[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 90 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4163-S4174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
Resumed
Mr. REID. I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 250, S. 1940.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by
title.
The assistant 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.
Schedule
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of Senator
McConnell, if any, the next hour will be divided and controlled between
the two leaders. It will be equally divided. The majority will control
the first half and the Republicans will control the final half.
We are still working on trying to finish an agreement to the farm
bill so we can move forward. It is disappointing we don't already have
something, but hope is still here, and I hope we can get that done. It
is a very important piece of legislation, but a few Senators are
holding this up and that is too bad. I have agreed we can have some
amendments. I had a nice colloquy on the floor yesterday with Senator
Coburn, who is concerned about this bill and legislation generally. He
indicated that he thought it was a good idea to have a number of
amendments and start voting on them, so I hope we can get there. We
can't do all 250 amendments that are out there, but we can do a lot of
them, so let's see where we are. I hope we can get it done.
We are on the flood insurance bill. We have to get to that. The flood
insurance expires at the end of this month.
We will continue to work on an agreement with the farm bill.
I also hope to reconsider the failed cloture vote on the nomination
of Mari Carmen Aponte, to be an ambassador to the Republic of El
Salvador.
Votes are possible throughout today's session. Senators will be
notified when they are scheduled.
Would the Chair announce the business of the day.
Reservation of Leader Time
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
Under the previous order, the following hour will be equally divided
and
[[Page S4164]]
controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the
majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the
final half.
Mr. REID. I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
EPA Mercury Rule
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, last December, the Environmental
Protection Agency finalized a rule called the Mercury Air Toxics
Standard for powerplants. This rule is important, and it was long
overdue.
Many Americans might not realize that before last December, there
were no Federal standards for mercury or the other toxic air pollution
pouring out of our Nation's powerplants. Thirty-two years ago, Congress
directed EPA to limit toxic air pollution from all big polluting
industries. In response, EPA set standards for nearly 100 industries
across our Nation. However, until December, there were no such
standards for the utility industry--the biggest source of mercury,
arsenic, and other toxic air pollution in the country.
Now there are standards in place, estimated to provide $3 to $9 of
health and economic benefits for every $1 invested in pollution
controls. We should be celebrating this sensible yet significant public
health achievement. Yet from the other side of the aisle we only hear
about the $1 that the polluters have to spend to clean up. We never
hear about the $3 to $9 the rest of the public saves as a result of the
pollution being cleaned up.
We hear about the cost to the polluter all the time. We never hear
about the cost, for example, of an asthma attack caused by soot and
ozone. We never hear about the public health cost to all of us of the
child having to go to the emergency room for an asthma attack. We never
hear about the cost to the business of the mom who is not at work that
day because she is off on a sick day taking care of that child in the
emergency room or, if she is working on a regular wage, maybe it is on
her. Maybe she does not get paid for that day because she is in the
emergency room with her child. We never hear about that cost.
How about the simple cost of a mother stuck in an emergency room with
a child having a pollution-provoked asthma attack, waiting anxiously--
waiting for the nebulizer to kick in, waiting for that little oxygen
meter on the child's finger to show that the oxygen levels are back
where they should be? That is not even counted--the worry of a mom for
her child having a pollution-caused asthma incident. We never hear
about that. We never hear about the dollar side. All they talk about,
all we hear about from them is the $1 the polluter has to pay to clean
up their pollution--never, in this case, the $3 to $9; in other cases
it is $35 to $1, over $100 to $1.
Instead, we have colleagues on the other side who want to halt this
progress--notwithstanding the savings for virtually every American--
with a resolution we are facing now that would void these new
standards--standards that have just emerged after 32 years for the
first time regulating toxic pollution out of utility plants. This
resolution would not only void the new standard, but it would bar EPA
from ever setting similar limits on powerplants in the future.
In speeches against these public health standards, one of my
colleagues appears somewhat confused about the mercury air toxic
standards. I wish to set the record straight on two points. One, this
colleague has complained that the technology does not exist to meet
these standards. That is the complaint: the technology does not exist
to meet these standards. But if you look at the Clean Air Act, it
directs the EPA--as EPA did--to set these standards based upon the
performance of the top 12 percent in the industry--the actual
performance of the top 12 percent in the industry. In other words, at
least one out of every eight powerplant units must already be meeting
each of the standards that is set. This is not a case in which the
technology does not exist. This is a situation in which one out of
every eight plants is already meeting it. The technology assuredly
exists, demonstrably exists. What EPA is doing is leveling the field so
that utilities do not get a competitive advantage by running dirtier
powerplants than their fellow utilities.
This colleague has also complained that the rule establishes
standards for toxic air pollution other than mercury. Well, limiting
all toxic air pollution at once is more efficient for the utilities
than tackling each pollutant separately. Frankly, if we are going at
mercury once, and then later arsenic--and over and over the utilities
had to go back and recalibrate--we would be hearing complaints that was
the wrong way to do it. So if you do it all at once, they complain; if
you do it separately, they would complain. The bottom line is, any time
polluters are asked to clean up their act, some people are going to
complain.
In section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, Congress told the EPA that
they shall establish emission standards for each category of major
sources of the toxic air pollutants listed in section 112(c). Congress
provided a list of 180 pollutants, which EPA used as the basis for the
powerplant standards. You cannot fault EPA for that. Moreover, the
staggering health benefits of this rule--4,700 fewer anticipated heart
attacks, 130,000 fewer cases of child asthma symptoms, 5,700 fewer
emergency room visits each year--flow from limiting all toxic air
pollution from powerplants--not eliminating, limiting all toxic air
pollution from powerplants rather than just mercury.
In pointing out that EPA correctly sought to limit all toxic air
pollution from powerplants, I do not want to gloss over the importance
of setting those Federal mercury standards. As I indicated earlier,
powerplants are the largest source of airborne mercury pollution in the
United States.
Mercury, as everybody knows, is a neurotoxin that can be most
devastating to developing nervous systems. The reason we have the
phrase ``mad as a hatter'' is because hatters used mercury in their
work and it affected their brains. It is a neurotoxin. Exposure to
mercury in utero, or as a child, can permanently reduce a person's
ability to think and learn. For this reason, women of childbearing age,
infants, and children must avoid mercury exposure.
What does this mean for Rhode Island? Many of you have heard me talk
about the out-of-State air pollution that plagues my State. Most air
pollution in Rhode Island is not generated from within our borders. It
is sent from sources hundreds, even thousands of miles away. It is sent
by powerplants out of State in significant measure.
On a clear summer day in Rhode Island, we will be commuting in to
work, and we will hear on the drive-time radio: Today is a bad air day
in Rhode Island. Infants, seniors, and people with respiratory
difficulties should stay indoors today; otherwise, it is a beautiful
day--a summer day when kids should be out playing. But if they have
asthma, if they have a respiratory ailment, no, they are condemned to
stay indoors--not because of anything that happened in Rhode Island but
because of out-of-State pollution, mostly from these powerplants.
So the same sources that create those bad air days for Rhode Island--
that force seniors and infants and children, people with respiratory
difficulties to stay indoors on an otherwise fine summer day--also send
us mercury pollution, which is why, although Rhode Island does not have
a single coal-fired generating unit within its borders, our health
department has to issue fish advisories.
If there is one emblematic image of American families doing something
in the out-of-doors, it is the parent or grandparent taking their
child--their son or their daughter--or their grandchild fishing. Norman
Rockwell has captured this image. Many of us have similar images stored
away in our childhood memories.
Yet today if a child goes fishing with her grandfather in Rhode
Island, she cannot eat the fish she caught. The Rhode Island Department
of Health warns that pregnant women, women thinking of becoming
pregnant, and small children should not eat any
[[Page S4165]]
freshwater fish in Rhode Island. The health department also warns these
populations not to eat some saltwater fish, such as shark and
swordfish, because they have high levels of mercury stored in their
fat. The health department suggests that no one in Rhode Island should
eat more than one serving of freshwater fish--not just children, women
who are pregnant, and women thinking of becoming pregnant--no one in
Rhode Island should eat more than one serving of freshwater fish caught
in our State each month in order to protect against mercury poisoning.
