[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 87 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3875-S3878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Resumed
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Schedule
Mr. REID. The Senate is considering the motion to proceed to the farm
bill postcloture.
At 4:30, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the
nomination of Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to be a United States Circuit
Judge for the Ninth Circuit. At 5:30 p.m., there will be a cloture vote
on the Hurwitz nomination.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Democrats and Republicans hold a different
view on many issues. But the bipartisan work by Senators Stabenow and
Roberts on the agriculture jobs bill demonstrates, despite our
differences, we can still find common ground. I hope their cooperative
spirit guides our work on this important legislation this week.
American farmers are counting on us, and so is the economy.
Despite the uncertain economic times, America's farms are the most
productive in the world, exporting $136 billion worth of products last
year and supporting 16 million private sector jobs. But to keep
American farms strong, Congress must pass a strong farm bill.
This legislation creates jobs, cuts subsidies, and reduces the
deficit. The bill includes important reforms to farm and food stamp
programs. It saves $23 billion, which will be used to reduce the
deficit. And it will give farmers the certainty they need to maintain
the largest trade surplus of any sector of our economy.
Helping American farmers thrive is an important part of our work to
get the economy on a firm footing again. I commend Senators Stabenow
and Roberts for their leadership on this issue. We are working now to
come up with a list of amendments on this legislation.
It is a shame we are now wasting 30 hours postcloture on this bill.
It is a bill that passed by 90 Senators agreeing that we should move
forward to debate. But it now appears we are in a situation that we
were in last week and the week before and the week before that, when
the Republicans have made a decision that they would rather do anything
they can to stop jobs from being created, hoping it will help them with
the elections come November.
Too often in this Congress the Republican strategy has been to kill
job-creating bills in the hopes of harming the economy and hurting
President Obama. It forces the Senate to spend weeks passing consensus
legislation that once was passed in a matter of minutes.
[[Page S3876]]
They have held many important jobs measures hostage to extract votes on
unrelated, ideological amendments. It appears we are in that same place
right here on this bill.
I am disappointed, as I have already said, that they have caused us
to waste 30 hours on procedural hurdles on this bill. We shouldn't have
to do that. We shouldn't have to run that clock when 90 Senators agree
we should move to the bill. That is what happened last week.
I hope my Republican friends will dispense with these delay tactics.
This is a bill that creates jobs, cuts subsidies, and protects our
working farmers.
We hear the hue and cry from our Republican friends all the time that
they want to reduce the deficit. How about one bill, in one fell swoop,
with $23 billion of deficit reduction--a bill that will reduce
subsidies, get rid of a lot of waste and abuse, and create jobs.
We are in this position where my friends have said, just as the
Republican leader has said, that their only goal is to defeat Obama,
not help our country, and that is too bad.
Would the Chair announce the business of the day.
Reservation of Leader Time
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the
farm bill that is now before the Senate. I want to say at the outset
that this is a reform-minded bill that saves money and continues the
evolution of farm policy in our Nation.
I commend the chair and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee
for working to craft a farm bill that helps equip producers with
improved risk management tools while being mindful of our very
challenging budget situation.
This bipartisan bill will reduce the deficit by $23.6 billion because
of changes to every title and the elimination of nearly 100 Federal
programs overall. It shifts farm policy further away from dependence on
income support and, instead, focuses on risk management.
But to truly appreciate where we are in farm policy today, it is
important to spend a minute examining how we got here.
In the 1930s, depression and disaster ravaged our country's farm
sector. At the time a quarter of this country's population lived and
worked on farms and ranches, and most of what they produced was
consumed relatively close to where it was grown.
When prices collapsed and dust storms swept the Plains, many were
forced off their land to look for work in the cities. But oftentimes no
work was to be found.
In response to this situation, Congress passed the first farm bill.
