make sure we keep our high standard of safety and effectiveness is not only good for business but critical for the patients who need them.

I expect the FDA Safety and Innovation Act will have significant impact on FDA's ability to approve medical products in an efficient and transparent way. As I said, that benefits everyone. Investors will feel better about putting their money into medical technologies, companies will translate their research and development work into sales more quickly, support for innovation will allow the United States to maintain its leadership position in the biotech industry, and this will preserve and create jobs all over America.

In this sector, as long as we preserve safety standards--which is, what is good for business is good for patients--then, again, if companies and their investors believe the climate is right to commit resources to new medical therapies, this means patients who did not previously have options will have treatments to turn to. So I say this bill is a win-win for everyone.

Inspiring innovation and improving patient access to medical therapies are two of the many ways this bill modernizes our regulatory and oversight system to benefit both patients and the biomedical industry. The FDA Safety and Innovation Act is a truly bipartisan consensus bill that reflects the input and shared goals of a wide range of stakeholders. I hope we will be on the bill shortly after our noon caucuses and conferences for the two parties this afternoon. I trust that we will have only relevant amendments to the bill. I hope that has been accepted on both sides, and that we can discuss the bill and have the relevant amendments and have them disposed of sometime this week.

So I am hopeful we can get this bill done before we go home for the Memorial Day recess. But we will be back on the bill this afternoon. I urge all my colleagues to give this bill their support. We will have some amendments, I am sure, that will be relevant to the bill. They will be debated and voted upon. But, nonetheless, I hope we can expeditiously move this bill and get it done.

The clock is ticking. The FDA authorization runs out at the end of this summer. You might say, well, we have until then to get it done. We are out of here the month of August. We are out of here for the Fourth of July break. We have a Memorial Day break. We have appropriations bills to do. We have all kinds of things we have to do this summer. Plus, it is not waiting until the last minute.

FDA needs to know very soon whether they are going to have these resources. The drug companies need to know whether FDA will have the resources to continue to do its work. So sometime midsummer FDA will probably have to start sending out pink slips to people they will not be able to keep past the end of the summer because they will not have the funds. It has been estimated that up to 2,000 people could lose their jobs at the end of this summer if we don't do our work and get this bill reauthorized.

So time is of the essence. We need to get it done so we can go to conference with the House, work out whatever little disagreements we may have, and get the final bill to the President, hopefully sometime in June so the FDA then will not have to go through any processes of seeing who they are going to lay off and how they are going to close things down at the end of the summer.

So, again, time is of the essence. I urge all my colleagues to support this well-thought-out bill that has taken over a year to put together. All of the

stakeholders support it with broad support across America. So I hope we can get on the bill this afternoon and bring it to a close as soon as possible.

Mr. 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statement I am about to give appear as in morning business and not connected to the motion at hand.

Mr. President, last week our Nation lost one of its most determined and courageous advocates for the rights of people with disabilities, Katie Beckett.

I am proud to say that Katie was a native Iowan. She was born in March of 1978 and 5 months later contracted viral encephalitis. She subsequently had a seizure and went into a coma for 10 days. This illness caused nerve damage to her brain and left her paralyzed and unable to breathe on her own. She received a tracheotomy, was placed on a ventilator, and was fed using a tube.

Initially, after coming out of the coma, she could not move at all. Slowly, much of the paralysis receded, but she was not able to breathe on her own until she was 2 years of age. During that time, she lived in a pediatric intensive care unit. Naturally her family wanted her out of the hospital and home where they could care, support, and love her.

By her third birthday, Katie's private insurance reached its $1 million cap, and she began to receive Medicaid for her health care. Doctors determined that she could leave the hospital with proper supports at home. However--and here is the catch--Medicaid refused to pay for such care even though it would cost one-sixth as much as hospital care. Medicaid would pay for institutional care but not for care in her own home. She could only receive care in a hospital or nursing home in order to be covered.

Katie's predicament began to receive attention thanks to the intervention of many people, including then-Congressman Tom Tauke, who was Katie's Congressman at the time. He began to speak out about this and brought it to the attention of then-President Ronald Reagan and many in Congress. Because of that, President Reagan spoke out about this and a new home- and community-based waiver was created to allow children in Katie's situation to receive their care at home rather than in hospitals. This new program is called the Katie Beckett Waiver. At the time, it was thought the program would benefit only a few hundred children. However, since 1982 over half a million children have benefited from the Katie Beckett Waiver, including 11,000 in Iowa. Katie and her family were true pioneers in changing the institutional bias in Medicaid and permitting children with significant disabilities to receive their support and services in their own homes rather than in a hospital, nursing home, or other institutional setting.

Under the new program, Katie went home almost 3 full years after she was admitted. At that time she was able to be off her ventilator for 6 hours a day. What happened after her discharge? Well, she attended school. While her fellow students considered her different because of her medical condition, she never needed special education services. At an early age she became a passionate advocate for home- and community- based care.

While in middle and high school, she testified before Congress, met with Governors, and, as I said, even met with the President of the United States. She served as an intern at Exceptional Parent magazine while living in Boston. That summer between her junior and senior year of high school, Katie learned to manage her own medical care, directing nurses who provided her treatment and managed her ventilator.

Katie considered advocacy to be her vocation and chosen path--in particular, to raise the consciousness of other young people about disability issues. Even though she found this work rewarding, she sometimes felt uncomfortable in those pre-ADA days--the pre-Americans with Disabilities Act days--and being singled out because of her disability. All she really wanted, as she put it, was ``to fit in and just be normal.''

Katie's first job was at a music store in a local mall. She got the job, as any young person would, by virtue of her knowledge and interest in music. Katie said, ``Advocacy is in my blood and in my soul,'' so she looked for work that would allow her to help other people. She volunteered at the local YWCA in the secondhand shop that supported the only homeless shelter for women and children in eastern Iowa and was then hired as the receptionist at the Y. The job title ``receptionist'' did not begin to describe her true job responsibilities. Katie was the first responder to sexual assault and domestic violence

victims. She helped with the neutral exchange program, where divorced or separated parents could drop off their children without having to encounter each other. She learned to quickly assess the needs of others and to help connect them to appropriate services and supports. She also helped with the supervised visitation program and was soon promoted to be the assistant to the supervisor of that program.

Later, Katie worked with her mother, Julie Beckett, to help establish the Kids As Self-Advocates Network, a group designed to help children and youth with significant medical needs to speak up for their own care and support. Working through Family Voices, another organization spearheaded by Julie Beckett, Katie helped to teach hundreds of young people how to advocate for their own health care. In addition, she served as a Senate appointee on the Ticket to Work and the Work Incentives Advisory Panel, which provided advice to the Social Security Administration, the President, and Congress on work incentives, employment, and other issues facing people with disabilities.

Katie Beckett graduated from Mount Mercy College in Cedar Rapids, IA, in 2001. She later took writing courses at nearby Kirkwood Community College. She was close to completing a novel. A series of illnesses obliged her to put off returning to college to take the classes necessary to become a teacher.