Finally, the health department warns that no one should ever eat any
of the fish caught in three bodies of water in Rhode Island: The
Quidnick Reservoir, Wincheck Pond, and Yawgoog Pond. For those of us
who remember fishing as kids and eating what we caught, this is a sad
state of affairs, and this is a state of affairs caused by polluters.
This cost of a family not being able to go to Quidnick Reservoir, to
Wincheck Pond to catch a fish, to take it home, to fry it up, to eat
it--to do things that are as American as apple pie, in some respects--
is because of the polluters.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point for a
question?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Of course.
Mrs. BOXER. First, I want to thank the Senator so much--so much--for
taking to the floor today and explaining to everyone within the sound
of his voice that we face a very important vote, because we have a
colleague on the other side of the aisle who wants to say to the
Environmental Protection Agency: Stop your work and allow polluters to
continue to poison this atmosphere and those of us who live in it. You
are talking about mercury. There is arsenic, there is lead, there is
formaldehyde. We have to say to the utilities: Clean up your act. We
are giving them enough time to do it.
I want to ask my friend a question, and then I will yield altogether
to him. The question is, is my friend aware that the cost-benefit ratio
of this rule that Senator Inhofe wants to now repeal is 9 to 1? In
other words, for every $1 that we put in to make sure this pollution
goes away or is controlled, there is $9 of benefits in health? Is my
colleague aware of that?
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. First of all, let me thank my wonderful chairman of
the Environment and Public Works Committee for joining me on the floor
and asking me this question. The figure I have used--I have been more
conservative--is in a range between $3 and $9. But there is a very
significant payback. As I was pointing out, that payback actually
counts in hard dollars to the public. It does not count things such as,
as I mentioned in my speech, the worry of a mom spending the day in the
emergency room waiting for her child's breathing to recover. It may
take into account her or her employer's economic loss. It does not take
into account her worry. It does not take into account the grandfather
not being able to take the fish home from Yawgoog Pond because it is
now poisonous because out-of-State polluters have dumped mercury into
the atmosphere and into the pond for so long.
Those are real costs if you have a traditional American kind of
family and people go fishing together and do things such as that. You
cannot do that any longer. That does not even count in the equation.
The polluters get to take that away from America for free in that
equation.
But, as I said, what is interesting is that our friends on the other
side only seem to think about, only seem to notice, only seem to talk
about the $1 that the polluters have to pay to clean up their act. They
do not talk about the folks who get the jobs repairing the pollution,
building the scrubbers--the American jobs that creates. They just talk
about their cost, and they do not talk at all about the cost on the
other side--the health care costs, the job losses, the loss of
education, the long-term health damage that people undertake.
Surface Transportation
While the Senator is on the floor, let me tell my chairman how proud
I am of the job she did yesterday on our highway bill. Getting out
there with those big trucks and with the big, heavy paving equipment
was a wonderful way of demonstrating to the public what has happened
here, which is that the most important jobs bill the Senate has passed
this year is being blocked by the House to eliminate or damage the
summer construction season for highway work.
In my State, as I think I have told the Senator, we have more than 90
projects on the roster for this summer's highway construction season.
Forty of them are falling off because of the delay from March until
June that the Republicans already forced on us.
As the Senator has told me, they are trying to push for another delay
that is going to knock more projects off, put more people out of work.
Ours was a bipartisan bill. It could not have been better and more
openly and transparently run by the Senator and her ranking member,
Senator Inhofe.
There are 2.9 million jobs at stake. Everybody gets that our roads
and highways need repair. Yet a group of Republicans in the House of
Representatives will not agree to go forward. And time is running out
on this summer's construction season.
Mrs. BOXER. Right.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. They get the benefit of knocking down jobs in the
runup to the election, which I think is a disgraceful way to go about
the Nation's business. But we cannot move them. The irony and the
tragedy here is, if Speaker Boehner would call up this bipartisan
Senate transportation bill, it would pass.
Mrs. BOXER. That is right.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. It would pass with Republican votes and Democratic
votes, and we could put people back to work across this country right
now, doing the work that every American knows our highway system needs.
This is not bridges to nowhere. This is bridges that people drive
across to get to work. This is potholes and highways and places like 95
that goes through Providence on a viaduct. It is falling in so much
that they have put planks underneath it to keep the pieces that fall
through from landing on the Amtrak trains and the car traffic
underneath.
We need this work. We need these jobs. It is so disingenuous and so
cynical to stop this work just because there is an election coming.
What the Senator did yesterday to press on that was very important. I
appreciate that.
I see Senator Udall.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
Wind PTC
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise again to continue the
fight for our effort to extend the production tax credit for wind. I am
going to continue to return to the floor every morning until we get the
PTC extended.
It has a positive economic effect on each and every one of our States
and we ought to immediately extend it. If we do not, there are
tremendous risks because there will be uncertainty. There will be
37,000 jobs at risk, per the estimate of the American Wind Energy
Association, in 2013, if we let this important, crucial tax credit
expire.
On the other hand, looking at this prohibitively, a recent study by
Navigant concludes that a stable tax policy would allow the wind
industry to create and save 54,000 jobs. That is a clear choice. Do we
want to lose 37,000 jobs or do we want to create and save 54,000 more?
Over the last number of years in tough economic times, the wind
industry has been a bright spot. We have seen growth in the wind
industry on the manufacturing side, and these are good-paying jobs. But
we are at a make-or-break moment for wind energy. If we let the wind
PTC expire, we will lose thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in
investment.
We also run the real risk of losing our position in the global
economic race for clean energy technology. Other countries are taking
note. While we are dithering in the Congress, our foreign competitors
are literally eating our lunch.
I am about to attend a hearing in the Energy Committee on our
competitiveness in the clean energy sector. We are going to be
discussing how China is outpacing us in the clean energy economy. The
witnesses, I know, will emphasize--because I have seen their
testimony--that we have to improve and maximize domestic manufacturing
capacity or we risk losing these jobs to overseas competitors.
[[Page S4166]]
I wish to give an example this morning. In North Carolina, there is a
company, PPG Industries. It is a fiberglass company, hundreds of
employees. They have been threatened by foreign competition in the last
few years. Fiberglass is a primary component of wind turbine blades.
The company has found new buyers in the wind industry.
I wish to quote the manager, Cheryl Richards, of this factory. She
has urged us to act. She said:
That's investment in the U.S. That's investment in jobs, in
technology, in the future, in clean energy. If we're not
doing it, there are people across the ocean who will. And
they'll be happy to sell their products here.
So while we cannot get our act together in Congress to pass the wind
PTC, our economic competitors in Europe and Asia have moved ahead. They
have developed robust manufacturing capacity to serve both their
domestic demands, and now they are beginning to sell all over the
world.
To emphasize how real this threat is, I wish to show all of the
viewers and my colleagues what has happened in the past when the PTC
has expired. Look back in 2000. There was a 93-percent drop. There was
a 73-percent drop from 2001 to 2002. It does not make sense. I hear
this from Coloradans. I hear this from Americans.
Wind project developers in the United States and American
manufacturers are not receiving orders. We could see another boom-and-
bust cycle, where we get a 73-percent or 93-percent drop in
installations. Our economy does not need that, especially right now. So
there is a time for leadership. It is time to show the American people
we can bridge partisan divides in the Congress, we can act, and we can
take urgent action.
Let's get the wind PTC reauthorized as soon as possible. It is within
our power to stop sending jobs overseas, to prevent falling behind
major economies such as China, Germany, India, and to stop harming
domestic industries and manufacturing.
Again, look at this chart. This tells the story. We have to stand and
do the right thing. Let's start by passing the wind PTC extension now.
We can do it today. I am going to continue coming back to the floor of
the Senate until we get the wind PTC extended.
Tribute to Tejal Shah
As my time begins to expire, I wished to take a moment of personal
privilege and note that Tejal Shah, who has been working in my office
as a fellow from the State Department, is leaving my office this week.
She is returning to the State Department to continue doing her work
there.
I wish to thank her for the phenomenal support she has given me, for
the knowledge and skill she has brought to my office. I wish her well
in her efforts at the State Department.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. 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. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Utility MACT
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I also, as my colleague
Senator Whitehouse did, wish to thank the chairman, Barbara Boxer, for
her hard work and her leadership to protect our air and our public
health on this crucial vote that is going to come up later this month.
