[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3964-S3969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 250, 
S. 1940.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 250, S. 1940, a bill to 
     amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, to restore 
     the financial solvency of the flood insurance fund, and for 
     other purposes.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have managed a few bills during my time 
here, quite a few bills. It is always so gratifying, after the work 
that goes into the work you have done on a committee or a subcommittee, 
to have that matter come to the floor. It is a terrible disappointment 
to not be able to move forward as you anticipated.
  So I say that for Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts. No one has 
worked harder than they have in bringing the bill to the floor. It is 
bipartisan. It is important not only for the State of Michigan, the 
State of Kansas, but it is important for the country.
  I wish we could proceed in another way to have amendments heard and 
voted on. But even though this is something awkward, we are going to 
move forward with this bill. We are going to bring up some amendments. 
They are big amendments. They are crucial to Senators being able to 
issue their opinions on this legislation. One deals with sugar, one 
deals with food stamps, both very controversial and very important.
  We are going to have those amendments, and, hopefully, we will have a 
good debate on those matters. We can move forward on this bill in other 
ways. I have not given up hope. I know Senator Stabenow and Senator 
Roberts have not given up hope to have a universal agreement so we can 
legislate on this bill.
  As I have indicated, we do not do this very often in this manner. But 
it is important because we have an issue that needs to move forward. A 
lot of times when the tree is filled we just walk away from it. We are 
not going to walk away from this. This bill is far too important. It 
affects the lives of millions of people--about 16 million--in America.
  The reforms have been made in this bill--I remember when I came from 
the House of Representatives 26 years ago, we wanted to make the 
reforms that are in this bill. So they have done remarkably good work. 
We hear everyone, Democrats and Republicans, talking about: Let's do 
something about the debt and the deficit. Here we have done it.
  What they have done is bring to this body a bill that reduces our 
debt by $23 billion. We have a long ways we need to go beyond that. 
But, gee whiz, this is a big deal, $23 billion. So I commend and 
applaud the two managers of this bill. They are fine Senators. They 
have done a service to our country by getting us to the point we are 
now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first I want to thank our leader for 
his strong support and helping us bring this to the floor. We would not 
be here without the Senator from Nevada, our leader. Frankly, there are 
many demands, many things on his plate and our plate in the Senate. He 
understands 16 million jobs are affected by what happens in agriculture 
in this country. So I thank Senator Reid for his willingness to support 
us and continue to support us as we move forward to get this bill done.
  I also want to thank my partner and my ranking member, the Senator 
from Kansas, for his continued leadership as we move the bill forward. 
We would have liked to have begun the unanimous consent agreement to 
move forward on six different amendments, not the universe of 
amendments. Certainly, anyone could come down and say: Why isn't my 
amendment part of the first six?
  We wanted to get started as we worked with colleagues to bring up 
other amendments. So we have put forward something that involves, first 
of all, a technical amendment we need to do for the bill, a perfecting 
amendment, and then two Democratic colleagues' amendments and three 
Republican colleagues' amendments, including the Senator from Kentucky 
who just entered the objection, an important debate that involves an 
amendment he is involved in.
  So our first step was to try to do this around unanimous consent. But 
understanding that we do have an objection, Senator Reid has offered us 
another path to do this by creating a way for us to at least have the 
debate on two of the issues we had put forward in the six amendments 
before us.
  One involves the Sugar Program for our country, and we have a number 
of Members who have different amendments. We have one that will be in 
front of us. It is an opportunity for everyone to say their piece. I 
can tell you as someone who represents a lot of sugar beets that I care 
very deeply about this issue and certainly support the Sugar Program. 
But it is an important debate to have, and Members deserve to be heard 
on all sides.
  The other relates to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 
Many Members have feelings on all sides about this, and so we think it 
is an important debate to have to give people an opportunity to give 
their opinions.
  I certainly, as this goes forward tomorrow, will be doing that myself 
and certainly feel very strongly that what we have done in the bill on 
accountability and transparency to make sure every dollar goes for 
families who need it is very important. But we want Members to have an 
opportunity to be able to debate what is important policy for our 
country.
  As we are moving forward on both of these amendments tomorrow, we 
will also be working, our staffs and ourselves, to come together on a 
larger package, a universe of amendments to offer to the body of the 
Senate to be able to move forward so we can come up with a finite 
number of amendments that will allow us to complete the bill.
  Many amendments have been offered. We are going to spend our time 
going through those just as we did in committee where we worked across 
the aisle. We had 100 amendments and whittled that down to a point 
where we could come forward with agreed-upon amendments. We are going 
to do the same thing. We are going to put together a universe of 
amendments to move forward on the bill.
  But while we are doing that, we will have an opportunity--we invite 
Members who care particularly about either of the issues that will be 
voted on tomorrow--the leader will move forward with a motion to table 
on those, but we want everyone to have an opportunity to come to the 
floor and be able to be heard on both of those issues.

