[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 95 (Thursday, June 21, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4381-S4400]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 3240, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3240) to reauthorize agriculture programs 
     through 2017, and for other purposes.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before reading our order of amendments, 
I wish, one more time, to say thank you to everyone. We have had two 
very productive, hard-working days. I thank my ranking member for his 
incredible leadership and all our staffs.
  Today, we have an opportunity to show that the Senate can come 
together--and we have been doing that--to pass a significant piece of 
public policy for Americans. I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the previous order, the amendment votes occur in the 
following order and that all other provisions of the previous order 
remain in effect: Boxer amendment No. 2456; Johanns No. 2372; Toomey 
No. 2247; Sanders No. 2310; Coburn No. 2214; Murray No. 2455; McCain 
No. 2162; Rubio No. 2166.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 2456

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2456.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2456.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On p. 1009, after line 11, add the following:

     SEC. 122__. REQUIREMENTS FOR AERIAL OVERFLIGHTS OF 
                   AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS TO PROTECT PUBLIC 
                   HEALTH AND SAFETY.

       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     pursuant to her responsibility to protect public health and 
     safety, shall only conduct aerial overflights to inspect 
     agricultural operations if the EPA Administrator determines 
     that aerial overflights are more cost-effective than ground 
     inspections to the taxpayer and the Agency has notified the 
     appropriate State officials of such flights.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, on the amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Johanns has an amendment which 
would stop the EPA from ever using any kind of airplanes--including 
manned small planes, which is all they do use--to check on serious 
pollution spills.
  I wish to say this is about life and death. I hope the Senate will 
support the Boxer amendment and vote no on the Johanns amendment 
because the Boxer amendment says the EPA can only use these overflights 
if it has to do it to protect the health and safety and if it has been 
approved by the State.
  This pollution could cause serious illness, and they want to make 
sure they can track the plume. We have heard of cryptosporidium, E. 
coli, and giardia. That is what we are talking about--terrible bacteria 
that sometimes comes from animals.
  In 1993, at least 50 people died from the bacteria cryptosporidium in 
Milwaukee, and it came from animal waste. The EPA has never used a 
drone, and they don't plan to, but don't stop them from using small 
aerial oversight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, given the EPA's recent track record with 
agriculture--if not downright contempt for it--farmers and ranchers 
simply don't trust the EPA. They could have done this program right and 
reached out to the congressional delegations in Nebraska and Iowa and 
said: Here is what we are doing. Here is the plan. They did not.
  I found out about this accidentally. I have requested information--in 
fact, our entire delegation has--and the administrator has been 
nonresponsive. That is why the amendment is here. It is an amendment 
based on a lack of trust for the EPA. This maintains the status quo. 
This will change nothing. It will rubberstamp what they are doing.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the next 
amendment, which I will call up in due time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll. This is a 60-vote threshold.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily 
absent.

[[Page S4382]]

  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and 
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 158 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Johnson (SD)
     Kirk
     Menendez
     Shelby
     Toomey
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for passage of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


             amendment no. 2456 to s. 3240 vote explanation

 Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I was unavoidably 
detained and unable to vote on the Boxer amendment No. 2456 this 
morning. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of this 
amendment. It is important that the use of overflights to monitor 
compliance with the Clean Water Act be limited to circumstances where 
ground inspections of large industrial agriculture operations would not 
be as cost effective or sufficiently protective of public health and 
safety.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 2372

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2372 and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Johanns] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2372.

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
  Agency from conducting aerial surveillance to inspect agricultural 
       operations or to record images of agricultural operations)

       On page 1009, after line 11, add the following:

     SEC. 122___. PROHIBITION ON AERIAL SURVEILLANCE OF 
                   AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS.

       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall not conduct aerial surveillance to inspect agricultural 
     operations or to record images of agricultural operations.

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, low-altitude surveillance flights over 
farmers' and ranchers' private property has caused bipartisan concern, 
and it is happening--EPA is flying these flights. Senator Nelson and I 
and the entire Nebraska delegation wrote to Administrator Jackson 
saying, ``What is going on? What are you doing?'' Their response was 
kicked down to the Regional Director. It was incomplete. It was totally 
unacceptable.
  This is not about drones, this is about flights over feed lots, 
trying to determine if there is a violation and then pursuing that 
action. What we are asking for is for the public to be advised of what 
they are doing. Until that happens, this amendment simply says: Stop. 
You can't do this anymore until you let us know how you are using this 
information and for what purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. JOHANNS. I ask for support of the amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I be recognzied?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognzied.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment is very serious. It is 
about life and death. It is true that on occasion EPA will use small 
manned aircraft to inspect a bacteria spill.
  Let me recall for you: Wisconsin, 1993, at least 50 people lost their 
lives from the bacteria cryptosporidium from animal waste. When you are 
following a plume, the way to do it is from the air. It is much more 
expensive in many cases to do ground inspection. EPA estimates that on-
the-ground inspection may cost $10,000, but it could cost $2,500 to 
survey the same area by air.
  This is life and death. We are talking about E. coli. We are talking 
about giardia and cryptosporidium. We are talking about the health and 
safety of the American people that is compromised from these kinds of 
animal waste.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 159 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2247

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2247.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), for himself, 
     Mr. Pryor, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Sessions, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2247.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To reduce unnecessary paperwork burdens on community water 
                                systems)

       On page 1009, after line 11, add the following:

     SEC. 122__. CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS BY COMMUNITY WATER 
                   SYSTEMS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) community water systems play an important role in rural 
     United States infrastructure; and
       (2) since rural water infrastructure projects are routinely 
     funded under the rural development programs of the Department 
     of Agriculture, Congress should strive to reduce the 
     regulatory and paperwork burdens placed on community water 
     systems.
       (b) Method of Delivering Report.--Section 1414(c)(4)(A) of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(4)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Administrator, 
     in consultation'' and inserting the following:

[[Page S4383]]

       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation'';
       (2) in clause (i) (as designated by paragraph (1)), in the 
     first sentence, by striking ``to mail to each customer'' and 
     inserting ``to provide, in accordance with clause (ii) or 
     (iii), as applicable, to each customer''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) Mailing requirement for violation of maximum 
     contaminant level.--If a violation of the maximum contaminant 
     level for any regulated contaminant has occurred during the 
     year concerned, the regulations under clause (i) shall 
     require the applicable community water system to mail a copy 
     of the consumer confidence report to each customer of the 
     system.
       ``(iii) Mailing requirement absent any violation of maximum 
     contaminant level.--

       ``(I) In general.--If no violation of the maximum 
     contaminant level for any regulated contaminant has occurred 
     during the year concerned, the regulations under clause (i) 
     shall require the applicable community water system to make 
     the consumer confidence report available by, at the 
     discretion of the community water system--

       ``(aa) mailing a copy of the consumer confidence report to 
     each customer of the system; or
       ``(bb) subject to subclause (II), making a copy of the 
     consumer confidence report available on a publicly accessible 
     Internet site of the community water system and by mail, at 
     the request of a customer.

       ``(II) Requirements.--If a community water system elects to 
     provide consumer confidence reports to consumers under 
     subclause (I)(bb), the community water system shall provide 
     to each customer of the community water system, in plain 
     language and in the same manner (such as in printed or 
     electronic form) in which the customer has elected to pay the 
     bill of the customer, notice that--

       ``(aa) the community water system has remained in 
     compliance with the maximum contaminant level for each 
     regulated contaminant during the year concerned; and
       ``(bb) a consumer confidence report is available on a 
     publicly accessible Internet site of the community water 
     system and, on request, by mail.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1414(c)(4) of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``mailing requirement of subparagraph (A)'' 
     and inserting ``mailing requirement of clause (ii) or (iii) 
     of subparagraph (A)''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (D), in the first sentence of the 
     matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``mailing 
     requirement of subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``mailing 
     requirement of clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A)''.
       (d) Application; Administrative Actions.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section take 
     effect on the date that is 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall promulgate any revised regulations 
     and take any other actions necessary to carry out the 
     amendments made by this section.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate.
  Senator Toomey.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, water systems are currently required to 
mail reports every year that detail in great specificity all the minute 
trace chemicals that are inevitably in the water supply. This is at a 
great cost and it is a problem, particularly for rural water systems. 
What my amendment would do is permit the water companies, provided 
there are no violations, to inform their customers in each and every 
monthly bill that they can obtain this information on the Web site. 
There are absolutely no changes whatsoever in water standards, of 
course, and every company would still have to mail these detailed 
reports if the water failed to comply with the State or Federal 
standards. This is a way we can free up tens, even hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in unnecessary mailing costs and make that 
available for infrastructure investment.
  I am happy to yield to my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. This is very simple. This is the information age. In my 
rural State of Oklahoma, sometimes they have to drive 30 miles to a 
post office. This will make it a lot easier as an accommodation and 
nothing is lost.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today our families receive in the mail 
just once a year a report about the safety of the water their kids 
drink every single day. The Toomey amendment repeals that important 
right to know. There are 70 regulated dangerous contaminants in our 
water. For example: arsenic, benzene, vinyl chloride, asbestos, 
cadmium, mercury, radium, and uranium. Some of these dangerous toxins 
are deemed unsafe at any level. Yet under Toomey you would no longer 
receive that information.
  Senator Toomey says go to the Web site. One thousand water districts 
have no Web site. And right now, under the current right-to-know law, 
the Governor can say he waives this requirement for the small rural 
districts.
  Please vote no. Our people have a right to know what their kids are 
drinking.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. TOOMEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 160 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Ms. STABENOW. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 2310

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2310.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself and 
     Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 2310.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other 
  edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the 
    food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically 
                         engineered ingredient)

       On page 1009, after line 11, add the following:

     SEC. 12207. CONSUMERS RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT GENETICALLY 
                   ENGINEERED FOOD ACT.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Consumers Right to Know About Genetically Engineered Food 
     Act''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) surveys of the American public consistently show that 
     90 percent or more of the people of the United States want 
     genetically engineered to be labeled as such;
       (2) a landmark public health study in Canada found that--
       (A) 93 percent of pregnant women had detectable toxins from 
     genetically engineered foods in their blood; and
       (B) 80 percent of the babies of those women had detectable 
     toxins in their umbilical cords;

[[Page S4384]]

       (3) the tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States clearly reserves powers in the system of Federalism to 
     the States or to the people; and
       (4) States have the authority to require the labeling of 
     foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from 
     organisms that have been genetically engineered.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Genetic engineering.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``genetic engineering'' means a 
     process that alters an organism at the molecular or cellular 
     level by means that are not possible under natural conditions 
     or processes.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``genetic engineering'' 
     includes--
       (i) recombinant DNA and RNA techniques;
       (ii) cell fusion;
       (iii) microencapsulation;
       (iv) macroencapsulation;
       (v) gene deletion and doubling;
       (vi) introduction of a foreign gene; and
       (vii) changing the position of genes.
       (C) Exclusions.--The term ``genetic engineering'' does not 
     include any modification to an organism that consists 
     exclusively of--
       (i) breeding;
       (ii) conjugation;
       (iii) fermentation;
       (iv) hybridization;
       (v) in vitro fertilization; or
       (vi) tissue culture.
       (2) Genetically engineered ingredient.--The term 
     ``genetically engineered ingredient'' means any ingredient in 
     any food, beverage, or other edible product that--
       (A) is, or is derived from, an organism that is produced 
     through the intentional use of genetic engineering; or
       (B) is, or is derived from, the progeny of intended sexual 
     reproduction, asexual reproduction, or both of 1 or more 
     organisms described in subparagraph (A).
       (d) Right To Know.--Notwithstanding any other Federal law 
     (including regulations), a State may require that any food, 
     beverage, or other edible product offered for sale in that 
     State have a label on the container or package of the food, 
     beverage, or other edible product, indicating that the food, 
     beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically 
     engineered ingredient.
       (e) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall submit 
     a report to Congress detailing the percentage of food and 
     beverages sold in the United States that contain genetically 
     engineered ingredients.

