[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 77 (Tuesday, June 4, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3923-S3926]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2013

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 954, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Stabenow (for Leahy) amendment No. 998, to establish a 
     pilot program for gigabit Internet projects in rural areas.


[[Page S3924]]


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I see my distinguished ranking member on 
the floor. We are proceeding in our work on the farm bill this morning.
  As we are moving through, we have a lot of discussions going on, 
working to get agreement on both sides to be able to offer a number of 
amendments for votes. We certainly are going to do everything we can, 
working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It is critical that 
we complete our work, ideally, this week.
  I appreciate our Senate majority leader understanding what I say over 
and over, which is this is a jobs bill. Sixteen million people work in 
this country because of agriculture and the food industry. This is 
their economic development jobs policy, and it is very important that 
we complete our work as we have done this last year.
  Let me remind colleagues again that 1 year ago--and most of us were 
here at that time--one year ago we worked very hard. In fact, other 
than the Budget resolution, I think we may have a record for the most 
amendments that were voted on, on a piece of legislation. I don't know 
for sure, but I think it ranks right up there. We voted on 73 different 
amendments last year. Every one of the substantive amendments that was 
passed by the Senate is included in the bill that is in front of us, so 
we start from a bill that was worked on by the entire Senate last year. 
We are back again working through additional ideas, additional 
amendments that people are interested in.
  It is very important that we complete our work so that, hopefully, 
when the House brings the bill to the floor--and we are encouraged. We 
are hearing that within a couple of weeks it will come to the floor of 
the House--that when they complete their work, we can actually go to 
conference and get a final bill on the President's desk before 
September 30, which is what people around the country are counting on 
us to do.
  Farmers and ranchers have to do the job in the morning, whether they 
feel like it or not, because the job is in front of them. They have to 
work hard and get it done, and we have to work hard and get our job 
done. This is the time to complete a 5-year policy, and we intend to do 
that and get it done in time so the right kinds of decisions can be 
made.
  Let me stress again that this bill is the one bill that has come 
before the Senate and passed last year that has real deficit reduction 
in it. We have looked at every page of what is called the farm bill. We 
have called ours the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs bill because it 
is just that. It is about reform--reforming policies, cutting waste, 
fraud and abuse and creating more accountability. It is about food 
policies for our country, nutrition policies for our country, and it is 
about jobs.
  We have scoured every page and actually in our process ended up 
cutting over 100 different programs and authorizations by either 
combining them, cutting down on the duplication and paperwork or 
eliminating them if they didn't make sense. If it doesn't work anymore, 
if it doesn't work from the taxpayers' standpoint, if it doesn't work 
from the standpoint of agricultural policy, we eliminated it.
  We took what are currently 11 different definitions of what is 
``rural''--we had local mayors, local township officials telling us 
they appreciate and count on rural development as their economic 
development arm for grants and loans for small businesses, for water 
and sewer projects, road projects. Whatever is done in small towns and 
rural communities across the country, USDA rural development is there 
supporting those local efforts. But they said could you give us 1 
definition of ``rural'' instead of 11, so we can figure out the 
paperwork and know how to interact with the USDA.
  It sounded simple. It wasn't simple. But we have actually gotten it 
down to one definition, dramatically cut the paperwork and reformed and 
streamlined the process for local units of government.