  So we are moving forward. We would have liked to have done it with a 
larger group of amendments that we could have started with while we 
continue through. Our goal is to allow as much opportunity for 
discussion and debate as possible. But, frankly, I have to say, before 
yielding to my friend from Kansas, our goal ultimately is to pass this 
bill.
  I mean we have 16 million people who are counting on moving forward 
wanting certainty. Our farmers and ranchers want to know what is coming 
for them as they are in the planting season, going into harvest season 
in the fall. They need economic certainty. We need to make sure we have 
a policy going forward that makes sense and is put in place before 
September 30 of this year when these policies run out and very serious 
ramifications to the budget take place.
  Frankly, I think all of us have said at one time or another that we 
want to

[[Page S3965]]

see deficit reduction. I do not know of another bill that has come 
before this body with $23 billion in deficit reduction, bipartisan, and 
a number that was agreed to in the fall with the House and the Senate.
  We have an opportunity to tell the people we represent in the country 
that we meant it when we said deficit reduction. We meant it when we 
said reform. We meant it when we said we were going to work together to 
get things done. We have been doing that with a wonderful bipartisan 
vote in committee, with a very strong vote to proceed to this bill last 
week, and we know the hard part is getting through it and coming up 
with the list of amendments we intend to do.
  We are asking for our colleagues to work with us on behalf of the 
people of this country who have the safest, most affordable food supply 
in the world because of a group of folks called farmers and ranchers 
who have the biggest risk in the country and go out every day to work 
hard to make sure we have the national security and the food security 
we need for our country.
  They are looking to us to get this done, along with children and 
families across this country. We will do that. We will begin that 
process between now and tomorrow with a debate on two important issues.
  I see my distinguished colleague and friend here, the ranking member. 
I also thank another distinguished colleague, the Senator from Iowa, 
who has made very significant contributions in this legislation on 
reforms--reforms he has been fighting for for years. We have stepped up 
to back him up and support him. We need to get this done--these 
reforms--and get this bill done. We are going to work hard to make sure 
we do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, this isn't exactly the trail I had 
hoped we would take to get to a successful conclusion on a farm bill 
that we need so vitally in farm country, for all the reasons that the 
distinguished chairwoman has outlined. I need not go over all of those 
reasons. I will mention that we have a September 30 deadline in which 
the current farm bill expires. The alternative is to go back to the 
current farm bill, which we know is outdated, and it has a payment 
system that is also outdated.
  The other alternative, if you don't extend the farm bill, is you go 
to the 1949 act, which is not sustainable. It is not really an 
alternative. I had hoped we could start considering this. We had three 
Republican amendments, two Democratic amendments, and also the 
perfecting amendment. But that is not the trail we are going to go 
down.
  Basically, I think about the only thing I can add is that we are not 
giving up. We can't. We will keep working as hard as we can to 
accommodate all Members. I know there is a lot of talk on both sides of 
the aisle about a global agreement. That seems to be a little bit of an 
exaggeration, more especially for this body. At any rate, that 
agreement would encompass every Members' concern at least, and we would 
go back to what the Senate used to be and have everybody offer 
amendments and debate them and then vote and have a conclusion. That is 
exactly what we did when we marked up the bill with over 100 amendments 
in 4\1/2\ hours. That was a record. That is not what we are going to do 
as of tomorrow. At least there is some degree of movement.
  I know the Senator from Iowa has several amendments that are 
extremely important to the future of agriculture program policy. I 
commend him for his leadership in the past and for being such a 
