[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 71 (Monday, May 20, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3591-S3597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2013

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of S. 954, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 954) to reauthorize agriculture programs through 
     2018.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I wish to thank our majority leader, 
Republican leader, and all the Members for allowing us in the Senate to 
move forward today on this very important bill. I want to thank my 
ranking member Senator Thad Cochran for his friendship and his 
leadership. I want to thank all of the members of the committee for 
working together to write this important legislation. Also, I want to 
thank our staffs on both sides of the aisle. We have excellent staffs 
who have worked together, and I know we will continue to work together 
as we move this legislation through.
  Our bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, is 
critical to the 16 million Americans whose jobs rely on a strong 
agricultural economy. Agriculture has been one of the bright spots as 
our economy is getting back on track. In fact, it is one of the few 
areas where we actually have a trade surplus, where we are exporting 
more than we are importing. This means jobs for us in America.
  The farm bill is a jobs bill. It is a jobs bill, a trade bill, a 
reform bill, a conservation bill, and it is a kitchen table bill. 
Thanks to the farm bill, families all across America will sit down 
around a table tonight and enjoy the bounty of the world's safest, most 
abundant, and most affordable food supply. Those who need temporary 
help to feed their families during an economic crisis will get help as 
well. This is a bill that reflects our best values as Americans.
  It is easy to take agriculture for granted. It is easy for many of us 
to forget the food we eat doesn't come from the supermarket, as some 
folks may think. The food we eat comes from the skill and the efforts 
of the men and women who work hard from sunrise to sunset, day in and 
day out, to put food on our tables. Too often I believe we take them 
for granted as well. Most of us don't have to worry about how many days 
it has been since the last rainfall or whether it is going to freeze in 
May after the fruit trees are blooming. Most of us don't have to worry 
about decisions and weather conditions around the world and how they 
affect our livelihood here at home.
  That is why we have what we call the farm bill. We have a farm bill 
because farmers are in the riskiest business in the world. We saw that 
last year as our country was in the grip of the worst drought in 
generations. We saw this as ranchers had to cull their herds because 
they couldn't get enough food or water for their cattle. We saw all 
across the country that farmers lost their crops in late spring freezes 
that wiped out cherry and apple crops in Michigan and other parts of 
the country. That is why the top goal of the agriculture reform bill is 
risk management. We are reforming farm programs, ending direct payments 
and other subsidies that have no relationship to risk and instead 
giving farmers market-based risk management tools. That is the hallmark 
of this farm bill.
  We want to make sure a farm that has been passed on for generations 
doesn't face bankruptcy because of a drought or other events outside 
the farmer's control. We also want to make sure that when there is a 
drought we are conserving our precious soil and water resources. When 
it comes to conservation, the farm bill is risk management for the 
whole country. Conservation programs in the farm bill make sure our 
soil doesn't blow away and our waters aren't polluted by runoff.
  In many parts of the country last year we had a drought that was 
worse than the Dust Bowl, but we didn't have a dust bowl. We didn't 
have out-of-control erosion, and that is because the farm bill did what 
it was supposed to do in conservation. Soil stayed on the ground. It is 
easy to take that for granted as well.
  The farm bill is our country's largest investment in land and water 
conservation on private lands, and the farm bill gives farmers tools to 
strengthen wildlife habitat. I had the opportunity this weekend, with 
my gracious host, the Senator from Mississippi, to visit a wildlife 
preserve program and wetlands preserve program, and Senator Cochran is 
responsible for those parts of the farm bill. We had an opportunity to 
go out on a beautiful piece of flat land in the Mississippi delta and 
see where ducks were coming back, quail were coming back, and habitat 
was beginning to flourish because of efforts to support these important 
resources for the future. The farmer involved in the property said he 
felt he was in partnership with the USDA and making a commitment for 
his children and future generations through conservation. This is a 
real source of pride for us as we look at this 5-year farm bill.
  I am pleased the bill before us includes a new historic agreement 
between conservation groups and commodity groups around conservation 
and crop insurance. These folks from very different perspectives sat 
down together, listened to one another, and worked out an agreement 
that will preserve land and water resources for generations to come.
  The farm bill helps farmers improve 1.9 million acres of land for 
wildlife habitat. Healthy wildlife habitat and clean fishable waters 
are not only good for our environment but they also support hunting, 
fishing, and all the other great outdoor recreation which benefits our 
economy and creates jobs. We just plain have fun doing it in Michigan. 
In fact, outdoor recreation supports over 6 million jobs alone. That is 
a big deal.
  We also continue our support for specialty crops, fruits, vegetables, 
and those crops that make up about half of the cash receipts of our 
country. Organic agriculture is a growing part of agriculture. We 
expand farmers markets in local food hubs to encourage schools and 
businesses to support their local farmers by purchasing locally grown 
food and creating more local jobs. We expand the availability of fresh 
fruits and vegetables that are so essential in schools and community 
food programs.
  We also strengthen rural development financing for small businesses. 
Once you get outside of the cities in Michigan and all across our 
country, every single community in Michigan, outside of our big cities, 
gets support for jobs through something we call rural development, 
financing for small businesses, for water and sewer projects, road 
projects, housing efforts for families, a whole wide variety of things 
we do through this economic arm in the USDA called rural development.

