Mark Pryor

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I have a quick notification. We have two judges on the calendar from Arkansas, Calendar No. 565 and 570. I just alert the Senate that, at the proper time, I plan to ask unanimous consent to confirm these en bloc, and I have very strong reasons why they need to get done before we go to recess. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 565 and 570; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I wish to respond and further explain. We have two judges pending on the calendar right now. In the sequence of judges to be considered, they are No. 2 and No. 7; one is Timothy Brooks and the other is James Moody. Tim Brooks was nominated by the White House in June and came out of the Judiciary Committee in October. Jay Moody was nominated by the White House in July and came out of the Judiciary Committee in November. On the Federal bench in Arkansas district court level, we have eight judges. We now have two vacancies. I don't wish to be dramatic and declare a judicial emergency, but certainly people should understand we are only working at 75 percent horsepower right now and we need to get these judges confirmed forthwith. Yesterday, I stood at my desk and notified the Senate I was going to make this request. I did not receive an objection, as far as I know-- unless maybe a staff person talked to a staff person. But I never heard of any objection. It is bad enough to have 25 percent of our judiciary in Arkansas which needs to be filled, but the real urgency for this is a matter of State law. James Moody is an elected State court judge. He is an elected trial court judge. Under Arkansas law, this is a nonpartisan position. Our filing deadline for the 2014 election cycle opens on the 24th of February and it goes to March 3. So here is the problem: Today is February 12. We are about to have a snowstorm tonight and the next few days and next week we are on recess. We come back on February 24. The filing period will already be open in Arkansas. I wish I could tell Judge Moody: Don't worry about it; you are going to be confirmed when we get back. The way things have worked around here recently, I can't give him that guarantee. I can't give him my word. I can't tell him: Judge, don't file for reelection. Just go ahead and wait and trust that this is going to happen. I can't do that under the circumstances. So he is in limbo. There are other lawyers and judges in Arkansas who want to run for his position. There is a domino effect in the local judiciary and local bar about this. Under Arkansas State law, once he files, he cannot get his name off the ballot. These are nonpartisan elections. If they were party elections, he could go to the State party and they could handle it through their primary process or through their rules or whatever. But that is not the case here. There is no party to go to. Once he files and his name is on the ballot, he is on the ballot, and that is a big problem. This is causing a lot of problems back home. There is no principle involved here. There is no reason why these two judges should be held over. They should have been done at the end of last year. I asked my colleagues to help me do that; I was told no. We need to get these judges done now so we don't create this problem in Arkansas. Both of these judges are very well qualified. They have all the credentials the American Bar Association looks at. As far as I know, every lawyer in Arkansas is unanimously for both. In fact, I heard my colleague Senator Boozman of Arkansas tell the Republican leader last week: Mitch, if you were picking these judges yourself, you couldn't pick any two better judges. That is a paraphrase, but that is in effect what he said, and it is true. These are noncontroversial judges. Both these judges should be confirmed now so we don't cause this problem in Arkansas. I yield the floor, but I will continue to push for these nominations.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of notifying my colleagues that later today or tomorrow I intend to ask unanimous consent for two of my judge nominees to be voted on this week. Both are noncontroversial, both have been heartily endorsed by Senator Boozman, my colleague from Arkansas, and basically everybody else who has looked at this. These two judges came out of the Judiciary Committee, one of them on October 31 and the other on November 14. These two judges are completely noncontroversial, but we have a sense of urgency, not only because we have two vacancies on the Federal bench in Arkansas, which is in and of itself a problem, but we have a real sense of urgency because one of these judges is an elected judge. In Arkansas, those are nonpartisan elections. One of these judges is an elected judge and the filing period for his seat opens on February 24 and closes on March 3. We find ourselves in a situation where we are here this week, then we will be in recess next week. We will then come back on the evening of February 24, presumably for 5:30 p.m. votes, if things work on that day as they typically do around here. We would presumably have a 5:30 p.m. vote, and at that point the filing would be open, with other lawyers and judges interested in that position, and there is a domino effect that happens in Arkansas because of that. So I am not going to ask unanimous consent right now, but I wanted to put all my colleagues on notice that I intend to do that either later today or tomorrow. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about S. 1963, which is supported by well over 30 veterans organizations. I want to thank my colleagues for their help and their support of the military retirement pay restoration bill that repeals section 403 of the budget agreement, which unfairly singled out our brave men and women in uniform. I could spend a long time here, but I do not intend to because I know we have other colleagues who are on the way to speak. But I do want to thank my colleagues for their support. We got a huge vote the other night to move to this measure. I do not think there were any dissenting votes. I appreciate my colleagues voting to move to it. The bottom line is this bill is about honoring the commitments we have made to our servicemembers. My State is the home of nearly 255,000 veterans--255,000 veterans. We only have a population of 3 million. So if you do the math, per capita we have a lot of veterans in my State--a very patriotic State. These brave men and women have put their lives on the line, and they have also put their lives on hold to serve their country, oftentimes in faraway places, far away from their homes and their families and from their beloved country to protect our Nation and defend our way of life. They have fulfilled their obligations, and we need to fulfill ours. Day after day we get emails and letters and phone calls from Arkansas veterans and their families. They talk about what the Senate is talking about today; that is, whether we should fix this cost of living adjustment or not and even down to the details of whether we should pay for this or not. Let me just read a few. I have eight Arkansans here who have written in recent weeks. MAJ Adam Smith of Sherwood said: When I signed on twelve years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country, one that I have upheld through four combat deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa. It pains me to see that my government is not keeping its faith in my oath. I have served and will continue to serve faithfully, but I want my government to properly compensate me for all the times I nearly made my wife a young widow. The second one is from Therese Wikoff of North Little Rock. She is an employee of the VA, and she is married to someone in the military. She says: I see [our veterans] every day struggling. They served and it is our duty to respect and take care of them. John Barnwell of Fort Smith says: I spent a career in the U.S. Air Force defending this great country from all enemies . . . How could [Congress] even consider cutting veterans benefits when our sacrifices are the reason we are even able to live in a free country? SMSgt John W. Smith of Cabot writes: I served my country for 28 years with the promise that once I completed my part, I would be given a retirement for the rest of my life to include the cost of living increases. However, it appears the government has decided to change the promise made and not honor their part of the bargain. Sam Garland of Jacksonville says: When I enlisted I was told if I did my time that I would receive retirement . . . [Don't take away] this hard worked promise. Marshall Harmon of Vilonia wrote: This is a military retirement that I worked extremely hard for and in fact earned! The documents I was provided at the time of retirement assured me that my buying power would remain strong and consistent . . . It seems that is just not the case. Chadwick Cagle of Sherwood wrote to say: I am a military veteran of almost 15 years, including two deployments to Iraq. I was an Infantryman in the Marine Corps . . . I find it very frustrating that the reductions in benefits were taken from the very men and women who have served and protected this country. The next will be the last one. I could go on for a long time. As people can tell, I have a lot more where these came from. Bill Patrick of Mountain Home says: As a veteran of the U.S. Army, I am saddened by the provision in this bill that in essence penalizes those that have given the most for this great country of ours. Although I do realize the importance of keeping the government funded and running, I am opposed to the fact that we are doing it on the backs of those who have served honorably, and long. I want those words to sink in for my colleagues in the Senate today. These are men and women from my State. The Senators have the same types of folks in their States. They put on the uniform and they serve our country. This is not how we should repay them. I know that on this floor and out in press conferences and in press releases and all of that, people say: Well, we need to pay for this. This bill, S. 1963, has no pay-for. The way I feel about it is this cut to their benefits, this cut in their COLA, the 1 percent adjusted downward, doesn't take effect until 2015. We have all of this year to find a pay-for if that is what we decide we are going to do. But the way I feel about this is they have already paid. They have paid for this with their service. This was something that was added to a budget deal, and it is something I think probably came in and was put in by the House Republicans. In effect, we are trying to solve this problem for them. But, regardless, I have a list that I did not fabricate for this speech. This stands in my office in Washington every day. I have a similar poster identical to this poster in Little Rock. It is there every day in our lobby, in our entryway for anyone and everyone who comes to the office to see the sacrifice that Arkansans have made to this country. These men and women--there are over 100 listed. As much as I hate to say it, this list grows all the time. We change this list out frequently. There are over 100 listed. In fact, there