Katie treasured the freedom to engage in the kinds of activities that so many of us take for granted, including eating at Red Lobster, going to the shopping mall, and recently moving into her own apartment.

Katie will be greatly missed by so many people all across America. She will be remembered for her determined advocacy and that of her family, which has changed countless families forever. She inspired a host of young people with disabilities by showing that an ordinary person can accomplish extraordinary goals through great spirit, determination, and persistence.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, ``Life's most urgent and persistent question is: What are you doing for others?'' During her memorable but very short lifetime, Katie answered that question in powerful ways as an agent for change and as a determined advocate. Her living legacy is the program that bears her name, the Katie Beckett Waiver, which will continue to improve the lives of children and young people with disabilities far into the future.

I see my colleague from Iowa, who has also been a friend of the Becketts and has been very supportive of Katie and all of her work and of Julie Beckett. This has truly been bipartisan, bicameral support for this wonderful family.

Katie's funeral is this Friday. We are all going to miss her. As I said, when you met Katie Beckett, you were inspired to do more than you thought you could do. She was a wonderful person, and it is tragic that her life came to such a short close, just last week. She is going to be remembered. As I said, she changed so many lives in this country for the better.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lauren Boyer and Jimmy Fremgen of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

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

Mr. President, after many months of bipartisan negotiation, the Senate will proceed this evening to vote on the motion to proceed to consideration of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012. I hope it will receive an overwhelming vote so we can move ahead with it and dispense with the bill on the floor this week. This bill is the product of excellent bipartisan collaboration on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee which I chair. All Senators on the committee have been involved. Going back almost a year, we set up working groups. Different Senators had different interests in different parts of the bill. They and their staffs on both sides were invited, Republican and Democrat, to be involved in those working groups to put this bill together.

The bill passed overwhelmingly out of our committee--actually by voice vote, with only two reserving their ``no'' votes. So it had overwhelming support on both sides in our committee.

This bill, of course, reauthorizes important FDA user fee agreements. It modernizes the FDA's medical product authority to help boost American innovation and ensure patients have access to the therapies they need. The backbone of this legislation is the user fee agreements that FDA has negotiated with industry. We must remember that a sizable part of FDA's budget comes from user fees that the industry agrees to pay, that allows the FDA to hire the personnel and get the equipment they need to more quickly review product applications. We need to reauthorize this bill to implement those agreements if we want to keep the FDA running at full steam, which is critical to preserving jobs at both the agency and in industry, and to ensuring that FDA has the resources to get safe medical products to patients quickly. Again, these agreements affect all of us by helping to maintain and create jobs in our home States. For example, in my own State of Iowa, these agreements will support our bioscience sector which is growing and is increasing employment in our State. Implementation of these agreements will continue to foster biomedical innovation and job growth throughout our country.

The bill before us reauthorizes the prescription drug user fee agreement, which is known in the nomenclature as PDUFA. The medical device user fee agreement is known as MDUFA. These will continue and improve the agency's ability to speed market access to both drugs and medical devices while ensuring patient safety.

We have a new part of the bill called the generic drug user fee agreement, which is expected to slash review times to a third of current levels--from 30 months to 10 months--and will improve the speed with which generic products are made available to patients. This will generate significant savings in our health care system. In the last decade, from 2001 to 2010, it saved the U.S. health care system more than $931 billion.

This agreement will ensure we continue to see those savings and that patients will have access to cheaper drugs when they need them. It also obviously means taxpayers will be saving money because many of these drugs come through both Medicaid and Medicare. By having generic drugs available more rapidly than they have been in the past, it will mean taxpayers will save a significant amount of money in the future.

This bill also authorizes another new section, the biosimilars user fee agreement, which will further spur innovation by shepherding the biologic industry as it matures.

These agreements are vital to FDA's ability to do its job, to the medical products industry's ability to survive some very challenging economic times, but, most importantly, to the patients who are the primary beneficiaries of this longstanding and valuable collaboration between FDA and industry. As I said, after months of negotiations with our staffs, with FDA, with the industry, and with consumer groups, I think they have crafted win-win agreements that they stand behind. So industry is behind this bill, the FDA is behind this bill, and hundreds of groups throughout this country have been supporting it. They have done their job and now it is time for us to do ours.

It is absolutely imperative that we authorize these user fee agreements before they expire. If we don't, the FDA will lose about 60 percent of its drug center budget and 20 percent of its device center budget. It will have to lay off nearly 2,000 employees, which would grind the drug and device approval processes to an unacceptably slow pace, with devastating consequences for patients, jobs, for the industry, and further innovations both in drugs and devices. We cannot let that happen, and that is why for more than a year we have worked very closely in our committee.

I see the ranking member, Senator Enzi, is here. We and our staffs have worked together. As I said, we set up

these working groups in our committee. They were not divided along any kind of partisan lines. They were set up along interest groups so we had both Democratic and Republican Senators and their staffs working together for years.

I am sure I can speak for Senator Enzi when I say all along our aim has been to ensure that in addition to the user fee agreements and all the other things, this is the product of a consensus, bipartisan, policymaking process that we have had for the last year. It was an open and transparent process. We had input not only from our members but other Senators were also involved as they had interest in this bill. Throughout negotiations on this bill the stakeholder community-at-large was involved.

Again, I can assure everyone that this legislation benefited greatly from all of the diverse input from Senators on both sides, industry stakeholders, consumer groups, and patient groups. It is a result of concerted efforts to define our common interests, and I believe these efforts will directly benefit patients and the U.S. biomedical industry.

Very briefly, I want to say as a broad stroke that this bill authorizes key user fee agreements for both drugs and medical devices. It streamlines the device approval process while again enhancing patient protections.

We do one other thing. We modernize the FDA's global drug supply chain authority so we have a better handle on and better information and knowledge of where our products are coming from. Of the drugs manufactured in this country, 80 percent of the ingredients come from abroad. In the past we have not had a tight handle on where they were coming from and what kind of manufacturing processes were involved. This bill closes that up. It gives the FDA much better authority over that and much better input from where the drugs come from to make sure they follow good manufacturing practices. It spurs innovation and incentivizes drug development for life-threatening conditions.

We reauthorized the pediatric trial program and improved it so we have specific trial programs for pediatric drugs. Children are not just small adults. What may work for an adult in terms of a drug, we don't just cut the drug in half and give it to a child. Sometimes it takes specialized, specific kinds of drugs for children that are not something an adult gets. So this reauthorizes and improves those trials for children.

Senator Enzi and I and others in our committee wanted to do something about preventing and mitigating drug shortages, so we have provisions in this bill that will do that and help prevent and mitigate these drug shortages by making sure the FDA gets timely information from manufacturers if there is going to be any interruption at all in the supply chain. Also I believe this bill increases FDA's accountability and transparency.