[[Page S3592]]

  We also expand the energy title to encourage support for new jobs in 
biobased manufacturing, which is an exciting new effort. In addition to 
biofuels, we now can use agricultural products and byproducts to 
replace petroleum and other chemicals in manufacturing. There is a huge 
new opportunity for jobs, as well as supporting our environment by 
doing these things. There is no doubt that the farm bill is a jobs 
bill.
  This bill also continues to focus on the issue that has taken so much 
of our time this year, last year, and the year before, and that is 
cutting the deficit and getting our Nation's fiscal house back in 
order. We get rid of unnecessary subsidies such as the Direct Payment 
Program that sends a check to folks regardless of whether they are even 
farming a particular crop anymore, streamlining programs to cut 
redtape, and cracking down on fraud and abuse. In fact, we eliminate 
over 100 different programs or authorizations that either were 
duplicating something else or didn't make sense to do anymore. I think 
that is the way we ought to be cutting spending and creating savings.
  Altogether, including the cuts that took effect already this year, we 
are able to cut spending by about $24 billion. That is more than double 
the cuts proposed by the Simpson-Bowles Commission and last year's Gang 
of Six that worked on deficit reduction. And I want to underscore that 
this is four times--four times--more than is required by the arbitrary 
across-the-board sequestration cuts. So we in agriculture take a back 
seat to no one in our commitment to doing our part in making tough 
decisions and setting priorities to reduce the deficit.

  This bill represents the most significant reform of American 
agriculture in decades, in my judgment. We are putting caps on payments 
to farmers and closing loopholes that allowed people who were not 
actually farming to receive payments. We are strengthening crop 
insurance, which we heard from farmers was the No. 1 risk management 
tool for them. It is important we strengthen it and protect it as we 
move through this process.
  The agriculture reform bill includes disaster assistance for our 
ranchers and farmers as well who cannot receive crop insurance--
livestock owners and others in areas that cannot receive crop 
insurance.
  We made sure our food assistance programs are accountable, that there 
is integrity in our programs, so we continue to build on the integrity 
that is already there by cracking down on abuses and misuse. We made 
sure our changes would not remove one single needy family. It is not 
about hurting folks, it is about making sure there is not abuse, and 
that is what we address.
  Let me say when we look at crop insurance, it is there for disasters 
for our farmers, and it goes up when there are a lot of disasters. That 
is when there is cost. Then it goes down when things are going better, 
and it is the same for food assistance for families. Costs go up during 
bad times, as we have seen over the last number of years, but now CBO 
tells us those costs are going down. Why? Because the economy is 
getting better and people are able to go back to work. That is how it 
is supposed to work, and that is how it is working.
  Last year we in the Senate passed a farm bill with strong bipartisan 
support. We didn't take the 16 million Americans who work in 
agriculture for granted, we didn't take our land and water resources 
for granted, and we stood for families all across the country who had 
fallen on hard times.
  Unfortunately, at that time the House of Representatives did not 
follow our lead. They allowed the farm bill to expire at the end of 
last year, which is why we are here again working through this process.
  I appreciate the way we have gotten to this point in a bipartisan 
way. We have worked very hard to make sure every part of agriculture is 
addressed in terms of their needs and the risk management tools in this 
bill.
  I thank my colleague from Mississippi Senator Cochran, who is the 
ranking member of our committee. He and his staff have worked 
diligently and in a bipartisan way, and that has allowed us to get to 
this point. So I thank him for that.
  I am looking forward to working with colleagues to pass this bill as 
soon as possible, and we look forward to working with colleagues on 
amendments throughout this week.
  I see my distinguished colleague, our ranking member, is here, and I 
will turn to him in just a moment. I do want to place one amendment in 
order at this point, and then we can proceed with our discussions. This 
is an amendment we have cleared on both sides on behalf of Senator 
Cantwell.


                           Amendment No. 919

  Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 919.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for Ms. Cantwell, 
     proposes an amendment No. 919.

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

  (Purpose: To allow Indian tribes to participate in certain soil and 
                      water conservation programs)

       At the end of subtitle F of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 25___. SOIL AND WATER RESOURCE CONSERVATION.