I rise in opposition to the resolution of disapproval that we expect
Senator Inhofe to offer. This resolution would permanently block the
EPA from reducing mercury and toxic pollution from powerplants in the
United States. The standard is called the Maximum Achievable Control
Technology standard or Utility MACT.
By blocking this standard, this resolution is bad for public health.
This resolution is also bad for America's natural gas producers. This
resolution is especially bad for electric utilities that did the right
thing and followed the law. Environmental protection should be a
bipartisan issue. Republicans and Democrats both passed the Clean
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and other environmental laws by wide
margins.
I urge both parties not to support this resolution. Here are some key
points on the public health issues that are before us when this
resolution comes to the floor: The Environmental Protection Agency
estimates this standard will save 4,000 to 11,000 lives per year by
reducing toxic pollution. The EPA also estimates this standard will
prevent nearly 5,000 heart attacks and 130,000 childhood asthma
attacks.
Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin. It is mostly a threat to pregnant
women and young children. We took lead out of gasoline, we can also
take mercury out of smokestacks. Similar to many westerners, I know the
Presiding Officer and I both enjoy fly fishing. In too many areas in
America, we have mercury advisories for fish from American lakes and
rivers.
In New Mexico, most of our streams are under mercury advisories,
which means pregnant women and children cannot eat the fish from those
streams. We cannot put a price on healthy children. But if we try, this
rule produces tens of billions of health benefits each year.
This resolution of disapproval could permanently block these
benefits. I would also like to talk about the impact of this resolution
on natural gas. Natural gas has much lower toxic emissions than coal.
It has no mercury. It has no soot, known as particulate matter. Recent
discoveries of U.S. natural gas have led to a 100-year supply. Natural
gas prices are low. While that is actually bad for New Mexico's economy
in some places, it is good for consumers.
Natural gas has increased its market share in the power sector from
20 to 29 percent recently because it is a lower cost and cleaner fuel.
EPA standards do not ban coal, but they do call on coal to compete on a
level playing field and reduce its pollution. If we pass this
resolution, we will inject further uncertainty into the utility sector,
which is balancing its portfolio to more equal shares of coal and gas
as opposed to being overly reliant on coal.
I support research in defining ways to clean up coal. If we put our
minds to it, we may be able to take out the toxic pollutants.
I see the Senator from Arizona is on the floor. I first wish to thank
him for allowing me a couple minutes to get my statement in.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator from New Mexico desires a few extra
minutes, I would be more than happy to yield.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the Senator. I will take 1 more
minute to finish.
Finally, I would like to note that this resolution is a bailout of
companies that would rather spend money on lobbying than on pollution
controls. The EPA standard does not harm responsible coal companies. It
is achievable with current technology. It is my understanding that most
or all of the coal plants in New Mexico already have the technology to
meet these standards. The Public Service Company of New Mexico has
invested in mercury controls to reduce pollution in our State. Across
the Nation, many other utilities have as well.
A variety of business groups support EPA's mercury standard,
including the Clean Energy Group of utilities, the American Sustainable
Business Council, and the Main Street Alliance. Those standards are
required by the Clean Air Act. If we block them, we will punish the law
abiders and bail out the procrastinators. I urge my colleagues to
oppose the resolution of disapproval.
Once again, I thank Senator McCain.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Farm Bill Authorizing
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note the Presiding Officer was paying
close attention to the Senator from New Mexico. I think that is
entirely appropriate for that to happen. I am sure it certainly has
nothing to do with family allegiance.
The Senate is considering the farm bill, which we do every 5 years.
During
[[Page S4167]]
this debate, Americans will hear speeches about spending reductions and
cuts to farm subsidies. I concede that there is some of that in this
bill.
Unfortunately, so far we have failed to have an open and fair
amendment process that should be the case in the Senate. I have several
amendments I would like to have considered. Similar to my other
colleagues, we have been prevented from doing so. I have been in this
body for some years during the consideration of previous farm bills. I
have always been able to have a couple amendments considered and voted
on.
Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case in the consideration
of this farm bill.
It is very regrettable and unfortunate that we cannot just start
voting on amendments and then see where we are. Instead, we have the
filling of the tree and other language, and most Americans have no idea
what we are talking about. But it does prevent this body from
considering the amendments of Members on both sides of the aisle. It is
unfortunate.
Also, the fact remains that the programs authorized under this farm
bill consume a colossal sum of taxpayer dollars. It is over 1,000 pages
and is estimated to cost $969 billion over 10 years. Again, that is
$969 billion over 10 years. That is about $1 billion per page. It is a
60-percent increase from the previous farm bill, which was passed in
2008. While I believe it is necessary to assist low-income families
with nutrition programs, we should keep farmers out of the red when a
natural disaster strikes.
I am also mindful of the taxpayers who are saddled with a $1.5
trillion deficit and a ballooning $15 trillion national debt. The farm
bill is certainly ripe for spending cuts. Some have taken place--not
nearly as much are necessary. As usual, the farm bill, being 1,000
pages long, is filled with special deals for special interests.
I acknowledge that the Senate bill generates $23 billion in savings,
and that is a notable accomplishment. We have finally done away with
Depression-era farm subsidies such as ``direct payments'' and the
``countercyclical program,'' which encourages overproduction, thereby
triggering more farm subsidies to compensate for depressed prices.
Unfortunately, it seems that Congress's idea of farm bill reform is to
eliminate one subsidy program only to invent a new one to take its
place. Cutting direct and countercyclical payments actually saved the
taxpayers about $50 billion, but rather than plug that money into
deficit reduction this farm bill blows $35 billion of its own savings
on several new subsidy programs.
For example, we have a new agricultural risk coverage subsidy
program, or ARC, which works by locking in today's record-high crop
prices and guaranteeing farmers up to an 89-percent return on their
crop. ARC could cost taxpayers anywhere from $3 billion to $14 billion
each year, depending on market conditions. We also create a new $3
billion cotton subsidy program called STAX, which the Brazilian Trade
Representative has signaled will escalate their WTO antidumping
complaint against the United States. I wonder how many of our taxpayers
know that we already pay Brazil $150 million a year to keep our cotton
programs. Why would we make things worse?
This bill authorizes the creation of a new marginal loss subsidy
program for catfish. This bill maintains a $95 billion federally backed
crop insurance program, which also subsidizes crop insurance premiums.
We then pile on a new $4 billion program called supplemental coverage
option, or SCO, that subsidizes crop insurance deductibles. Subsidized
insurance, subsidized premiums, and subsidized deductibles--I am hard
pressed to think of any other industry that operates with less risk at
the expense of the American taxpayer.
This is all part of farm bill politics. In order to pass the farm
bill, Congress must find a way to appease every special interest of
every commodity association, from asparagus farmers to wheat growers.
If you cut somebody's subsidy, you give them a grant. If you kill their
grant, then you cover their insurance programs.
Let's look at several other handouts that special interests have
reaped in this year's farm bill, which may account for the size of the
bill.
The bill authorizes $15 million to establish a new grant program to
``improve'' the U.S. sheep industry. We are going to spend 15 million
of your taxpayer dollars to improve the U.S. sheep industry.
The bill authorizes $10 million to establish a new USDA--Department
of Agriculture--program to eradicate feral pigs. I have always been
against pork spending, but now we are going to spend $10 million to
establish a new USDA program to eradicate feral pigs.
The bill authorizes $25 million to study the health benefits of peas,
lentils, and garbanzo beans--$25 million to study the health benefits
of peas, lentils, and garbanzo beans. I know mothers all over America
who have advocated for their children to eat their peas will be pleased
to know there is a study that will cost them $25 million as to the
health benefits of peas, lentils, and garbanzo beans.
It authorizes $200 million for the Value Added Grant Program, which
gives grants to novelty producers such as small wineries and--I am not
kidding--the occasional cheesemaker.
There is $40 million in grants from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to encourage private landowners to use their land for bird-
watching or hunting. We are looking at a $1.5 trillion deficit this
year, and we are going to spend $40 million to encourage private
landowners to use their land for bird-watching or hunting. I am all for
bird-watching, and I support hunters--not to the tune of $40 million.