That is sort of a broad-brush stroke of what is in this bill. I will be over in the next day perhaps getting into some more of the specifics. It is imperative that we keep pace with and adapt to technological and scientific advances. Things move very rapidly in this area and we want to make sure we get the drugs and devices approved as quickly as possible, but always with keeping patient safety foremost. That is the single most important aspect, to make sure that patient protections will remain key. Keeping pace with the biomedical landscape that changes so rapidly is the aim of this bill, to ensure the drugs coming from abroad are safe, and to take appropriate measures to protect our patients.

I believe we have a good compromise. Neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted in this bill. As I have said before, I didn't get all of what I wanted in this bill. I am sure others didn't either, but that is the process of a consensus. And where we could not achieve consensus, we didn't allow those differences to distract us from the important goal of producing a bill that everyone could support.

Again, it is a true bipartisan bill that is broadly supported by the patient groups and industry. I have letters from over 100 groups outlining their support. To name a few: the Pew Charitable Trust, Consumers Union, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry, the Biotech Industry Organization, BIO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, Advanced Medical Technology Association, American Foundation for the Blind, and many more. Those are just a sampling of over 100 groups.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list of those groups be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

We are expecting that there will probably be some amendments to this bill, and that is fine. That is the way the Senate should operate. We expect all amendments to this bill will be relevant to the bill. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle who want to see this bill passed expeditiously would keep that in mind. If there is a relevant amendment and Senators feel they want to bring that up, that is fine. That is the way the Senate should operate.

I hope nonrelevant amendments which have nothing to do with the bill will not be promoted on the Senate floor. That would only slow the bill down and put us into some untenable position on the Senate floor in terms of getting this bill expeditiously done.

We cannot allow unrelated, partisan disagreements or Presidential- election year politics to interfere with this bill and keep us from completing our job. So amendments that are offered must be relevant to the bill, and we must pass it now.

The clock is ticking. Everything ends by the end of this summer. We are out of here in August. We have the 4th of July break and Memorial Day break coming up. In order for us to go to conference with the House and work out whatever differences we may have and get this back here so we can finish it by late June or early July--I hope we could even finish this by late June so there would not be any disruptions at all in the FDA and their planning for the future or in the industry itself.

I urge my colleagues to join in the bipartisan spirit of cooperation that we have witnessed in the HELP Committee over the last year. Let us come together to pass this legislation that is of critical importance to the American people.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William McConagha and Kathleen Wise be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of consideration of S. 3187, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act.

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

Madam President, I have high hopes that in the days immediately ahead the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012.

I am pleased to report to my colleagues that the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has produced an excellent bill, the product of nearly a full year of bipartisan collaboration and good- faith negotiation. The bill reauthorizes critically important FDA user- fee agreements and systematically modernizes FDA's medical product authority to help boost American innovation and ensure that patients have access to the therapies they need.

In this era of often extreme partisanship and legislative gridlock, this bill is truly a refreshing exception. That is why I am hopeful and confident that there will be no objection on the Senate floor to moving to this bill next week.

Frankly, all of us on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee are proud not only of the bill but of the remarkable bipartisan process that produced it. I am especially grateful to the committee's ranking member, Senator Mike Enzi, for his own insistence on a bipartisan process, and for his leadership in moving this very complex legislation forward.

This afternoon I will review the bipartisan process--at every step marked by openness and transparency--that produced this legislation.

More than 1 year ago, beginning in early 2011 for some issues, my office and the office of Ranking Member Enzi convened six bipartisan HELP Committee working groups. Each working group was tasked with developing consensus policy proposals on key issues, such as drug shortages and the integrity of the drug supply chain.

These bipartisan working groups met weekly and, in many cases, biweekly, over the whole course of 2011, discussing and developing draft consensus proposals.

While this consensus process was ongoing, my staff would often meet many times a week with staffers representing both Democratic and Republican members of the HELP Committee.

As I said, every single working group was bipartisan, and staff from my office worked closely with Senator Enzi's office to solicit priorities from other members of the committee. In many cases, we invited all HELP offices to join the groups.

We even invited staff of noncommittee Members who have been leaders in a particular policy area to join the groups. For example, our bipartisan drug shortage working group had staff members from 18 Senate offices, including the staffers for two Senators who are not even members of the committee.

While developing the consensus drafts, each of these bipartisan working groups met with key stakeholders throughout the year to solicit their input. For example, the drug supply chain integrity working group met with more than 40 stakeholders over a period of 9 months.

In addition to the working group meetings, beginning in late 2011, my staff met twice a week for almost 18 weeks with all Democratic HELP offices to brief them on the reauthorization process and update them on the progress of all of the policy proposals.

To further engage committee members, the administration, stakeholders, and the public, we held a total of five full committee hearings on the user-fee reauthorization over the last year. After our first public hearing in July of 2011, we held three hearings on distinct policy issues surrounding user fees, as well as a hearing on the actual user-fee agreements.

As a result of the excellent work of these bipartisan working groups, in March of this year my staff and Ranking Member Enzi's staff released five bipartisan consensus drafts and solicited further stakeholder input. Bipartisan staff conducted stakeholder briefings on the release of each draft, and the drafts were available on the HELP Web site for more than 3 weeks prior to markup.

In response to the five discussion drafts released to the public, our staffs received more than 160 comments and held more than 30 stakeholder meetings on a bipartisan basis over 3\1/2\ weeks.

Bipartisan staff worked to incorporate stakeholder feedback into the drafts, and then the committee publicly released a managers' package on Wednesday, April 18, 1 week before markup.

On April 25 of this year, the committee met to consider the bill. Committee members voted nearly unanimously, by voice vote, to send the bill to the full Senate.

As I said, this entire process has been a model of bipartisanship, openness, and transparency. Believe me, it was tough to achieve consensus on many of the complex and controversial provisions in the bill. At every step, it required difficult and sometimes painful compromise. Even as the committee chair, I did not get some of my highest priority proposals, since I could not get consensus among members and stakeholders.

Compromise and sometimes sacrifice were essential. I was acutely aware, as were other members of the committee, that it is imperative that we pass the user-fee agreements in this bill. We were determined not to allow partisanship to slow this package down or to jeopardize our goal of consensus.

As I said, the end result is an excellent bill. In addition to authorizing the critically important FDA user-fee agreements, this legislation makes it possible for the FDA to keep pace with the ever- changing biomedical landscape.

Here are some of the major provisions of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act, which will be on the floor next week:

It authorizes key user-fee agreements to ensure timely approval of medical products. It streamlines the device approval process, while enhancing patient protections. It modernizes FDA's goal of drug supply chain authority. We spur innovation and incentives for drug development for life-threatening conditions. The bill reauthorizes and improves incentives for pediatric trials. It helps prevent and mitigate drug shortages. It increases FDA's accountability and transparency.