       (a) Congressional Policy and Declaration of Purpose.--
     Section 4 of the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 
     1977 (16 U.S.C. 2003) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by inserting ``and tribal'' after 
     ``State'' each place it appears; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting ``, tribal,'' after 
     ``State''.
       (b) Continuing Appraisal of Soil, Water, and Related 
     Resources.--Section 5 of the Soil and Water Resources 
     Conservation Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 2004) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(4), by striking ``and State'' and 
     inserting ``, State, and tribal'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``, tribal'' after 
     ``State'' each place it appears; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``State soil'' and inserting ``State and 
     tribal soil''; and
       (B) by striking ``local'' and inserting ``local, tribal,''.
       (c) Soil and Water Conservation Program.--Section 6(a) of 
     the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (16 
     U.S.C. 2005(a)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, tribal'' after ``State'' each place it 
     appears; and
       (2) by inserting ``, tribal,'' after ``private''.
       (d) Utilization of Available Information and Data.--Section 
     9 of the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 
     (16 U.S.C. 2008) is amended by inserting ``, tribal'' after 
     ``State''.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I now take the opportunity to turn to my 
friend, a great agricultural leader in the Senate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am flattered by the kind remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan and am pleased and honored to serve 
with her on the Senate Agriculture Committee. She chairs that committee 
with a sense of responsibility for the subject matter, which is very 
important to our Nation's farmers and all consumers in America as well, 
but also to the fellow members of our committee--Republicans and 
Democrats--who serve on the committee and who have worked together to 
put a bill before the Senate that continues to authorize programs of 
the Federal Government that benefit landowners and those who work to 
conserve the resources of soil and water that help nurture our great 
agricultural sector that produces a bountiful amount of fruits and 
vegetables and marketable commodities that are sold in international 
trade at competitive prices.
  It is a great success story. I am tempted to say a great American 
success story because it truly is. It is the backbone of our Nation's 
economy. So it is serious business at the same time it provides jobs, 
food to eat, grain to harvest, to export, and cotton and the fibers 
that come from it that clothe and dress millions of people in our 
Nation and around the world. So bringing this bill to the floor is a 
point of achievement, and with gratitude we point out the leadership of 
the distinguished chairman.
  We have enjoyed her strong leadership and her keen sense of awareness 
of how to manage legislation such as this and present it to the Senate, 
as she has just done, and that is quite impressive. We are very 
fortunate to have her serving in this capacity.

[[Page S3593]]

  We have recommended a bill that contains some major reforms of the 
farm programs that come within the jurisdiction of our committee. For 
example, the bill reduces authorized spending by $24 billion. It 
includes $6 billion in sequestration cuts. These represent real 
savings. We know we have been confronting a deficit crisis, a fiscal 
policy management crisis, and this bill does its part.
  With the authority it has over the law governing the subject matter, 
we have moved to eliminate direct payments to farmers, which has 
amounted in the past to $40 billion. There are reforms in this 
legislation of the crop insurance title. The bill recommends adoption 
of reforms that limit payments to producers. Conservation programs have 
been streamlined in this legislation and consolidated.
  The committee has crafted reforms in the nutrition title to eliminate 
waste, fraud, and abuse in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program. These are big challenges, and these challenges have been met 
with a recognition that there are people who need the support of 
programs such as this--schoolchildren who are attending school and 
getting the benefit of a reduced price and, in some cases, free meals 
at school. This has made major contributions to the quality of work and 
the degree and level of education that children are able to absorb and 
benefit from, and it is tied to these programs.
  The committee has dealt with conservation, as I have mentioned, the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and throughout the bill we 
see reflected a broad bipartisan level of support and an approach that 
accommodates interests represented by all the members of our committee. 
So I think we have produced, with the leadership of the chairman, a 
responsible but fair bill, and I am pleased to recommend to the Senate 
that it should approve the bill. It deserves our support.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most 
important and significant reforms of our Nation's agriculture in 
decades. The Agriculture Reform, Food, and JOBS Act of 2013, known 
around here as the farm bill, is the product of months and months of 
policy discussions and late-night deliberations, with special thanks to 
the chairman of the committee, Senator Stabenow from Michigan, and the 
ranking member, Senator Cochran of Mississippi. I thank them both for 
their good work, and also a special thanks to Katharine Ferguson in my 
office for her good work on this legislation.
  There is a reason people across the country--farmers and business 
owners, faith leaders, and county commissioners--are paying attention 
to this legislation. It is a farm bill, it is a food bill, it is a 
nutrition bill, it is an economic development bill, it is a rural 
development bill, and it is a conservation bill all in one. In my State 
one out of seven jobs is related to food and agriculture. To keep our 
economy moving forward, the farm bill must remain a priority in 
Congress.
  We did our job last year on this legislation. Unfortunately, the 
House of Representatives didn't, but I think this year it will when we 
pass overwhelmingly a similar bill to the one which passed by a vote of 
64 to 35 last year.
  The bill saves more than $20 billion while maintaining important 
investments in conservation and nutrition, renewable energy and 
agricultural research, which is so important to my State, to rural 
development, to broadband, and all that farm legislation can in fact do 
for rural development.
  In the last 2 years the Senate has considered reform bills that have 
done more than any farm bill literally in 20 years. We have eliminated 
direct payments and recoupled eligibility for crop insurance with the 
expectation that farmers do right by the land.
  The work of Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Cochran in 
committee to keep that coalition together, linking crop insurance with 
conservation, was especially important. We set tight limits on the 
amount of support any individual producer can receive.
  There is obviously more that can be done, but this bill takes 
important strides in reforming our farm program. It will increase 
efforts to improve water quality in Lake Erie--one of the five Great 
Lakes with the greatest body of fresh water anywhere in the world. It 
is even perhaps more important to the State of Michigan, the 
chairwoman's State, than even mine. It will help small towns such as 
Bryan, Bucyrus, and Bellaire make strategic economic development 
investments to jumpstart their local economies.