The bill authorizes $700 million for the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative--$700 million. That funds a variety of research
grants, such as testing pine tree growth in Florida or studying moth
pheromones. I have no clue what a moth pheromone is. When did it become
a national priority to study moth pheromones?
There is $250 million for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Urban
Forest Assistance Program, which spends Federal funds to plant trees in
urban parks and city streets. There is a new program that spends $125
million to promote healthy food choices in schools. There are already
at least four other healthy eating educational programs in this bill.
There are already four, but we are going to add another $125 million
program for another healthy eating educational program.
There is $200 million for one of my all-time favorites, the Market
Access Program, which has been there for years, which subsidizes
overseas advertising campaigns of large corporations. We have, of
course, the infamous mohair wool subsidy, which has been fleecing the
American people since 1954. When Congress passed the 1954 farm bill,
they wanted to ensure a domestic supply of wool for military uniforms
by paying farmers to raise, among other things, angora goats for
mohair. This may have held merit then, but nobody can dispute that
mohair became obsolete, thanks to synthetic fibers. Today we use mohair
in custom socks, fashionable scarves, and trendy throw rugs. Some of my
colleagues may recall that Congress killed off mohair subsidies in the
1990s. Unfortunately, goats are reputed to eat just about anything, and
our hard-earned tax dollars are no exception.
By the time Congress passed the 2002 farm bill, mohair subsidies had
been restored. The mohair program, which costs taxpayers about $1
million a year, may not be particularly expensive compared to most farm
programs. I suppose where some of my colleagues see a minor government
pittance for wool socks I see a disgraceful example of how special
interests can embed themselves in a farm bill for generations.
As if field corn and ethanol subsidies weren't nefarious enough, this
farm bill includes a new carve-out for popcorn subsidies--I am not
making it up. This is a perfect example of farm bill politics. Thanks
to a provision snuck into a 2003 appropriations bill, popcorn started
receiving millions of dollars in ``direct payment'' subsidies. However,
because the new farm bill eliminates direct payments, the popcorn
industry is scrambling to be added to the newly created ARC Program.
Under this farm bill, popcorn will be subsidized to the tune of $91
million over 10 years, according to CBO.
The cooking oil that movie theaters use to heat popcorn is already
subsidized, as well as the butter they put on top. So popcorn is doing
fine is the
[[Page S4168]]
truth of the matter. The price of popcorn has risen 40 percent in
recent years, thanks in part to ethanol, and recent free-trade
agreements with Colombia and South Korea are creating a boom for
American popcorn exports. There isn't a kernel of evidence that they
need this support from taxpayers.
The Sugar Program is another masterful scam. The USDA operates a
complex system of important tariffs, loans, and government production
quotas that restrict sugar imports and keeps sugar prices artificially
high. The sugar barons will tell us that the Department of Agriculture
Sugar Program operates at ``no net cost'' to the American taxpayers
because sugar didn't receive ``direct payments.''
In actuality, businesses and consumers bear the burden of the Sugar
Program by paying higher costs for any sweetened product. Every year,
American consumers are forced to pay an extra $3.5 billion on sweetened
food products.
Just yesterday, the Senate voted to table an amendment to phase out
the Sugar Program, which is quite a sweetheart deal for sugar growers.
Finally, one of my favorites of all time is regarding catfish. I have
an amendment that will repeal the farm bill provision that directs the
USDA to create a new catfish inspection office. I am grateful for the
support of my colleagues who cosponsored it. What we are attempting to
do with this amendment is simple: It puts an end to the latest attempt
by southern catfish farmers to restrict catfish imports.
Five years ago, a protectionist provision was snuck into the 2008
farm bill that requires the Department of Agriculture to begin
inspecting catfish. As my colleagues know, the USDA inspects meat,
eggs, and poultry but not seafood. That is a whole new government
office. It is being developed at USDA just to inspect catfish. Catfish
farmers have tried to argue that we need a catfish inspection office to
ensure Americans are eating safe and healthy catfish.
I wholeheartedly agree that catfish should be safe for consumers. The
problem is that FDA already inspects catfish, just as it does all
seafood, screening it for biological and chemical hazards. If there
were legitimate food safety reasons for having USDA inspect catfish, we
would not be having this discussion. Don't take my word for it, just
ask USDA.
When the Department of Agriculture completed an internal assessment
for the program in December 2010, the Department said it could not
establish a ``rational relationship'' between the catfish office and
the risks to human health, concluding, ``There is substantial
uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the catfish inspection
program.'' The Department of Agriculture estimates that this
questionable program will come at a cost to taxpayers of $30 million
just to create the office and another $14 million each year thereafter.
GAO has also extensively examined the catfish office. In February
2011, GAO released a report saying the catfish office is at ``high
risk'' for fraud, waste, and abuse, and it is ``duplicative'' of FDA's
functions and would fragment our food safety system. Just last week GAO
issued a new report, titled ``Responsibility For Inspecting Catfish
Should Not Be Assigned to USDA,'' and they called upon Congress to
repeal the catfish office.
This isn't the first time consumers have been hoodwinked by southern
catfish farmers. When the Senate considered the 2002 farm bill, they
slipped in an obscure provision that made it illegal to label
Vietnamese catfish as ``catfish'' in the United States. At that time,
the State Department had recently reopened trade relations with
Vietnam, and domestic catfish farmers in Southern States found
themselves competing against cheaper catfish imports. Domestic catfish
farmers wanted to discourage American consumers from buying Vietnamese
catfish by marketing it under the Latin name ``pangasius,'' or
``panga,'' even though it is virtually indistinguishable from U.S.-
grown catfish.
Although the panga labeling law was enacted, it ultimately backfired
on catfish farmers because panga catfish remained popular with American
consumers. It is a senseless law, and my colleagues may recall that I
came to the floor to fight against it. I asked the question: ``When is
a catfish not a catfish?'' Why would Congress pass a law that renames a
species of catfish into something else? Why single out catfish and put
it in the same category as USDA-inspected beef. Ironically, catfish
farmers are lobbying USDA to re-relabel Vietnamese ``panga'' back to
``catfish'' to ensure Asian imports are subject to this new catfish
office.
So the catfish office offers no legitimate food safety benefit. Its
true goal is to erect trade barriers on Asian catfish imports to prop
up the domestic catfish industry and make American consumers pay more.
The farm bill before us has some laudable parts to it. There are some
reductions in spending. When we examine the bill, however, we find more
and more of this kind of special interest, unnecessary spending, and
programs that either are protectionist in nature or programs that have
been inserted sometimes in the middle of the night in the past. We have
also just begun to examine a number of provisions in this bill, which I
did not discuss today.
I wish the small business men and women in my State had a bill for
small business, a bill that would help them in the very difficult times
they are experiencing, in the terrible economic times which have caused
them to not be in business anymore so that they and their families are
going through the most difficult of times. This is obviously a well-
intentioned bill, but I also think in these harsh economic times it is
far from the kind of legislation we owe the American people.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Preserving Waters of the USA Act
Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the biggest
threats to economic growth in this country, and that is this
administration's job-killing regulatory agenda.
My goal in the Senate is to promote policies that create jobs. With
my home State of Nevada leading the Nation in unemployment, I do not
believe the private sector is doing just fine, and I support
commonsense policies that give our job creators the necessary tools to
provide for long-term economic growth.
Under the current administration, they seem bent upon issuing
regulation after regulation that threatens existing jobs and preventing
new ones from being created. As I have stated before, you cannot be
projobs and antibusiness at the same time.
With unemployment at 11.7 percent in Nevada--and it continues to lead
the Nation in unemployment--the only things as scarce as jobs in Nevada
are private property and water. Roughly 87 percent of Nevada is
controlled by the Federal Government, and the remaining 13 percent is
heavily regulated by the Federal Government also. Nevada is also one of
the driest States in the Nation. Because of this, water is a very
precious commodity.
As we debate the farm bill, I am proud to join with some of my
colleagues in their efforts to provide some much needed regulatory
relief for American farmers in rural America. However, the latest
efforts by this administration go well beyond the agricultural sector.