With this bipartisan bill, I think we have a bill, I hope, we can all support and that we can move forward on expeditiously. Neither Democrats nor Republicans got everything they wanted. On every issue, we sought consensus. Where we could not achieve consensus, we didn't allow our differences to deflect us from the critically important goal of producing a bill that everybody could support. As a result, this is a truly bipartisan bill, and it is broadly supported by the patient groups and industry.

This is the chart showing over 100 different associations and groups, patient groups, consumer groups, pharmaceutical groups, and research organizations all over America that have come out in support of this legislation. So everyone from the pharmaceutical industry, your drugstores, research institutions, and consumer organizations have all now supported this bill to reauthorize our user-fee agreements.

I am also very pleased that today the Obama administration issued an official statement of administration policy asserting that ``the administration strongly supports passage of S. 3187.''

Lastly, I will mention that the CBO scored the bill as fully paid for and estimates that the legislation would reduce the deficit by $363 million over the next 10 years. Again, not only are we enhancing patients' rights and protections, we are ensuring better integrity for the drug supply chain. As we know, more than 80 percent of the products that go into our drugs manufactured in this country come from

abroad. There have been many stories written, and many television investigative stories included, on problems in that drug supply chain. Well, this bill enhances our ability to ensure the integrity of that drug supply chain from where they get the raw materials to where they put it together in this country.

This bill, as I said, not only does good for our patients, we enhance FDA's authority to streamline and make sure that we bring drugs to market in more rapid order. We save $363 million over 10 years doing it.

I look forward to bringing the FDA Safety and Innovation Act to the floor in a few days. The House has had a similar bipartisan process, and they are also scheduled to take up their version of the bill next week. If the Senate acts quickly, I am confident we can go to conference and get a final bill on the President's desk this summer.

To that end, I am hopeful and confident we can move without objection to consideration of the bill. It is important that we do so. This is absolutely must-pass legislation. It is critically important to the FDA, to the industry, and to our patients to get this done.

I urge all of my colleagues to join in the bipartisan spirit of cooperation we have engineered and witnessed in the HELP Committee over the last year. Let us come together, Democrats and Republicans alike, and get this legislation on the floor and pass it because of its critical importance to the American people.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

Mr. President, I wish to address these budget proposals in one context. First of all, we have to dismiss the so-called Sessions budget that is supposedly the Obama budget--it is not. That is not even serious. Beyond that, we have four Republican budgets. Here is the one thing people have to keep in mind, especially now: Each one of those budgets will double the interest rate on student loans beginning on July 1 of this year--every single one of them.

We were here in the last couple of weeks trying to bring up a bill to prevent those interest rates from going up, to keep it at 3.4 percent rather than going to 6.8 percent. The Republicans filibustered that. We could not even bring it up for discussion, debate, and amending. But the Republicans kept saying, oh, they want to keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent. Well, quite frankly, I don't see how they can say that and then vote for each one of these budgets because each one that will be voted on in about an hour and a half, if it passes, will double the interest rate on student loans on July 1. At the same time, they continue to filibuster our bill to even bring it on the floor. My friends on the other side of the aisle are telling students across the country they don't want to see the interest rate double, but their budget has it.

Our former colleague and now the Vice President of the United States Joe Biden, when he was a Senator, said something I think very savvy one time: Don't tell me what you value; show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value.

Mr. President, my friends on the other side may say in public that they want to prevent the student loan rate hike, but their actual budget tells a very different story. Likewise, their ongoing filibuster of our Stop the Student Loan Interest Rate Hike Act tells a different story. Again, they have blocked us from proceeding to the bill. If we had proceeded, we could have had a serious discussion about how we pay for it. They could have offered amendments that we could have voted on. Instead, they chose to obstruct the entire process, and yet repeatedly on this floor Republicans, one after the other, came up and said they want to stop the increase in interest rates from going from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. Don't tell me what you value; show me your budget. I will give them credit for this: They have shown us their budget, and in it is a doubling of the interest rate on student loans beginning July 1.

I want to be clear that anybody who votes for any one of these budgets is voting to double the student loan interest rate on July 1 regardless of what may be said, regardless of crocodile

tears that may be shed on interest rates and what is happening. The budgets we are voting on today tell the true story: Republicans are willing--not only willing, but they are going to, if they vote for these budgets, double the interest rates on student loans beginning on July 1. There is just no getting around that, and that is a shame.

We have to stop that interest rate hike on July 1. That is why it is important to vote down these proposed budgets this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

Does this budget permit the interest rates on student loans to double on July 1?

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, will my colleague yield for a question?

Does the Toomey budget we are about to vote on increase student loan interest rates on July 1 from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent?

Well, I hope every Senator who votes on this knows, if they are voting for this budget, they are voting to double student loan interest rates on July 1.

Would the Senator yield for a question?

Madam President, I ask the same question of the distinguished chairman: Would this budget have the interest rates double on student loans on July 1 from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Laura Sands and Katrine Lazar of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's proceedings.

Mr. President, on this day, May 15, in 1862, President Lincoln signed into law an act establishing our nation's Department of Agriculture. This 150th anniversary is an important opportunity to recognize and celebrate the success and achievement of the many Americans who are involved directly or indirectly in producing, processing, and distributing food, fuel, and fiber for our nation and for export to foreign consumers.

The specific purposes of the new department mentioned in the 1862 act are ``to acquire and diffuse among the people of the United States useful information'' concerning agriculture, broadly and comprehensively defined, and ``to procure, propagate, and distribute among the people new and valuable seeds and plants.'' The responsibilities and authority entrusted to the Department of Agriculture have of course been enlarged over the course of the past 150 years, but this initial legislation contains the core elements of the Department's mission and role that have continued to this day.

You will notice in the act the emphasis on disseminating among the people of the United States information, knowledge, and technology that would be helpful and useful to them as in their pursuits in agriculture. In doing so, the new Department would help to create, foster, and develop new, broadly-available opportunities among the people of the United States. Individuals and families could then capitalize on these opportunities through applying their own efforts and talents to create and grow farms and ranches, and in the process also to build and strengthen our nation. Some 2\1/2\ years later after signing the act, President Lincoln noted in his fourth and last message to Congress the success of the new Department of Agriculture in responding to and serving the needs of the people of our Nation: ``It is peculiarly the people's department, in which they feel more directly concerned than in any other.''

Two other landmark pieces of legislation in 1862 also reflect this approach of the Federal government offering a helping hand to the people of our nation in developing American agriculture. On May 20, 1862, President Lincoln signed what is commonly known as the Homestead Act in order to provide people who would otherwise not have the chance an opportunity to own land. And on July 2, 1862, President Lincoln signed into law the first Morrill Act to donate public lands to the states and territories to support education ``related to agriculture and mechanic arts''. This act was the first Federal assistance to higher education, and its purpose was to make this education widely available to multitudes of people who otherwise never would have obtained it.