  The bill continues efforts to make sure all Americans have enough to 
eat and access to affordable, healthy, and fresh food.
  This is a forward-looking bill, and I was pleased to support it in 
committee and hope to work with Senate colleagues of both parties in 
the coming days to make slight improvements as it moves forward.
  The centerpiece of the bill's deficit reduction efforts is rooted in 
reform of the farm safety net. The era of direct payments made annually 
regardless of need is over.
  Across Ohio and the Nation we have heard crop insurance is the most 
important tool farmers have for managing risk, so this bill improves 
and preserves crop insurance. We know what that meant last year, 
particularly as drought hit States such as Ohio and, more severely, 
States west of my State.
  Farmers have said they want a leaner, more efficient market-oriented 
farm safety net. Taxpayers deserve that too. Last year, Senator Thune, 
a Republican from South Dakota, and Senators Durbin and Lugar and I 
proposed the Aggregate Risk and Revenue Management Program, ARRM, 
streamlining the farm safety net to make it more market oriented.
  Instead, the new Agriculture Risk Coverage Program will work with 
crop insurance to provide farmers the tools they need to manage risk--
making payments only when farmers need them most. This program is 
market oriented, relying on current data. It is more responsive to 
farmers' needs and is more responsive to taxpayers.
  The bill reforms a number of longstanding unjustifiable practices. 
For the first time this farm bill ends payments to landowners who have 
nothing to do with farm management. It ends payments to millionaires 
and puts a firm cap on how much support any farmer can receive from the 
direct farm support programs each year. This so-called conservation 
compliance provision reflects a landmark agreement put forward by a 
number of key commodity and conservation interests and stakeholders.
  People who are going to receive federally subsidized crop insurance 
need to show they are meeting basic conservation requirements. Again, 
the days of subsidies without conditions and subsidies without 
responsibility are over. It is an example of what can happen when 
groups with different perspectives--the commodities farmers and the 
conservationists--come together to listen to each other. By relinking 
crop insurance subsidies with good environmental practices, this bill 
makes our farm safety net more defensible and protects our natural 
resources.
  As I said, this farm bill takes great strides toward better, leaner, 
smart farm policy, but it is also a work in process. A key difference 
between this year's bill versus the one we passed last year is the 
inclusion of the Adverse Market Payments Program--the AMP Program--
that, to be candid, is something important to southern growers but not 
in line with what I believe Ohioans want to see and what I hear from 
Ohio farmers.
  I worked closely with colleagues from the middle of the country to 
make sure this AMP Program is as market-oriented as possible, but it 
was a battle not wholly won and something I want to see modified. We 
cannot have farm programs in one part of the country become more 
market-oriented while others do not.
  The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act supports farmers but also 
provide a lifesaving safety net to American families who have fallen on 
hard times. The SNAP program now serves 47 million Americans, more than 
half of whom are children and seniors. Along with unemployment 
insurance, SNAP is the primary form of assistance we provide Americans 
who have fallen on tough times. Just understand and be certain that 
many of these families are people with full-time and part-

[[Page S3594]]