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this amendment is cosponsored by 
Senators Boxer and Begich and is supported by over 40 pro-consumer 
organizations throughout the country, including Public Citizen, U.S. 
PIRG, the Center for Food Safety, and many others.
  This is a very conservative amendment. It says the American people 
should have the right to know what is in the food they and their 
children are eating and if that food contains genetically engineered 
products.
  This amendment grants States the authority to label genetically 
engineered food. It is not a mandate. It grants States that right--
something which, by the way, is now taking place in 49 countries 
throughout the world. If the people in England, Germany, France, and 
dozens and dozens of other countries have labels allowing their people 
to know if they are eating food with genetically engineered products, 
States in the United States should have that right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first I want to thank the Senator from 
Vermont for his wonderful leadership on so many issues in this bill. I 
must, reluctantly, ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Consumers certainly need to have available information. We need to 
make sure it is accurate, according to the FDA, after they determine 
that.
  I would make one other point: American farmers are feeding the world, 
with 7 billion mouths to feed. This is harder every day. Science and 
innovation are very important to that.
  Recently, I talked with Bill Gates, with the Gates Foundation, for 
example, which is doing incredible work around the globe: with drought-
resistant crops in Africa, with innovative rice in the Philippines and 
Bangladesh, and so on.
  This is an issue that needs to be thoroughly studied to make sure we 
are not hurting those efforts. I know the chairman of the HELP 
Committee has asked that we not do this. It is within his jurisdiction.
  Madam President, I yield time now to Senator Roberts.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Very quickly, we all wear coats and ties in this body. 
This amendment would put us in lab coats. Don't wear a lab coat. Vote 
``no'' on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 73, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Akaka
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Feinstein
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--73

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bingaman
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Levin
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2214

  Mr. COBURN. I call up amendment No. 2214 on behalf of myself and the 
Senator from Colorado, Mr. Udall. I ask unanimous consent that we be 
given 3 minutes for each side to be divided between myself and Senator 
Udall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself, Mr. 
     Udall of Colorado, Mr. Burr, Mr. McCain, Ms. Ayotte, and Mr. 
     Moran, proposes an amendment numbered 2214.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the 
use of public funds for political party conventions, and to provide for 
   the return of previously distributed funds for deficit reduction)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PROHIBITING USE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 
                   FUNDS FOR PARTY CONVENTIONS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) In general.--Chapter 95 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking section 9008.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections of chapter 
     95 of such Code is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 9008.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Availability of payments to candidates.--The third 
     sentence of section 9006(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking ``, section 9008(b)(3),''.
       (2) Reports by federal election commission.--Section 
     9009(a) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (B) by striking the semicolon at the end of paragraph (3) 
     and inserting a period; and
       (C) by striking paragraphs (4), (5), and (6).
       (3) Penalties.--Section 9012 of such Code is amended--

[[Page S4385]]

       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking the second sentence; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2) and 
     redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
       (4) Availability of payments from presidential primary 
     matching payment account.--The second sentence of section 
     9037(a) of such Code is amended by striking ``and for 
     payments under section 9008(b)(3)''.
       (c) Return of Previously Submitted Money for Deficit 
     Reduction.--Any amount which is returned by the national 
     committee of a major party or a minor party to the general 
     fund of the Treasury from an account established under 
     section 9008 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act shall be dedicated to the 
     sole purpose of deficit reduction.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to elections occurring after 
     December 31, 2012.

  Mr. COBURN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I thank the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  I rise in support of this important amendment.
  I would also like to note that this provision is included in a larger 
bill I introduced this week to reform our Presidential public financing 
system. I would welcome support for that broader initiative.
  This is a bipartisan short-term step we can take to preserve more 
money for publicly funded candidates who are running for President 
instead of using that money to fund what we know now as expensive 
parties in our conventions. So I would urge a ``yes'' vote. This is a 
way to get our fiscal house in order. It is a small step, but it is an 
important step.
  I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership in this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, 99 percent of the American public has no 
idea that when they check the box, we are going to take actual American 
taxpayer dollars and subsidize party conventions for candidates who 
have already been decided.
  If we are going to lead as a body on starting to solve some of our 
problems, this is where we should start. This is $34.6 million that 
gets doled out that is not spent in the best interests of the American 
public but spent in the best interests of the politicians for the 
American public. It needs to be changed. It has no effect on security. 
It has no effect on the present allocation that was made in January to 
each party. If we cannot do this, this little simple thing of leading 
by example, then our country is doomed because that means we cannot 
solve the very significant problems in front of us either.
  I would appreciate your support and vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I yield back all time.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Boxer
     Landrieu
     Mikulski
     Rockefeller

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The Senator from Washington.


                    Amendment No. 2455, as Modified

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2455 and ask 
that it be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so 
modified.
  The clerk will report.

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2455, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Office of Management and Budget, the President 
and the Department of Defense to submit detailed reports to Congress on 
effects of defense and nondefense budget sequestration for fiscal year 
                                 2013)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. REPORTS ON EFFECTS OF DEFENSE AND NONDEFENSE BUDGET 
                   SEQUESTRATION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The inability of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit 
     Reduction to find $1,200,000,000,000 in savings will trigger 
     automatic funding reductions known as ``sequestration'' to 
     raise an equivalent level of savings between fiscal years 
     2013 and 2021.
       (2) These savings are in addition to $900,000,000,000 in 
     deficit reduction resulting from discretionary spending 
     limits established by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
       (b) Reports.--
       (1) Report by the director of the office of management and 
     budget.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall report upon the impact of 
     sequestration of funds with respect to a sequestration under 
     paragraphs (7)(A) and (8) of section 251(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901a) for fiscal year 2013 on January 2, 2013, using enacted 
     levels of appropriations for accounts funded pursuant to an 
     enacted regular appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013, and 
     estimates pursuant to a current rate continuing resolution 
     for accounts not funded through an enacted appropriations 
     measure for fiscal year 2013 as the levels to which the 
     sequestration should be applied.
       (B) Elements.--The report required by subparagraph (A) 
     shall include the following:
       (i) Each account that would be subject to such a 
     sequestration.
       (ii) Each account that would be subject to such a 
     sequestration but subject to a special rule under section 255 
     or 256 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 (and the citation to such rule).
       (iii) Each account that would be exempt from such a 
     sequestration.
       (iv) Any other data or information that would enhance 
     public understanding of the sequester and its effect on the 
     defense and nondefense functions of the Federal Government 
     including the impact on essential public safety 
     responsibilities such as homeland security, food safety, and 
     air traffic control activities.
       (C) Catagorize and group.--The report required under this 
     paragraph shall categorize and group the listed accounts by 
     the appropriations Act covering such accounts
       (2) Report by the president.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, or by October 30, 2012 whichever 
     is earlier, the President shall submit to Congress a detailed 
     report on the sequestration required by paragraphs (7)(A) and 
     (8) of section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) for fiscal year 
     2013 on January 2, 2013.
       (B) Elements.--The reports required by subparagraph (A) 
     shall include--
       (i) for discretionary appropriations--

       (I) an estimate for each category, of the sequestration 
     percentages and amounts necessary to achieve the required 
     reduction; and
       (II) an identification of each account to be sequestered 
     and estimates of the level of sequestrable budgetary 
     resources and resulting outlays and the amount of budgetary 
     resources to be sequestered and resulting outlay reductions 
     at the program, project, and activity level, using enacted 
     levels of appropriations for accounts funded pursuant to an 
     enacted regular appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013, and 
     estimates pursuant to a current rate continuing resolution 
     for accounts not funded through an enacted appropriations 
     measure for fiscal year 2013;

[[Page S4386]]

       (ii) for non-defense discretionary spending only--

       (I) a list of the programs, projects, and activities that 
     would be reduced or terminated;
       (II) an assessment of the jobs lost directly though program 
     and personnel cuts;
       (III) an estimate of the impact program cuts would have on 
     the long-term competitiveness of the United States and its 
     ability to maintain its lead on research and development, as 
     well as the impact on our national goal to graduate the most 
     students with degrees in in-demand fields;
       (IV) an assessment of the impact of program cuts to 
     education funding across the country, including estimates on 
     teaching jobs lost, the number of students cut off programs 
     they depend on, and education resources lost by States and 
     local educational agencies;
       (V) an analysis of the impact of cuts to programs middle 
     class families and the most vulnerable families depend on, 
     including estimates of how many families would lose access to 
     support for children, housing and nutrition assistance, and 
     skills training to help workers get better jobs;
       (VI) an analysis of the impact on small business owners' 
     ability to access credit and support to expand and create 
     jobs;
       (VII) an assessment of the impact to public safety, 
     including an estimate of the reduction of police officers, 
     emergency medical technicians, and firefighters;
       (VIII) a review of the health and safety impact of cuts on 
     communities, including the impact on food safety, national 
     border security, and environmental cleanup;
       (IX) an assessment of the impact of sequestration on 
     environmental programs that protect the Nation's air and 
     water, and safeguard children and families;
       (X) assessment of the impact of sequestration on the 
     Nation's infrastructure, including how cuts would harm the 
     ability of States and communities to invest in roads, 
     bridges, and waterways.
       (XI) an assessment of the impact on ongoing government 
     operations and the safety of Federal Government personnel;
       (XII) a detailed estimate of the reduction in force of 
     civilian personnel as a result of sequestration, including 
     the estimated timing of such reduction in force actions and 
     the timing of reduction in force notifications thereof; and
       (XIII) an estimate of the number and value of all contracts 
     that will be terminated, restructured, or revised in scope as 
     a result of sequestration, including an estimate of potential 
     termination costs and of increased contract costs due to 
     renegotiation and reinstatement of contracts;

       (iii) for direct spending--

       (I) an estimate for the defense and nondefense functions 
     based on current law of the sequestration percentages and 
     amount necessary to achieve the required reduction;
       (II) a specific identification of the reductions required 
     for each nonexempt direct spending account at the program, 
     project, and activity level; and
       (III) a specific identification of exempt direct spending 
     accounts at the program, project, and activity level; and

       (iv) any other data or information that would enhance 
     public understanding of the sequester and its effect on the 
     defense and nondefense functions of the Federal Government 
     including the impact on essential public safety 
     responsibilities such as--

       (I) homeland security, food safety, and air traffic control 
     activities;
       (II) an assessment of the impact of cuts to programs that 
     the Nation's farmers rely on to help them through difficult 
     economic times; and
       (III) an assessment of the impact of Medicare cuts to the 
     ability for seniors to access care.

       (3) Report by the secretary of defense.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than August 15, 2012, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall report on the impact on national 
     defense accounts as defined by paragraphs (7)(A) and (8) of 
     section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) using enacted levels of 
     appropriations for accounts funded pursuant to an enacted 
     regular appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013, and 
     estimates pursuant to a current rate continuing resolution 
     for accounts not funded through an enacted appropriations 
     measure for fiscal year 2013 as the levels to which the 
     sequestration should be applied.
       (B) Elements of the defense reports.--The report required 
     by subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
       (i) An assessment of the impact on ongoing operations and 
     the safety of United States military and civilian personnel.
       (ii) An assessment of the impact on the readiness of the 
     Armed Forces, including impacts to steaming hours, flying 
     hours, and full spectrum training miles, and an estimate of 
     the increase or decrease in readiness (as defined in the C 
     status C-1 through C-5).
       (iii) A detailed estimate of the reduction in force of 
     civilian personnel, including the estimated timing of such 
     reduction in force actions and timing of reduction in force 
     notifications thereof.
       (iv) A list of the programs, projects, and activities of 
     the Department of Defense that would be reduced or terminated 
     and the expected savings for each program, project and 
     activity.
       (v) An estimate of the number and value of all contracts 
     that will be terminated, restructured, or revised in scope, 
     including an estimate of potential termination costs and of 
     increased contract costs due to renegotiation and 
     reinstatement of contracts.
       (vi) An assessment of the impact on the ability of the 
     Department of Defense to carry out the National Military 
     Strategy of the United States, and any changes to the most 
     recent Risk Assessment of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff under section 153(b) of title 10, United States Code, 
     arising from sequestration.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-
affirmative threshold be waived, since it is my understanding that we 
will adopt this by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the amendment we are going to vote on 
is bipartisan, fair, and it will make sure Congress gets a report on 
the impact of all aspects of the scheduled automatic cuts. We all agree 
the bipartisan sequestration agreed to in the Budget Control Act is a 
terrible way to cut spending. It was included as a trigger in order to 
bring both sides to the table ready to compromise.
  I am hopeful we can get together and get the bipartisan deal required 
to replace these automatic cuts responsibly and fairly. But as we work 
toward that we all should know exactly how the administration would 
enact sequestration if we don't get a deal.
  I was very proud to work with Senators McCain, Levin, and Thune to 
come together on a bipartisan compromise to make sure Congress has the 
information we all need on sequestration from the painful cuts to the 
Defense Department, border security, food safety, education, and 
programs for middle-class families, on which the most vulnerable 
Americans depend.
  So I thank all my colleagues for working with me on this bipartisan 
compromise, and I thank the families and advocates who called and wrote 
letters urging us to examine all aspects of sequestration.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if sequestration comes to pass at the end 
of this year, many of us believe it could derail the economic recovery 
and do immense damage to important programs throughout the government, 
making our Nation less safe and our government less responsive to the 
needs of the people we serve.
  But at this point, while our concern is deep and widespread, it is 
not specific. We know only in the most general terms what impact 
sequestration might have. And while that is enough to encourage many of 
us to seek the compromises needed to avoid sequestration, the Congress 
and the American people deserve a more complete picture of what we 
face.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senators 
Murray and McCain, which would help give us and all Americans that more 
complete picture.
  I thank Senator McCain and Senator Murray for the leadership and hard 
work, on a bipartisan basis, that produced this amendment. It deserves 
broad bipartisan support, and not only because it will provide valuable 
information to us and our constituents. We must find ways to work 
across party lines more often and compromise for the common good. I 
hope this amendment can serve as one step toward the larger and more 
difficult compromises we must accomplish to avert the deep and lasting 
damage of sequestration.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, it is my understanding that Senator 
McCain will not speak at this time, so I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2455) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, given the work that has been done, I 
wish to thank Senators Murray and McCain for their efforts. Senator 
McCain will not be offering his amendment, just for the information of 
the Senate. So we will move on now to the Rubio amendment, when Senator 
Rubio is prepared.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I 
have introduced--with a dozen cosponsors to require the Secretary of 
Defense to provide to Congress a detailed