Over the ensuing years, our Nation has benefited tremendously from these policies. The productivity of America's farmers and ranchers, along with those working in associated businesses and industries, is a foundation for our national economy and our way of life. We have been blessed in this country with a richness of natural resources to which Americans have applied their hard work, knowledge, and talents. The abundance of America's agricultural output has been instrumental in supporting our people and enabling them to pursue and to excel in many other fields. To be sure, our Nation's history has proven the wisdom of Daniel Webster's observation in 1840, ``When tillage begins, other arts follow.''

The responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture have of course grown over the years as the circumstances and needs of our Nation and its people have changed. The Department continues to play a critical role in supporting research, education, and extension involving food, agriculture, and related topics. It helps agricultural producers survive unpredictable economic losses from market fluctuations and damaging weather. The Department provides critical assistance to farmers and ranchers in conserving and protecting soil, water, wildlife, and other natural resources for future generations. And USDA nutrition assistance enables American children to eat healthy lunches, breakfasts, and snacks and low-income families to put food on the table. The Department of Agriculture also provides important assistance toward developing new sources of rural renewable energy and biobased products. Rural communities benefit from USDA programs that support vital facilities and foster the creation and growth of businesses and jobs. Of course, consumers rely on USDA to protect and ensure the safety of their meat and poultry. And its trade promoting efforts boost our agricultural exports.

On this anniversary of the Department of Agriculture, it is also important to recognize and commend the dedication, talent, and hard work of all of the people working in the Department of Agriculture wherever they may be--in local, county, State, or regional offices, here in Washington, or

in a foreign country. I am also of course proud that several Iowans have very capably led the Department of Agriculture, including our present secretary, Tom Vilsack.

So, today is a time to reflect upon and recognize the achievements of American agriculture and the contributions to that success from the Department of Agriculture. It is also a time to appraise and consider the huge challenges we face in the years ahead in producing the quantities of food needed to eradicate hunger in a growing global population and to do so in ways that conserve and sustain natural resources. Undoubtedly, our Nation and our Department of Agriculture will be called upon to continue our leadership in responding to and solving these crucial challenges.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 418 and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will speak about S. 418, which we just passed. I thank all my colleagues for allowing it to go through on a unanimous consent basis.

This bill awards a Congressional Gold Medal to the World War II members of the Civil Air Patrol. I introduced this legislation last year, and it currently has 85 cosponsors.

This legislation will offer long overdue recognition to a small group of people who answered the call to duty at our Nation's time of maximum danger.

Seventy years ago, during the height of World War II, Civil Air Patrol members in small aircraft began searching for German U-boats off the Atlantic Coast. This was a time of great peril for the Nation when over 400 ships were sunk in U.S. waters, many in view of Americans on shore, and the military didn't have enough aircraft and ships to stop this carnage. That is why the Civil Air Patrol answered the call.

Their mission was highly unusual because these pilots were civilian volunteers flying their own airplanes in combat operations, often at their own expense. The mission was for Civil Air Patrol aircraft to force the U-boats below the surface of the water, making their attacks on shipping much more difficult and time consuming. As soon as the Civil Air Patrol pilots took to the air, they spotted so many U-boats that the military quickly armed their aircraft with small bombs and depth charges. From Maine to Texas, Civil Air Patrol aircraft flew these missions in pairs up to 100 miles offshore, in all seasons, often in bad weather. These CAP, as they are known, put themselves at great risk, flying over water at low levels with only a compass, one radio, and minimal survival gear to help if they got into trouble. Many pilots had to ditch in the water. Twenty-six pilots lost their lives and 90 aircraft were lost.

During an 18-month period, the Civil Air Patrol flew over 24 million miles on its antisubmarine coastal patrols. It spotted 173 U-boats, attacked 57, and sank or damaged 2. It also escorted over 5,600 convoys and reported 17 floating mines, 36 bodies, 91 ships in distress, and 363 survivors in the water. Most importantly, CAP's constant

presence over the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico was a major factor in pushing enemy operations away from the coast and protecting vital shipping and cargo up and down our coastlines.

In 1943 German U-boat attacks ceased off the Atlantic coast of the United States. One high-level German officer credited the Civil Air Patrol with being the primary reason for withdrawal, saying, ``It was because of those damned little red and yellow airplanes.''

As the U-boat threat ended, Civil Air Patrol expanded its homeland security and emergency operations to include search and rescue, border patrol, forest fire patrol, and disaster relief in every State in the Nation.

By war's end, nearly 60,000 members had participated in the Civil Air Patrol and flew 75 million miles over 750,000 hours in support of critical homefront missions. Its volunteers ranged in age from 18 to over 80. Many served for the entire war, while others, most of whom later joined the military, served for shorter periods. A substantial number received ``belligerent'' certificates indicating they had participated in combat-related duty with the Civil Air Patrol.

The individual accounts of Civil Air Patrol pilots' performance and heroism are too numerous to recount, but just a few examples can illustrate the valor with which they served.

For instance, Maj. Hugh Sharp and Lt. Eddie Edwards from Rehoboth, DE, landed their Sikorsky amphibian in high seas to rescue two other CAP airmen who had to ditch their plane. They found one crew member who was badly hurt, but they were unable to take off due to a pontoon damaged during a rough landing in 10-foot seas. They made a decision to taxi the aircraft back to land, but they quickly discovered that the damaged amphibian listed too far to the left and it didn't make much progress. It just sort of went around in circles. So Eddie volunteered to climb to the end of the right wing to keep the plane in balance. The next day, when a Coast Guard ship met the aircraft, Eddie had to be carried from the wing after holding on tightly for 11 hours in freezing and wet conditions. Both pilots were awarded the first Air Medals of the war by President Roosevelt.

Capt. Francis ``Mac'' McLaughlin flew coastal patrol missions from Daytona Beach, FL, for 17 months. During that time, he, along with Albert Crabtree, ditched a Fairchild 24 aircraft in the Atlantic and floated in a life raft for several hours until the Coast Guard picked them up. They quickly became members of the ``Duck Club,'' an exclusive organization that recognized those who survived a CAP ditching. There would soon be many in that club, as I mentioned. When the coastal patrol ended, Mac went to Massachusetts to tow aerial targets, the CAP's second most dangerous duty after the coastal patrol. Seven CAP pilots and observers would be shot down and killed during gunnery practice. Mac, who served the entire war on Active Duty with the Civil Air Patrol, passed away at the end of 2011.

Another CAP veteran was Lt. Charles Compton, who flew from Coastal Patrol Base 1 at Atlantic City, NJ, on antisubmarine and convoy escort missions. He recently noted:

Convoys could be attacked at any time. We had a war going

on and the threat of German submarines off the east coast.

Our job was to make it less easy for the German submarines to

surface without being detected.

Charles, who lives near Chicago and turned 95 last summer, remembers that during these dangerous missions, pilots often used sunken ships as points of reference to help them navigate when over water. He added that, unfortunately, sunken ships were plentiful at that time. Recently recognized for his service with Civil Air Patrol's Distinguished Service Award, he credits the exceptional efforts of his fellow Atlantic City squadron members for the honor he received.