time jobs who simply do not make enough money to get along.
  Some of my colleagues will point out the rapid increase in SNAP 
enrollment over the past few years. This is to be expected since it 
mirrors the downturn in the economy, the unemployment levels, and the 
fact that for 10 years most people in this country have not had a 
raise. As costs go up, it hits the lowest income people the hardest. 
That is the biggest reason people have relied on food stamps. This is 
evidence that SNAP is working. As our economy is recovering, SNAP 
enrollment will decrease.
  More telling is that today some 50 million Americans still live under 
the Federal poverty level. The number of Americans who rely on SNAP 
tells me we should not be gutting, we should not be undercutting, as a 
number of my colleagues in the House of Representatives want to do. We 
should not be cutting Federal nutrition programs. What we should be 
doing is enacting better economic policies that create jobs and reduce 
inequality and enable Americans to put food on the table without 
assistance.
  This bill cuts $4 billion from SNAP. That is already $4 billion too 
much. I appreciate the chairwoman's efforts to make that $4 billion cut 
as painless as possible in terms of benefits SNAP beneficiaries 
receive. Again, most of these--a huge number of these SNAP 
beneficiaries are in working families. A huge number of them are 
children. A huge number of them are senior citizens. It goes without 
saying that a bill with the level of the cuts to SNAP--some $20 billion 
included in the House bill--will not get my support and will not pass 
muster in the Senate.
  While we also work to preserve SNAP, we can make sure our nutrition 
programs are smarter. The farm bill makes important strides toward 
aligning our food and our farm and our economic policy. Agriculture has 
always been an important engine of economic growth. I said at the 
outset that one out of seven jobs in my State is related to agriculture 
and food. Shortening the supply chain benefits farmers and families, 
meaning that the more people eat what is grown locally, the better it 
is for the economy, the better it is for their health, and the better 
it is for the environment. It helps keep money in the local economy and 
helps build the economy, especially of rural communities in my State 
and across the country.
  This farm bill affects every American every day. It is a deficit 
reduction bill, it is a jobs bill, and it is a bipartisan economic 
relief bill. I again commend Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member 
Cochran for their work in drafting this legislation. I especially 
appreciate the staff of individual members of the committee, their 
staffs, for their work.
  I urge my colleagues to work together and break the impasse that 
keeps us from making progress on this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Before the Senator from Ohio leaves, I want to thank 
him. He has been an invaluable member of our committee. We would not 
have the agricultural risk coverage portion and the yield loss coverage 
portion in this bill were it not for his work, he and Senator Thune 
working together. We used their bill as the basis for this.
  He has also been the champion of rural development. We have 
investments in rural development we would not have had without his 
involvement, as well as other efforts in the energy title and 
throughout the bill. I thank him. We are very lucky to have him as a 
member of the committee.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the 
Feinstein-McCain amendment No. 923 and make it pending.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I just 
indicated to the Senator from Arizona that while I have no objection to 
having a vote on his amendment, I ask that he not proceed with his 
request at this time. We have an amendment that is pending, and we also 
have a number of crop insurance amendments we want to do together. I 
will not object to voting on his amendment, there is no attempt not to 
do that, but at this point I do object to having his amendment as the 
pending amendment.
  I ask my colleague through the Chair if he would be willing to work 
with us. I will commit to having a vote on his amendment. This is not 
an attempt to not vote on his amendment. The ranking member and I have 
talked, and we are certainly committed to voting on the Senator's 
amendment; however, we would like to have an opportunity to set up how 
we will be voting on a series of amendments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if I heard the Senator correctly, she 
committed to a vote on this amendment, correct?
  Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Does that mean we would vote on this early on?
  Ms. STABENOW. I don't know the exact timing of the vote. There is no 
attempt to delay. We are just getting started at this point. I will be 
happy to work with the Senator from Arizona. We are certainly not 
trying to postpone it to be the last vote. We can certainly do it 
earlier rather than later, but we would like to have some flexibility 
to look at a group of amendments we might vote on which relate to the 
same subject area.
  I believe I can speak on behalf of the ranking member in saying we 
are committed to a vote on the amendment and want to work with Senator 
McCain as to a time.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the distinguished manager.
  Since I have the floor, I would like to make a brief statement about 
the amendment. I understand the objection, and I would rely on the good 
offices of the manager of the bill, as well as the ranking member, that 
we would have a vote early on in regard to this amendment and not at 
the last minute when we are trying to complete the votes on the 
amendments to the bill.
  The amendment by Senator Feinstein and me would eliminate taxpayer-
subsidized crop insurance for tobacco. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates this amendment would save taxpayers $333 million. Again, that 
is the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.
  It might surprise Americans to know that despite efforts to end 
traditional farm subsidies for tobacco producers, government handouts 
for tobacco lives on in the form of highly subsidized crop insurance. 
Since 2004 we have spent more than $276 million on insurance subsidies 
for tobacco. This is in addition to the $10 billion financed under the 
tobacco buyout law the Congress passed a decade ago. That law was paid 
for by assessments on cigarette manufacturers, and it was meant to wean 
tobacco growers from farm subsidies by buying out their growing quotas. 
Well, it turns out that Joe Camel's nose has been under the tent all 
this time in the form of these hidden crop insurance subsidies.
  As my colleagues know, crop insurance in general has a dubious 
reputation as a ``safety net'' for farmers because it largely insures 
against revenue loss instead of crop loss due to weather or pests. 
According to the Congressional Research Service, taxpayers spend about 
$14 billion a year to subsidize about 60 percent of the cost of crop 
insurance premiums. The Federal Government also reimburses private crop 
insurance companies for about 25 percent of their ``administrative and 
operating'' costs.
  We have identified eight types of tobacco that are eligible for crop 
insurance: tobacco Maryland, tobacco flue cured, tobacco fire cured, 
tobacco dark air, tobacco cigar wrapper, tobacco cigar filler, tobacco 
cigar binder, and

[[Page S3595]]