[[Page S4387]]

report by August 15, 2012, on the impacts on national security of the 
automatic budget cuts, also known as sequestration. These cuts will be 
imposed upon the Defense Department 6 months from now unless Congress 
acts.
  My amendment makes no changes to the Budget Control Act and should be 
non-controversial. It simply requires the Secretary of Defense to 
detail for us the implications of these cuts so that we may consider 
legislative options. My colleagues are well aware of how budget 
sequestration became the law of the land, of the failure of the Joint 
Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, and of the enforcement mechanism 
of automatic cuts. But none of us fully understand the specific 
consequences of the across-the-board spending reductions should they be 
triggered on January 2, 2013.
  We know from statements and testimony from the Secretary of Defense 
and high-ranking DOD and military officials that the impact of 
sequestration on the Department of Defense would be disastrous. I need 
not remind my colleagues that one of government's foundational 
responsibilities is to defend the Nation. Our constituents entrust us 
to do so. Allowing budget sequestration to occur in the Department of 
Defense would dramatically increase risk to our national security and 
undermine our ability to protect our interests at home and abroad.
  I agree that our current fiscal climate demands that we reduce annual 
deficits and pay down the massive Federal debt. I also recognize that 
the demands placed on our Armed Forces are beginning to diminish at 
least insofar as current operations in Afghanistan are concerned. The 
administration and the Congress have acknowledged as much, reducing war 
funding by almost half since 2011. The President's withdrawal plan for 
Afghanistan will reduce that funding need even further. In addition, 
the President has already put in place a plan to cut the defense budget 
by $487 billion over the next 9 years.
  I have reluctantly supported these planned cuts in the interest of 
deficit reduction, and we have scrutinized their impact on the Armed 
Forces. Many of my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee 
joined me in expressing concerns to the Secretary of Defense about 
significant troop reductions in the Army and Marine Corps, major 
program curtailments, and proposed base closures.
  Army Chief of Staff GEN Odierno told us that his service could 
perform its mission with 80,000 fewer troops. Commandant of the Marine 
Corps General Amos echoed those sentiments when describing his plan to 
reduce by 20,000 marines. My point is that the Department of Defense 
has already undertaken major budget reductions which will impact our 
forces for a decade or longer. While I do not agree with every 
reduction proposed by the administration, I acknowledge that we all 
need to tighten our belts and that the Defense Department is not 
sacrosanct.
  It is in the context of the nearly $\1/2\ trillion of reductions that 
have already been levied against the Defense Department that we should 
consider the impact of additional automatic budget cuts. Budget 
sequestration would cancel an additional $\1/2\ trillion from the 
defense budget and would do so in a thoroughly arbitrary and 
destructive way. It is one thing for the Department to make planned 
reductions to troops, equipment, training, and operations, and to keep 
these reductions synchronized; it is quite another to apply an across-
the-board percentage reduction to every defense program. The law does 
not provide flexibility; it dictates that budget sequestration must be 
applied in equal percentages to each ``program, project, and 
activity.'' That means equal percentage cuts in every research project, 
weapons program, and military construction project. Assuming military 
personnel accounts are exempted, we understand that cut to be about 14 
percent. A 14-percent cut in a military construction project would 
render it unexecutable. How can you buy 86 percent of a building or 86 
percent of an aircraft carrier? This is the danger of sequestration. 
The law mandates that cuts be taken equally across every budget line. 
It is absolutely senseless and will have enormous primary and secondary 
effects.
  As an example, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of contracts for services 
and equipment will have to be renegotiated. Contracts with specific 
delivery quantities will have to be rewritten to reduce the quantities, 
which will increase the cost per unit to the government. More likely, 
management decisions will be taken out of the hands of managers and put 
into the hands of lawyers, as companies sue the government for breach 
of contract and termination costs. Legal proceedings could stretch out 
over years, at enormous expense to the taxpayer. ``Savings'' from 
budget sequestration would be consumed by the cost of implementing it. 
Maybe we should think of sequester as an earmark for lawyers.
  Beyond the cost of implementing a dysfunctional system for budget 
cutting, the impact of sequestration on the capability of the Armed 
Forces would needlessly increase risk to national security. I am very 
concerned about the recent decision by the administration to apply 
sequestration to accounts supporting our military operations in 
Afghanistan. In November 2011, I was assured by the Secretary of 
Defense that this account would not directly be affected. Now, the 
Department is conceding that funds we are using to defeat our enemies 
and to build a secure and self-sufficient Afghanistan will be subject 
to immediate reductions. Despite this potentially grave risk to our 
military forces engaged in combat, the Department cannot tell me with 
any assurance to what extent our deployed forces will be affected. We 
must have a detailed assessment of the impact of these mandatory cuts 
to the support of our forces engaged in hostilities on behalf of our 
Nation.

  We know that the President has decided to exempt veterans programs 
from budget sequestration but to include war funding under sequester. 
This demonstrates that the administration is actively deliberating the 
implementation of the Budget Control Act, which makes it all the more 
surprising that the President is reluctant to provide even a 
preliminary estimate of the impact of sequestration. If the President 
is making decisions regarding sequestration, why not reveal the impacts 
to Congress and the public?
  The leaders of the Department of Defense have consistently stated 
that threats to the national security of the United States have 
increased, not decreased. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that 
these automatic reductions would ``inflict severe damage to our 
national defense for generations.''
  General Odierno testified that sequestration would force the Army to 
cut an additional 100,000 troops, half of which would come from the 
Guard and Reserve on top of the 80,000 soldiers already planned to be 
separated from service. General Odierno stated that the damaging 
effects of sequestration would force the Army to ``fundamentally re-
look [at] how we do national security.''
  The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greenert, testified that the 
Navy fleet would shrink from 285 ships to 230 to 235 ships, well below 
the 313 ships the Navy has said it requires. The Navy will be forced to 
absorb a cut equivalent to the entire annual shipbuilding budget. 
According to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, ``The force that comes 
out of sequestration is not the force that can support the current 
[defense] strategy.''
  Chief of Staff of the Air Force GEN Schwartz testified that 
sequestration ``would slash all of our investment accounts, including 
our top priority modernization program such as the KC-46 tanker, the F-
35 Joint Strike Fighter, the MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft, and the 
future long-range strike bomber.''
  We would be left with a much more expensive, much less capable 
national defense program.
  The irony in all this is that defense spending is not the reason we 
are in a fiscal mess. The United States spends about 20 percent of its 
annual budget on national defense. Since one of the principal 
responsibilities of government is to protect the Nation, I consider 
this amount to be quite modest. The real driver of our national debt is 
mandatory spending, which consumes 58 percent of the annual budget and 
is projected by the Office of Management and Budget to be over 62 
percent by 2017--growth of almost a percentage point per year. However, 
under budget sequestration, half of the total amount of cuts would be 
levied from defense and the other half from all other government 
programs. Let me repeat that.

[[Page S4388]]

Defense is 20 percent of the budget but will take 50 percent of the 
cuts. It simply doesn't make sense.
  In addition, these cuts will impact jobs in the defense industry as 
well as countless counties and towns around the country at a time when 
millions of Americans are still seeking employment. I appreciate the 
work of my friend Senator Ayotte to bring this issue of industrial and 
economic impact to the forefront.
  We must receive a clear assessment from the Department on the extent 
of the risk to our military operations in Afghanistan, to our military 
programs, and to readiness here at home if the automatic cuts are 
allowed to occur. Only when we have a clear picture of the impact of 
current law will we be able to consider alternatives to sequestration 
that reduce the deficit but do not imperil our Nation's security.
  Some have suggested that the Congress wait until after the election 
to address possible alternatives to sequestration. Mr. President, we 
all know that nothing good happens in a lameduck session. We cannot 
wait for an election to muster the courage to make difficult budget 
decisions. This amendment to the farm bill is meant to inform the 
debate about the perils we face if we do not take action.
  I thank my colleague from Washington, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, there is nothing pending now on the Senate 
floor other than the farm bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. We are in between votes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 1940

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon 
disposition of S. 3240, which is the farm bill, the Senate proceed to 
the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 250, S. 1940, 
which is the flood insurance bill; further, if cloture is invoked on 
the motion to proceed, notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, it 
be in order for the majority leader to lay before the body the House 
message with respect to S. 3187.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, if I might indicate to colleagues, we 
have one final amendment, the Rubio amendment, and Senator Rubio will 
be coming to the floor shortly. Following his amendment, we will then 
be going to final passage.
  I do want to take a moment to thank the leader. In the midst of an 
extremely demanding schedule, with things that need to get done in the 
Senate, he has given us this opportunity to complete this work. We will 
talk more about who has been involved in it later, but with all the 
demands of the Senate--whether it be flood insurance or addressing the 
concerns of student loan interest rates, the issues of small business 
and jobs and a whole range of issues that are very important for us to 
get done--our leader, with the support of the Republican leader, has 
been willing to allow us to move through 73 amendments. Now, I would 
note that we started with the possibility of 300, so 73 is certainly 
better than 300, but we know it was a major piece of work, and we very 
much appreciate our colleagues coming together to get this done.
  Let me remind everyone that 16 million people work in jobs related to 
agriculture and our food systems, and they are watching us to see if we 
do the right thing and to see us work together to get this done and to 
create economic certainty for them and food security for our Nation. So 
I just would like to thank our leaders for their patience and 
willingness to stand with us.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have come to the floor to speak in favor 
of Senator Rubio's amendment No. 2166, the Rewarding Achievement and 
Incentivizing Successful Employees Act, known as the RAISE Act. It is a 
catchy title, and sometimes here in Congress catchy bill titles can be 
very misleading. Sometimes the bill title means the exact opposite of 
what the bill would do, such as the Employee Free Choice Act, which 
actually would have taken away the right to make a free choice through 
a secret ballot. But in this case, I congratulate my colleague Senator 
Rubio for a title that conveys precisely what the amendment aims to do.
  The RAISE Act would allow employers to give employees raises, 
bonuses, incentive payments, and other monetary rewards whenever they 
are earned, whether the union boss approves or not. As all of us know, 
we are in extremely difficult economic times. Unemployment has been 
above 8 percent for over 40 months, now and a striking number of 
individuals are dropping out of the workforce altogether. When we do 
recover, as I know we will, we are likely to face a skills gap that 
will further hamper hiring and growth. One of the keys to our economic 
recovery is the health of small businesses.
  For small businesses to reach their full potential, and grow into 
job-creating machines, they need the flexibility to maintain and 
attract the key employees who will get them there. Any small 
businessperson will tell you that their employees are their most 
important asset. They literally make the difference in whether the 
business succeeds or fails.
  Once your company is unionized, you learn one way or another that it 
is now an ``unfair labor practice'' under section 8(a)(5) of the 
National Labor Relations Act to give an employee a raise or a bonus or 
an incentive or even a gift card for a job well done without the 
approval of the union boss. All compensation issues must be negotiated 
with the union, which allows the union to take credit for securing the 
raise. We have come across scores of cases where employers wanted to 
thank employees for good customer service, impressive sales growth, or 
attract employees to fill a critical manpower shortage, and the 
National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, penalized the employer for it. In 
a time of global competition, the last thing we need is a Federal 
agency punishing companies for trying to perform better by rewarding 
employees.
  Believe it or not, there is opposition to this amendment. At least 
four of our largest labor unions AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters--have opposed allowing employers 
to give raises.
  Critics of this bill have said that if employers want to be able to 
reward employees beyond the union-approved wage floor, they can 
negotiate that provision into their contract. This is true. An employer 
can make the ability to incentivize employees one of their ``asks'' in 
negotiations, and they probably have to give up something else in order 
for the union to agree to that. But it is also true that getting such a 
provision in the bargaining agreement is not enough to protect 
employers from a charge of unfair labor practice from the union and 
penalty from the NLRB. In my research on this issue, I came across 
several cases where employers had negotiated a raise clause, but since 
the collective bargaining agreement expired and was in renegotiation, 
the NLRB ruled that the provision did not apply.
  Let me cite an example from just a few years ago. A Montana water and 
mineral drilling company had negotiated a contract clause with their 
union to ensure that union-negotiated wages were only a floor and 
superior wages could be given with or without the consent of the union. 
When the company's orders increased, the company wanted to share the 
profits and decided to give employees unilateral raises, increase the 
per diem for meals, and raise the clothing and safety allowance 
reimbursement by 167 percent. But the union objected, and the NLRB 
agreed and stopped the raises. Why? Because although the company had 
negotiated the right to give raises, they were currently in the process 
of renegotiating their collective bargaining agreement and there had 
been no explicit extension of the clause allowing for superior wages 
and benefits. O'Keefe Drilling, Case 19-CA-29222(2005)
  Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. NLRB has repeatedly 
punished employers in similar situations.

       An Oregon newspaper publisher had historically offered 
     commission for sales of certain long-term advertisements. As 
     it was adapting to having an online edition, it decided to 
     qualify internet ad sales for commissions, as well, and added 
     signing bonuses for new advertising clients. Although the 
     newspaper had specifically negotiated for a

[[Page S4389]]

     contract provision allowing it to pay wages in excess of the 
     established wage, the bargaining agreement was in 
     renegotiation. The NLRB sided with the union. Register-Guard, 
     339 NLRB 353 (2003)

  The fact that raise provisions are negotiated into union contracts 
negates another criticism I have heard about this proposal. Some say 
that it would allow an employer to favor employees based on gender or 
race. This is entirely false--all race, sex, national origin and 
religion Federal discrimination statutes are and would remain in full 
effect.
  I would like to share a few more examples of why this legislation 
will not just benefit American workers but everyone who relies on the 
services they provide. For example, there is a great deal of concern 
about the quality and availability of health care services in this 
country. You would think that any Federal agency would congratulate 
hospitals that strive to improve the service they provide. 
Unfortunately, that was not the case in these two examples.