successful partner in working things out not only for his State but for 
the country.
  We will persevere and we will get this done. I guess we are like John 
Paul Jones--we have just begun to fight.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I know my colleague from New Hampshire 
wishes to speak, but for the purpose of Members' understanding, I would 
like to let everyone know what is happening now.
  We do have two amendments that will be voted on tomorrow morning. The 
majority leader has at his disposal the ability to have a motion to 
table, which he will exercise in the morning. But we want anyone 
interested in either of these two topics or amendments to come forward 
with the opportunity to debate tonight. Senator Shaheen has an 
amendment that I know is very important to her and many other Members, 
and we want everyone to have the opportunity this evening to do that.
  There will be a vote. I am not sure of the time exactly, but I would 
think at this point it will be in the morning. So we want those who are 
interested in debating the Sugar Program or debating the question of 
whether to block grant the nutrition program, the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, to come forward to discuss and 
debate that this evening. There may be some time in the morning, but we 
will be moving forward on both of these amendments. So we want to let 
them know that if these are topics they are interested in, we would 
certainly welcome them coming to the floor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Stabenow, who has done 
such a great job of chairing the Agriculture Committee. She and Ranking 
Member Roberts really have done amazing work to bring this bill to the 
floor. It is bipartisan, and it is legislation that makes some 
significant reforms in the farm programs we have had.
  In New Hampshire, many of the programs that are authorized in the 
farm bill are critical for our farmers and our rural communities, as 
well as for the protection of our natural resources. I hope we do have 
some agreement so that we will be able to actually have a full debate 
on this bill in the remainder of this week and in the upcoming week.
  As I said, this legislation makes much needed reforms to our farm 
programs, and it helps to reduce the deficit. For all of that terrific 
reform and the work that has been done, Senator Stabenow and Ranking 
Member Roberts deserve real appreciation and thanks from this body.
  However, there is one glaring exception to the reforms that have been 
made in the bill; that is, the bill contains no reform to the Sugar 
Program. The sugar subsidies we provide to farmers in America are 
really unique because what the Federal Government does is to 
artificially restrict supply and provide a subsidy that keeps prices 
for sugar in the United States at nearly twice the world average. These 
are high prices that hurt consumers. They hurt businesses. In fact, a 
recent study found that the program costs Americans $3.5 billion a 
year.
  Let me explain how the subsidy works. First, the Federal Government 
sets a floor on sugar prices through guarantees. So they guarantee how 
much is going to be paid for the price of sugar. These price floors 
ensure that sugar growers and processors will always receive a minimum 
price for sugar regardless of what happens on the world market. But 
sugar prices have been far higher than the minimum price for years now, 
and that is thanks to some additional, very egregious government 
controls on sugar. Under the sugar subsidy program, the Federal 
Government tells sugar growers how much they can grow. These 
restrictions are called marketing allotments, and they limit how much 
sugar is available on the market and restrict the ability of buyers and 
sellers to trade sugar freely. So this is not a market enterprise when 
it comes to sugar in the United States, and no other U.S. crop is 
subject to these same kinds of government controls. As a result, in the 
United States we have severe supply shortages which keep sugar prices 
artificially high.
  The last component of the subsidy program for sugar is trade 
restrictions. The Federal Government severely restricts the amount of 
sugar companies can import into the United States. So only about 15 
percent of sugar in the United States is imported at those lower world 
average prices.
  Again, no other crop is subject to the kinds of restrictions and 
price controls I have just described. The result is a