tobacco burley. All of these crops remain extremely profitable even 
without their old farm subsidies.
  According to reports by the Wall Street Journal and CNBC, tobacco is 
10 times more profitable than corn and most American tobacco is 
exported. In fact, the value of American tobacco is at a 10-year high 
since Congress ended traditional tobacco subsidies. It makes no sense 
to subsidize tobacco insurance considering how well the free market 
system is working for tobacco producers.
  I will have a longer statement on this, Mr. President.
  Last year the eight separate tobacco insurance products cost $34.7 
million in taxpayer subsidies. The USDA--Department of Agriculture--
data shows that more than $276 million in taxpayer subsidies has been 
spent on this tobacco subsidy program since 2004.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
cigarette smoking adds $96 billion to domestic health care expenses and 
costs the American economy $97 billion in loss productivity annually. 
Secondhand smoke adds another $10 billion in health care costs and lost 
productivity.
  Clearly, we should be doing nothing to subsidize production of 
tobacco. I am not saying we should ban the growth of tobacco in 
America; that is a decision farmers and the market make. But for us to 
continue to subsidize when these enormous costs are borne by the 
American people in terms of our health and our economy--it is time we 
ended it.
  I thank the distinguished manager and ranking member for their 
commitment to having an up-or-down vote on this amendment.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment this 
afternoon to talk about the importance of crop insurance as a risk 
management tool. I think we will probably have a lot of discussion on 
the floor about crop insurance, but, as I said, as a matter of policy, 
we are moving away from direct subsidies. We certainly have not 
subsidized tobacco growers for a long time, and I would not support 
doing that.
  In general, we are moving away from that into an insurance model 
where the cost is shared between the Federal Government and growers. We 
want as many growers as possible to purchase crop insurance rather than 
have a disaster and then want us to pass a disaster assistance bill. I 
might add that we didn't have to do that this last time around despite 
the worst drought in 50, 60, 70 years because the crop insurance worked 
this last year. Crop insurance covered the losses. It is a very 
important public-private sector process and partnership.
  One of my concerns about carving it up, having limits or removing one 
crop over another is that we have been moving away from a general 
policy of insurance. Going down the road, I think that would have a lot 
of implications and farmers in general would have great concern about 
that.
  I have a tremendous amount of sympathy and, in fact, agreement with 
the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I sympathize with what my 
colleague was saying about tobacco as far as the harm to health and so 
on. When we look overall at crop insurance, the good news is that less 
than 1 percent of that whole program--I think substantially less than 1 
percent--covers tobacco, so that is a good thing.
  The larger question for farmers and all of us across the country is, 
Are we going to make a commitment broadly to the No. 1 risk management 
tool for them? Are we going to make sure that as we say we are not 
going to do subsidies anymore, we listen to what they are saying about 
having a crop insurance system?
  There are parallels between that and flood insurance. So as people 
are proposing various limits on crop insurance, I think it is important 
to ask would we put that on other types of insurance, such as flood 
insurance risks or other things. Insurance deals with risks, and it is 
more about encouraging farmers to have a stake in the game and to be 
able to cover part of that risk with their own dollars rather than 
other types of policies we have debated about subsidies.
  As we go forward, there will be a lot of different discussions about 
crop insurance, and I would ask colleagues to join with us in resisting 
efforts to eliminate or limit what is a public-private insurance system 
that is, frankly, working very well.
  We are so proud that all of the farm organizations and commodity 
groups--just about all of them--come together to work with the 
conservation groups and environmentalists. They say that together they 
are going to both support an insurance model--a risk management model 
broadly as a matter of policy for agriculture--and they are also going 
to support linking that to conservation packages. So as a farmer 
receives that partnership--the piece we kick in--with that brings a 
commitment for conservation practices for our land, our soil, our 
water, and so on.
  This is very important. This was not the case in the last farm bill 
or the farm bill before. We have not seen that kind of link, and now 
they have come together and said they support crop insurance broadly as 
an insurance model without limits that have been proposed by various 
people. In return for that, whether it is a very large farm or a small 
farm, the broad public benefit of having conservation compliance 
outweighs much of what we are hearing about in terms of the limits 
being proposed. In terms of the public good, we should have crop 
insurance that gives this alliance of crop insurance and conservation 
compliance.
  This is a historic agreement, and I stand by that agreement with all 
of the Members. I believe that whether we are talking about large 
farmers or small farmers, this is a very important policy, and we need 
to have conservation compliance involved across the board in our 
efforts as we expand crop insurance.
  We will have a lot of discussion and a lot of debate on this issue. I 
think it is very tempting to look at one particular crop--certainly a 
crop that has a lot of health risks related to it and that we have a 
lot of concerns about in other venues--and say let's just eliminate one 
crop.
  The challenge with that, of course, is as a policy for insurance, 
there will be deep opposition and concern coming from agriculture--from 
farmers, large and small, across the country--about starting down that 
road no matter how noble the cause in terms of the concern about the 
risks of that particular crop. So we look forward to more discussion, 
but I think it is very important to put a broad lens on this. We have 
moved away from subsidies that come regardless of good times or bad, 
whether they are needed or not, and have moved to a system where we are 
asking farmers to put some skin in the game. We are saying: You have to 
get crop insurance; you have to be a part of paying for it, and you 
don't get any help unless there is a disaster; there is no payout 
unless there is a disaster. As we move to that broad cornerstone, I 
hope we can keep that in place and not see efforts that will weaken it 
around the edges.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent to 
speak for perhaps as long as but probably shorter than 20 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, every week that we are here, I try 
to remind the body of the damage carbon pollution is doing to our 
atmosphere and oceans, try to awaken us to our duty. I have done it 
more than 30 times now. I have tried to kick out the underpinnings of 
any argument that the deniers could stand on.