These are just three stories, but they are illustrative of Civil Air Patrol's many World War II heroes. More importantly, these stories serve as a powerful reminder of the dedication and service that all gave to our Nation.

When the war ended, Civil Air Patrol members received the recognition they deserved. Over time, however, their story was lost to much of the Nation. This Congressional Gold Medal will ensure that this story is told over and over to future generations and recognizes the Civil Air Patrol and its World War II members for their critically important service to our Nation.

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

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

Madam President, here we are again in the Senate on yet another day when families and students across this country are wondering if we are going to do our duty. Are we actually going to move legislation that will keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent on subsidized student loans or are we going to let it go to 6.8 percent-- double--on July 1?

We have legislation and we brought it to the floor. Yet yesterday my Republican colleagues voted to not even proceed to it. I think the people of America are saying that this shouldn't happen. We should be able to work these things out. We should move legislation, not obstruct it.

Everyone now agrees we should keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent. The Republicans say they want to keep it at 3.4 percent and we say we do. The Republicans were initially opposed to this, but they have gotten onboard. That is fine. I have been here on the floor listening to my colleagues talk about this since Monday. Everyone agrees we have to keep it at 3.4 percent and not let it go up, so it ought to be a bipartisan issue. We ought to be able to move this rapidly and move on to other matters. There are other issues confronting us in the Senate. Yet here we are on the floor again today discussing the student loan interest rate.

As I said, we had the vote yesterday to move it forward, but my Republican colleagues blocked us from doing that. They agree we should keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent, but not on how to pay for it. Well, OK, fine; that is a legitimate point of debate and discussion and votes. So why don't we move the bill forward, bring it to the floor, and let's have a debate and discussion on how we pay for it. If they want to offer an amendment, they can offer an amendment and we will vote on it. It seems to me--at least I think--that one of the responsibilities, and maybe privileges but responsibilities, of the majority party in the Senate, whichever party it might be, is to initiate legislation and bring it to the floor. The privilege and responsibility of the minority party is to be able to amend it, to try to make it better as they may see fit. I don't think it should be a privilege and responsibility of the minority party to block everything, but we have seen that happen more and more over the last few years. Republicans won't let us bring a bill to the floor because under the rules it requires 60 votes rather than 51 votes to bring a bill forward. So, again, we are stuck because we can't bring the bill forward.

I hope we have another cloture vote. Let's keep having these cloture votes and maybe Republicans then will say, OK, let's move it forward and let's debate it and move on. So I hope that is what we are going to be doing rather than stopping the process in its tracks.

It is interesting to note that House and Senate Republicans were silent on this issue until students from around the country became aware of the impending increase and made their voices heard. Democrats were already hard at work on the solution. I would remind my colleagues that earlier this year, in the budget debate in the House, an amendment was offered by Democrats during the House budget process to extend the current rate of 3.4 percent. That amendment lost by a straight party vote. Instead, the Republicans proposed to pay for this by taking money from the Prevention and Public Health Fund. That is not an appropriate solution, killing the fund that is preventing cancer and preventing unnecessary diseases in the United States.

My friends on the other side would have us believe that nothing bad will happen if we eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund. They call it a slush fund. There is no truth to that at all. The truth is that the elimination of this fund would have disastrous effects on the health of our kids and our families. To eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund will cost us billions in the future for taking care of people who have chronic illnesses and chronic diseases and obesity. We know that an investment in immunizing our kids--for example, for every dollar, it saves us $16 in saved health care costs. To eliminate this fund would lead to a resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases in every State due to the expected loss of more than 1.5 million doses of lifesaving vaccines and nearly 1,100 skilled public health workers.

Again, eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund would mean eliminating vaccines for our kids, eliminating public health workers who know how to deliver these vaccines and respond to outbreaks. We would be losing public health staff at the State and local levels.

Eliminating this fund would end support for increased calls to the tobacco quitline, meaning smokers encouraged to quit by the fund's strategic and evidence-based investments thus far would not have the support to keep that quitline going. If current smoking rates persist, 6 million kids living in the United States today will ultimately die from smoking. If we eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, we will be forced to reduce the availability of mental health and substance abuse services to very vulnerable Americans.

Eliminating the fund, as the Republicans want to do, would reduce investment in public health laboratory capacity at the State and local levels, thereby reducing the speed with which we can detect and respond to outbreaks and, yes, maybe even terrorist events. It would cut the number of disease detectives that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can train and deploy. These disease detectives are our first line of defense against infectious diseases.

Eliminating this fund would result in layoffs, as I said, of public health officials in every State and community who are working on chronic disease prevention, immunization, health-care-associated infections, and other health problems.

An elimination of the prevention fund--again, I use the word ``elimination.'' The Republican proposal wouldn't just take some money from the prevention fund, it would kill the prevention fund. It would take every single penny out of it.

My friends on the Republican side say: Well, President Obama in his budget took money out of the prevention fund. In fact, Democrats joined with Republicans earlier this year in taking $5 billion out of the life of this fund to help pay for extending the unemployment insurance program for the remainder of this year, as well as extending the payroll tax cut. They use that example to say, Well, we can kill the whole thing. I must be very frank.

I was not in favor of that $5 billion cut, but be that as it may, as I used the analogy yesterday, it is one thing to take a couple of pints of blood and another to take all the blood. A person can live if a couple of pints of blood are taken; they can live and get healthy. That is what is happening to the prevention fund. The Prevention and Public Health Fund is alive and well and doing its job even though some money is taken out of it. What the Republicans want to do is take all the blood out and kill the whole program.

President Obama has said he will veto this bill if there are any cuts in the Prevention and Public Health Fund. So there has been a line drawn. We took some money out of it before, but no more. That is it; no more money is coming out of this prevention fund because of the good it is doing in this country.

An elimination of this fund, which the Republicans want to do, would stop in midstream across our country efforts to address the risk factors for heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer--the leading causes of death and health care costs. Yesterday in this Chamber I read from a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that finds that if we could prevent the obesity rate from increasing past its current 34-percent rate right now, we could save nearly $550 billion in the next 20 years.

In 1980, the obesity rate was right at about 15 percent in this country. Today, as I said, it is 34 percent. If it increases at the rate they expect, looking at all indicators now, 42 percent of all Americans will be obese by 2030 and one out of every four of them will be severely obese. That means a huge increase in adult onset diabetes and all the accompanying health care risks and costs, including heart disease and stroke, that accompany obesity.

We know how to address it. We have evidence-based programs that we know work in keeping the obesity rate down. That is what the prevention fund does. The Republicans want to kill it. They say no, get rid of it.

Cuts to our chronic disease prevention programs would mean 120 million Americans--1 in every 3 citizens--would lose access to preventive services. It would mean $103 million no longer available to States and counties and local jurisdictions to provide these services. Over 20 million Americans in rural areas in New York and in Iowa and all across this country would no longer have access to preventive services and programs.