For years there has been a concerted effort to expand the regulatory
reach over water in this country. After years of failed attempts to
legislatively change the scope of regulatory authority over water, the
EPA is now trying to overturn both congressional intent and multiple
Supreme Court decisions to further their goal of overregulation.
To put it into context, if this regulation were enacted, it would
give the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers the ability to regulate
irrigation ditches, large mud puddles, or anything that contains
standing water, regardless of whether it is permanent, seasonal, or
manmade. Never before under the Clean Water Act have Federal
regulations extended this far. This was not the intent of Congress when
writing the Clean Water Act, and Congress has repeatedly rejected any
legislative effort to alter the existing law.
More disturbing, the administration has bypassed public outreach and
has
[[Page S4169]]
neglected to consider the economic impact of their proposed action.
This is in addition to ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court twice
affirmed the limits of the Federal authority under the Clean Water Act.
But apparently the EPA believes it does not have to adhere to laws of
the land.
Expanding the Federal regulatory overreach into water also infringes
on private property rights. It stops investments and development and
infrastructure projects, including housing, schools, hospitals, roads,
highways, agriculture, and energy. In my home State, this regulation
will hurt farming, ranching, mining, and construction--the same middle-
class, blue-collar jobs this administration claims to care about.
In an already struggling economy, we cannot afford to create
additional regulatory barriers that will cost jobs and prevent future
economic growth. That is why Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Sessions, and I
have offered an amendment to the farm bill, as well as a stand-alone
piece of legislation that would preserve the current definition of
waters of the United States. The Preserve the Waters of the United
States Act is simply straightforward legislation that would preserve
the current definition of Federal waters as well as uphold private
property rights.
Opposition to this legislation has been disingenuous. It is
ridiculous to assert that supporters of this important legislation are
opposed to clean water. What I am opposed to is the Federal Government
continuing its overreach and further hurting our economy and
jeopardizing personal property rights and States rights. I am opposed
to giving Washington bureaucrats the authority to regulate your
backyard. And I am opposed to this administration using a closed-door
process to issue job-killing regulations that have become far too
common.
I had hoped for a vote on this amendment that will allow the Senate
to make a clear choice between jobs and an extreme environmental
agenda. Unfortunately, the amendment process has once again broken
down, and we will not have the ability to openly debate this important
issue.
I encourage my colleagues to support the Preserve the Waters of the
United States Act and show their constituents that they stand with job
creators. There is a vast and diverse coalition of support for our
efforts to limit the Federal Government's overreach. It includes local
governments, municipalities, manufacturers, small businesses, and many
more.
As an outdoorsman, I am committed to good stewardship of our natural
resources and believe that we do not have to choose between a healthy
environment and economic prosperity. The Preserve the Waters of the
United States Act is a commonsense solution that will prevent jobs from
being destroyed and keep private property rights from being further
eroded by this Federal Government. I respectfully urge all of my
colleagues to support this legislation and bring it to a vote.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Farm Bill Amendments
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I will be speaking about two amendments
that I intend to offer as part of the farm bill. I think both
amendments are extremely important, and both amendments have the
support of the vast majority of the people of our country. They may not
have the support of powerful special interests, but I think that from
Maine to California, people will be supporting these amendments.
The first one is amendment No. 2310, which is cosponsored by Senator
Barbara Boxer of California.
All across our country, people are becoming more and more conscious
about the foods they are eating and the foods they are serving to their
kids, and this is certainly true for genetically engineered foods. This
is a major concern in my State of Vermont, I know it is a major concern
in Senator Boxer's State of California, and it is a major concern all
over our country.
This year in my State of Vermont, our legislature tried to pass a
bill that would have required foods that contain genetically engineered
ingredients to have that information on their labels. That information
would simply give consumers in the State of Vermont the knowledge about
the ingredients that are in the food they are ingesting--not, I
believe, a terribly radical idea.
I personally believe, and I think most Americans believe, that when a
mother goes to the store and purchases food for her child, she has the
right to know what she is feeding her child, what is in the food she is
giving to her kids and her family. This concern about genetically
engineered labeling brought out a huge turnout to the Vermont State
legislature of people who were supportive of this concept. In fact, it
was one of the most hotly debated and discussed issues in our
legislature this year. Over 100 Vermonters testified at a committee
meeting--the Committee on Agriculture meeting of the State of Vermont--
in favor of this legislation. We are a small State. Hundreds more
crowded in the statehouse to show their support.
What people in Vermont, and I believe all over this country, are
saying, simply and straightforwardly, is: We want to know what is in
the food we are eating and whether that food is genetically engineered.
Clearly, this is not just a Vermont issue. Almost 1 million people in
the State of California signed a petition to get labeling of
genetically engineered food on the November ballot. In California, a
big State, 1 million people is a lot of people. In other words, what we
are seeing from Vermont and California and all over this country is
people want to know what is in the food they are eating and they want
to know whether that food is genetically engineered. I thank Senator
Boxer of California for representing the people of her State in
cosponsoring this legislation.
This is not just a Vermont issue. It is not just a California issue.
According to an MSNBC poll in February of 2011, 95 percent of Americans
agree that labeling of food with genetically engineered ingredients
should be allowed. Those polling numbers have been consistently over 90
percent dating back to 2001.
What we are seeing in polling, year after year, is people want to
know what is in the food they are eating. Not everybody agrees.
Monsanto, one of the world's largest producers of genetically
engineered food, does not like this idea. Monsanto is also the world's
largest producer of the herbicide Roundup, as well as so-called Roundup
Ready seeds that have been genetically engineered to resist the
pesticide. It is no mystery why Monsanto would fight people's right to
know. Business is booming for this huge chemical company. It raked in
over $11 billion in revenues and cleared $1.6 billion in profits in
2011. This year is going pretty well for Monsanto.
Once it seemed possible that Vermont could pass the bill. That is
because the people of the State of Vermont want to see that legislation
passed. But our friends at Monsanto threatened to sue the State if that
bill was passed. Sadly--and this is what goes on in politics, not just
on this issue but on so many issues--despite passing out of the House
Committee on Agriculture by a vote of 9 to 1, the bill did not make it
any further because of the fear of a lawsuit from this huge,
multinational corporation.
Today, we have an opportunity, with the Sanders-Boxer amendment,
amendment No. 2310, to affirm States rights to label food that contains
genetically engineered ingredients. This amendment recognizes that the
10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly reserves powers in our
system of federalism to the States and to the people. In other words,
that is what federalism is about. This amendment acknowledges that
States have the right to require the labeling of foods produced through
genetic engineering or derived from organisms that have been
genetically engineered. Simply put, this amendment gives people the
right to know. It says that a State, if its legislature so chooses, may
require that any food or beverage containing a genetically engineered
ingredient offered for sale in that State have a label that makes that
information public and clear.
[[Page S4170]]
It also requires that the Commissioner of the FDA, with the Secretary
of Agriculture, shall report to Congress within 2 years on the
percentage of food and beverages in the United States that contain
genetically engineered ingredients.
There are strong precedents for labeling. The FDA, as everybody
knows, already requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients,
additives, and processes. If we want to know if our food contains
gluten, aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, trans fats or MSG, we
simply read the ingredients label. Similarly, the FDA requires labeling
for major food allergens such as peanuts, wheat, shellfish, and others.
But Americans, for some reason, are not afforded that same information
when it comes to genetically engineered foods.
Here is a very important point to make. What I am asking now, for the
people of America, is something that exists right now all over the
world. Genetically engineered foods are already required to be labeled
in 49 countries around the world, including Russia, the United Kingdom,
Australia, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, China, New Zealand, and others,
and the entire European Union allows its countries to require such
labels, which is essentially what this amendment is about. It is not
telling, but it is allowing States the right to go forward, if that is
what the people of those States want.
If this is good for 49 or more countries around the world, why is it
not acceptable in the United States of America? The answer is pretty
simple. We have a large, powerful, multinational corporation that is
more concerned about their own profits than they are about allowing the
American people to know what is in the food they are eating.
Let me clarify just a few pieces of information regarding genetically
engineered foods. Monsanto claims there is nothing to be concerned
about with genetically engineered foods. In the 1990s, there was a
consensus among scientists and doctors at the FDA that GE foods could
have new and different risks, such as hidden allergens, increased plant
toxin levels, and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic-
resistant disease, but those concerns were quickly pushed aside in the
name of biotechnology progress. Their concerns were not, however,
unfounded.