       During the nationwide nursing shortage we experienced in 
     the last decade, a nonprofit New Mexico hospital was 
     desperate for nurses. It was concerned about the ability to 
     provide care and comply with mandatory staffing levels, so 
     the hospital decided to offer $8000 signing bonuses and $2000 
     relocation bonuses. These generous bonuses were available for 
     new applicants as well as current nurses--union members--who 
     transferred to fill critical needs. But the union objected 
     and the hospital was ordered to stop offering bonuses. St. 
     Vincent Hospital, Case 28-CA-19039(2004)
       In another case, a Brooklyn hospital was concerned about 
     poor reviews of their nursing staff from patient satisfaction 
     surveys, which had been an ongoing problem. The hospital 
     decided to reward its best nurses, so it honored high-
     performing nurses with a breakfast, a pin, and gave them $100 
     gift cards since it was the winter holiday season. 
     Unfortunately, the union objected to this honoring of 
     exceptional nurses and filed charges with the National Labor 
     Relations Board. Although these nurses earned $67,000 to 
     $150,000 a year, the NLRB found that the gift card was not a 
     one-time, de minimis gift but, rather, should be considered 
     compensation and should have been a subject of negotiation 
     with the union. The hospital was banned from giving such 
     bonuses again. Brooklyn Hospital Center, Case No. 29-CA-
     29323(2009)

  Clearly something has gone very wrong here, and I want to thank 
Senator Rubio for offering us the ability to make it right. The ability 
to reward and incentivize employees is critical to the success of any 
enterprise. Instead of fixating on who gets credit for anything 
beneficial, our national labor-management policy should be to 
strengthen unionized and nonunionized businesses and encourage job 
creation. This will be good for all Americans, no matter what their 
union membership status.
  I urge the Senate to support the Rubio amendment and adopt this 
commonsense change to allow American companies and their employees to 
thrive.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I see Senator Rubio is on the floor, 
and I will now defer to him to offer his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 2166

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 2166.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2166.

  Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers 
                to pay higher wages to their employees)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES.

       Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     159(a)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization's exclusive 
     representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and 
     conditions of any collective bargaining contract or agreement 
     then in effect, nothing in either--
       ``(A) section 8(a)(1) or section 8(a)(5), or
       ``(B) a collective bargaining contract or agreement renewed 
     or entered into after the date of enactment of the RAISE Act,
     shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the 
     unit greater wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by 
     reason of, his or her services as an employee of such 
     employer, than provided for in such contract or agreement.''.

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, this amendment would amend the National 
Labor Relations Act to allow employers to give merit-based compensation 
increases to individual employees, even if those increases are not part 
of the collective bargaining agreement. Essentially, this will make the 
union contract wage a minimum, while giving employers the flexibility 
to reward diligent employees for their hard work. The bottom line is 
that today, if you work at one of these firms and the employer wants to 
give you a raise, they can't do it because it goes against the 
collective bargaining amount. So this amendment would allow them to do 
that.
  That is a brief explanation of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, this amendment is a solution in search 
of a problem. I don't know--have any of my colleagues here had 
unionized businesses come to them complaining that they can't give a 
raise? Have any of my colleagues ever heard of that--they have 
complained they can't give a raise?
  The fact is collective bargaining agreements already provide--many of 
them--for merit-based performance increases. That is part and parcel of 
a lot of the agreements today. So what this amendment basically does is 
it undercuts the National Labor Relations Act. That is exactly what it 
does. If you think we should do away with the National Labor Relations 
Act and all the benefits and all the protections it has both for 
businesses and for workers, this is your amendment right here. Quite 
frankly, I can't think of anything that would be more disruptive of a 
workplace than this amendment. When a business and workers have agreed 
on a collective bargaining agreement, this would destroy that kind of 
comity in the workplace.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I disagree. And I know we are now going 
to vote on this matter, so I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown (MA)
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Lee
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  Under the previous order, the question is on the engrossment and 
third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.

[[Page S4390]]

                              2501 Program

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I have filed an amendment 
relating to the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program 
that I would like to bring to Senator Stabenow's attention.
  As the Senator knows, the Outreach and Assistance to Socially 
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program, also known as the ``2501 
Program,'' helps our Nation's historically underserved producers gain 
access to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's credit, commodity, 
conservation, and other programs and services.
  The program provides competitive grants to educational institutions, 
agriculture extension offices, and community-based organizations to 
assist African-American, Native American, Asian-American, and Latino 
farmers and ranchers in owning and operating farms and participating in 
USDA programs. The Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged 
Farmers and Ranchers Program has served more than 100,000 rural 
constituents in over 400 counties and more than 35 States.
  In my State many farmers and ranchers have benefited from projects 
funded through the 2501 Program.
  I will just mention a few.
  The New Mexico Acequia Association uses a 2501 grant to improve the 
sustainability and economic viability of small-scale agriculture among 
the farmers and ranchers who are part of the historic acequias and 
community ditches in New Mexico. With this funding the association 
supports centuries-old irrigation systems and agricultural traditions.
  The Northern New Mexico Outreach Project, run by the New Mexico State 
University Cooperative Extension Service, is also working in my State 
to develop an education network system between northern New Mexico 
Hispanic and American Indian farmers and ranchers.
  And with the help of 2501 funding, the Taos County Economic 
Development Corporation is revitalizing ranching and farming traditions 
that support the cultures of the area, utilizing new technologies and 
marketing opportunities.
  Thanks to the efforts of the committee, the Socially Disadvantaged 
Farmers and Ranchers Program can now also extend benefits to veterans.
  My amendment would have provided additional funds to support the 
traditional and new constituencies of the program by increasing direct 
funding for the program to $150 million over 5 years.
  It would continue assistance to disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. 
And ensure that veterans are fully able to benefit from the program.
  The committee mark of the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 
2012 includes $5 million in annual mandatory funds for the Socially 
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program and $20 million in annual 
discretionary funds for the program.
  I hope that the Senator and her committee will work with me and with 
the Appropriations Committee to ensure adequate funding is allocated to 
the 2501 Program through the Appropriations process in the coming 
years.
  Ms. STABENOW. I want to begin by thanking the Senator from New Mexico 
for his thoughtful work on this issue. This is an important program, 
and I commend the Senator for offering his amendment. As we move 
forward, I am happy to work with the Senator to engage the 
Appropriations Committee to provide adequate annual funding for the 
program in the coming years.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the Senator. I am certain she is 
aware that the USDA's Office of Inspector General released a 
preliminary audit report in May finding a level of mismanagement of the 
2501 Program within the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, or OAO. The 
report found that OAO officials had not adhered to the agency's draft 
policies and procedures and did not carry out proper documentation 
during the selection of 2012 grant recipients.
  The OAO has had an immediate and deliberate response to the report. 
The previous manager of the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers 
Outreach Program has been replaced, the office is putting in a more 
long-term staff, and the 2012 applicants and grant recipients are being 
reevaluated.
  As the Senator knows, the 2501 Program is vital to ensuring that 
historically underserved farmers and ranchers have access to USDA 
programs. And, with the new mission to also serve veteran farmers and 
ranchers, it is more important than ever that the outreach program be 
properly administered.
  I look forward to working with the Chairwoman and the committee in 
its oversight role to ensure that the Outreach and Assistance to 
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program is properly and 
effectively administered.
  Ms. STABENOW. I, too, am concerned by the recent administration of 
the program, and I thank the Senator for addressing some of those 
issues in his amendment. I am hopeful that the positive steps already 
taken by the Office of Advocacy and Outreach will ensure the 2501 
Program's continued success. I know that the Senator will continue to 
monitor this situation closely, and I look forward to working with him 
to ensure that the office fully complies with the recommendations of 
the OIG report and that the most qualified applicants are awarded 
grants.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the Senator. In closing, I would 
like to thank the Senator, the members of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, and dedicated staff for all of the efforts to negotiate a 
good farm bill, one that provides significant savings and eliminates 
antiquated subsidies but seeks to ensure a sound future for agriculture 
and access to healthy food for families across the Nation.
  Madam President, I rise today to discuss the farm bill. First, I wish 
to thank Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts for their efforts in 
crafting a bill that will strengthen our agricultural and rural economy 
as well as one which reflects fiscal realities. Chairwoman Stabenow and 
Ranking Member Roberts reached across the aisle. They relied on common 
sense and they found common ground, with compromise and with a focus on 
results. They, and the members of the Agriculture Committee, worked 
together and created this bipartisan legislation.
  We all know how important this bill is for the 16 million Americans 
whose jobs are in agriculture and for the consumers who depend on safe, 
affordable food. It is also important for the families who need 
nutritional assistance and for the prudent stewardship of our lands. 
The importance of this legislation cannot be understated.
  Like so many New Mexicans, farming and ranching are in my blood. My 
grandmother drove cattle through New Mexico in the late 1800s. Ranching 
and farming is a part of my heritage, and of New Mexico's. And it is 
vital to our economy. More than 20,000 farms are in New Mexico.
  The people in my State know that ranching and farming is hard work. 
The only thing one can count on is uncertainty. It is a uniquely risky 
business, vulnerable to calamities of weather, subject to global 
fluctuations in prices and unfair competition. But, American 
agriculture is the world's leader. It is second to none. It is crucial 
to our economy and to our national security.
  This legislation is truly a reform bill. It is the most significant 
reform of our agriculture policy in decades. For years, Congress has 
reauthorized confusing and inequitable farm subsidies, and the public 
looked on in wonder. The subsidies have in some part helped to keep 
sectors of US Agriculture vibrant, but, there have been blatant 
inefficiencies and waste. The rules surrounding direct payments is one 
example. Such rules do not even require that the recipient grow the 
covered commodity to receive their payment. The result is an 
inequitable flow of Federal funds. This hinders new producers and short 
changes producers who were not lucky enough to own ``base acres'' when 
they were identified in the 1980s.
  For decades, farm bills have come and gone without the subsidy 
reforms Americans have been calling for. But Chairman Stabenow and 
Ranking Member Roberts have taken that unprecedented bold step. Their 
bill ends direct payments and other major subsidies once and for all.
  The 2012 Senate farm bill offers a more equitable insurance that 
producers buy into. It is not mandatory, but it is a sound safety net 
that will support American producers.
  Chairman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts also set new precedent 
in turning more attention to

[[Page S4391]]

crops historically left on the sidelines. Their bill boldly supports 
fruits, vegetables, nuts and other products so important to creating 
healthy living. The bill promotes access to nutritious food through 
farmers markets and locally grown produce. And it strengthens specialty 
crop provisions. My State is justly famous for its green chile. This 
bill will help chile and other specialty crops find export markets. And 
it provides for more research to keep these crops vibrant and 
competitive.
  This legislation will create a more even playing field for dairy 
farmers, providing a safety net that has no regional or size bias. The 
bill also continues essential support for livestock producers. In my 
State, ranchers face grave threats from severe drought and fires and 
from the continued loss of grazing lands.
  This farm bill streamlines and consolidates programs and it reduces 
the deficit by over $23 billion. Let me repeat: $23 billion in deficit 
reduction. That is twice the amount recommended by the Simpson-Bowles 
commission.
  This is a strong bill overall. It is not perfect. It consolidates and 
simplifies conservation programs. But, unfortunately, there are 
significant cuts in funding. There are cuts in programs that protect 
watersheds, grasslands, soil, and habitats. These are programs that 
producers depend on. There are cuts in programs to restore forage, 
ensure compliance with environmental laws, and maintain healthy soil. 
It is truly unfortunate to lose such vital funding.
  The farm bill covers a very large canvas and addresses many diverse 
needs. There will be, and should be, healthy debate.
  I want to speak today about three specific amendments that I believe 
will improve this bill.
  First, I have filed an amendment to restore mandatory funds for the 
Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers 
Program. Thanks to the efforts of the committee, this program can now 
extend benefits to veterans. My amendment would ensure that the 
necessary funds are there. This program has helped our Nation's 
historically underserved producers for over 20 years by providing 
better access to Department of Agriculture credit, commodity, and 
conservation services and by providing technical assistance. It has 
worked and it deserves continued support.
  The Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and 
Ranchers Program has served more than 100,000 rural constituents in 
over 400 counties and more than 35 States. With adequate funding, it 
can also provide critical support for veteran farmers and ranchers.
  Specifically, my amendment would restore direct funding to $150 
million over 5 years.
  It would continue assistance to disadvantaged farmers and ranchers 
and ensure that veterans are fully able to benefit from the program.
  Second, I have proposed an amendment for rural development funding 
for frontier communities. Across our Nation, including in my home 
State, there are many very small, very rural communities with a 
population density of less than 20 people per square mile. These are 
great communities, proud communities, with rich histories. But, they 
have a hard time competing for rural development loans and grants. 
Often, they don't have the personnel. They don't have the resources. 
But, their need is just as great as that of larger communities.
  My amendment would create a setaside for frontier communities 
allowing them to access USDA funds targeted for these very small, very 
rural communities. It would allow the USDA to reach our Nation's most 
rural and underserved communities. The setaside would be a minimum of 
percent of rural development programs and it would allow frontier 
communities to qualify for up to 100 percent grant funding, with no 
minimum grant or loan requirement.
  My amendment would also create a grant program for technical 
assistance and planning for frontier communities, making sure that 
funding goes as far as possible. Financing for this program would be 
from overall rural development funding of no more than 5 percent.
  And, third, I have filed an amendment for a rural development 
setaside for community land grants. These land grant Mercedes are part 
of a unique and important history in the southwest dating back to the 
treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. These were grants of land made by the 
governments of Spain or Mexico to entire communities.
  These community land grants have a history of loss of land, a history 
of manipulation and unkept commitments, and a recognized need for 
increased economic opportunities. My amendment proposes to respond to 
this unfortunate history. Rural development assistance is crucial to 
these unique communities.
  I wish to again commend my colleagues for this bipartisan 
legislation. It will continue building our economy by providing jobs 
and by providing the certainty that producers need for innovation and 
growth and by providing for the safest, healthiest, and most abundant 
food supply in the world.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise to support and encourage passage of 
this farm bill.
  Farm bills are difficult measures to shepherd through this chamber. 
There has never been--and never will--be a `perfect' one in the eyes of 
every Member of this body. But American agriculture needs a new farm 
bill and this one deserves our support for a variety of reasons.
  For starters, it delivers over $23 billion dollars in savings at time 
when our Nation's balance sheet needs it most.
  It improves nutrition programs by curbing fraud and improving program 
integrity. Hungry Americans--many of whom are children--need a food 
safety net when times are tough. These changes support that safety net 
and deliver more accountability to taxpayers.
  This bill also responds to concerns articulated by dairy farmers who 
are hugely important to me and to Wisconsin. Long-time farm policy 
observers know of my enduring interest in dairy policy. The MILC 
program, which I co-authored with several of my colleagues in this 
chamber, was the first comprehensive safety net for American dairy 
producers. It provided payments in time of low prices and cost the 
government nothing when we had robust dairy prices. Dairy farmers today 
face new and different challenges. In recent years they have seen 
situations where, despite robust milk prices, their input prices 
dramatically escalated and their margins evaporated. The dairy policy 
embodied in this bill recognizes that challenge and establishes margin 
protection insurance. Participants will be given the option to choose 
the level of margin protection that makes the most sense for their 
dairy operations.
  I supported a number of amendments to this farm bill. Among them were 
modifications to enhance rural development and programs for beginning 
farmers. Farm bills touch our Nation in many different ways, and these 
are two areas that merit more attention and continued diligence. I also 
opposed a number of amendments because I feared they would undermine 
agriculture exports, our ability to innovate, and our organic 
agriculture sector.
  Finally, I want to congratulate the chair and ranking member of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee for their diligent work. It takes an 
enormous amount of effort to move a farm bill. They worked hard to find 
consensus and deserve our thanks. I also want to acknowledge with 
thanks their staff, including Cory Claussen and Jonathan Coppess of the 
majority and Eric Steiner from the Republican staff. They worked very 
hard on a variety of topics, including the dairy provisions.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I support passage of the 2012 farm bill, 
S. 3240, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012.
  I have made it a priority to keep Pennsylvania's agricultural 
industry and our rural economies strong to support Pennsylvanian 
families.
  Agriculture is the Commonwealth's largest industry. Pennsylvania's 
farm gate value that is cash receipts to growers, in 2010, was $5.7 
billion. Agribusiness in Pennsylvania is a $46.4 billion industry, and 
17.5 percent of Pennsylvanians are employed in the food and fiber 
system. What does this mean?
  It means that the Senate MUST pass this farm bill, that the House 
must pass a farm bill, and that the President