The American people get it. Our citizens, whom we represent, get it. They understand. A poll was taken which said that voters overwhelmingly support more investment in prevention. This is from a 2009 public opinion poll: 71 percent of Americans polled said yes, do more, invest more in prevention. Our fellow citizens are crying out to us for help. They want help. They want to know what to do. How do they change? What can we do in our communities, our schools, our workplaces, our clinics, our community health centers? What can we do so that we don't get sick, so we don't get obese or diabetes, so we don't have heart disease? Most people don't know what to do. They need some help. They need information. They need support.

That is what this prevention fund does. We know it works. We know. We have evidence-based programs out there that work. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is doing an outstanding job across this country in these programs: from community programs, to public health infrastructure, to clinical preventive services, research, tobacco prevention programs, detection and prevention of infectious diseases, and training and preparing the public health workforce--all of this.

That is why prevention is not just something people go into a doctor's office to get a shot for or get a prescription for and people get a pill for. Prevention encompasses a lot of different things-- everything from newborn screening, immunizations for children, school- based programs, and better food and nutrition in our school meals for kids.

Communities change the way they operate and do things--more walking paths, more bike paths. The other day there was something said about Illinois had used some of this for signage and walking paths for kids. I pointed out, yes, they did. What happened is the number of kids walking to school increased, and that cut down on the number of buses they had to use. It saved the school some money, and the kids got healthier.

I have often used the example that when I first moved to Washington in 1979, when I was in the House, my wife and I purchased a home in Virginia. We still live there. One of the reasons we bought it was because we were about a mile away from a school, a high school. We thought: That is great. The kids can just walk to school. Little did I know there were no walking paths to the school. It was a busy street. There was a sidewalk for a little ways, and then there was not one. The kids could not walk. So they had to take a bus just to go 1 mile.

So, again, communities putting in sidewalks, safe passages for kids to do that, that is healthy living. I have seen instances in my own State where communities have put in walking paths for the elderly, for senior citizens, so they do not have a lot of steps and things to go up and down. You would be amazed how many people use that and stay healthy.

Supporting systems in our workplaces, making our workplaces more healthy, helping businesses understand what they can do to provide a healthier workplace for people--examples abound all over this country.

I say to the Acting President pro tempore, I am sure I do not know all the instances in New York State, but I will bet you communities there have gotten together and thought about how to make life a little bit more healthy, how to support a more healthy infrastructure for their people.

Some communities are coming up with very ingenious ideas. I say more power to them. That is what the Prevention Fund is for--to help them, to encourage them, to give them the kind of support they need to provide that healthy living.

I have said many times, it is interesting that in America it is easy to be unhealthy and hard to be healthy. One would think it should be the other way around. It should be easy to be healthy and harder to be unhealthy. It is just the other way around.

So what we are trying to do with some part of the prevention fund-- not all of it; part of it--is to make it easier to be healthy, to make that an easier option for people.

So if we both agree--Republicans and Democrats--on the fact that we need to keep the interest rate on student loans at 3.4 percent, then the debate is just on the offset. As I have said, Republicans want to kill the prevention fund. The American people have said loudly: No, we do not want to do that. We want more investment in prevention. We do not want to get sick. We do not want to get obese. We want to quit smoking. We want our kids to be healthy. We want them to have healthier food, better exercise. Republicans are saying: Well, we are just not going to do that. I guess we will pay more for it in chronic illnesses and diseases down the line.

Well, our offset is one that I think is legitimate and sound, closing a loophole in the Tax Code. That means more money would go into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and it would help us keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent.

Education has always, and I hope will always, remain a bipartisan issue here. I urge my Republican colleagues to come to the table with a serious offset--a serious offset. If they do not like what we have proposed, please come with something that is serious. Eliminating the prevention fund is a no-starter. As the President said, he would veto it. So why push it?

I think this is an opportunity for all of us to come together and show the American people this body is not broken; we can work with each other and get things done for the good of our people. Again, I encourage my Republican colleagues to allow us to move forward on the bill. Do not keep blocking it. If they want to offer a different offset, fine. Not this one, not the elimination of the prevention fund because that is not serious. That is not going anywhere. If they have some other ideas, bring them forward. As of yet we have seen nothing from my Republican colleagues other than stopping the bill--stopping it, stopping it, stopping it.

So I hope they will come to the table, and I hope we can move this bill forward.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, yesterday Republican Senators voted to block the bill to prevent the doubling of the Federal student loan interest rate on July 1. As long as they continue their filibuster, there is no clear way forward to prevent that devastating rate hike less than 2 months from now.

If that happens, more than 7.4 million American students will be required to pay an average of $1,000 more per year of school. This is especially important to my State of Iowa--and it is important to all States--where nearly 72 percent of Iowa's college graduates have student loan debt, the fourth highest percentage in the Nation. Those borrowers are carrying an average of $30,000 in student loan debt, which is the third highest in the Nation.

In floor debates this week, Republicans claimed that they, too, want to prevent the rate hike. I welcome their support. But if they want to join with us in preventing the rate hike, why in the world won't they let us proceed to the bill? That will give us all the opportunity to debate the bill and offer amendments.

I call on my Republican friends, if they want to keep the interest rate hike from doubling on students, to call off the filibuster and let's move ahead with the bill. I am not the only one who wants to end this obstruction by our friends on the Republican side. I have heard from constituents in Iowa who are frustrated at the Senate's failure to act. This is a kitchen-table issue for middle-class Americans, families all across the country.

I have heard reports that over 500,000 signatures from students around the country have been delivered to the Hill to show their support for keeping the rate at 3.4 percent. I know many Senators have come to the floor to share stories from their constituents about how the interest rate hike would affect them. I will share a story I received from an Iowa student.

Dear Congressman, [or Senator, as the case may be] I am

writing you on behalf of myself, current college students,

and future college students everywhere. I recently re-

enrolled in college to further my education. This decision

came after much time and deep thought. The problem wasn't

that I didn't want to attend school, it was whether or not I

could afford to attend school.

I live on my own, hold a full time job that I previously

attended a technical school to obtain. This job supports me

fully, and as much as I love parts of my job, I know that my

decision to re-enroll in school to further my education was

the right decision for me.

. . . In the middle of all of this preparation, I came

across an article in the USA Today that said the Federal

Government might raise student loan interest rates. Not just

raise, but double them, unless Congress intervenes.

I could not believe what I was reading, and feel so

passionate about the subject that I had to write a letter to

you. I am already struggling on a daily basis to support

myself. I live paycheck to paycheck and often have to rely on

the savings account I worked so hard to save before

graduating high school, along with consistent help from my

parents and grandparents. I wish to be independent from this

help even though I am thankful that it is there.

This increase in interest rates on loans . . . was not only

disappointing, it was infuriating to me. This will have an

effect for many years beyond what it should and not only for

me.

I live in Stanwood, IA, a place that not many people have

heard of, and I commute the 35 miles to Cedar Rapids every

day for my job. . . .