[[Page S3966]]

subsidy that hurts hundreds of thousands of businesses and consumers 
and only benefits about 4,700 sugar growers. Unfortunately, the farm 
bill before the Senate, while it contains a lot of reforms, contains no 
reforms to this subsidy program.
  I have introduced several amendments, but the one we are going to be 
voting on tomorrow is one that would repeal the subsidy so that prices 
are determined by the market instead of government controls.
  For the past 1\1/2\ years, I have been working with our colleague, 
Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois, on bipartisan legislation--the SUGAR 
Act--which would phase out the Sugar Program over several years and 
eliminate government control of sugar prices. Unfortunately, Senator 
Kirk can't be here tomorrow for this vote because he is continuing his 
recovery, but I am pleased there is a bipartisan group of our 
colleagues who have joined in support of this sugar reform. In 
particular, Senators Lugar, McCain, Durbin, Toomey, Lautenberg, Coats, 
Portman, Feinstein, and my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator 
Ayotte, have all joined me in calling for elimination or significant 
reform of the Sugar Program.
  This is a big concern for us in New Hampshire and other States around 
the country that actually make candy or other products that rely on 
sugar. In New Hampshire, we are the American home of Lindt chocolates. 
We also have a number of other small candy companies. As this chart 
shows, American manufacturing companies such as Lindt pay almost twice 
the world average price for their sugar. In fact, prices have gone up 
considerably since Congress passed the last farm bill in 2008.
  We can see that this blue line at the bottom is the world price of 
raw sugar. This red line is the U.S. price of raw sugar. This green 
line at the top is the U.S. wholesale refined sugar price. So while we 
can see how much higher that raw sugar price is, we can also see what 
it does to the refined sugar price, and we can see how significantly it 
has increased since the last farm bill. Again, the sugar subsidy 
program is able to keep these prices so high because it distorts the 
market.
  In addition to the minimum prices guaranteed by the government, the 
Federal Government drastically restricts the supply of sugar in the 
United States, with only about 15 percent of sugar sold coming from 
abroad--thanks to those import restrictions. The government controls 
how much each individual sugar processor can sell, and that further 
restricts supply on the market. Again, the result of these government 
controls is to keep the artificially high prices for sugar that are 
reflected on this graph.
  These high sugar prices hurt job creation. According to the 
Department of Commerce, for every one job protected in the sugar 
industry through this program, we are sacrificing three jobs in 
American manufacturing. A recent study by an agricultural research firm 
called Promar suggests that the program--the sugar subsidy, that is--
costs 20,000 American jobs each year. In addition, a recent analysis 
that I referred to earlier found that the program also costs consumers 
$3.5 billion every year in the form of artificially high sugar prices. 
These really are pretty startling numbers, but I wish to talk about how 
this subsidy program affects just one of the small businesses in New 
Hampshire.
  We have a company called Granite State Candy Shoppe. It is a small 
family-owned candy manufacturing company in Concord, NH, the capital of 
New Hampshire. Sugar is that company's most important ingredient. Jeff 
Bart, who is the owner, tells me that the artificially high cost of 
sugar has forced the company to raise prices on their goods but, more 
importantly, the subsidy has also prevented the company from hiring new 
workers as quickly as it would like to. So while Granite State Candy 
Shoppe would like to grow and expand, the sugar subsidy is really 
slowing down that expansion because of the high price of sugar. Granite 
State Candy Shoppe is just one of many companies that want to grow but 
are forced to slow down their expansion due to an outdated, unnecessary 
government program that benefits relatively few sugar cane and sugar 
beet growers nationwide.

  High sugar prices also put American companies at a competitive 
disadvantage with foreign manufacturers. Since foreign companies can 
get sugar so much cheaper, it is tempting for American companies to 
look elsewhere to manufacture their candy. In fact, low sugar prices 
are a major selling point for foreign governments encouraging candy 
companies to relocate.
  We just copied this cover of a brochure from Canada. It says:

       Canada--North America's Location of Choice for 
     Confectionary Manufacturers.

  Consider these hard facts. Sugar refiners import the vast majority of 
their raw materials at world prices. Canadian sugar users enjoy a 
significant advantage--the average price of refined sugar is usually 30 
to 40 percent lower in Canada than in the United States. Most 
manufactured products containing sugar are freely traded in the NAFTA 
region. So we are losing these jobs to Canada and to other places--
20,000 jobs a year--in businesses that need sugar as a major 
ingredient.
  This outdated program puts American companies at a competitive 
disadvantage, and it should go. That is why I hope our colleagues, as 
they are considering this amendment tomorrow morning to repeal the 
Sugar Program, will decide to support it. I hope we will not have 
opposition to voting on the amendment from any of our colleagues in the 
Senate.
  We have had consumer and business groups calling for the repeal of 
the Sugar Program for years now. The Consumer Federation of America and 
the National Consumers League have joined business groups such as the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers 
in support of this amendment. These groups support reforming this 
program because they recognize that these special interests are hurting 
consumers and they are hurting American businesses.
  So I hope all of my colleagues will support this amendment tomorrow. 
Help us grow small businesses and create those American jobs. Let's 
reform the Sugar Program. It is long overdue.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I will take a few moments to speak about 
the two amendments we will be voting on with motions to table tomorrow 
and urge that my colleagues, in fact, do vote to table these 
amendments. I appreciate we have colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
who care about both of them, but I ask, in the interest of a strong 
agricultural policy and nutrition policy, that we not support the 
amendments that are in front of us. But I do appreciate the fact that 
we are beginning to talk about issues and amendments. This is very 
important.
  We have many amendments and ideas that Members want to bring up. We 
are going to do our level best, within the framework we have to deal 
with in terms of procedure, to be able to bring up as many different 
topics and have as much opportunity for people to debate as possible 
because we want to move forward on this very important bill that we all 
know would reduce the deficit by over $23 billion. It has major 
reforms. Yet it will strengthen agricultural policy--nutrition policy, 
conservation policy--and maintain and support 16 million jobs. That is 
why we are here.
  I wish to take a moment to talk about our American sugar policy. We 
grow a lot of sugar beets in Michigan. Our first sugar policy goes back 
to 1789 in this country. I don't think either one of us was here. The 
Presiding Officer certainly was not here. Nobody was here. But in 1789 
we began the first sugar policy. Our modern policy can be traced back 
to the Sugar Acts of 1934, 1937, and 1948. Sugar is not similar to 
other commodities. Both sugarcane and sugar beets must be processed 
soon after harvest--which is a key factor for them--using costly 
processing machinery.
  If farmers need to scale back production because of a sudden drop in 
price,