It was called the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. The act placed
the Federal Government in the driver's seat in making farm production
decisions. A structure to eliminate crop and livestock surpluses was
established--the thought being, if that was done, it would drive up
prices. Literally, crops were plowed under and livestock was
slaughtered to reduce supply and then, hopefully, to increase farm
prices, according to the thinking at the time.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 made federally funded price
supports mandatory for several crops. That would include corn, cotton,
and wheat.
Then another law was passed in 1949. It mandated extensive government
intervention to maintain parity with prices prior to World War I.
I am not going to start an argument today about whether all of this
was the right farm policy during the 1930s and 1940s. I will leave that
for another time. But I can say, with no hesitation whatsoever, it is
absolutely the wrong approach for the farm economy today and virtually
no one disagrees with that.
Over the past several decades, farm bills have improved from those
early laws, and U.S. farm policy has slowly but surely become a more
market-oriented policy. For a long time the main goal was to support
prices for a list of crops. We set high prices in law which distorted
markets and discouraged cultivation of crops that did not benefit from
price supports.
In 1996, Congress began to shift away from the distorting farm
policies of the past, and direct payments were introduced to
temporarily support farmers as they transitioned away from an
agricultural economy that was very reliant upon government
intervention.
Removing the government from price and supply controls created new
risks to farmers, and it created uncertainty from Mother Nature.
Congress then responded with ad hoc disaster spending to help farmers
and ranchers address losses due to weather and other disasters. In
fact, since 1996, USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that $43
billion has been spent on these ad hoc and emergency programs.
To help manage these risks in a more fiscally responsible way, a crop
insurance program has emerged. This highly effective public-private
partnership helps farmers customize protection for their individual
operations. Over time, crop insurance has become the risk management
tool for farmers.
These are policies sold by private companies for over 100 different
crops, and roughly 85 percent of acreage for major crops is now covered
by crop insurance.
Last year, in spite of the drought in much of the southern plains and
flooding in States such as Nebraska and many other States, farmers and
ranchers did not call for emergency relief. In fact, I have heard
clearly from farmers in Nebraska that crop insurance is working well.
Today's farmers are certainly some of the most sophisticated and
talented businesspeople in our Nation. The fruits of their labor
produce an abundance of healthy low-cost food for Americans and, for
that matter, people around the world. In fact, trade currently accounts
for more than 25 percent of all U.S. farm receipts, and 1 out of every
3 crop acres--1 out of 3--is now exported.
In 2011 agricultural exports reached $136 billion. Our efficient
export system, including handling, processing, and distribution of our
food and agricultural products, creates millions of U.S. jobs. Given
the projected global population growth of an additional 2.5 billion
people by 2050, U.S. agriculture is positioned to experience
significant growth in just a few years.
This farm bill ensures that USDA is focused on maintaining current
export markets and gaining access to new emerging markets for U.S. farm
and food products. This is the first farm bill in recent history that
does not pay farmers a specific payment just because they are farmers.
You see, farmers have come to realize that risk management is best
handled with crop insurance. In fact, in many listening sessions I have
had around the State, virtually no one asked for the continuation of
direct payments.
The bill actually saves $15 billion from commodity crop support by
eliminating four programs, including direct payments; countercyclical
payments; the Average Crop Revenue Election Program, called ACRE; and
the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program, called SURE.
It does not raise loan rates, the price levels that have
traditionally triggered the making of payments. It focuses the farm
program on revenue, not price--something I proposed as the U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture when I served in the Cabinet.
I remind my colleagues that our job in writing a farm bill is not to
protect the interests of specific commodity groups. Instead, the farm
bill should be about preserving the health of our agricultural economy.
This farm bill continues a history of steps in that direction.
It seeks to minimize distortions and allows farmers to respond to
market incentives--not determined by artificial prices set in a Federal
statute.
I am also glad to see a step forward on payment limits and changes to
ensure that those who receive government payments are actively engaged
in farming.
[[Page S3877]]
I am especially pleased with the efforts to streamline and simplify
the conservation programs. That is an issue I have heard a lot about.