So when I saw that these loans that I am relying on to

support me and fund my education were going to double, I was

heartbroken and I wonder what is wrong with my country? I am

very proud to be an American, and more so an Iowan. . . .

I believe that the one thing the USA has going for it:

supporting our future, but that is quickly fading in front of

my eyes. I hope that you read this and feel every ounce of

disappointment in our great country as I do, and do

everything in your power to not let the interest rate on

student loans increase on July 1.

I hope you can put faith in the American students who are

relying on these loans to

educate themselves, and together get our country back on the

right track, not headed down the wrong one. Thank you so much

for your time, and I hope to hear great things from my

representatives soon.

Sincerely, a proud fellow Iowan.

This is just one of the many stories I have received from my constituents, telling me how detrimental it would be if the rate were to double on July 1.

This increase is a looming reality for many students and families if this Senate continues to do what it is doing--and that is to do nothing to bring the bill up and having Republicans filibuster it, and not even letting us proceed on it.

For the past 3 days, we have been hearing from Republicans that they want to keep the interest rate at 3.4 percent, but they don't like how we are paying for it in our bill. I have said many times that if they don't like that--and our leader came out here, as many have, saying, look, if my Republican friends don't like how we pay for it, let us get on with the bill and they can offer their offset or pay-for. We can vote on it and they can vote on ours. But that is not acceptable to the Republicans. They don't even want the bill to go forward.

We have been hearing from Republicans that our offset, which is closing a loophole in the Tax Code that affects subchapter S corporations--and I might add it only affects a very small sliver of subchapter S corporations, very tightly drawn; they can't have more than three shareholders. How about that. And you have to have more than $250,000 in income, and it pertains only to those subchapter S corporations that provide certain kinds of professional services. In other words, it doesn't pertain to real estate, or manufacturing, or anything like that. It only has to do with certain professional services, such as lawyers and accountants, people such as that.

Well, the Republicans say that if we do this--close that loophole--it will hurt the ``job creators.'' How many times have I heard that, job creators--that we are going to hurt small businesses. The other side would have you believe that we are doing this for political gain, that somehow we Democrats are doing this for political gain. Well, if that were the truth, why would we pick an offset, a pay-for, to fix a problem that conservatives have railed against in the past? Yes, the problem that we are trying to fix in subchapter S corporations is a problem that conservative Republicans have railed against in the past. I want to refresh my colleagues' memories and set the record straight on this issue of S corporations, the offset we have.

For starters, in 2004, the Wall Street Journal editorial page said this on July 13, 2004:

Conservative Support for Closing the S Corp Tax Loophole.

Senator Edwards talks about the need to provide health care

for all, but that didn't stop him from using a clever tax

dodge [these are the words of the Wall Street Journal, not

mine] to avoid paying $591,000 into the Medicare system.

While making his fortune as a trial lawyer in 1995, he formed

what is known as a ``subchapter S'' corporation, with himself

as the sole shareholder. Instead of taking his $26.9 million

in earnings directly in the following four years, he paid

himself a salary of $360,000 a year and took the rest as

corporate dividends.

Since salary is subject to 2.9 percent Medicare tax, but

dividends aren't, that meant he shielded 90 percent of his

income. That's not necessarily illegal, but dodging such a

large chunk of employment tax skates perilously close to the

line . . .

CPA Magazine lists it as number 11 of its 15 best

underutilized tax loopholes.

I ask, is the Wall Street Journal in favor of--what did they say?-- hurting job creators? Are they in favor of that? Is the Wall Street Journal in favor of ``raising taxes on the very businesses we are counting on to hire these young people,'' as the minority leader said on Monday? I repeat, we limit it to only three shareholders. They are going to count on them to hire these young people, he said. What is the minority leader talking about? That same year, in 2004, the late conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote:

It is one of the last loopholes left in the Internal

Revenue Code, and it is a big one.

Here is the whole statement:

How can John Edwards explain setting up a dummy

corporation--subchapter S--to avoid paying an estimated

$290,000 in Medicare taxes in the 2 years before he ran for

the Senate? This is a classic subchapter S corporation

devised to shelter income, mainly for professionals, such as

lawyers (and also syndicated columnists, but not me). It is

one of the last loopholes left in the Internal Revenue Code,

and it is a big one.

That is Robert Novak. Has anyone ever questioned his conservative credentials?

Sean Hannity said this:

Hey, John Edwards is worth, what, $30 million to $40

million, set up a sub-S corporation to keep him from paying

Medicare taxes on 90 percent of his income, and then he

lectures the rest of us how Medicare is going broke.

Finally, Rush Limbaugh himself said this:

. . . and he [Senator Edwards] has also compounded that by

structuring his own personal finances to avoid paying

Medicare taxes on 90 percent of the nearly $27 million he

earned over four years.

I ask my Republican colleagues, are Robert Novak, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and the Wall Street Journal all in support of raising taxes? Are they all in support of killing job creators? These are their statements. That is the record.

For the last several years, conservative Republicans have been going after this loophole, until they obviously found a Democrat who used it, John Edwards. Lots of people use it, a lot of lawyers and accountants and doctors. A lot of different kinds of professionals have used this loophole to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Here is another classic case where the Republicans say we are using this for political gain. Wait a minute. They are the ones who have been going after this loophole for years. We said: Hey, we finally have something on which we can agree. The Wall Street Journal and all these other people are saying we have to close this loophole. We have the opportunity to do so, and in doing so raise the money both to help Medicare and Social Security and to keep the interest rates on student loans at 3.4 percent. Yet the Republicans will not even allow us to bring it to the floor.

So who is playing politics, I ask? Who is playing politics?

Well, as I have said before, and I will say again, we have come here with a serious offset--one, as I said, that has been supported--at least closing this loophole has been supported--by conservative Republicans in the past. If anything, it is worse today than it was in 2004. More and more people are finding out about how they do this. They form this little subchapter S corporation and avoid paying their taxes. It is time to close that.

We came up with a serious offset we thought would be acceptable on both sides because of the history. We are ready to do this now--ease the concern of so many students and families across the country. The Republicans came and wanted to pay for it by eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund. They want to eliminate the one thing that is going to prevent obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes in the future and save us a lot of money. They want to end that and take that money and put it into keeping the interest rates low. They are pitting the low interest rates for students against the health care of children--immunizations for kids--which is what we use this prevention fund for. And for diabetes prevention. That is what we use the fund for. They want to take that away, pitting students against the health of our country. That is not a serious offer. That is not a serious offer by the Republicans.

That alternative is going nowhere. Besides, the President has said he would veto that. So I ask my colleagues on the other side to quit playing politics. Quit playing politics with this. Let's bring it up for a vote.

Maybe they should listen to the Wall Street Journal, and the now deceased Novak and Fox News and even Rush Limbaugh and Hannity. Let's close this loophole once and for all and do something good with it. Let's do something good with it. Keep the interest rates low for our students in this country.

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