[[Page S4392]]

must sign a farm bill into law before it expires at the end of 
September.
  The farm bill creates economic opportunities in our rural areas and 
sustains the consumers and businesses that rely on our rural economy. 
When the cows need to be milked, dairy farmers go out to the barn and 
do their jobs. We should follow their example and reauthorize the farm 
bill in a responsible way that helps contribute to deficit reduction.
  If passed into law, this farm bill would reduce the deficit by 
approximately $23 billion through the elimination of some subsidies, 
the consolidation of programs, and producing greater efficiencies in 
program delivery.
  Dairy is the Commonwealth's No. 1 agricultural sector. The dairy 
industry annually generates more than $1.6 billion in on-farm cash 
receipts, which represent about 42 percent of Pennsylvania's total 
agricultural receipts.
  I introduced two dairy bills this Congress: the Federal Milk 
Marketing Improvement Act, S. 1640, and the Dairy Advancement Act, S. 
1682. These bills are aimed to ensure that farmers receive a fair price 
for their milk to increase price transparency, to protect against price 
volatility, and to encourage processor innovation.
  I am concerned that while the proposed dairy program to manage the 
Nation's milk supply will reduce the volatility of dairy farming, that 
program will discourage innovation and exports, as well as send the 
wrong signals to our trading partners.
  I secured language which requires USDA to thoroughly examine if the 
dairy market stabilization program is working, and if it is not 
working, make recommendations on how to fix it. This bill also contains 
my amendment to codify the frequency of dairy product reporting that is 
important for the dairy industry to make business decisions. It would 
also require USDA to examine whether it would be practical to move to a 
two-class system for milk that could help to simplify the Federal milk 
marketing orders.
  Dairy farmers deserve the best dairy program possible. The Senate 
bill contains many improvements that I support.
  Making risk management and crop insurance products work better for 
Pennsylvanians, especially small farmers, specialty crop farmers, and 
organic farmers is very important.
  This bill contains language similar to an amendment that I offered 
during the Agriculture Committee's markup that would help to improve 
crop insurance for organic farmers.
  Providing funding through risk management, conservation, and 
agricultural marketing agencies to underserved States, the Agricultural 
Management Assistance, AMA, Program helps to make the farm bill more 
equitable among regions.
  I sincerely appreciate the chairwoman's and ranking member's work to 
enhance the Agricultural Management Assistance Program, including 
support for organic transition assistance.
  The improvements in this bill to crop insurance delivery are 
critical.
  We have worked to address the unique concerns of specialty crop 
farmers and beginning farmers--and we have done so in a bipartisan way.
  Specialty crops are very important to Pennsylvanian agriculture.
  After working with the chairwoman and ranking member, I was able to 
ensure improvements in promotion programs within the farm bill and 
direct USDA to assess the feasibility of allowing organic producers to 
participate in an organic foods promotion program.
  The Specialty Crops Research Initiative, SCRI, Specialty Crops Block 
Grant Program, and Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program all advance 
the specialty crops industry, playing a key role in ensuring that this 
important agricultural sector receives continued acknowledgement in the 
farm bill. These programs remain strong under this bill.
  In addition, the Nation's organic industry has grown exponentially 
from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $29 billion in 2010, with an annual growth 
rate of 19 percent from 1997 to 2008. In 2008, Pennsylvania was ranked 
sixth in number of organic farms with 586 and third in sales at $212.7 
million.
  Through research, we develop more efficient and effective farming 
methods. Research also helps producers maintain a competitive edge in 
the global market by fighting threatening diseases and pests.
  I am pleased that the farm bill invests in relevant and targeted 
research and maintains the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
programs that work to eradicate the invasive species that threaten our 
Nation's forests and farms.
  The U.S. Forest Service's State and private forestry programs are 
essential for assisting forest landowners in managing threats and 
enhancing stewardship. I am pleased that the farm bill continues the 
Forest Stewardship Program, FSP, so that forest owners can create long-
term management plans with the technical assistance of State forestry 
agency partners.
  I am also grateful to the chairwoman and ranking member for working 
with me to fix USDA's Biopreferred Program to even the playing field 
for Pennsylvanian forestry products. Revenues from Pennsylvania's 
forest products industry exceed $5.5 billion annually. Over 10 percent 
of the State's manufacturing workforce is involved in the forest 
products industry.
  I am appreciative to the committee for the inclusion of my provision 
directing USDA to work with the Food and Drug Administration toward the 
development of a standard of identity for honey, a tool which will 
promote honesty and fair dealing and serve the interest of consumers 
and Pennsylvania's honey industry. The majority of our honey is 
imported, but because there is no standard, contaminated, low-quality 
honey continues to pass through customs and undercut our domestic 
product. Pennsylvania is a major player in the honey industry. Honey 
bee pollination can be directly attributed to the production of about 
$60 million of agricultural produce in Pennsylvania annually.
  I am committed to keeping Pennsylvania's rural communities strong and 
support rural development programs that provide access to capital for 
rural businesses to provide economic opportunities and create jobs. A 
rural community's viability in attracting and keeping businesses is 
often directly related to the condition of its infrastructure and 
facilities. USDA's rural development programs empower rural 
communities, transform local economies, and preserve the quality of 
life in small towns across the Commonwealth. A rural economic 
development program that saves and creates jobs in rural economies and 
improves rural life is extremely important for Pennsylvanian families.
  I introduced the Growing Opportunities for Agriculture and Responding 
to Markets, GO FARM, Act, which will help to enhance local food systems 
and encourage production of food for local communities. The GO FARM Act 
would provide loans to third parties to lend to producers growing 
products for local markets. In addition to the GO FARM Act, I support 
increasing the availability of healthy foods, addressing the issue of 
food deserts and developing and improving local food systems.
  Farmers are the original stewards of the land and continue to lead 
the charge in protecting our natural resources. I believe the voluntary 
conservation programs in the farm bill provide important tools to help 
farmers comply with Federal and State regulations while keeping farmers 
in business. I am committed to making conservation programs more 
efficient, effective, and relevant to farmers.
  Conservation programs are an extremely important resource for many 
Pennsylvanian farmers. I worked with my Senate colleagues to support 
enhancements to conservation programs through this process in an effort 
to ensure that these remodeled programs would better serve the needs of 
Pennsylvanians.
  Pennsylvania's watersheds contribute more than half of the fresh 
water flowing to the Chesapeake Bay. While Pennsylvania does not border 
the bay, activities in the Commonwealth profoundly affect the bay's 
health. The bay, the largest estuarine ecosystem in the U.S., and its 
tributaries, such as Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers, are important to 
the region's economy, culture, and outdoor recreation.
  Under the 2008 farm bill, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative, 
CBWI, provided essential support to farmers facing Federal and state 
regulations

[[Page S4393]]

concerning water quality and helped to meet demand for conservation 
programs. In advance of the Agriculture Committee's consideration of 
the 2012 farm bill, I introduced the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Fairness 
Act, which among other things reauthorized the CBWI, because I know 
Pennsylvania farmers used this program very well.
  I am grateful that the 2012 farm bill contains portions of this 
legislation which are aimed at equipping farmers with the tools 
necessary to better meet water quality goals. However, in this bill, 
CBWI is not continued. Due to the committee's desire to reduce the 
number of conservation programs, the farm bill consolidates four 
different programs into one that will provide competitive funds to 
regional partnerships and will also provide conservation funding 
directly to producers. CBWI was one of the programs that got folded 
into this new program.
  I worked very closely with other Senators from the watershed to 
strengthen the conservation title to better benefit our region. 
Together we secured significant policy improvements. The current bill 
focuses on the most critical conservation areas and will help farmers 
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed participate in conservation programs so 
that they can help the region meet water quality standards.
  Pennsylvania's agricultural producers and forestland owners use the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, to implement 
conservation practices, which might otherwise be cost prohibitive, to 
protect valuable natural resources.
  Further, the Farmland Protection Program, FPP, protects prime 
farmland from development. FPP should remain a permanent easement 
program to keep working lands preserved as farm land; should keep 
State, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations as 
partners; and should certify successful entities like the Pennsylvania 
Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Farmland Protection to improve 
the efficiency of this program. We worked very hard to make 
improvements to FPP during the last farm bill and those developments 
continue.
  While I do not mention all of the farm bill conservation programs, I 
do believe that each serves an important purpose.
  Ending hunger remains one of my top priorities, as it cuts across all 
of the major challenges we face as a country. There is no better 
opportunity to strengthen nutrition policy and programs than through a 
well-crafted farm bill.
  The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, SNAP, is the Federal 
Government's primary response to the food insecurity experienced by so 
many people. SNAP is an integral part of the overall safety net, which 
enables people to get back on their feet.
  Similarly, The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, enables food 
banks, shelters, and other providers to deliver necessary food packages 
and meals to people with emergency food needs. The Senior Farmers' 
Market Nutrition Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program 
also provide vital food resources to low-income seniors who are often 
not helped by other food assistance programs. I support these programs 
as they assist the most vulnerable of our society--children, seniors, 
and families experiencing food insecurity.
  As Congress works to authorize the 2012 farm bill, I will continue to 
fight to protect the needs of Pennsylvanians.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this farm bill.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act 
of 2012, also known as the farm bill, makes some strides in reforming 
agriculture policy and subsidies. However, in my view, these reforms 
are not sufficient. Moreover, the bill contains cuts to nutrition and 
conservation programs and changes to eligibility for rural communities 
that when taken together make it worse than current law. As such, I 
will oppose the bill, although I do so reluctantly.
  Indeed, despite my conclusions, I commend Chairwoman Stabenow for 
crafting a bill that delivers $23.6 billion in taxpayer savings over 10 
years, cracks down on abuse, and eliminates egregious payments to 
nonfarmers, millionaire farmers, and farmers for crops they aren't 
growing.
  The bill also makes several positive changes to programs important to 
my home State of Rhode Island that help small farms, farmers markets, 
and local food production. Rhode Island is a model example of the small 
and local farm movement. Since 2002, the number of farms has increased 
from 858 to 1,220 farms, whereas the average farm size in the State has 
actually decreased from 71 to 56 acres. That is why I am pleased that 
the bill includes many measures from Senator Sherrod Brown's Local 
Farms, Food and Jobs Act that I cosponsored and increased funding for 
specialty crop block grants to support research and promotion of 
fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops.
  The bill also initiates new hunger-free communities incentive grants 
by providing funding of $100 million over 5 years for a national pilot 
to incentivize the purchase of fruits and vegetables at farmers markets 
by SNAP participants. A similar privately funded program has already 
been successfully implemented in Rhode Island where every $5 in SNAP 
benefits spent at a farmers market allows low-income individuals to 
receive an additional $2 in fruits and vegetables. It is good to see 
the ingenuity of our States replicated at the national level in ways to 
help low-income families have access to nutritious local foods.
  Another positive measure is the enhancement of the Farmers Market and 
Local Food Promotion Program to aid direct producer-to-consumer 
marketing channels and local food sales to retailers and institutions. 
The bill also doubles mandatory funding for this program.
  However, as a recent Washington Post editorial stated, ``The current 
bill achieves some reform. There is still much more to be done.''
  While the current bill cuts direct payments by $44.6 billion, it 
restores $28.5 billion of those cuts by creating a new market-based 
program called Agriculture Risk Coverage and adds an additional $5 
billion for crop insurance.
  Indeed, many of the reform measures in the bill do not go as far as 
those in the Lugar-Lautenberg Fresh Act of 2007, which I cosponsored 
during the last farm bill debate.
  At the time, that measure would have increased funding by $2.5 
billion for nutrition programs, SNAP, and specialty crops, and $1 
billion more for conservation programs. In contrast, the Senate bill we 
are currently debating cuts SNAP by $4.5 billion and conservation 
programs by $6.4 billion.
  The nutrition cuts are particularly challenging for Rhode Island, 
where roughly 1 in 6 people receives SNAP benefits and the unemployment 
rate remains at a too-high rate of 11 percent, the second highest in 
the country.
  SNAP usage is unfortunately very high right now as Americans are 
struggling along with the economy to get back on track. No one wants to 
see such a high need, but at the same time SNAP assistance is the 
lifeline for these families to be able to put food on the table. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle shouldn't be trying to cut 
these funds; they should be working with us instead of thwarting our 
efforts to pass meaningful jobs bills that could help many of these 
SNAP beneficiaries find work and lessen their need for assistance.
  That is why I cosponsored and voted in favor of Senator Gillibrand's 
amendment that would have restored the nutrition cuts, which the 
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates would result in an average 
benefit cut of $90 per month for 500,000 households nationwide. 
According to RI Department of Human Services, approximately 20,000 
households could see an average SNAP cut of $95 per month if the cuts 
were implemented.
  The Gillibrand amendment was paid for by reducing the subsidies that 
the Federal Government pays the crop insurance companies for 
administration and operating expenses and lowering their guaranteed 
rate of return from their current level of 14 percent to 12 percent. 
That is certainly a reasonable rate of return in this economy.
  I was very disappointed that this amendment was not agreed to as this 
proposed cut of $4.5 billion starts us down the wrong path in future 
farm bill negotiations with the House, which is expected to have even 
deeper SNAP cuts in their bill.