This bill actually consolidates 23 conservation programs into 13. In
fact, I proposed similar changes as Agriculture Secretary during the
last farm bill process. The improvements reduce costs as well as make
the programs more farmer friendly.
This bill also provides for the basic research at USDA, universities,
and elsewhere that is needed to meet the demand for our farmers to
produce more food, and on less land, and it does so in a way that
includes new avenues to ensure that important work continues in these
times of very tight Federal budgets.
Finally, I am pleased this bill builds on efforts to encourage
beginning farmers and ranchers, veterans, and others looking for
careers in agriculture.
It is important to me that we keep this farm bill as simple and
streamlined as possible. I think we can agree that a bill that
eliminates nearly 100 Federal programs does just that.
Given our Nation's daunting budget situation, it is appropriate that
this bill saves $23.6 billion, taking yet another step in the right
direction to reforming farm policy for the 21st century.
I hope we can keep this bill moving to help ensure certainty for
farmers, ranchers, and others in rural communities where livelihoods
are impacted by these policies. But make no mistake, good farm policy
does not end with a good farm bill. Our farmers and ranchers also
deserve a more constructive regulatory environment and a fairer tax
system. So while I support the bill, I hope we can get some amendments
pending to make a good bill a better bill.
This is so important that I led a letter with 43 other Senators
asking for an open amendment process. I look forward to the debate and
to passing a very reform-minded farm bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Grassley and Mr. Kyl are printed in today's
Record under ``Executive Session.'')
The Economy
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to comment on something the President
recently said that is very much in the news.
Last Friday, the President of the United States said, ``The private
sector is doing just fine.''
This is not taken out of context. He was talking about economically.
His office leader explained what he was really talking about is the
comparison between the public sector and the private sector, and I take
him at his word there.
The President said:
Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do
with state and local government--oftentimes cuts initiated by
governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that
they have in the past from the federal government and who
don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal
government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.
I think that is generally true. But here are the two key points I
would make in response: First, everyone--not just government
employees--is suffering. They are struggling in the Obama economy.
Yes, the number of government jobs has decreased during the last 40
months since President Obama took office, but overall employment in
government has increased on the whole in recent years, even with the
reductions that have occurred in the last couple of years.
For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total
government employees added up to 21,847,000--rounded off--in January
2006. That is just a little over 6 years ago--21,847,000. By
comparison, last month the total amount of government employees added
up to 21,969,000. So there are a few more government employees today--
State, Federal, and local--than there were just 6 years ago. I would
just ask, how on Earth did we get by in this country with only
21,847,000 government workers in 2006? I think we were doing just fine.
The reality is, when a private firm faces financial difficulty,
usually the first area the firm looks to in terms of saving money is
its workforce. It is too bad, but frequently firms have to lay off
workers because they simply can't afford to continue to pay that many
workers.
I will just give the experience of a friend of mine in Arizona who
said: This recession was probably the best thing that happened to us
because it forced us to look at our workforce, how we did business, and
whether we could make savings. He said: Today, we are making more money
than we ever have, even with a lower workforce, because we found that
we could make do and make the improvements that made us more efficient.
We are asking that to be done in government. Government doesn't have
a right to continue to grow and grow. Government should be as efficient
as the private sector, including with respect to the number of people
it hires to do the work that has to be done. After all, the private
sector has to take care of paying both the employees in the private
sector and the employees in the government sector. Who pays government
employees? All of our constituents, the people in the private sector.
So we in the government have an obligation to run the governments--
Federal, State, and local--as efficiently and leanly as we possibly
can. If we find we can run the government with just a few more
employees today than we had, for example, 6 years ago, then all the
better for our economy and all the better for the taxpayers who have to
pay their salaries.