  We have $24 billion in bipartisan deficit reduction. We have, in 
fact, put together something that is four times more than required of 
the across-the-board cuts in what has been dubbed sequestration. So 
rather than just doing what we are required to do under the law that 
established sequestration, we have gone four times more and created 
policies supported by farmers, ranchers, those involved in 
conservation, and those involved across our country in every part of 
the farm bill.
  We have 12 different titles--and each one could actually be a 
separate bill if we wanted to--that deal with a wide variety of topics, 
from our traditional commodities where there is certainly a lot of 
debate as we have eliminated subsidies called direct payments and moved 
to crop insurance where it is based on risk. Farmers share in the cost 
of the insurance. There is no subsidy given. They get help if they have 
a disaster. If something happens with the weather or there is some 
other kind of disaster, then, similar to any other kind of insurance, 
it helps cover the risk, and that is what we are moving to.
  Conservation and bringing together 23 different programs; we cut it 
down to 13, consolidated, streamlined, did a better job with more 
flexibility for communities and have created a conservation title 
supported by more than 650 different conservation and environmental 
organizations across the country.
  As to specialty crops, half of the cash receipts of the country 
roughly are something called fruits and vegetables and other specialty 
crops. We strengthen those efforts, which are very important--local 
food systems, farmers markets, areas that are very important in growing 
and certainly address the health of our country.
  I mentioned rural development; an energy title that we have not only 
focused on in terms of energy efficiency for our farmers on the farm, 
bioenergy, biofuels, but also a new area of reducing our reliance on 
petroleum by using agricultural products and byproducts in 
manufacturing called biobased manufacturing. That is an exciting new 
area for jobs for us. We are seeing a lot of different possibilities in 
the area of soybeans. We are seeing soybean oil used to replace 
petroleum oil in things such as foams. If you buy a number of different 
vehicles today and certainly in every Ford vehicle I know that is being 
produced, the new Chevy Volt, and many other automobiles today, you are 
actually sitting on soybean foam instead of petroleum foam. It is 
biodegradable. There are a lot of jokes about sitting on soybeans, but 
the reality is this is something that is creating a market for growers. 
It is biodegradable, gets us off foreign oil, and is creating jobs. 
There are a lot of possibilities in this bill for new jobs.
  We focus on foreign trade. The one area where we actually have a 
trade surplus in our country is in agriculture. We are, in fact, 
feeding the world and working with those around the globe to develop 
their own food systems. I am very proud of the role American farmers 
play in addressing hunger around the world as well as international 
food assistance.
  We could go on. The bottom line is that this is a bill with 
tremendous impact--16 million people in the country directly impacted 
in terms of their jobs. Every American, if you had breakfast this 
morning, thank a farmer. If you have lunch today, thank a farmer. If 
you have dinner today, thank a farmer. We have the safest, most 
affordable food supply in the world because of a group of people who go 
out and take the risk against the weather, which is getting tougher and 
tougher as the climate is changing. They are willing to go out there 
and continue to be in this business. Our bill supports them with tools 
to help them manage their risk through insurance, to help them manage 
their risks on the farm in terms of keeping the soil on the ground as 
well as protecting our water and protecting our air. Those kinds of 
tools are critically important as well.
  This is a bill we have worked on now twice in the last year--last 
year, this year--and we are looking forward to having the opportunity 
to bring this to completion, to work with our House colleagues in a 
bipartisan way to provide legislation that is good for those directly 
involved in agriculture and that is good for consumers, that is good 
for taxpayers as we look at ways to reform our government, to work more 
efficiently and effectively on fewer dollars.