are over 110 listed. These are troops from Arkansas or based in Arkansas who paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. These people paid for this benefit. All of the veterans who will receive this benefit were in the exact same situation that these men and women were, but by the grace of God they made it home. We need to honor the commitments we have made to our veterans. This is no laughing matter. This isn't politics, this isn't a Democratic thing or a Republican thing, this is an American thing. Do you know what. When we make commitments to our veterans, if we cannot honor those commitments, we never should have made them in the first place. I know a lot of people in Washington make all kinds of promises, but we have made these commitments to our veterans. Some of them mentioned when they signed on in the very beginning or when they take their retirement in the very end, it is very clear the type of retirement benefits they will get. Just because it is hard now, because it is expensive, doesn't mean we back out on the commitments we have made to our men and women in uniform. We don't back out on the commitments we have made to our veterans. But now what we have is we have people in Washington who are saying: We like our veterans, but they need to pay for this. They need to pay for this. I disagree. We have all this year. If we make that decision later to find a way to pay for this change, we have time to find the pay-for later. I am always reminded when I think of our folks who served this Nation in the military, of this one verse that is found in John 15:13. It says: ``Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' I have been to a number of funerals, and I have made a number of calls to these families. I don't know how many people I have talked to who have lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan--or in some other military operation somehow, some way--and that is the verse I always remember because they laid down their lives for their country. Everyone else who puts on that uniform, by the very nature of them putting on that uniform, has made the commitment that they are willing to lay down their lives too. They are in harm's way for us. I think it is wrong for us to try to lower their benefits. I think it is wrong for us to be having a debate about finding a way to pay for this. We have time to pay for this over the course of this year. I am totally open to talking to people about how to pay for this as we go. But let's, for crying out loud, not send the message to our men and women in uniform, to our veterans, that we are going to balance the budget on their backs. They are the ones who have made the commitment. They are the ones who have traveled and served overseas. When it comes to government spending--I just heard a couple of speeches by my friends on the other side of the aisle--everybody who is paying attention knows we can cut unnecessary government programs. We can eliminate duplicative policies. We can do good in the regulatory world to make government more efficient, more effective. We can do that, but we should not use these folks to balance our budget. I see my colleague from Florida has stepped in. I know he would like to say a few words. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 1963, the Military Pay Restoration Act. Last year, the Senate passed the Bipartisan Budget Act--a bipartisan and bicameral agreement that funded our government, provided stability for our economy, and reduced our deficit by over $22 billion. I think my colleagues and the American people will agree that last year was tough. We saw the delay of the farm bill, the government shutdown, and the debt ceiling. Needless to say, this budget agreement was a positive step forward. However, I will be the first to admit--and I think I maybe was the first to admit, possibly--that this wasn't perfect, especially when it came to the harmful budget cuts made at the expense of our men and women in uniform. There is no question we need to cut our spending. I think almost everyone in this Chamber agrees with that, and I think so many Americans agree with that, but we must do it responsibly. We can address the isues we all talk about, such as cutting waste and fraud and abuse. We can be smart and eliminate items--again, once we think about them and roll up our sleeves and do the hard work and recognize we should--such as unnecessary government property purchases and maintenance, and pursue other cuts such as out-of-date and inefficient programs. All of those issues should be addressed. But we cannot balance the budget on the backs of our hard-working military members and their families. We are a free nation today because of the sacrifices our men and women in uniform make. They make those sacrifices for all of us. They make sacrifices for the Nation and for the world. They lay their lives on the line for us, oftentimes in places far away from their homes and their families, so we can live in peace right here at home. Ashley, a soldier's wife from Alma, AR, recently wrote me and said: ``My husband signed up to serve so those that don't want to wouldn't have to.'' We have made a commitment to our servicemembers and we need to honor that commitment today by ensuring they receive the benefits they have earned. When Aaron of Lake City, AR, signed up for the Army and deployed to Iraq, he counted on those earned benefits to provide for himself and his family. As he said in his letter: ``I held up my end of the contract and I believe the government should uphold their end.'' I agree with Aaron. Singling out our brave