[[Page S3596]]

  I have kicked out the scientific so-called denial argument, which 
actually properly belongs in the category of falsehood, not argument. I 
have kicked out the economic denial argument, pointing out that in a 
proper market, the costs of carbon must be in the price of carbon. I 
even tried to kick out the religious denial argument, showing that the 
belief that God will just tidy up after us, however stupidly we behave, 
runs counter to history and counter to Biblical text.
  So today let's take a crack at the political argument. How wise is it 
for the Republican Party to wed itself to the deniers and proclaim that 
climate change is a hoax?
  Make no mistake, that is the Republican position. The consensus 
Republican position and the default Republican position is that climate 
change is a hoax. It has been said right on this floor and in 
committees and, as far as I know, not one Republican Senator has stood 
afterwards in this Chamber to say: Wait a minute. Not so fast. That is 
actually not the case. Any Republican Senator who disagrees, please, 
come to the floor and articulate a Republican position other than that 
climate change is a hoax.
  This Chamber looks relatively empty, but on C-SPAN lots of people are 
watching, and lots of Republicans are watching. Yet not one Republican, 
over all 30 speeches, has ever gotten back to me, even quietly on the 
side, to say: You know what. This is really getting serious. Let's see 
if we can work on this together.
  An iron curtain of denial has fallen around the Republican Party. So 
let me respectfully ask my Republican colleagues: What are you 
thinking? How do you imagine this ends?
  More than 95 percent of climate scientists are convinced that human 
carbon pollution is causing massive and unprecedented changes to our 
atmosphere and oceans. You want to go with the 5 percent, and you think 
that is going to be a winning strategy?
  Moreover, it turns out that a lot of those 5 percenters are on the 
payroll of the polluters. You know that. It is public knowledge. Some 
of those payroll scientists are the same people who denied acid rain, 
who denied the dangers of tobacco.
  You still like those odds? Those are the folks to whom you really 
want to hitch your Republican wagons? You have to know they are not 
telling the truth. So where does this go? What is the endgame?
  Our planet has had a run of at least 800,000 years, with levels of 
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between 170 and 300 parts per million. 
That is measurement not theory--800,000 years. Homo sapiens have only 
been around for about 200,000 years, so that 800,000 years--8,000 
centuries--takes us back a ways. Madam President, 800,000 years, 
between 170 and 300 parts per million, and in just the last 50 years, 
we have blown out of that range and have now hit 400 parts per million 
and climbing. You really want to be on the side of ``nothing is going 
on here''? Really?
  Have you noticed the floods and wildfires and droughts and 
superstorms and tornadoes and blizzards and temperature records? Have 
you noticed those warming, rising seas? Have you noticed species 
invading new territories and miles of dead pine forests in the Rockies 
and Arctic sea ice disappearing?
  Do you understand that carbon in the atmosphere gets absorbed by the 
sea and that is a law of science and is not debatable? Do you 
understand that because they are absorbing the carbon, the oceans are 
getting more acidic--30 percent more acidic already and climbing?
  Do you understand that is a measurement, not a theory? It is one 
thing to be the party that stands against science. Are you really also 
going to be the party that stands against measurement? Do you know the 
measurement is showing the oceans are not just becoming more acidic, 
they are becoming more acidic at the fastest rate recorded in a 
geologic record of 50 million years?
  Have you not heard about the coral reefs, those incubators of our 
oceans, bleaching out and dying off, with almost 20 percent gone 
already worldwide? If you are a denier, look around. Do you think the 
news is getting better for you?
  Let me ask my Republican friends, what is your best bet on whether 
this climate and oceans problem gets better or worse in the next 20 or 
40 years? Seriously. Your party's reputation is on the line here. All 
the chips. Tell me how you are going to bet. Do you want to bet the 
reputation of the Republican Party that suddenly this is all going to 
magically start getting better? Because that is what you are doing 
right now.
  Let me ask you this: What are the young people of today going to 
think when they are 37 or 57 and it is worse, maybe a lot worse? What 
are they going to think about the Republican Party then, that you took 
the 5-percent bet with their futures; that you went with the polluters 
over the scientists? Young people are already out there asking their 
universities to divest from coal, as they divested from the evils of 
apartheid and the dangers of tobacco. Good luck with the youth vote 
when you lock in with the coal merchants. By the way, the youth vote 
grows. It grows up and it sticks around.
  How is it going to look for the Republican Party when the historical 
records show, because facts have a funny way of coming out, that the 
campaign to fool the public on climate change was as phony and 
dishonest as the campaign to fool the public on acid rain and the 
campaign to fool the public on tobacco, when the historical record 
discloses that 5 percent wasn't even real, and was actually a scam paid 
for by the polluters? You, your great party, with young American's 
futures in the balance, took sides with the scam.
  If that is the state of play for young voters as they come of age, 
why would those young people ever trust the Republican Party on 
anything else ever again?
  Speaking of taking sides, have you noticed who is left on your side? 
The Koch brothers, billionaire polluters; the big oil companies, the 
biggest polluters in the world; the coal barons with their legacy of 
pollution, strip mining, mountaintop removal, and safety violations 
that kill their miners. That is a fine cast to be surrounded by.
  But wait, you say, there is more. There is the Heartland Institute, 
and the Institute for Energy Research, and the American Enterprise 
Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Heritage 
Foundation. There are many organizations. Right. Like the heads of 
Hydra, they may look like many, but, as you know, in reality, it is all 
the same beast. It is all the same scheme. It is all the same money 
behind the scheme. You can name those front organizations and many 
more, but none of it is real. They are all part of the same cheesy 
vaudeville show put on by the big polluters.
  Do you, I ask my Republican friends, want to lash yourself to that 
operation, to go down with that ship? The great Republican Party, the 
party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, branding itself as the 
one that gave it all to protect a gang of scheming polluters? That is 
where you are headed.
  Look who is on the other side on record against you seeing through 
that nonsense. How about the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our military 
leaders? How about the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops? How about 
NASA? NASA is driving a vehicle as big as an SUV around on the surface 
of Mars right now. They sent it there. To Mars. They landed it there 
safely. Now they are driving it around on Mars. Do you think those 
scientists might know what they are talking about? How about every 
legitimate American scientific professional society, about 30 strong? 
How about major American corporations such as Walmart, Ford, Apple, 
Coca-Cola? How about global insurance and reinsurance businesses such 
as Lloyds of London and Munich Re, whose businesses depend on accurate 
risk models?
  Indeed, today, Frank Nutter, the president of the Reinsurance 
Association of America, is reported as saying:

       Insurance is heavily dependent on scientific thought. It is 
     not as amenable to politicized scientific thought.

  So I ask my Republican friends, whose side do you like in this? In 
this corner, the Joint Chiefs, the bishops, Walmart, Ford, Apple, Coke, 
NASA, 30 top scientific organizations, the top insurers and reinsurers, 
and, by the way, several thousand legitimate others. In that corner, 
the polluting industry and a screen of sketchy organizations they

[[Page S3597]]

fund. Let's be serious. Do you want to bet the reputation of the 
Republican Party that the polluters are the ones we should count on 
here? Because that is what you are doing. For what? To protect market 
share for the polluters. That is your upside. The reputation of the 
party hangs in the balance and your upside is market share for 
polluters.
  Look, I am willing to do a carbon pollution fee that sets the market 
in balance and returns every single dollar to the American people. No 
new agencies; no new taxes; no bigger government; every dollar back; a 
balanced market with the costs included in the price the way they are 
supposed to be, which will make better energy choices, increase jobs, 
and prevent pollution.
  Yes, that does mean less market share for the polluters as new 
technologies emerge--that is actually the point--but every single 
dollar back in Americans' pockets. By the way, three-quarters of the 
American people believe climate change is real and that we need to do 
something about it.
  You may have a question for me: Why do you care? Why do you, Sheldon 
Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, care if we Republicans run off 
the climate cliff like a bunch of proverbial lemmings and disgrace 
ourselves?
  I will tell you why. We are stuck in this together. We are stuck in 
this together.
  When cyclones tear up Oklahoma, hurricanes swamp Alabama, and 
wildfires scorch Texas, you come to us, the rest of the country, for 
billions of dollars to recover. The damage your polluters and deniers 
are doing doesn't just hit Oklahoma, Alabama, and Texas; it hits Rhode 
Island with floods and storms, it hits Oregon with acidified seas, and 
it hits Montana with dying forests. Like it or not, we are in this 
together. You drag America with you to your fate.
  I want this future: I want a Republican Party that has returned to 
its senses, is strong, and is a worthy adversary in a strong America 
that has done right by its people and the world. That is what I want. I 
don't want this future. I don't want a Republican Party disgraced, that 
lets its extremists run it off the cliff. I don't want America 
suffering from grave, economic, environmental, and diplomatic damage 
because we failed, because we didn't wake up and do our duty for our 
people, and because we didn't lead the world.
  I do not want that future, but that is where we are headed. I will 
keep reaching out and calling out, ever hopeful you will wake up before 
it is too late, both for you and for the rest of us.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Before we move on to other business this evening in the 
Senate, I would like to encourage all of our Senators to submit 
whatever amendments they have so we can begin to work through them. We 
want to work diligently through the amendments and be able to move, 
obviously, as quickly as possible within reason to be able to put 
together votes. We would ask all of our colleagues, if they do have 
amendments, to let us know what they are and to file them as soon as 
possible so we can begin working on those amendments.
  I believe Senator Cochran and I are both in agreement. We are anxious 
to get going and are looking forward to working with colleagues to vote 
on and dispose of amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am pleased to join the distinguished chairman.
  I urge Senators who do have amendments to come to the floor and offer 
those amendments so we can proceed to complete action on this bill in a 
reasonable amount of time. We don't want to cut everybody off. 
Everybody has a right to be heard on whatever subject they wish to 
bring before the Senate.
  We do have some Senators whom we know have amendments that are 
relevant to the issue before us. We are hopeful we can consider all of 
them and give them the kind of attention they deserve.
  Ms. STABENOW. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________