[[Page S3925]]

  We look forward to continuing throughout the day working with 
colleagues. We are hopeful we will have amendments to bring forward, 
but we do understand we have to move forward and get this done.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Unanimous Consent Request--H. Con. Res. 25

  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, Senate Democrats have been waiting a 
very long time to go to conference on our budget. In fact, it has now 
been 73 days. Until recently, we have gotten pretty used to Senate 
Republicans simply standing and saying no.
  For months Republicans have been offering a lot of excuses for why 
they do not want to go to conference on the budget. They have said they 
want a preconference ``framework,'' which, by the way, is what a budget 
is. They have said they would not allow us to go to conference unless 
we guaranteed that the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations 
would be protected from paying a penny more in taxes. They said they 
did not want a bipartisan conference to take away the leverage they 
have on the debt ceiling. And then they called for a do-over, which, 
actually, my ranking member on Budget called for again this morning--to 
bring up the House budget, have 50 hours of debate, a whole new round 
of unlimited amendments, go through the process all over, and they did 
this after they praised the very open and thorough floor debate we had 
on the Senate budget.
  The story keeps changing. But even as some Republicans were focused 
on finding excuses to move us closer and closer to this crisis rather 
than have a budget deal, we have a number of Republicans who are now 
joining with us to call on regular order. Senator Coburn said that 
blocking conference is ``not a good position to be in.'' Senator 
Boozman said he would ``very much like to see a conference.'' Senator 
Wicker said weeks ago that ``by the end of next week, we . . . should 
be ready to go to conference.'' We have known for a while that blocking 
regular order--especially after calling for it so eagerly just a matter 
of months ago--was not sitting well with a number of our Republican 
colleagues, and now, according to Politico, ``more Republicans appear 
to favor heading to conference than blocking it.'' I welcome that.
  We need to move this to conference. It is the regular order. It will 
allow us to solve our country's problems, and we truly need a process 
to allow us to deal with our Nation's problems.
  Senator McCain is on the floor, and I thank him because he 
understands the importance not just for this bill but for all 
legislation in the Senate that we come here, we compromise, we fight 
hard for what we believe in, but at the end of the day just saying ``my 
way or the highway,'' even if you are a small minority, does not move 
this country to the place where we need it to get to, which is not a 
crisis-by-management place. I thank him for taking a lead and calling 
for regular order. He has said that Republican preconditions such as 
demanding that the conference agree to not raise the debt ceiling or 
raise taxes are ``absolutely out of line and unprecedented.'' Senator 
Collins joined us on the floor a few weeks ago to say that even though 
there is a lot we do not see eye to eye on, we should at least go to 
conference and make our best effort to get a deal. I could not agree 
more.
  The stalling that we have seen is, as some have said on their side, 
``a little bizarre'' and ``ironic to say the least,'' especially after, 
I would remind everyone, 50 hours of debate, innumerable amendments 
that took us way into the early hours, and we offered everybody the 
chance to speak. After that session was over, many of our Republican 
colleagues came to me personally and thanked me for finally having an 
open process. If they want us to have an open process, then they have 
to take that process and take it to the next step.
  So I am deeply concerned. We are moving toward another manufactured 
crisis this fall. We have our Appropriations subcommittees that need to 
move forward. The country is very clearly tired of this country being 
managed by crisis. We just had a budget hearing this morning in which 
our witnesses, both Republicans and Democrats alike, said that moving 
us to a manufactured crisis would impact this economy in a horrific way 
this fall. We do not need to have that happen.
  I want to go to conference. Do I want to have a compromise? Not 
really. I love where I stand. But I have been here a long time. You do 
not get everything you want, but you do have to compromise in order to 
move the country forward. And I am willing to go to conference with my 
counterpart, Chairman Ryan, who is on a very different page than I am, 
and find our compromise and be willing to move that forward here in the 
Congress so we can get to a place that allows us to be able to lead 
this country again. So I think we are at a very critical point.
  I see Senator McCain is on the floor. I would be happy to yield to 
him for a comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I understand that one of my colleagues 
who will object is coming to the floor, so perhaps I would reserve the 
right to object on his behalf even though I am in stark disagreement. 
But instead I will just make a comment, and I am sure my colleague on 
this side of the aisle will voice an objection when he arrives.
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is here.
  Mr. McCAIN. He is here.
  Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator will yield, I can go ahead and offer the 
unanimous consent request at this time and we can move from there.
  Mr. McCAIN. If it is OK with the Senator, because we know what is 
going to happen, I would like to make remarks, and then the Senator 
from Florida will make the same argument that was made the last few 
days, and fortunately I do not have to listen again.
  For 4 years Members on this side of the aisle argued strenuously that 
we were doing a great disservice to the country by not taking up and 
debating and amending a budget that would then go to conference with 
the other side of the Capitol, the House of Representatives, and then 
we would do what we expect and, unfortunately, every family in America 
has to do, and that is to pass a budget under which we would be guided 
in our authorization and appropriations process.
  Now my colleague from Florida will come to the floor and say that we 
have amassed a debt because of the budget. But we did not have a budget 
for 4 years. So how can you argue that the fact that we may go to 
conference on a budget--that somehow that would be responsible for the 
debt? Obviously, it is nonsense. Obviously, it is nonsense, just as, 
frankly, it was nonsense when the same group of Senators said we should 
not even debate gun measures in light of a tragedy that took place in 
Connecticut and another tragedy that took place in Tucson, AZ. They did 
not even want to take up and debate ideas that some of us had to try to 
keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the hands of the 
mentally ill.
  So now we have a Senate where we refuse to move forward on issues and 
have open debate and discussion and votes. I have always believed, in 
the years I have been here, with Republican and Democratic majorities, 
that the way we are supposed to function is to say: OK, let's give it 
our best shot, and let's do the best we can, and let's have votes.
  One of our objections against the majority leader was that he would 
not let us have votes on amendments. We had--I have forgotten how 
many--votes on the budget that lasted until I believe around 7 o'clock 
in the morning. So the opponents of moving forward on anything cannot 
argue we did not have votes on the budget, cannot argue they were 
blocked from whatever amendment they wanted to have voted on.
  So now we are faced with a situation where we will not go to 
conference. And I want to tell my colleagues who continue to do this 
that, with my strenuous objections, the majority will become frustrated 
and the majority