servicemembers isn't just unfair, it is wrong. Dwayne of Drasco, AR, who served in the Air Force, said: ``I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan many times. I left a wife and three kids that depended on me. I fulfilled my obligation.'' The government must right this wrong and fulfill our obligation to servicemembers such as Dwayne. I have introduced the Military Retirement Pay Restoration bill to repeal section 403 of the budget agreement that unfairly reduces the cost-of-living adjustment benefits for our military retirees under the age of 62 by 1 percent and to ensure that our future military retirees receive their full retirement pay. Unfortunately, I have heard a lot of back-and-forth here in the Senate and on the Senate floor about this provision. Instead of working against each other, let's work together to get this done. As President John F. Kennedy said: Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future. We can fix this. Today, we will take an important step forward in fixing it. I am proposing a responsible solution which everyone on this floor should be able to support. In fact, I have even heard Speaker Boehner down the hall here urging his colleagues over in the House to consider supporting legislation that would repeal section 403 of the budget agreement, just as mine does, just as ours does. Supporting our men and women in uniform is not a partisan issue; it is an American issue. We have seen 30 of the major veterans groups urge us to fix this: the Air Force Association, the Marine Corps League, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., the Association of the U.S. Navy, the Military Officers Association of America, just to name a few. There are 30 of these organizations that have urged us to fix this. They have told us: ``This provision breaks faith with each individual who has faithfully served their nation for over two decades in uniform.'' So let's fix it. Let's restore America's faith in Congress by doing the right thing today. Let's give our soldiers and their families the unwavering support they have given us. Let's put the partisanship aside, and let's pass this bill. Our military members and their families are counting on us. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Colorado for his words about the farm bill. He and I are an example of how this bill is important to every region of the country. His kind of farming is very different than our kind of farming, but they are equally important to our States. I rise to talk about the farm bill. This bill is a long time coming. There has been back-and-forth between the two Chambers, the House and Senate, and between various regions, probably most famous, South versus Midwest farming, but that is not the only one--different types of crops and different types of farm products. It may be sugar, milk, soybeans or corn. Who knows what it is going to be. Nonetheless, I am happy to report that finally this bill overcame the partisan gridlock we have seen in Washington. I am sorry it took so long. I know last year the House basically blew up this bill on kind of ``my way or the highway'' politics. I thought that was very unfortunate. But here we are with a bipartisan farm bill, one that got a huge vote in the House and I hope will get a huge vote in the Senate. I am glad this cut, cut, cut ideology did not prevail, because when we look at this bill and how important it is, not just to my State but to every State in the Union and so important to the U.S. economy--this bill is very important to the Nation's economy and to the future of our Nation. Agriculture is something we do in this country better than anybody else in the world. We do a lot of things great in this country, and we should be proud of those, but no one does agriculture better than the good old United States of America. Our farmers, our producers, our agribusiness do incredible work. We literally are the envy of the world. It is a core strength of the U.S. economy. It is critical to keeping our Nation's economy strong that we have a strong agricultural sector. It is critical to our Nation that we have strong rural communities and to a large extent--not completely but a lot of what this bill is about is helping rural communities. Not everyone in this country lives in the big cities or lives in the suburbs. This bill will help every American in lots of ways, no matter where they live, whether they live in the biggest city in the country or the smallest town out in the countryside. But it will also help millions and millions of hard-working people and their families in rural America. Why in the world would we want to let ideological fights and partisan bickering jeopardize this economic powerhouse we built for ourselves? Nonetheless, today we have overcome that. This legislation is a win-win for everyone. We have seen Democrats and Republicans from all regions of the country come to the floor to talk about this farm bill, why it is important to them and why it is important that it pass. Just a few of the provisions in there: There are market protections for our farmers and ranchers all over the country. The PILT Program is so critical to a number of western States but certainly a number of our counties in Arkansas. We have counties in our State where literally half or more of their land is Federal. They can't get any tax base off of it, so PILT helps to fix that. The Catfish Inspection Program. We don't subsidize catfish, but we have the inspection program to make sure imported catfish meet U.S. standards. This is critical. We want a safe and good food supply. There is a big