[[Page S3967]]

the processing plant shuts down and may never reopen. Because this 
processing is so capital intensive, it is imperative we give producers 
a stable marketplace so they do not experience a constant boom and 
bust, which is what we would see without the stability of the program 
we have today.
  The current U.S. sugar policy has been run at zero cost to taxpayers 
for the last 10 years. Let me just say this again--zero; zero cost to 
the American taxpayer for the last 10 years. This policy helps defend 
142,000 American jobs and $20 billion in economic activity every year: 
zero cost, 142,000 jobs, $20 billion in economic activity every year.
  Two things come to mind. Even with our sugar policy, the United 
States interestingly is the second largest net importer of sugar behind 
only Russia. This is important because our policy has been viewed as a 
protectionist policy. Yet we are still an importer. We import sugar, 
the second highest only to Russia. What we are talking about is 
allowing a stable marketplace for American producers.
  The price of sugar for consumers is among the lowest in the developed 
world. Despite many debates to the contrary, in the European Union 
prices are 30 percent higher than in the United States. When we look at 
the retail prices for countries such as France, Finland, Japan, Norway, 
and so on, U.S. sugar prices are actually very low. Again, zero cost to 
the taxpayer, and we are maintaining a stable price for our sugar beet 
growers and protection for our sugar beet and sugarcane growers. We are 
creating jobs and, at the same time, this is where we fall, with the 
blue line being the USA.
  I know there are colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care about 
this. I argue our sugar policy is one that makes sense. It has made 
sense for the last 10 years at zero cost. I hope we will vote to 
continue to support this policy, which is a very important part to many 
regions of the country, an important part of the bill that is in front 
of us. This policy is supported by a host of corporations, including 
the American Sugar Alliance, the International Sugar Trade Coalition. 
We have the support of our country's two largest agricultural trade 
organizations--the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National 
Farmers Union. It has made sense. It has zero cost, and I am hopeful 
colleagues tomorrow will support continuing this program.
  Let me talk about another amendment now that goes to a lot of 
discussion on the floor and that goes to the nutrition parts, which is 
the majority of the bill that is in front of us.
  All across the country the recession has devastated families. 
Certainly, I can speak for Michigan, where we have people who paid 
taxes all their lives, they have worked very hard, they continue to 
work very hard, and never thought in their wildest dreams they would 
need help putting food on their tables for their children. They have 
had to do that during this recession, in a temporary way, to help them 
get through what, for them, has been an incredibly difficult time.
  We know the No. 1 way to address that is jobs. We want to make sure, 
in fact, we are creating jobs, supporting the private sector 
entrepreneurial spirit to bring back manufacturing, making things, 
growing things, creating jobs. But we also know, as this has been slow 
to turn around for many families, that we have Americans who have 
needed some temporary help. That is what SNAP, the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program, is all about.
  The amendment tomorrow that we will be voting on would turn this 
program into an entire block grant, making it much less effective in 
responding to needs--frankly, block granting and then cutting over half 
the current levels of support and funding needed to maintain help for 
those who are currently receiving SNAP benefits. Reductions at that 
level could exceed the total amount of supplemental nutrition help 
projected to go to families in 29 of our smallest States and 
territories over the next 10 years. It is extremely dramatic and makes 
absolutely no sense. I hope we will join together in rejecting this 
approach.
  One of the strongest features of the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program is that, in fact, it can respond quickly when we 
have a recession or economic conditions that warrant it, when we have a 
nationwide recession, when we have a plant closure in a community. We 
have seen way too many of those, although we are now celebrating the 
fact that we have plants opening and retooling and expanding. But we 
have gone through some very tough times with plant closures where 
families have needed some temporary help. The important thing about the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is that it is timely, it is 
targeted, and it is temporary. Approximately half of all of those new 
families who have needed help are getting help for 10 months or less, 
so this is actually a temporary program.