[[Page S3926]]

can change the rules of the Senate. They can do that. And I must say 
that although I would strenuously object to a change in the rules, I 
can understand the frustration many of my friends on the other side of 
the aisle feel at a failure of a simple process of going to conference 
when the majority on the other side of the Capitol is of our party. 
That is really very difficult to understand, unless you take the word 
of one of my colleagues who came to the floor and said: I do not trust 
Democrats, and I do not trust Republicans. Let me repeat what he said: 
I do not trust Democrats, and I do not trust Republicans. It is not a 
matter of trusting Democrats or Republicans. What this is a matter of 
is whether we will go through the legislative process that people sent 
us here to do. And I have probably lost many more times than I have 
won, but I have been satisfied in the times that I have lost that I was 
able to make my argument, put it to the will of the body, and it was 
either accepted or rejected. That is how people, schoolchildren all 
over America, expect us to behave. That is the way our Constitution is 
written. That is what this body is supposed to be about.
  So when we have a--by the way, Madam President, this is the last time 
I am going to come to the floor on this exercise because it is 
obviously a fruitless kind of effort until something changes, and 
obviously that is not going to happen in the short term.
  My friends will be saying they are Reagan Republicans, they are 
Reagan Republicans. Well, I was here when Ronald Reagan was President 
of the United States. President Reagan, rightly or wrongly, passed 
amnesty for 3 million people who were in this country illegally. Ronald 
Reagan sat down with Tip O'Neill, and they saved Social Security from 
bankruptcy. Ronald Reagan sat down with the Democrats, and they agreed 
on ways of increasing revenues and cutting spending. Ronald Reagan's 
record is very clear, and by the way, it was one of an assertive role 
of the United States of America and leadership in the world and not 
come home to ``fortress America.'' So sometimes when I hear my 
colleagues here talk about how they are Ronald Reagan Republicans, I do 
not think Ronald Reagan would have disagreed that we should have a 
budget, we should have a budget to guide the legislative agenda of the 
Congress of the United States.
  So, as I said, I will not be coming back to the floor again while my 
colleagues object. And I see my colleague from Utah who was so 
unfamiliar with what we do here that he claimed it was behind closed 
doors in back rooms. The fact is that the budget conference is on C-
SPAN and open to all.
  So I can just say to my colleagues that this is not a proud moment 
for me, as we block a process that was agreed to and enacted for many, 
many years; was not enacted for 4 years over the strenuous objections 
of myself and my colleagues that we did not enact a budget. We enacted 
a budget after an all-night marathon of vote after vote after vote on 
literally any issue, and there was not a single vote proposed by my 
colleagues here that said that we cannot agree to a lifting of the debt 
limit. Now, the floor was open for that amendment, and I do not know 
why my colleagues now view this as the criteria for us moving forward 
on the bill. So I wish them luck, and I will not be coming to the floor 
again to object to their objection, and we will let the American people 
make a judgment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
his very heartfelt remarks. I know he and I do not agree on a lot, but 
we do agree that we want this country to work because the alternative 
is not great. The way for this country to work is for us to come 
together with our differences of opinion and move forward, and that is 
what the conference committee is all about.
  So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed 
to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the 
amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget 
resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. 
Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its 
amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes 
of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on 
the part of the Senate; that following the authorization, two motions 
to instruct conferees be in order from each side: motion to instruct 
relative to the debt limit and motion to instruct relative to taxes and 
revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the 
two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to the 
motions; further, that no amendments be in order to either of the 
motions prior to the votes, all of the above occurring with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, first, I 
want to thank the Senator from Arizona for protecting my right to 
object in my absence before I made it to the floor.
  Just to set the record straight, I do not think that we object to 
moving to a budget conference; we object to moving to a budget 
conference and having the debt limit raised within that conference. So 
I would ask the Senator if she would consider adding a unanimous 
consent agreement and that she modify her request so that it not be in 
order for the Senate to consider a conference report that includes 
reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, if the Senator heard my request, I said 
we would consider a motion to instruct relative to the debt limit as 
part of our agreement to move to conference. So the Senator would be 
allowed to make his voice heard at that time. I would object to making 
it a requirement without a vote of the Senate that says the majority 
agrees with that. So I would object to his amendment and again ask for 
unanimous consent on the original request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Is there objection to the 
original request?
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________