[[Page S4394]]

  Another provision I am concerned could negatively impact Rhode Island 
is the change in the definition of rural that could decrease the 
eligibility for Rhode Island communities to be able to apply for loans 
and grants under Rural Development programs. I appreciate Chairman 
Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts working with Members from affected 
States to include in the managers' package a 3-year grandfathering of 
existing communities and an important stipulation that thereafter 
communities shall remain eligible unless ruled otherwise by the 
Secretary of Agriculture. However, the change in the definition does 
not completely remove the uncertainty for Rhode Island rural 
communities to be eligible in the future as they look to make needed 
improvements to their water and waste disposal systems or community 
facilities.
  We need to help out the small farmers and businesses in this country, 
not continue to help the large, wealthy farmers. And we certainly 
should not pay for expansive farm programs by placing additional 
burdens on those who are struggling to make ends meet.
  It is for these reasons that I am unable to support this bill in its 
current form. While I fear the bill will only get worse as negotiations 
begin with the House, I certainly hope the matters that I have raised 
can be addressed during that process.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am pleased to vote for passage of the Agriculture 
Reform, Food and Jobs Act. The bill before us makes important reforms 
to farm programs by helping agricultural producers manage their risk, 
invests funding to protect our natural resources, and provides food 
assistance to families in need.
  America's agricultural economy is responsible for 16 million jobs. 
There are over 2 million farms in this country that contribute nearly 
$80 billion to the Nation's economy. Americans and people all over the 
world depend on America's farms to feed their families. So passage of a 
farm bill that protects the food supply, gives farmers the support they 
need, and combats hunger is of high importance.
  I want to congratulate Senator Stabenow, the chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee and my Michigan colleague, for managing this 
important legislation so skillfully.
  This bill marks important change in how we assist our Nation's 
farmers. Instead of making direct and countercyclical payments to 
farmers, sometimes for crops they haven't even grown, this bill ends 
those practices and instead focuses on working with farmers to manage 
risks.
  My home State of Michigan is second only to California in the number 
of crops grown and second to none in tart cherry production. Unusually 
warm weather in March resulted in an early bloom for many of our fruit 
crops, including tart cherries. These crops were then heavily damaged 
by a series of freezes during April and May.
  I visited a cherry orchard in northern Michigan last month and viewed 
the damage. The damage from these freezes is severe; many trees and 
entire orchards will bear no fruit at all. Growers still need to 
maintain their orchards, spraying for bugs and disease, but can expect 
no payment for their crop. I am particularly concerned about tart 
cherry growers as they cannot currently purchase crop insurance.
  The bill we are voting on today directs the Federal Crop Insurance 
Corporation Board to develop new crop insurance policies for 
underserved crops, including specialty crops like cherries. The bill 
also increases funding to help develop these policies. These new 
policies are sorely needed in Michigan.
  The bill also includes $58 billion over a 10-year period for 
conservation programs that protect our Nation's waters, soil quality 
and wildlife habitats, prevent erosion, and help alleviate other 
natural resource problems. These programs have benefitted Michigan by 
protecting sensitive lands and waters and preventing polluted runoff 
and sediments from getting into our precious Great Lakes, where they 
can create problems such as harmful algae blooms. Preventing runoff and 
controlling erosion can also lower costs for water treatment and 
dredging of Great Lakes harbors. To create a more efficient system for 
accessing and implementing these conservation programs, the bill 
consolidates more than 20 existing programs into 10 programs.
  One new program in the bill, the Regional Conservation Partnership 
Program, in particular could benefit the Great Lakes. This program 
would provide funding through a competitive process for conservation 
projects that improve soil quality, water quality or quantity, or 
wildlife habitats on a regional or watershed scale. Because the Great 
Lakes region already has a regional plan in place, our region should be 
able to effectively compete for the $250 million in annual funding that 
would be provided for this program. We have made some solid progress in 
cleaning up our Great Lakes and other waters in Michigan, but there is 
still much more to be done. The conservation funding provided in the 
farm bill would help with the efforts to protect and restore the Great 
Lakes, as well as protect sensitive lands and wildlife, conserve open 
space and forests, and provide economic benefits.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as is evident from the amount of debate 
and attention devoted to it, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act 
of 2012 is an enormously important piece of legislation for our Nation, 
as it certainly is for my State of Iowa. Although the measure is 
commonly referred to as the farm bill, that name captures just a 
fraction of what it contains to benefit all Americans and millions of 
others around the world.
  Despite the severe economic challenges over the past half decade, 
agriculture and agriculture-related jobs and economic activity have 
been a real source of hope, opportunity, and recovery. That is 
especially so in my State, where agriculture generates about one of 
every five Iowa jobs and about a fourth of our State's economic output.
  Iowa is well known, of course, for its distinctive farm state and 
smalltown character and for producing corn, soybeans, hogs, cattle, 
eggs, and other commodities. We have enjoyed tremendous benefits from 
greater diversification in agriculture and the rural economy. Take for 
example the boom in biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel and in wind 
power.
  It is critical for us to enact this bill in order to continue and 
enhance the contributions of agriculture and agriculture-related 
industries to our Nation's economy, to jobs, and to meeting ever-
growing global demands for food, fiber, and energy.
  I commend Chairwoman Stabenow and Senator Roberts, the ranking 
Republican member, for all of their hard, conscientious, and successful 
work on this bill. I also thank them for their efforts to take into 
account and reflect in this bill the circumstances, views, and needs of 
both rural and urban America as well as the various regions and types 
of agriculture across our Nation. I certainly appreciate their task. 
This is the eighth farm bill I have worked to enact, starting as a 
member of the House Agriculture Committee. Since 1985 I have served on 
the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee and am proud 
to have been the chairman of that committee during the writing and 
enactment of the most recent two farm bills.
  This legislation, approved by our committee in April, is a sound, 
balanced, and bipartisan bill crafted under budget conditions that have 
necessitated difficult decisions, judgments, and compromises. According 
to scoring by the Congressional Budget Office, this measure will reduce 
spending over the next 10 fiscal years by more than $23 billion from 
budget baseline levels.
  The spending reductions in programs encompassed in this bill thus 
appear to be several billion dollars larger than the automatic spending 
cuts slated to begin in January of next year under the sequestration 
mechanism in the Budget Control Act of 2011. Hence, this farm bill is a 
serious, good-faith effort going significantly beyond the minimum to 
reduce our budget deficits and curtail our Nation's debt. Again, these 
spending reductions will have very real impacts, and frankly I regret 
them and their consequences. We are not as a Nation investing too much 
in the future of our Nation's agriculture and food system, in fighting 
hunger and malnutrition, in conserving our Nation's soil, water, and 
other resources for future generations, in securing our future with 
renewable energy and biobased materials, or in strengthening and 
growing jobs in our Nation's small towns and rural communities. 
Unquestionably, because of our Federal budget

[[Page S4395]]

situation and choices that have been made in dealing with it, there is 
less money to respond to national needs and priorities in the Federal 
policies and programs covered in this bill.
  Given the budgetary hand dealt it, the Agriculture Committee, with 
the bipartisan leadership of our Chairwoman and Ranking Member, 
reported a bill combining budget savings with genuine reforms 
throughout its various titles. The most significant reform--in fact, 
pivotal reform--lies in the substantial changes in the commodity and 
farm income protection programs.
  To help farm families and rural communities survive and manage the 
inevitable vagaries of weather and markets, the new farm bill continues 
a strong system ensuring a degree of stability and protecting against 
significant losses in farm income. The legislation contains major 
reform in terminating the existing direct and countercyclical Payments 
Program and replacing it with the Agriculture Risk Coverage, or ARC, 
program. ARC is designed to compensate for a portion of farm revenue 
losses and to supplement the revenue insurance policies that farmers 
typically rely upon to manage risk.
  Because farm income protection based on revenue accounts for the fact 
that farm income is the product of crop yield times its price in the 
market, ARC is an improvement over the direct and countercyclical 
payments program in current law. Direct payments are made in fixed 
amounts according to each farm's base acreage and program payment 
yields, which in general were established decades ago. Consequently, 
the direct payments do not accurately reflect or respond to existing 
economic circumstances in agriculture because they are made without 
regard to a farm's current planted acres of crops or to whether crop 
prices and yields are high or low. The existing countercyclical payment 
program compensates for a portion of losses when the national average 
price of a covered commodity falls below a statutory target price. But 
the countercyclical program's target prices are well below current 
market prices and costs of production for commodities, and of course, a 
price-based system does not account for yield losses.
  Agricultural producers have been divided over the direct payments 
since they were adopted in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and 
Reform Act of 1996 as a replacement for the then-existing target price 
income protection system. Supporters of direct payments note that they 
are considered not to be production or trade distorting and that they 
provide income assistance to farmers who may not benefit much from 
other commodity programs or crop insurance.
  From their beginning, I believed that the direct payments were not 
sound policy. Within a few years, after they were enacted during a 
period of strong commodity prices, the direct payments proved 
inadequate to protect farm income in the face of a sharp falloff in 
commodity prices, and so we had to resort to enacting ad hoc emergency 
legislation to make up for the shortcomings of the direct payments.
  To restore better protection against farm income losses, I introduced 
legislation in November 2001 to create a new countercyclical target 
revenue program. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I was 
pleased that we then reinstated a countercyclical income protection 
program in the 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act. In 2007 and 
2008, with the leadership of Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Sherrod 
Brown, I was pleased that we included the Average Crop Revenue 
Election, or ACRE Program, in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
2008. ACRE is, of course, the forerunner of the ARC program in the 
pending new farm bill.
  The reform and evolution reflected in this new farm bill is very 
greatly facilitated by the significant improvement and strengthening of 
the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Crop insurance, particularly the 
revenue policies, are now vitally important to agricultural producers, 
their lenders and creditors, and to the rural economy. So it is an 
important feature of this bill that it further strengthens and improves 
the Crop Insurance Program, building upon the Agriculture Risk 
Protection Act of 2000 and additional improvements in the past two farm 
bills.
  The pending bill also continues a strong conservation title with 
highly effective programs and funding for them, along with extensive 
reforms, streamlining, and updating of their structure and functioning. 
The Department of Agriculture's conservation programs have an 
outstanding record of success in helping America's farmers and ranchers 
produce an abundant supply of food, fiber, and fuel, while conserving 
and protecting our Nation's soil, water, wildlife, and other natural 
resources. Again, I very much regret that budget circumstances have 
imposed spending reductions in the conservation title of this bill. 
There is far more conservation work to be done and demand for USDA 
conservation assistance than can be met with existing levels of 
funding. But, as I have noted, these funding reductions are the reality 
for the crafting of this bill.
  In the past two farm bills, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, I made a very strong push for strengthening the full range 
of USDA conservation programs and for increasing funding to respond to 
the need and demand for conservation assistance to farmers and ranchers 
across our Nation. In the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, we very 
substantially increased our Federal investment in agricultural 
conservation, building upon successes in preceding farm bills, 
especially owing to the leadership of the former chairmen of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee, Senator Leahy and Senator Lugar.
  For many years, I have emphasized the necessity of promoting and 
assisting sound conservation practices on land in agricultural 
production, often referred to as ``working lands''. Agricultural 
producers are striving to produce much more food in the coming decades 
to nourish billions more inhabitants of the the Earth. If we hope to 
produce more and more food in the coming years, it is critical to 
conserve the underlying resources that support agricultural production.
  My objective has been to enact and invest in programs that compensate 
and assist agricultural producers for their costs, foregone income, and 
environmental benefits associated with adopting and maintaining 
practices that protect and sustain soil, water, wildlife, and other 
resources. In the 1990 farm bill, the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
and Trade Act, we included the Agricultural Water Quality Incentives 
Program, which I had authored, to provide incentive and cost share 
payments for practices addressing water quality issues in agricultural 
production.
  In the 1996, 2002, and 2008 farm bills, we substantially expanded and 
improved conservation programs covering land in agricultural 
production. I am especially proud of the Conservation Stewardship 
Program, CSP, which I authored and worked successfully to include in 
the 2002 farm bill, where it was then named the Conservation Security 
Program. CSP now has enrolled nearly 50 million acres of agricultural 
land across our Nation, including crop land, pasture land, range land, 
and forest land.
  CSP and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, both 
focus on promoting and supporting conservation on land that is in 
agricultural production. They are not land-idling programs. 
Agricultural producers voluntarily enroll in CSP and EQIP because they 
are committed to good stewardship and these programs help them fulfill 
that commitment. CSP and EQIP also help farmers and ranchers to take 
voluntary action to solve environmental and conservation challenges and 
thereby avoid regulations. Participants in both programs contribute 
their own money, time, and effort, so the Federal funds leverage a 
significant amount of added private money. The level of interest in and 
demand for both EQIP and CSP greatly exceeds the funding now available 
and that which is provided in this bill.
  To be clear, America's farmers and ranchers have done a tremendous 
amount of excellent conservation work. Even so, they know that a good 
deal more conservation work is needed, and they are dedicated to 
carrying it out. Providing them assistance through the several USDA 
conservation programs included in this farm bill is a tremendously 
important investment in conserving and protecting our Nation's vital 
natural resources for future generations.

