Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. 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.

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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.

Mr. HARKIN

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. 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.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Yes.

Mr. HARKIN. 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.

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

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HARKIN. 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?

Mr. HARKIN. 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.

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. 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.

Mr. HARKIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.