In May 2012, a landmark independent study by Canadian doctors
published in the peer-reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology found
that toxins from soil bacterium which had been engineered into Bt corn
to kill pests was present in the bloodstream of 93 percent of pregnant
women as well as in 80 percent of their fetal cord blood. In the wake
of this study, action is being taken. In 3 days, on June 17, the
American Medical Association will consider resolutions that ask for
studies on the impacts of GE foods and labeling. Resolutions calling
for labeling of GE foods have already been passed by the American
Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association.
There is a great need for this information because there have never
been mandatory human clinical trials of genetically engineered crops--
no tests for the possibility of it causing cancer or for harm to
fetuses, no long-term testing for human health risks, no requirement
for long-term testing on animals, and only limited allergy testing.
What this means is that for all intents and purposes, the long-term
health study on GE food is being done on the American people. We are
the clinical test.
Let me clarify just a few things about labeling genetically
engineered food. GE food labels will not increase costs to shoppers.
Everybody knows companies change their labels all the time. They market
their products differently and adding a label does not change this. In
fact, many products already voluntarily label their food as ``GMO
free.'' Further, genetically engineered crops are not better for the
environment. For example, the use of Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans
engineered to withstand the exposure to the herbicide Roundup has
caused the spread of Roundup-resistant weeds which now infest 10
million acres in 22 States, with predictions of 40 million acres or
more by mid-decade. Resistant weeds increase the use of herbicides and
the use of older and more toxic herbicides.
Further, there are no international agreements that prohibit the
mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering.
But as I mentioned, 49 other countries already require it.
The Sanders-Boxer consumers right to know about genetically
engineered food amendment, amendment No. 2310, is about allowing States
to honor the wishes of their residents and allowing consumers to know
what they are eating. If this is not a conservative amendment, I do not
know what is. Americans deserve the right to know what they and their
children are eating and that is what this amendment is all about.
Monsanto and other major corporations should not be the ones to decide
this issue. The Congress and the American people should make that
decision. Without commonsense labeling requirements, the 295 million
American citizens who favor labeling, the overwhelming majority of
Americans who in poll after poll said yes, want to know whether the
food they are eating contains genetically engineered products. They are
not being listened to. On behalf of the American people who want to
know what is in their food, I urge support for this important
amendment.
I have another amendment, but I will come back at another time to
talk about the amendment, which will demand that the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission do what the law requires of them; that is, end
excessive speculation in the oil futures market, but I will hold off on
that until a later time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The Senator from New
Jersey is recognized.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon
today, the Senate proceed to executive session and that the motion to
proceed to the motion to reconsider the cloture vote by which cloture
was not invoked on Executive Calendar No. 501 be agreed to, the motion
to reconsider be agreed to, and that there be 30 minutes for debate
equally divided in the usual form; and that following the use or
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on cloture on the
nomination, upon reconsideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Agriculture Production
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to spend a few moments talking
about one of our job-creating titles in the farm bill, but first I want
to thank colleagues who are continuing to work on this bill. As we
continue to do the business of the Senate, they are working through the
amendment process and coming together with what I am optimistic will be
an agreement for us to be able to move forward so we can complete our
task on the farm bill.
I thank the ranking member of the committee, Senator Roberts, for his
leadership and his staff and my staff for working so hard together.
There has been a lot of coffee involved for folks to be able to stay
awake on some late nights right now. They are doing a great job, and we
are very optimistic as we move forward in this process.
One of the reasons we need to get this done, as I have stressed many
times but it bears repeating, is this is a jobs bill. As the
distinguished Presiding Officer from Ohio knows--as well as myself,
coming from Michigan--jobs are a big deal. Jobs are a big deal across
the country, but we have been in the middle of it in terms of the
recession. We are now seeing optimism because we are recommitting
ourselves to making things and growing things in this country.
We make a lot of great things in Michigan, not the least of which is
automobiles, but a lot of other things also. I know Ohio, as well, is a
great State for making things. Both of our States are also States where
we grow things, and I appreciate the leadership of the Presiding
Officer who is on our Agriculture Committee and has played a very
significant role in getting us to
[[Page S4171]]
this point. The distinguished Presiding Officer, Senator Brown, has
helped with major reforms in this bill. He has put forward a bipartisan
proposal that relates to moving a risk-based system to support our
farmers. I appreciate very much the Senator's leadership on that as
well as a number of other things.
But this is about growing things. Almost one out of four people in
Michigan has a job because we grow things. We have more diversity of
crops than any State, with the exception of California, and so that
means every page of the farm bill matters to Michigan, which is why
over the years I have paid attention to every single page of the farm
bill.
Overall in our country 16 million people work because of agriculture.
They may be involved in production, they may be involved in packaging,
they may be involved in processing, they may make the farm equipment,
or they may be involved in a variety of things, but they work because
we grow things in America. Our one area of huge trade surplus, and
where we have grown in the last 2 years by 270 percent, is in
agriculture. We are creating jobs here and exporting, and so this is a
jobs bill.
I want to talk specifically about a very important piece where we
bring together making things and growing things in our economy, and
that is the energy title of the farm bill. The energy title reflects
the important work being done by America's farmers, ranchers, forest
managers, and rural small businesses to help improve our energy
security.
Since we added this title in the 2002 farm bill--I was pleased to be
a strong supporter in doing that--the Rural Energy for America Program
has helped put in place nearly 8,000 projects and jobs that have helped
farmers lower their energy bills and actually produce electricity that
goes back to the electric grid. In the last 10 years, we have seen
incredible advances in advanced biofuels and biobased manufacturing,
which is the ultimate way to bring together making things and growing
things, both of which are supported and strengthened in this bill.
The farm bill is also an energy bill and it is a jobs bill. There are
more than 3,000 companies doing innovative, biobased manufacturing, and
using agricultural products instead of petroleum to manufacture
finished products. Those companies have already created over 100,000
jobs and are growing every day. Many of these businesses are in rural
communities, and supporting those businesses is one of the best ways we
can create jobs and economic growth in small towns all across our
country.
This kind of manufacturing is also a win-win for the farmers. They
get new markets for their products and, in some cases, markets for
their waste products.
We have also seen tremendous growth in biofuels. This farm bill
shifts our focus to the next generation of advanced biofuels, such as
cellulosic ethanol, to continue lowering prices for families at the
pump. According to a study by the University of Wisconsin and the
University of Iowa, ethanol has already helped keep gas prices more
than $1 lower than they otherwise would be. It is the only competition
we have at the moment at the pump. As a consumer, what we need is more
choice and more competition so that depending on foreign oil is not the
only choice.
Many of our colleagues have different feelings about our energy
policies, and the great thing about the farm bill is that it doesn't
matter what we believe or where we come from, it is a winner because it
creates choices. If we want to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, this
bill is a winner. If we want to make America more energy independent so
we are not relying so much on foreign oil, this bill is a winner. If we
want farmers to pay lower energy bills so they have more money to hire
workers and improve their business, this bill is a winner. And if we
want Americans to pay lower prices at the gas pump, as we all do, this
bill is a winner for every American.
I especially want to thank Senators Conrad, Lugar, Harkin, Ben
Nelson, Bennet, Brown, Klobuchar, Thune, Casey, and Hoeven, who worked
very hard at putting together the energy title and the necessary
funding to continue supporting these innovative farmers and businesses
all across our country. I appreciate their leadership in working with
us and being able to get this done.
I want to talk about some of the specific areas we have in the energy
title. There is something called the Rural Energy for America Program,
also known as REAP. It is one of the most successful programs in the
energy title, and one we hear about most often from farmers and
ranchers across the country.
This program helps farmers with loan guarantees and grants to
purchase and install renewable energy systems and make energy
efficiency upgrades. Farmers have been able to put solar panels, wind
turbines, as well as biomass energy and geothermal and hydroelectric
and other forms of renewable energy technology on the farm. Since 2003,
REAP has supported 7,997 different energy-efficient projects that have
generated or saved 6.5 million megawatt hours, which is enough power to
meet the annual needs of nearly 600,000 households.