So there isn't some right of the Federal Government to continue to
grow its workforce at a rate higher than the private sector. Rather, we
should be trying to run the government on as few a number of employees
as necessary to do the work the American people want us to do. But here
is the larger point: As the Wall Street Journal points out, the reason
the government workforce has shrunk since January 2009 is not due to
smaller budgets or dwindling aid, as the President suggested. As the
Wall Street Journal notes, revenues to State and local governments have
increased during the last 2 years, according to census data. The main
problem is rising health care and pension costs for government workers,
and we have seen the experience in a State such as Wisconsin in having
to deal with that to make some reductions, which caused a lot of
political turmoil in the State. But at the end, the voters of the State
said: We agree. We need to cut government cost as it relates to the
health care and pension commitments we have made to our government
employees.
While government has experienced some job losses, it is important to
remember that benefits enjoyed by government workers are far superior
to those enjoyed by those employed in the private sector. For example,
according to an article in the National Review magazine, on an hourly
basis private sector employees' benefits cost their companies $2.15 an
hour. State and local government workers cost taxpayers $4.72 an hour--
219 percent more.
For retirement benefit costs, the private sector figure works out to
$1.02 per hour. The State and local workers sum, $3.37 an hour--a 330-
percent premium.
This is where the extra costs are for government workers. You can't
blame State and local governments for trying to provide more efficiency
for their operations by conforming their practices for health care and
pension benefits more to those in the private sector.
Why do government employees deserve more? I guess that is the
question. As is a matter of fairness--and especially when compared to
people who are paying their salaries--I don't think anyone can argue
that government employees should have twice as much or three times as
much of a benefit as somebody in the private sector.
The second point I would make is this: At 4.2 percent, according to
the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment
rate among government workers is also far below that of the private
sector. We know the average in the country is 8.2 percent, and that is
only the people who are still looking for work. If we
[[Page S3878]]
took all the people who are out of work, it would be about 11.1 or 11.2
percent. But among government workers, the unemployment rate is 4.2
percent.
Compare that with unemployment in some other sectors. In agriculture,
it is 9.5 percent; 8.1 percent in the wholesale and retail trade; 9.7
percent in leisure and hospitality, to name just a few industries. In
each of these I named--I think each of them would be thrilled to have
unemployment at 4.2 percent. When the President says the real problem
is with government employment, the private sector is doing just fine,
the facts simply belie that. The President was wrong; he was incorrect.
Finally, let me address his theory of how an economy grows.
Unemployment, as I said, is 8.2 percent nationwide. Labor force
participation is at historic lows--the number of people actually
working or looking for work. GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012
was a very anemic 1.9 percent. This is not enough for this country to
grow and prosper and the President wants to borrow or raise taxes from
that segment of our society so taxpayers can finance more government
workers? That does not make sense.
I think not only is the President wrong on the facts about the
private sector doing just fine, he has it wrong as to what the solution
would be. The solution to help government workers is to have the
private sector do better so it can afford to help--to hire more
government workers and to pay them better benefits. Government stimulus
spending and aid to States has not grown the economy so far and it is
obviously not going to do so in the future.
Rather than divide the country into public versus private sector
workers, Federal versus State and local workers, rich versus poor, men
versus women, as the President is wont to do, I hope we work hard to
represent all Americans. No one benefits in the long run from an
enormous government with an appetite to grow more and more, crushing
economic growth and crowding out the private sector, a government that
drives up costs for job creators and forces companies to lay off
private sector workers. None of us benefits from that. Yet that is what
we are seeing playing out right now. The total number of unemployed and
underemployed is over 23 million people in the United States. Think of
that. That is the number of people who are looking for work who have
stopped looking for work or who do not have the kind of work they could
be doing. Economic growth last quarter, as I said, was only 1.9
percent; only 69,000 new jobs added. We need more than twice that many
jobs added each month in order to keep pace with the new workers coming
into the economy, so we are losing ground in terms of jobs created. I
don't think the President's solution of more spending on government
employees is the answer. I think that is a recipe of another 40 months
of 8 percent-plus unemployment. At that rate we are not going to get
out of the economic difficulties we are in right now. Let's do things
that support the private sector, things that help the private sector.
The healthier the economy is, the more growth we have, the more we are
able to do for the public sector as well. That is the ultimate answer.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________