[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.
____________________