As a caveat, I also want to say that when we talk about all of these
alternatives, I also see this from the standpoint of making things.
When we look at a big wind turbine, a lot of folks see energy use. I
see 8,000 parts. We can make every one of them in Michigan and probably
an awful lot of them in Ohio. So when we talk about creating energy
efficiency opportunities, we are also talking about creating
manufacturing jobs in the process. REAP is a big success story, which
is why we continued the program and streamlined the application process
for farmers and small businesses applying for small and medium-sized
projects.
Each project funded by REAP can make a significant impact, as I said,
on utility costs incurred by the businesses. For example, one company
in Georgia created an on-farm solar system that will produce about
60,000 kilowatt hours per year to lower the company's power bills.
Another Kentucky company used an energy efficiency grant to improve
lighting and support a refrigeration/freezer project that would give
them 63 percent energy savings--63 percent. That is a pretty big deal
when we are paying the bills.
The next part I want to talk about is something called biobased
markets and part of a larger biobased manufacturing effort that I am
very enthused about. Biobased manufacturing is rapidly becoming a
critical component of our new economy. According to USDA, there are
3,118 registered biobased companies in the United States that have so
far created about 100,000 jobs, and growing. With customers demanding
more choices, oil prices rising, these innovative companies are taking
new approaches, turning agricultural products into manufactured
products. So as we can see, all across the country there are 3,000
companies. This is a huge area that is growing, the innovation process,
where we are literally taking agricultural products and replacing
chemicals, replacing petroleum and plastics, and doing a variety of
things that allow us to create new markets for farmers, get us off of
foreign oil, and create jobs. I would argue that in the next 5 years we
will see many, many, many more dots on this map as a result of the farm
bill and private sector efforts that are going on across the country.
In the 2008 farm bill, we created the biobased program to develop and
expand markets for these biobased products. Here are a few examples:
Papermate makes a biodegradable, retractable grip pen manufactured by
Sanford Newell Rubbermaid in Georgia. This pen is made from
biodegradable components that include an exclusive corn-based material
to produce less waste and more compost.
Purell Advanced Green Certified Instant Hand Sanitizer is a green-
certified product made by a company in Ohio, containing ingredients
from renewable resources. It kills more than 99.9 percent of most
germs. It is a product that is biodegradable.
Greenware Cold Portion Cups made by Fabri-Kal Corporation in Michigan
are made from materials such as plant-based and post-consumer recycled
resins. My colleagues will note that this looks familiar because it is
the same kind of cup we use in the Senate. This is something we are
using and thereby supporting the biobased economy.
By including biobased manufacturing in the Biorefinery Assistance
Program
[[Page S4172]]
within the energy title, we are expanding economic opportunities for
farmers by giving them new markets for crops to grow and we are
supporting cutting-edge manufacturing businesses that are making these
products and creating these jobs.
We also have done other pieces that will strengthen this effort. I
might mention, though we don't have a picture of it with us on a chart,
one of the exciting things I am seeing in Michigan, as we bring
together making things and growing things, is the extent to which our
automakers are using biobased products in the making of automobiles. So
for anyone who is buying a new Ford vehicle today--I sound like an
advertisement--but a new Ford vehicle or a great new Chevy Volt or a
number of new great American-made vehicles we have today, we are
sitting on seats made from soy-based foam. We have soybean in the
seats. Soy-based foam was actually started over 80 years ago with Henry
Ford and has been something we have focused on, on and off, for 80
years. But now it has become a major effort. A major company in
Michigan called Lear is making these seats. They are biodegradable.
They are lightweight. We get better fuel economy. And as I often tell
my friends, if you get hungry, you get something to munch on.
So the truth is we are seeing huge advances. One may very well have
cupholders in their car that have a corn-based or wheat-based or other
kind of agricultural-based product in the plastic, rather than
petroleum--another way to get off of foreign oil. They are
experimenting with tires, rather than using petroleum in tires. I think
there is an explosion here of opportunity for innovation with our
farmers and our manufacturers, with our universities, our scientists.
It is very exciting, and it is part of the next generation for us of a
new economy and new jobs. This farm bill strengthens that effort,
working with the private sector, to help us rapidly move forward on
jobs.
One of the other ways we support efforts to create and then the
commercialization of products, to be able to move forward as it relates
to creating, producing more products and so on, is to give consumers a
way to find these products. So we have something called the USDA
Certified Biobased Product label.
The mission of the BioPreferred Program is to develop and expand
markets for biobased products through preferred Federal purchases of
biobased products across the Federal Government and a voluntary
labeling program to raise consumers' awareness and to help make sure we
know that what we are buying is, in fact, a biobased product. Since the
program was created in the last farm bill in 2008, there are now 64
different categories of biobased products and almost 9,000 products--
9,000 products--approved for preferred Federal purchases. It is in
everybody's best interests for us to be encouraging these new markets,
encouraging innovation, and at the same time addressing other critical
needs for our country, including getting off of foreign oil. In
addition, another 430 products from 150 companies have been certified
to carry the USDA Certified Biobased Product label. So this is
important. And there are new efforts happening. The President, the
Secretary of Agriculture, and I have come together to urge, in fact,
that we increase the amount of biobased labeling that is going on and
make sure that consumers are looking for this label.
We then have the Biorefinery Assistance Program which is a very
important piece of all of this. The Biorefinery Assistance Program was
originally created in the 2002 farm bill to support the development and
construction of demonstration-scale biorefineries to determine the
commercial viability of some of the processes that are involved in
converting renewable biomass to advanced biofuels. It also guarantees
loans for companies that are developing, constructing, or retrofitting
commercial-scale biorefineries using these new technologies. In the
last 2 years, companies participating in this effort have created
nearly 300 direct jobs, and it is estimated that as this program is
written into the 2012 farm bill, it will help these innovative
businesses hire another 450 people as well.
We also expand eligibility for the program to include biobased
manufacturing. This is a very important piece of this bill. We are now
going from refineries, talking about advanced biofuels, to expanding
the opportunity for tools for our biobased manufacturers within the
rubric of the energy title and the focus on jobs.
We are talking about loan guarantees for companies to leverage
private dollars. So for just over $400 million in loan guarantees, we
have leveraged $1.5 billion in private dollars to help companies with
the cost of retrofitting and building new commercial biofuels plants.
When operational, these facilities are expected to produce 113 million
gallons of advanced biofuels and generate almost 25 million kilowatt
hours of renewable energy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an
estimated 600,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide which, by the way, is
the equivalent of taking 11,000 cars off the road. I have a little bit
of a mixed feeling about that. Actually, we would much prefer to do it
this way and keep great new advanced vehicles on the road.
In 2011, the USDA awarded $6.9 million in grants and $13.1 million in
loan guarantees to 17 anaerobic digester projects--here we are talking
about waste on the farm and turning it into energy--which will create
enough energy to power 10,000 homes.
There are so many opportunities for us, whether it is animal waste,
food waste. We have a facility in Michigan that will be opening in the
fall that is up by Gerber Baby Food. We are the international home of
Gerber Baby Food in Fremont, MI. There is a new biobased facility
opening that will use all the food waste to generate energy--
electricity--for the northwestern area of Michigan. There are so many
opportunities for us right now, using, again, food waste, byproducts
from agriculture, and so on, where we can blend those together and
create jobs and get us off of foreign oil.
The Biorefinery Assistance Program has helped build seven first-of-
their-kind biorefineries to produce advanced biofuels in States from
Florida to Oregon, Michigan to New Mexico. One of the companies, called
INEOS New Plant Bioenergy, has just begun commissioning their plant in
Indian River County, FL, which will use citrus and other municipal
solid waste to produce 8 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol every
year and 6 megawatts of renewable electricity. They have over 100
people working on the job, completing this first-of-a-kind plant, using
85 percent U.S.-manufactured equipment, by the way, for the facility.
There is so much. I could spend a long time going through all of the
exciting efforts going on, literally from the east coast to the west
coast, North and South, where creative entrepreneurs are coming
forward, with support from the USDA to be able to get them through what
is often called the valley of death, as they have a great idea but are
trying to get it to commercialization, and efforts that are leveraging
private dollars and public dollars to be able to have these companies
move forward into full commercialization. Then they can create jobs,
create renewable energy, get us off of foreign oil or create other
kinds of products--all kinds of opportunities for us around products.