  We have seen over the years that families receiving supplemental 
nutrition assistance are much more likely to be working families. This 
is important. We are talking about working families who are working one 
job or one, two, or three part-time jobs and trying to hold it together 
for their families while working for minimum wage. By about the second 
or third week of the month, there is no food on the table for the 
children. So being able to help families who are working hard every day 
to be able to have that temporary help has been life and death, I would 
suggest, for many families. This is actually a great American value to 
have something like this for families who need it.
  According to the CBO--the Congressional Budget Office--we know the 
number of families receiving supplemental nutrition assistance is 
actually going to go down over the next 10 years. It is going to go 
down because we are seeing the unemployment rate go down, and it tracks 
the same. In fact, in this bill we build in savings over the life of 
the farm bill because it is projected that the costs are going to go 
down--not by some arbitrary cuts but by actually having it go down 
because the costs go down. When people go back to work, they don't need 
the temporary help anymore. There are savings in this bill by the fact 
that the costs are going down because the unemployment rate is going 
down, and that is the most significant thing.
  Turning supplemental nutrition assistance into a block grant won't 
make the program more efficient or more effective. Instead, we are 
likely to see States shifting dollars out of SNAP to look at other 
budget priorities in very tough times. If it is a block grant, they are 
not required to use it for food to help families. We all know that 
States are under tremendous pressure on all sides, so it is not even 
clear--it wouldn't be accountable in terms of where those dollars are 
going in terms of food assistance.
  It is also harder to fight fraud and abuse across State lines with 
this kind of approach. The Department of Agriculture has been working 
hard to accomplish this. We have already reduced trafficking by three-
quarters, 75 percent, over the last 15 years, and we want to be able to 
continue to do that as well.
  So we know that nutrition assistance is a lifeline to the families 
who need it, but let me conclude by saying that I also want to make 
sure every single dollar goes to the families who need it. That is why 
this reform bill, this bill that cuts $23 billion on the deficit, also 
focuses on waste, fraud, and abuse in the nutrition title because we 
want to make sure every dollar goes to those families. It is to ensure 
that every family and every child who needs help receives help, and we 
want to make sure that not one dollar is abused in that process.
  So what do we have in the underlying bill? Well, we have had at least 
two cases in Michigan where we have had lottery winners who, amazingly, 
continue to get food assistance, which is outrageous. We stopped that, 
period. Lottery winners would immediately lose assistance. And 
hopefully we wouldn't have to say that, but the way it has been set up, 
we have to make that very clear. It would end misuse by college 
students who are actually able to afford food and are living at home 
with their parents. Students going to school are not those who would be 
the focus of getting food assistance help, so we would end the misuse 
by college students. We would cut down on trafficking. We don't want 
folks taking their food assistance card and getting cash or doing 
something else with it that is illegal. We prevent liquor and

[[Page S3968]]