[[Page S4396]]

  This agriculture and food legislation also continues, with reforms 
and spending reductions, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, 
SNAP, and related programs that help low-income families put food on 
their tables. No title of this bill is more critical to those who rely 
upon its benefits, nor is any title more important to our Nation in 
meeting our responsibilities to our fellow citizens. We hear criticisms 
of Federal nutrition assistance, but let us not forget that the vast 
majority of Americans who receive this help are children, seniors, 
people with disabilities, or working families. Indeed, recent years 
have shown how vitally important SNAP and related nutrition assistance 
are to enabling working families and especially the children in these 
families avoid hunger and malnutrition.
  The reforms in this bill reduce Federal spending by limiting 
eligibility and benefits. I regret that our budget circumstances have 
led to this outcome, but again I give credit to Senator Stabenow and 
Senator Roberts for holding these cuts to nutrition to much lower 
levels than other proposals that have been made, including the budget 
resolution adopted in the House of Representatives. It is also 
gratifying that this body has in recent days rejected several 
amendments that would have drastically reduced food assistance for the 
most vulnerable Americans.
  Because the nutrition title in this bill is responsibly and carefully 
crafted, it continues important reforms and improvements that I am 
proud we were able to enact in the most recent two farm bills. In the 
2002 legislation we restored certain benefits for legal immigrants, 
restored a portion of benefits that had been cut in previous 
legislation, increased incentives for work, simplified and increased 
integrity in nutrition assistance, increased emergency food assistance, 
dedicated mandatory funding to the Farmers Market Nutrition Program, 
and adopted a pilot program I authored to provide free fresh fruits and 
vegetables to children in schools. In the 2008 bill we likewise 
included key improvements to nutrition assistance, such as further 
restoring previously cut benefits, encouraging savings by recipients, 
adopting a pilot program of incentives for healthier eating through 
SNAP, improved benefits for families with high childcare costs, 
expanded the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to a national program, 
dedicated mandatory funding for community food projects, increased 
mandatory funding for the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, 
allowed a preference for purchasing locally produced food for child 
nutrition programs, and dedicated mandatory funds to the Farmers Market 
Promotion Program.
  To promote energy efficiency on farms and in rural businesses and the 
production and use of renewable energy and biobased products, this 
legislation extends, improves, and strengthens programs in the energy 
title in the 2002 and 2008 farm bill. I am proud to have included the 
first farm bill energy title in the 2002 legislation, to strengthen and 
expand the energy title in the 2008 bill, and to continue the energy 
title as a prominent part of this bill. And thanks to the cooperation 
of Senators Stabenow, Roberts, Lugar, and Conrad, we were able to 
dedicate about $800 million in new funding to these critical energy 
initiatives in the bill reported from the Agriculture Committee.
  In March of this year, I introduced S. 2270, the Rural Energy 
Investment Act of 2012, in order to extend the programs in the energy 
titles of the 2002 and 2008 farm bills and to provide mandatory funding 
for the energy title of this new farm bill. So I am very pleased that 
it includes a strong energy title and dedicates mandatory funding to 
it.
  The bill continues the requirement I authored and we enacted in the 
2002 farm bill for Federal departments and agencies to purchase 
biobased products and to create a ``BioPreferred'' labeling program to 
encourage private markets for biobased products. Also included in this 
bill are grants to assist pilot-scale biorefineries and loan guarantees 
for commercial biorefineries.
  This bill appropriately continues the Biomass Research and 
Development Program, which is a joint initiative of USDA and the 
Department of Energy that awards grants for research on the full 
spectrum of bioenergy supply chains, from biomass feedstock development 
and production, to harvesting and handling, to biomass processing and 
fuels or products manufacturing.
  The Rural Energy for America Program, REAP, the most popular program 
in the energy title because it provides direct financial support to 
many farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses for rural energy 
systems or energy efficiency projects, is also continued. And this bill 
extends the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, BCAP, that supports 
establishment of biomass crops for bioenergy use and provides cost-
share payments for harvest and delivery of biomass to user facilities 
in the initial years.
  I am also very pleased that the bill continues, improves, and 
strengthens a number of initiatives that we included in previous farm 
bills to assist and promote opportunities for farmers and good 
nutrition for consumers through farmers markets and increased local 
production and marketing of food.
  In this bill, the Farmers Market Promotion Program is renamed as the 
Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program, and it provides 
competitively awarded USDA grants to improve and expand farmers 
markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture marketing, 
and other direct producer-to-consumer marketing, including funding for 
mobile electronic benefits transfer technology. The grants may also be 
used to help develop local systems focused on serving low-income 
communities. This bill increases the mandatory funding dedicated to the 
program to a total of $100 million.
  The bill also extends and increases funding for community food 
projects through grants to nonprofit organizations to be used in 
improving access to healthy, nutritious food in communities, which can 
include assistance to farmers markets and other local food marketing 
systems. We included $5 million a year in mandatory funding in the 2008 
farm bill, and this bill doubles that to $10 million a year.
  For the Hunger Free Communities Initiative, the bill dedicates $100 
million in new mandatory funding for incentive grants to support 
increased purchase of fruits and vegetables by families participating 
in SNAP in underserved communities.
  To help farmers cover the cost of obtaining certification as 
qualified organic producers, the bill includes an increased level of 
mandatory funding, and it continues and funds the organic research and 
extension initiative. Also continued are the program of block grants to 
the States to assist fruit, vegetable, and horticulture crop producers 
and a special program supporting research projects focused on helping 
these producers. The bill continues the initiative I was pleased to 
include in the 2008 farm bill to provide cost-share assistance through 
EQIP to farmers who are making the transition to organic food 
production.
  Mr. President, these are only some of the important features in this 
new farm bill. It is a strong bill, with substantial reforms and 
continued progress toward improved food, agriculture, conservation, 
energy, and rural policies for our Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of S. 
3240, as amended.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their 
patience and for supporting this bipartisan effort on the agriculture 
reform, food, and jobs bill.
  I thank Senator Reid for his incredible patience and willingness to 
give us this time, and the Republican leader for joining in that effort 
as well. I especially thank my ranking member Senator Roberts for long 
hours and hard work on this bill to get to this point. It has been 
truly a partnership. Senator Roberts is my friend and my partner in 
this effort, and I am very grateful.
  I have said all along in this debate that there are 16 million people 
in this country whose jobs depend on the strength of the American 
agricultural economy and our food systems. The agriculture reform bill 
is about standing up for our Nation's farmers, our small businesses, 
our manufacturers, our exporters, and others whose livelihood depends 
on us getting the policy right.

[[Page S4397]]

  This represents significant reform. It cuts subsidies, it cuts the 
deficit, and it creates jobs. We are ending direct payments and three 
other subsidy programs that pay farmers regardless of losses or whether 
they are even planting a particular crop. We are putting in place the 
most significant payment reforms ever.
  I thank Senator Grassley for his tenacity and Senator Johnson for his 
partnership in that effort as well. We are cutting Federal spending by 
$23 billion by streamlining and consolidating programs. Therefore, we 
are going to have an opportunity to vote on $23 billion in deficit 
reduction--probably the only opportunity to vote on debt reduction in a 
bipartisan way on the floor of the Senate in the next number of months.
  We are eliminating more than 100 authorization programs and 
streamlining others, strengthening crop insurance, consolidating 
conservation programs and innovative energy programs, and we are 
continuing the critical work around nutrition to give temporary help to 
families who have fallen on hard times. We are also creating more 
opportunities for families to buy healthy, local food and the 
opportunity to put fresh fruits and vegetables in our schools and on 
our tables.
  Agriculture is one of the few parts of our economy where we are 
running a trade surplus, and we need to recognize it is also a job 
creator. The men and women who work hard from sunrise to sunset to give 
us the bounty of safe, nutritious food that we put on our tables 
deserve the certainty of this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on 
a very important bipartisan effort and yes to the 16 million men and 
women who bring us the safest, most affordable, most reliable food 
system in the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, when you go back home or if you conduct 
a press conference or if you have any contact with anybody about what 
we are doing here in Washington, the No. 1 question is: Why can't you 
all get along? Why can't you quit pointing fingers of blame? Why can't 
you end the rhetoric? Why can't you work together? Why can't you get 
something done?
  We knew we had something special when we had a farm bill and the 
current farm bill was going to expire and you would go back to a farm 
bill that nobody wanted, or the 1949 act, which is ridiculous, and that 
we had to move. Farmers and ranchers and their lenders and everybody 
concerned with agribusiness knew we had to have a farm bill.
  We went to work and we got a 16-to-5 vote out of committee, it was 
bipartisan, and we did it in 4\1/2\ hours. That set a record. I don't 
know of any time where in an Agriculture Committee, House or Senate, 
that it has been moved in 4\1/2\ hours.
  Now 2\1/2\ days, with 73 amendments, opening it up to everybody 
regardless of circumstance, regardless if they voted for the bill or 
not? That is what we have accomplished--2\1/2\ days, 73 amendments. It 
is what can happen if we break the logjam of partisanship and work 
together to get something done. A tremendous amount of credit goes to 
the leadership of the Senator from Michigan. I feel very privileged to 
have worked with her and to work with her staff. They have been like 
Musketeers, every night, every morning, meeting: What can we do; how 
can we fix this?
  It has worked. So after 2\1/2\ days and 73 amendments I thank you all 
for your patience. If anybody did not get an amendment, I am terribly 
sorry, I don't know how I missed you; consequently, on that side as 
well.
  Let me say again, $23 billion provided in deficit reduction through 
reduced mandatory spending. The chairwoman is right, this is probably 
the only time on the Senate floor we will actually have a reduction in 
Federal spending and make our deficit contribution.
  This is a good bill. Is it the best possible bill? No, it is the best 
bill possible. We should move it and we should vote for it. I urge you 
to vote for it.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the Republican leader and I have spoken 
privately. We would be remiss if we did not say something to the entire 
Senate about how we feel about this bill and the leadership that was 
shown by these two fine Senators. Also behind the scenes--we know how 
hard they worked to get where we are--we have had such good staff 
involved. These staff people are not fighting with each other. They 
have causes they are trying to protect for their Members but they do it 
in a way that is cordial. There has been nothing but courtesy shown for 
weeks.
  I have managed quite a few bills in my day. This is a difficult bill 
to have in the position we have it in now. I hope our friends in the 
House see what we have done. We are working together. I know they can. 
I cannot say enough--although I will try--to applaud and compliment 
Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts. They are both my friends but my 
view of them has risen appreciably in their legislative methods of 
getting this done.
  They have done it on their own. Senator McConnell and I have done 
what we can, but we have been bystanders to much that has gone on. It 
has been the work of these two fine Senators and the cooperation of 
every Member. I am grateful we are at the point where we are today--2 
o'clock. We are going to be able to finish this bill and it is 2 
o'clock in the afternoon, not in the morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me echo the remarks of my good friend. This bill 
has been handled in a way entirely consistent with the norms and 
traditions of the Senate. Members have had an opportunity to express 
themselves in a whole variety of ways, both relevant to the amendments 
and a few not relevant to the amendments. Senator Stabenow and Senator 
Roberts have worked together very skillfully. This is one of the finest 
moments in the Senate in recent times in terms of how you pass a bill.
  I think we are all feeling good about the way this has been handled. 
I think we are moving back in the direction of operating the Senate in 
a way that we sort of traditionally understood we were going to operate 
the Senate.
  I also thank my good friend, the majority leader. I think this has 
been a good cooperative effort, to have a process that respects the 
traditions of the Senate. This is a very fine day in the recent history 
of the Senate. Again, my congratulations to the chairman of the 
committee and the ranking member. They did a fabulous job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? All time is yielded back?
  The question is on passage of the bill, subject to a 60-vote 
threshold.
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]