emphasis on exports. We all know we have a terrible trade deficit. Our trade deficit would be horrendous if it wasn't for agriculture. Of course, there is nutritional assistance for hard-working families in this country. We have the richest, most bountiful, most blessed Nation in the history of the world, and we have people who are hungry. These nutrition programs in many cases are the difference between life and death. This bill also focuses on conservation. Not everyone is a farmer, but there are millions of people all over this country who love to enjoy the great outdoors. They like to go hunting, they like to go fishing, and other activities. Conservation programs are critical to keep habitat where it is and critical for large sections of our economy. Hunting and fishing is a huge part of our economy, not just in Arkansas but all over the country. The rural development programs are essential for rural America. We know there is everything from wastewater programs in here to rural housing, to all kinds of programs. But rural development programs are critical for the quality of life in rural America. I am the first to say this bill isn't perfect. I think all of us agree this is a series of compromises. There are probably things each one of us would do differently if we could change a provision or two in the bill, but it is a good bill. It is going to provide and stabilize good jobs and economic security for our country. Our agricultural producers not only feed us and clothe us, but they feed and clothe the world. In the Senate we hear every day from the business community. They want more certainty. They want more stability. This bill provides that in the agricultural economy. Our farmers, producers, and others deserve that same certainty and stability, and this bill provides that. In closing, I would read a quick passage from James 5:7. I was going to read it from King James, but I will paraphrase it. Be patient, therefore, brothers . . . see how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the Earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and late rains. Our agricultural producers have been patient long enough. They have waited and waited and waited on this legislation. I sincerely hope all of us will give this bill strong consideration. This bill provides good common ground. It provides economic security. It continues the safe and abundant food supply that we have in this Nation. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting yes for this conference report today. I yield the floor. Milk Pricing Formula

Mr. PRYOR

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

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the business on the floor, which is the Omnibus appropriations bill. Let me start by thanking Chairwoman Mikulski for her leadership. She has put long hours in on this over the Christmas and New Year's break. When most people were home with families and doing things in their home State, on vacation, she never stopped working. Her team, her staff on the Appropriations Committee, never stopped working. The staff, as always, is kind of the unsung hero around here. They did so many great things to put this together, both Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate--everybody had to work together to get this done and I am proud they did. I am also proud to be one of the appropriations subcommittee chairs who was able to work on this legislation. As you know, I am chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. I have worked with my counterpart Senator Blunt, the ranking member of the subcommittee, to craft part of this bipartisan bill. Again, Senator Blunt has been wonderful to work with. We appreciate him and his staff as well. When people hear agriculture appropriations, they often think about farming. That is understandable. We all understand why. That is certainly a key part of the bill, but that is not all it does. Our bill helps farmers with operating loans, conservation practices, marketing. It funds programs that benefit rural communities such as clean drinking water and rural housing, and it supports nutrition programs that help kids across the country. It also funds international food assistance such as Food for Peace that allows crops grown here at home to be distributed around the world. This bill, in addition, touches on the Food and Drug Administration. That is an agency that is vitally important to the United States. Here again, just like agriculture is one of the core strengths of the U.S. economy, pharmaceuticals is another area where America leads the world. It is critically important that we have a highly functioning FDA in order for us to keep that competitive advantage. This bill overall has a huge impact over the U.S. economy, but my subcommittee's part in this bill also has a very significant bearing over the U.S. economy that will continue this recovery. Getting people back to work, getting people focused on domestic jobs and the fact that we make things here and grow things here is critically important for our future. For example, look at what it is doing to my home State. If I could, I could go around to each one of these desks in the Senate and talk about specific things it is doing in everyone's State, but just in my home State, it is providing funding for many of our universities, including the University or Arkansas at Fayetteville and Arkansas State University in Jonesboro, to conduct cutting edge agricultural research. It is supporting economic development grants for the Delta Regional Authority, which is in our region of the country, to boost the