tobacco stores from becoming retailers because we want people going 
into the grocery store or farmers market and being able to get healthy 
food with their dollars. We also deal with a gap in standards that has 
resulted in overpayment of benefits as it relates to States. So we deal 
with what has been an effort by some States to go beyond legislative 
intent, and we address that in a very strategic way.
  The bottom line is that we are making sure we increase the integrity 
in the food assistance program. We increase the integrity and the 
accountability because we want every single dollar to go for help for 
those families who worked all their lives, paid taxes, and now find 
themselves in a place where the plant closed or where they lost their 
jobs and need some help on a temporary basis to put food on the table.
  Let me just share one more time where the dollars go in terms of 
children and adults. Nearly half of those who are getting help right 
now are children; 47 percent of those who get food help are children. 
Then we have those who live with children, who are another 24 percent, 
senior citizens are 8 percent, and disabled people are another 9 
percent. So the vast majority we are talking about are children, 
families, parents caring for children, the disabled, or seniors.
  The amendment we will be voting on tomorrow is an extreme amendment 
that would take away temporary help for families and children who need 
it. Rather than taking that approach, we take the approach of 
accountability. So as we look one more time at accountability, we can 
see we are tightening all of the areas where there has been abuse. We 
want every dollar to go where it should go, but at the same time we 
don't want to forget the children or the families of this country who 
are counting on us.
  We have several different kinds of programs that relate to disasters 
in the farm bill. We have one called crop insurance where if there is a 
weather disaster or price disaster, we want to be there. We don't want 
any farmer to lose the farm because there are a few days of bad weather 
or some other kind of disaster beyond their control. It is called crop 
insurance, and we strengthened risk management tools in this bill.
  Well, there is another kind of disaster assistance in this bill, and 
that is for families across this country. It is for children, it is for 
seniors, and it is for the disabled. It is called the nutrition title, 
and that is why it is there in case of a family disaster. We have too 
many middle-class families who are asking for help now. They are 
grateful, didn't want to ask, and mortified they have to ask, but they 
are in a situation where they need temporary help, and that is why it 
is here.
  The good news is that with the unemployment rate going down, the 
assistance is going down. The budget will be going down through the 
life of this farm bill and the costs will be going down because people 
are going back to work. That is the way it should be.
  I would urge tomorrow that we vote against what I consider to be a 
very extreme amendment that would cut and block grant the nutrition 
program and vote instead to support what we have done to increase the 
accountability and integrity of our food assistance programs.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, it is a great privilege to be here tonight 
with the senior Senator from Colorado because the topic I come to the 
floor to talk about tonight is the West. Similar to the Presiding 
Officer, I have been thinking a lot about our home State of Colorado 
because we currently have a terrible wildfire burning just west of Fort 
Collins. Susan and I and the girls went up to Jamestown this weekend--I 
think I told the Presiding Officer this earlier--and dropped them off 
at camp, and that is far away from where this fire is. It is on the 
other side of Estes Park. But even from there, we could see an 
incredible plume of smoke, and in the 45 minutes or so we were there, I 
would say the volume of that plume of smoke increased by three-or 
fourfold and we could tell something terrible was going on.
  As the Presiding Officer knows better than anybody in this Chamber, 
this devastating fire has destroyed over 100 structures and has 
tragically claimed one life and endangered many others. In fact, as we 
stand in this Chamber tonight, there are many endangered by this fire. 
At over 43,000 acres and growing, it is the third largest fire in 
Colorado's history.
  Today, I think I can say for both of us, our thoughts go out to the 
family who lost a loved one and to the hundreds of firefighters who are 
bravely working on the ground as we are here tonight. We wish them well 
and we wish them success in battling this blaze.
  As the Presiding Officer knows, wildfires are simply part of life in 
the West. Managing our land to improve resiliency needs to be a focus 
of ours in this Congress. That is why I am pleased, as a member of the 
Committee on Agriculture, to say the farm bill reauthorizes stewardship 
contracting, which allows our Federal land management agencies to 
implement high priority forest management and restoration projects. 
Much of the Presiding Officer's career has had to do with these 
programs. I thank him for his support, and I have been pleased to be 
able to carry on his work as a member of the Agriculture Committee. 
This is a critical tool for initiatives that restore and maintain 
healthy forest ecosystems and provide local employment. The Presiding 
Officer, I think, was on the floor maybe yesterday talking about the 
importance of this to our timber industry in Colorado and across this 
country.
  Another truly western aspect of this bill I would like to focus on 
tonight is conservation and specifically the stewardship of our western 
landscape. In my travels around Colorado, I have been heartened to see 
over and over farmers and ranchers arm in arm with conservation groups 
and with sportsmen, all in the name of proper stewardship of the land, 
of protecting our open spaces. They all share the recognition that 
keeping these landscapes in their historical, undeveloped state is an 
economic driver--as family farms, as working cattle ranches; for 
tourism, for wildlife habitat, and to preserve our rural way of life 
and our rural economies.
  Every citizen knows the American West is a destination for those 
seeking wide-open spaces--a ``home on the range,'' as they say, a way 
of life that is focused on working the land and the wise stewardship of 
our natural resources. We also know that as we have grown as a country, 
there has been increasing development pressure on this way of life and 
on the landscape. That pressure is exactly why the farm bill's 
conservation title is so vital to people in the West.
  I serve as chairman of the Conservation Subcommittee of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, and through the dozens--literally dozens--of 
farm bill listening sessions I have held over the last 18 months, 
farmers and ranchers were always talking about the importance of 
conservation; conservation of their way of life and conservation of 
their land, particularly the use of conservation easements which help 
landowners voluntarily conserve the farming and ranching heritage of 
their land, a heritage that is so important to our State and to the 
entire West.
  So I wished to spend a few minutes sharing some of the stories 
Coloradans have shared with me and, maybe more important than that, 
showing our colleagues what this looks like. Of course, we live in the 
most beautiful State of all 50 States, in Colorado. This photo is from 
the Music Meadows Ranch outside Westcliffe, CO, elevation 9,000 feet. 
On these beautiful 4,000 acres, Elin Ganschow raises some of the finest 
grass-fed beef in the country. Thanks to the Grassland Reserve Program, 
Elin's ranch now has a permanent conservation easement. So this 
beautiful land will likely always have someone running cattle on it.
  This photo I have in the Chamber is from the San Luis Valley, where 
my predecessor, Ken Salazar, is from. Fifteen different conservation 
easements--finalized by the Colorado