That leads me to another important piece, which is R&D, which is
always a very important part of what needs to be done as we are looking
at these new ideas. Entrepreneurs, companies large and small, many
small businesses--in fact, most of them start as small businesses with
a great idea, and they are looking for how to turn that into a great
business, and hiring people, and so on. The Biomass Research and
Development Initiative is an integral component to bridging the gap
between technology development and commercialization. As I said, this
is often called the valley of death. If you are somebody out there who
is an entrepreneur with a great idea, how do you actually convince
somebody to invest in it so you can move forward? Nearly $133 million
in grants was provided through the research and development effort from
2003 to 2010 and they helped leverage $61 million in private
investment.
One of the great success stories among many comes out of Wisconsin.
We heard about this during one of our farm bill hearings when Lee
Edwards, CEO of Virent Energy, came in to tell us about the great work
his company is doing. They were awarded a grant as
[[Page S4173]]
seed money to develop their technology with the University of
Wisconsin. Virent now has over 120 employees and plans to expand again
after receiving a contract from Coca-Cola to develop a 100-percent
plant-based bottle for its carbonated beverages. Virent's technology is
feedstock-neutral and produces drop-in jet fuel and renewable
chemicals. Their corporate partners include Cargill, Coca-Cola, and
Shell.
We also have the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, which helps farmers
and ranchers who want to plant energy crops for biomass that would be
converted to biofuels or bioenergy. In 2011, this program supported
between 3,000 and 4,000 jobs.
Our investment in the BCAP could result in companies hiring--in this
farm bill, we are told--between 2,000 and 2,600 additional new
employees. We have also addressed issues around collection, harvest,
storage, and transport to address problems that had occurred in the
last farm bill.
This program provides financial assistance to owners and operators of
agricultural and nonindustrial private forest land as well. I have not
talked a lot about forest land, but certainly biomass efforts--what has
been done around forest by-products--are very important as well.
Steve Flick of Show Me Energy received the first BCAP project area,
covering approximately 50,000 acres in 38 counties in Missouri and
Kansas. Individual farmers within the boundaries of the project area
can now sign contracts with the USDA to grow dedicated energy crops.
This is another provision we have in the bill. Show Me's plant in
Centerview currently pelletizes crops into biomass fuel for space heat
and electric power. This technology will eventually provide liquid
fuels that can replace gasoline and diesel. Steve Flick also testified
at our hearing in February.
I could go on and on with examples. We have a very exciting project I
visited not long ago in Alpena, MI, in the northeastern part of the
State, which is a plant working with a paneling company that makes
decorative panels, doing beautiful paneling work with 100-percent wood
paneling. They are now taking what used to be waste that they sent to a
waste treatment facility and pumping it right next door to a new
company that is creating cellulosic ethanol. And they are now looking
for other products. One of them will be a new green biodegradable
effort to de-ice runways. So there are all kinds of possibilities.
What I am excited about is that this farm bill is focused on small
businesses, farmers, ranchers, working with the forestry industry. How
do we grow the economy by taking the two great strengths that have
created the middle class of this country--growing things and making
things? That is what this title is about; that is what this bill is
about.
I am anxious to get us through this process so we can complete this
bill and get on to the next generation of jobs.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, first, let me thank my distinguished
colleague from Michigan for her extraordinary leadership on a milestone
bill. I am so proud to be supporting this bill and to be in this
Chamber speaking with her on issues that affect every American, not
just farmers or those in States that may be recognized as farm States.
The kind of leadership that has just been heard, I think, is a model
for all of us, and I thank her.
S.J. Res. 37
Mr. President, I want to talk today about two issues that directly
affect the health and safety of Americans of all ages, but particularly
our seniors, and begin by associating myself with the remarks made
earlier by Senators Whitehouse and Boxer with respect to S.J. Res. 37.
I strongly oppose efforts underway to roll back Clean Air Act
provisions that are critical to the health and safety and well-being of
every man, woman, and child in this country.
Last December, the EPA finalized a rule aimed at reducing mercury and
other toxic emissions from electric-generating units by about 90
percent. This rule affects the most toxic emissions in the United
States--mercury, acid gas, nickel, selenium, cyanide. These rules are
more important than ever.
The effort to roll them back should be resisted and rejected, and I
hope my colleagues will join with me in opposing the Senate joint
resolution that would not only stymie but stop efforts to protect
Americans against the most toxic emissions.
I fought for these kinds of protections as attorney general. In fact,
I took action as attorney general to compel these kinds of rules, and I
believe the EPA is acting responsibly now in promulgating them.
World Elder Abuse Awareness Day
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues, on behalf of myself and
Senator Kirk, for approving, Tuesday, a resolution designating
tomorrow, June 15, as ``World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.''
The resolution Senator Kirk and I submitted, and that this body
agreed to, recognizes the scourge that elder abuse represents here in
America and around the world. I thank my colleagues for supporting it
overwhelmingly, and I thank the President of the United States for
proclaiming tomorrow, June 15, as ``World Elder Abuse Awareness Day,''
and I thank Secretary Sebelius for announcing today that $5.5 million
in funding for States and tribes will be available to test ways to
prevent elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
This initiative helps to implement the Elder Justice Act which was
enacted as parted of the Affordable Care Act. I believe this kind of
initiative brings together in partnership local, State, and Federal
authorities and private groups to combat this epidemic.
The abuse of elders is a spreading epidemic. We have statistics that
indicate how it is, in fact, spreading. Elder abuse incidents have
increased by 150 percent in the last 10 years alone. A recent study of
the GAO shows that every year 14 percent of all noninstitutionalized
adults are victims of abuse or neglect or exploitation, whether it is
physical or financial or even sexual. So the statistics show a trend
that is undeniable--not only in the 2 million adults who are maltreated
every year but in the $2.9 billion taken from older adults each year as
a result of financial abuse and exploitation. That is $2.9 billion
every year taken from older Americans.
But the statistics only tell a fraction of the story because the fact
is only 1 out of every 44 incidents of financial abuse is reported. Mr.
President, 43 out of 44 incidents are unreported. In fact, of all
incidents of abuse, 22 out of 23 are unreported. And the reasons are
diverse. They may be because of shame, embarrassment. In fact, one of
the most common reasons for underreporting is that the victim is
related to the perpetrator.
Sadly, shamefully, tragically, all too many victims of elder abuse
suffer at the hands of relatives. It may be a daughter or son. It may
be a brother or sister. All too often they are victims at the hands of
caregivers who are entrusted with their care, literally in positions of
trust for people who may suffer physically from debilitating illnesses
or from dementia or other kinds of afflictions. So this population is
among our most vulnerable, and we must take stronger steps to protect
them.
As attorney general, I sought to lead such efforts. In fact,
Connecticut now has stronger measures against elder abuse, such as more
thorough background checks as a result of these initiatives.
As a member of the Committee on Aging, I held a hearing in Hartford
very recently to document this spreading epidemic and the way it
affects all of us--all of our relatives, all of our friends. It cuts
across all lines of geography, race, gender, even income group. So this
epidemic must be stopped.
That is why this resolution is important in calling attention to the
problem. The President's proclamation enhances awareness, and I thank
my colleagues for their continued effort and their involvement in this
cause.
What is required at the end of the day is more resources--more
resources for law enforcement authorities who have such a critical role
in protecting
[[Page S4174]]
those who suffer from it, and deterring those who would commit it, and
having partnerships among State, local, and Federal authorities. Those
partnerships must seek out and encourage greater reporting so that
efforts can be taken to stop and deter it.
I will continue this battle. I thank my colleagues for joining me and
for agreeing to this resolution and for demonstrating that we care. We
care as a body and as an institution. It is not a Republican or
Democratic issue. It is truly bipartisan because this generation has
worked hard, accumulated savings, counted on security, and is depending
on us, trusting us for their safety. We know the number in this age
group will only grow--in fact, double--within the next years. That is
why we must address it. I thank, again, my colleagues for doing so.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________