quality of life in the Delta region. It is providing our kids with a safe and stable food supply by supporting, again in our State, the Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center in Little Rock, and it is investing in the technology of tomorrow by funding the National Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson County, AR. The NTCR, which is part of the FDA, is also very important and people take it for granted because they don't know what it does, but it is very important. Now they have a new focus on nanotechnology, which they have been doing in the last few years, and that will be a game changer as well. Those are just a few of the challenges. I could stand here for an hour or so talking about the benefits of the bill and talking about all the provisions and lots of matters that are contained in this bill, but I think overall it is most important to note the agriculture appropriations bill and the omnibus bill overall are an agreement reached because of bipartisanship. We have to look back at what Senator Murray and Congressman Ryan did. I appreciate what they did. They laid the groundwork for us to be here today. It was a bipartisan effort, went through both Houses, bipartisan, big votes, and we saw a huge vote in the House of Representatives yesterday. I hope we will see a large vote in the Senate today or tomorrow or Saturday, whenever we get this done. Certainly I hope it is going to be today. Nonetheless, this is a victory for bipartisanship and the agriculture appropriations part of that is important. But overall, the fact is that Congress is back in business. We are getting things done. We are getting back to what our chairwoman would call regular order. We are working together and that is the only way we can get things done in Washington. But it is also the only way we can secure our Nation's economic future. I hope we will see a lot more bipartisanship in 2014. I know it is an election year. All the talking heads tell us it is going to be hard to do, but certainly I hope we can get that done and 2014, I hope, is a much more productive year in the Congress than 2013 was. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR. We sure do. We handle, as the Senator says, everything from artichokes to catfish and everything in between. In our bill we take the entire Department of Agriculture, with the exception of forestry--that goes to another subcommittee--and we also do FDA. If you look at--for example, I mentioned, agriculture is one of the core strengths of the U.S. economy. It may not be very exciting. We may take it for granted because in this country we have always had productive agriculture, but if we look at the different advantages it gives us as a nation in lots of different ways, we need to keep that core strength going, just like the pharmaceuticals and the Federal Drug Administration; it is critically important.

Mr. PRYOR. That is exactly right. Had we not had those food inspectors, it literally could have shut down the poultry plants--but also the beef and pork and other types of facilities--overnight. It could have shut them down and been very disruptive. One of the great things about agriculture in the United States is we have created a lot of efficiencies in the agriculture economy. So when you have something disruptive such as this, these inspectors can't inspect the meat and they just cannot operate, you start to cause all kinds of disruptions, all kinds of inefficiencies. Then what happens is the price of that chicken fillet at the grocery store goes up. When we go to a restaurant it goes up. We do not need to jeopardize our food supply, either on food safety grounds or on supply grounds, because we have--if we look at the United States and what we spend as a per-capita share of our income, we spend less on food than any country in the world. It is in relative terms. We have to use that per capita, because if we have a higher standard of living here, and we do, but it is something we are very fortunate about and because of this legislation and because of what Senator Stabenow is doing with the farm bill--it is all a team effort--we are going to keep that advantage and keep that food and fiber cheap. Those are all domestic jobs. That is very important. This is growth here, raised here, processed here, and served here. It is great for domestic jobs. It has a huge ripple effect on the U.S. economy. This bill is part of that and I am proud to have a hand in it.

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I would say in conclusion, as I look on the floor and I see Senators from Alabama, from Maryland, from Maine, from Connecticut, agriculture touches each of these States. It touches them differently. Agriculture is truly a matter of national pride. Every State contributes, basically every person benefits from it. Again, I was honored to be part of this. The chairwoman deserves a lot of credit for working in a bipartisan way and getting it through both Houses. I yield the floor.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 71 which was received from the House.

Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2319, which is at the desk.

Mr. PRYOR. I further ask that the bill be read three times and passed and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent that the Indian Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 623 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PRYOR. I further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. PRYOR

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 767, and the Senate proceed to its consideration.