[[Page S3969]]

Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust--protect nearly all of the private 
land over a 20-mile stretch in the valley.
  The great work of the Cattlemen's Agricultural Land Trust, aided by 
the programs in the farm bill conservation title before us, is 
protecting our western way of life in Colorado.
  This beautiful picture is also from the valley. This is not a movie 
set, by the way. This is how we live our lives in the great State of 
Colorado and why these programs have been so important.
  Finally, I want to share one more Colorado story about preserving our 
State's fruit orchards. Most people do not know this, as I have 
traveled the country--and I imagine Senators Isakson and Chambliss from 
Georgia might even be surprised to hear--Colorado is a national leader 
in the production of peaches. This picture is of a peach orchard in 
Palisade.
  My friends from California might also be interested to know that 
Colorado has a burgeoning wine industry as well. In Colorado's Grand 
Valley, pictured here, conservation programs have been efficiently 
employed to protect 14 family farms growing peaches and wine grapes 
among other things.
  The Federal investments made available to protect these lands have 
not only ensured they will stay in agricultural production, but the 
resources provided from the Natural Resource Conservation Service, 
NRCS, help these family farms acquire new land to plant and new 
equipment to plant it.
  Mr. President, as you can see--and as you already know--conservation 
is an integral part of what we are all about in the West. It helps 
define who we are. Sometimes people only focus on conserving public 
land in its undeveloped state, and that is an important endeavor in 
Colorado and across the West. But private land conservation--the type 
aided by the farm bill--is critical for so many reasons: to protect the 
agricultural heritage of the land, and for wildlife habitat: elk, 
bighorn sheep, pheasant, Colorado cutthroat trout--the list goes on and 
on--so many of the prized species that are important to our Nation's 
sportsmen and nature lovers.
  Finding open landscapes and the species that inhabit them are a 
fundamental part of what it is to be in the West. We need to preserve 
these open spaces. That is what this title does. I strongly support 
this new conservation title as reported out of the committee on a 
bipartisan vote.
  I know some would look to amend this bipartisan consensus, to cut 
conservation resources in the name of deficit reduction or to apply it 
to some other purpose. I am the first to say we need to cut our 
deficit. We need to put the entire budget under a microscope--including 
agriculture--to cut waste and eliminate redundancies. And, by the way, 
we have.
  This committee--the Senate Agriculture Committee--under the 
leadership of the chairwoman and the ranking member, is the only 
committee I am aware of in this entire Congress--the House or the 
Senate--that has actually come up with a bipartisan consensus on 
deficit reduction. I thank the ranking member and the chairwoman for 
their leadership, for setting a model, an example for the other 
committees that are working--or should be working--to get our deficit 
under control.
  I might say, $6.4 billion of those cuts do come from conservation, 
not all of which I like. But we made difficult compromises at the 
committee level. We have a more efficient conservation title that won 
support from both sides of the aisle, and we ought to move this bill 
forward.
  I know there has been a little bit of the usual back-and-forth about 
amendments that are not necessarily related to the topic at hand, and 
we have a habit of doing that in the Senate. I hope there can be an 
agreement reached by the leadership so we can move this critically 
important bill forward.
  Again, at a time when so much partisan bickering is going on around 
this place, to have seen the fine work that was done by this 
committee--Republicans and Democrats working together--to strengthen 
this commodity title, create real deficit reduction, and actually end 
direct payments to producers--one of the most significant reforms in 
agricultural policy that we have had around this place in decades--it 
would be a shame--worse than a shame; it would be terrible--to let that 
work go to waste.
  With that, Mr. President, the hour is late. I am going to stop so we 
can close. I thank the Presiding Officer very much and say again what a 
privilege it was to be able to talk about our home with him in the 
chair.
  So with that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________