                                YEAS--64

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hoeven
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Ayotte
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Paul

[[Page S4398]]


     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kirk
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for passage of the bill, the bill (S. 3240), as amended, is passed.
  The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and 
Jobs Act, or the 2012 farm bill, represents the most significant reform 
of U.S. agriculture in decades. This bill is the product of many months 
of policy discussions and late night deliberations guided by the steady 
leadership of Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts. I commend 
their efforts in successfully navigating this bill. All Americans stand 
to benefit from their hard work and commitment to reform agriculture 
policy and strengthen our rural communities.
  There is a reason why people across the country--farmers and business 
owners, faith leaders and county commissioners--have been paying 
attention to what we are doing.
  This bill benefits all Americans, including in Ohio, where 1 in 7 
jobs is related to the food and agriculture sector. From making the 
farm safety net more fiscally responsible, ensuring communities have 
access to broadband, protecting nutrition and conservation programs, to 
strengthening initiatives for healthy, nutritious food--this 
legislation touches all Ohioans.
  Also, at a time where there is too much gridlock, this bill is a 
welcome change.
  Many thanks to Leader Reid and Senator McConnell for their patience, 
their cooperation, and for allowing time for proper consideration of 
the farm bill.
  Many of the policies I proposed as legislation and worked to include 
in this farm bill were made at the suggestion of Ohioans. Traveling 
across the State on my ``Grown in Ohio'' listening tour, I learned what 
is working and what needs to be changed from people whose primary job 
is to grow our food, feed the hungry, and run small businesses and 
small towns. Thanks to the many Ohioans who have shared their opinions, 
ideas, and provided feedback over the past several months. This farm 
bill is better because of their involvement.
  This legislation would not have been possible without the dedicated 
work of the Senate Agriculture Committee's leadership of Chairwoman 
Stabenow, Ranking Member Roberts, and that of its members. In 
particular, I enjoyed the opportunity to work with a number of my 
Agriculture Committee colleagues. Their willingness to reach across 
party lines ensured that this bill had a much-needed dose of Midwestern 
pragmatism. I would like to thank Senators Thune and Grassley, as well 
as Senators Harkin, Nelson, Lugar, Johanns, Klobuchar, and Casey. Their 
continual engagement in the farm bill process has made a stronger 
product and I am grateful for their efforts.
  The 2012 farm bill has been many months in the making and was made 
possible by the work of Senate staff, often in a bipartisan manner. 
Mike Seyfert, Joel Leftwich, and Tara Smith of Ranking Member Roberts' 
staff were invaluable resources in this process, as well as Jared Hill 
for Senator Grassley and Lynn Tjeerdsma with Senator Thune, whose work 
with my staff was indispensable.
  I was continually impressed with the open and collaborative nature of 
Senator Stabenow's staff. This farm bill was written in a unique and 
challenging process--all of which made the efforts by Chris Adamo, 
Jonathan Coppess, Joe Shultz, Tina May, Brandon McBride, Jacklyn 
Schneider and others to remain engaged and open to suggestions all the 
more invaluable. Their hard work has not gone unnoticed.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 3240, 
legislation to reauthorize the farm bill. It is important to reflect on 
the process and the debate we just had, as well as consider the final 
product. First, I wish to commend Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking 
Member Roberts for their diligent efforts in bringing this bill to the 
Senate floor for consideration and debate. It is no small achievement 
and there have been countless hours expended by Members and staff on 
this very important effort. However, in spite of this, as I weigh the 
bill and its impact on the State of Georgia and the Southeast, I am 
truly disappointed that I am not able to support it.
  This bill does include significant reform with the elimination of 
direct payments and it makes several improvements to crop insurance. I 
have always been an advocate of risk management delivered through the 
private sector. However, the bill establishs a one-size-fits-all 
program rather than recognizing the limitations of crop insurance for 
certain regions of the country, namely, the Southeast, and whether the 
new commodity title program, the Agriculture Risk Coverage, ARC, 
program can work as a safety net for crops other than corn and 
soybeans. Leaving producers without an effective safety net provides 
very little protection and certainty for those outside of the Midwest.
  A good idea often stumbles by asking it to do too much. Crop 
insurance is a tool that addresses risk in an individual crop year. It 
does not work as a safety net by insuring against multiple-year price 
declines. This is simply beyond its design and capabilities. Crop 
insurance is a critical part of a producer's risk management program, 
but it is not a cure-all to a commodity market that can expand and 
contract based on the vagaries of weather, disease, and international 
events. That is why farm policy in the past encouraged programs such as 
the marketing loan and the countercyclical program to work with, not in 
competition, to crop insurance.
  This week we have had the opportunity to debate and improve the bill. 
We made some important changes, but it still lacks the balance I have 
advocated for the past several weeks. It is still my hope to support 
the bill at the end of the legislative process. Perhaps after action by 
the House of Representatives and a conference of the two Chambers, we 
will see the changes necessary to gain my support.
  Chairwoman Stabenow has assured me on several occasions that my 
concerns will be addressed and I know she will keep her commitment. I 
would rather have dealt with the issues during the Senate debate, but 
that was not possible.
  We must remember that the farm bill should help farmers and ranchers 
manage a combination of challenges--much out of their own control. We 
must also remember that the farm bill is not an entitlement for any one 
region or any one commodity. Policymakers must remember that the bill 
needs to serve all producers in all parts of the country equitably and 
effectively. To fail in this endeavor means we as legislators have 
failed to produce a bill worthy of the people we represent. I am proud 
of the work we did on the 2008 farm bill and its ability to provide a 
strong safety net program for producers. I am confident that the next 
farm bill will adhere and honor that same commitment we made 4 years 
ago.
  While I could not support the bill in front of us, I look forward to 
working with my colleagues in the weeks and months ahead.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate today 
passed the Farm bill. This is bipartisan legislation that is critical 
to all Americans--from the farmers who grow our food, to the consumers 
who purchase that food, to kids who get school lunches, and to the 
neediest in our Nation who deserve access to adequate nutrition. I 
especially want to commend Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts for 
their yeoman bipartisan work to craft this important legislation.
  As Senator Stabenow has so eloquently put it time and again, this 
bill is a jobs bill. One in every 12 American jobs is tied to 
agriculture and this legislation represents an opportunity to create 
more jobs.
  In my home State of Oregon, agriculture is now more than a $5 billion 
a year industry and it reflects a wide array of crops, mirroring the 
diversity in America's agriculture.
  As I like to say, Oregonians do a lot of thing well, but what we do 
best is

[[Page S4399]]

grow things and add value to those things. This bill has a lot in it to 
help Oregonians do that even better and in turn create more 
opportunities to sell those products better locally, nationally and 
abroad.
  I was particularly pleased to have been successful in adding two 
amendments to the Farm bill. These are amendments to make it easier to 
provide healthier foods for children in schools and to help address the 
problem of hunger in our country.
  One of my amendments would for the first time test out direct farm-
to-school approaches to provide healthier foods for children in our 
schools. It will do this through a competitive pilot program with at 
least five farm-to-school demonstration projects in all regions in the 
country.
  While there are currently some farm to school programs in place, it's 
a patchwork system and, according to the Agriculture Department's own 
Economic Research Service, ``data and analysis of farm to school 
programs are scare.'' This pilot program will fill in the information 
void about what works and what doesn't, and it will provide a way to 
improve and replace ineffective programs.
  What is more, under these demonstration projects, innovative States 
and school districts will truly be able source fresh, high-quality 
local produce for our schoolchildren to enjoy. No more having to 
purchase faraway food from a Federal warehouse hundreds of miles away 
when there is healthy food just down the road.
  Under my amendment, schools win. Farmers win. And most importantly, 
our children get to enjoy the delicious, local produce that they should 
be able to enjoy--every day--for breakfast, or for lunch, or for a 
snack. That is why the American Academy of Pediatrics the Nation's 
pediatricians supported my no cost farm-to-school amendment.
  With the adoption of this amendment, it will be easier for delicious 
pears, cherries, and other healthy produce, grown just a few miles down 
the road, to make it into our schools.
  Schools and school food authorities from all over the country with 
innovative ideas can now begin drawing up novel plans of action to 
purchase fresh, local produce for their kids.
  New ideas will come forth, and the existing farm-to-school 
infrastructure will improve as new and better distribution models begin 
to emerge.
  I am heartened that the farm-to-school movement has truly become 
national in scope, as more people recognize both the health and 
economic benefits that derive from these efforts. My amendment will 
make this movement not only bigger but better.
  I thank Senator Stabenow and her staff for working with me on this 
amendment and helping me get this passed.
  Fewer folks will be hungry thanks to the Senate's passage of my 
microloan for gleaners amendment.
  These gleaners are mostly volunteers who collect food from grocery 
stores, restaurants, and farms--food that would otherwise be wasted--
and distribute it to agencies or nonprofit organizations that feed it 
to the hungry.
  These good Samaritans who save food from being tossed into landfills 
or burned in incinerators will finally be able to access the capital 
they deserve to expand and improve their operations.
  At a time when food waste is the single largest category of waste in 
our local landfills--more than 34 million tons of food, even a portion 
of that wasted food could feed a lot of people. By redistributing food 
that would otherwise go to waste to the hungry--again, without spending 
extra taxpayer money--we can do more to ensure that this unwanted food 
is used to tackle hunger in America.
  Instead of burning this food in incinerators, gleaners can help more 
people in need burn this food as calories.
  This is just one more step in the right direction to help alleviate 
food insecurity in our country.
  I again thank Senator Stabenow and her staff for their assistance in 
getting this amendment passed. It will provide real help to a group of 
selfless folks that are trying to bring some commonsense solutions to 
the hunger crisis.
  As happy as I was to get the Farm Bill passed and get these 
amendments included, an opportunity to encourage healthier eating by 
recipients of SNAP benefits--what was previously known as food stamps--
was unfortunately not able to come up for a vote.
  This is disappointing. Not disappointing for me, but for the millions 
of SNAP beneficiaries, public health officials, and others who know we 
can do better to encourage healthier eating and increase consumption of 
healthy fruits and vegetables.
  The existing waiver authority for SNAP is extremely restrictive and 
has resulted in a number of innovative State proposals being denied. It 
makes no sense to continue to stifle innovation and progress when it 
comes to incentivizing beneficiaries to eat healthier.
  I will continue to push for ways to promote healthier eating through 
the SNAP program, given that it will improve public health, increase 
the consumption of healthy food, boost local farmers' incomes, and give 
taxpayers the confidence that their tax dollars are being spent on food 
that is really food.
  I was also very disappointed that my amendment to legalize industrial 
hemp was also not granted a vote.
  I firmly believe that American farmers should not be denied an 
opportunity to grow and sell a legitimate crop simply because it 
resembles an illegal one.
  I fought for an amendment that would have recognized industrial hemp 
as a legitimate crop, but since doing so requires amending the 
Controlled Substances Act it was considered non-germane to the current 
debate and could not be brought up for a vote.
  However, just my raising this issue has sparked a growing awareness 
of exactly how ridiculous the U.S.'s ban on industrial hemp is and I 
feel that important progress was made in advancing this dialogue.
  I am confident that if grassroots support continues to grow and 
Members of Congress continue to hear from voters, then commonsense hemp 
legislation can move through Congress in the near future.
  I plan to continue to keep fighting for this and hope to reintroduce 
this as a stand-alone bill.
  I also want to raise concerns with language that was passed in the 
bill that amended the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. It is my hope 
that this issue will still be addressed in conference. I understand 
Senator Bennet made remarks expressing that same desire.
  The language in the forestry title of the Farm bill amended an Act 
which I played a key role in helping pass originally in the Senate a 
decade ago.
  As part of efforts to pass that legislation, which streamlined 
National Environmental Policy Act requirements, as well as appeals and 
judicial review, a carefully balanced compromise was reached. 
Environmental protections and clear limitations for appropriate places 
for the use of that authority were enacted as part of that legislation.
  The language in the Farm Bill creates a sweeping new authority to use 
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act for areas potentially threatened 
with insect or disease infestations but fails to include any of the 
environmental protections or clear limitations in the original 
legislation. Additional, the way those areas that are threatened by 
insects and disease are defined is very broad.
  I worked very hard with several of my colleagues to try to reach a 
compromise. It is my hope that given a little more time, we will be 
able to reach a compromise before a final Farm Bill becomes law.
  I hope we will have a chance to perfect this language to address 
these concerns as the bill goes to conference.
  Lastly, I want to touch the labeling of genetically modified foods.
  I have always believed that consumers benefit from having more 
information about the food they consume, and that is why I supported an 
amendment offered by Senator Sanders regarding the labeling of such 
foods. However, I continue to believe that the most realistic way to 
improve consumer information about genetically modified foods is to 
take a national approach and I will continue to work towards that goal. 
That is why I cosponsored Senator Begich's legislation to ensure that 
genetically modified fish are labeled.
  In sum, I again want to reiterate my strong support for the Farm Bill 
passed

[[Page S4400]]

in the Senate and my great pleasure at having successfully gotten two 
amendments into this bill.
  I raised several additional issues and it is my hope that there will 
be continued opportunities to address these issues going forward.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________