[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 81 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4043-S4053]
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 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees.
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. I see the distinguished Senator from North Dakota on
the floor. This is Senator Heitkamp's first farm bill we are about
ready to vote on. She has been an extraordinary voice and really hit
the ground running. It is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to her.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I would first like to thank the
Senator from the great State of Michigan for her incredible leadership.
I met her over a year ago and knew she was a force to be reckoned with,
not only because she has red hair but because she is someone who
understands that to move something forward, we need to have compromise
and we need to understand that a farm bill represents the interests of
the entire country, not just the interests of maybe the Great Plains
States or the Southern States or even our urban areas that care
desperately about nutrition. She understands that we need to forge a
bill that can pass both Chambers and keep our country moving.
The fact is that agriculture is a shining star in the American
economy today. When we look at States such as North Dakota and Nebraska
and Kansas and South Dakota, all agriculture-based States, we see they
did not have the deep trough of this recession because agriculture did
pretty well. And why did agriculture do pretty well? Because the last
farm bill that was crafted provided an appropriate balance of concern
for our long-term fiscal obligations along with providing our producers
with a legitimate and appropriate safety net.
We have a farm bill today that is even better that we are going to be
voting on. Why is it better? Because it not only provides that
certainty and that safety net for American producers--the backbone,
historically, of our economy--but it reduces the deficit $24 billion by
eliminating a process of direct payments, by cutting some unnecessary
expenditures, by streamlining conservation, and by taking a look at a
rational and reasonable approach to some of the issues regarding
nutrition.
So I am very proud today to stand before this body about to cast one
of my first votes--not the first vote but one of my first votes--doing
what is absolutely essential for the North Dakota economy; that is,
passing a farm bill.
I want to give an idea of what North Dakota is all about because we
like to brag but also because people forget about North Dakota being an
agricultural State with so much attention having been focused in recent
months and recent years on our dramatic energy development. So let me
give a rundown on what we do in North Dakota as far as our production.
We are No. 1 in barley; No. 1 in beans, dry and edible; No. 1 in navy
beans and pinto beans; No. 1 in canola, flaxseed, and honey; No. 1 in
lentils and dry edible peas; No. 1 in all forms of sunflower; No. 1 in
durum wheat and spring wheat; and we are No. 2 in sugar beets and No. 2
in all wheat. So 90 percent of North Dakota's land base--90 percent--is
engaged in agriculture. It is the backbone of what we do.
As we talk about the importance of public policy not only to protect
our producers but to give them opportunities for certainty, I would
like to talk about two unique things of which I am exceptionally proud.
The first is that this Crop Insurance Program will provide the safety
net so many of our young farmers in our States need to get engaged in
the business of farming. Why is that important? Well, 10 years ago when
I was still in elected office, I would go to farm meetings and look
around the table, and everybody was in their fifties and sixties and a
50-year-old farmer would be a young farmer. Now we go to those same
meetings, and sitting around that table are 20- and 30- and 40-year-old
farm families saying: We want to engage in the business of agriculture.
And that is good for the world because we not only need to produce our
products for America, we need to produce our products for the entire
world.
So this is a farm bill that strikes the right balance. It is a farm
bill that addresses the priorities not only of my State but hopefully
the priorities of this country. There are 16 million jobs--16 million
American jobs--depending on this bill.
The second point I wish to make about this bill--and people remind me
occasionally that it is a year late because we have already gone to one
extension since I have been here--is that it is a bill which will send
a message to the American people that we need to provide certainty once
and for all. We need to do things in a timely fashion, and I think
moving this farm bill right now is moving it in a timely fashion.
This is an excellent piece of legislation, and I urge all of my
colleagues to vote for it.
I thank the chairwoman from Michigan for her excellent and
exceptional leadership, along with her ranking member Senator Cochran,
who has been so instrumental in forging the compromises that make today
possible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, at this point I want to take a moment
before we vote today to recognize folks who have worked so hard to get
us to this point.
First of all, I thank my colleagues in advance for coming together
one more time and leading for rural America--for farmers, for ranchers,
for the 16 million people who have jobs because of agriculture in this
country. It has been a long road for the Agriculture Reform, Food, and
Jobs Act, and I have been blessed and pleased to have a wonderful
partner and ranking member,
[[Page S4044]]
the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. He has been a partner every
step of the way, and I thank him and look forward--as the House
hopefully this time will complete their work--to having the opportunity
to go to conference and crafting an agreement we can then present back
to the Senate. I can't thank Senator Cochran and his staff enough for
their wonderful partnership.
We started this last year. We had 3 weeks that the farm bill was on
the floor of the Senate. We had 73 votes, adopted 42 amendments, and we
took that as the basis for the bill this year. Once the House did not
take up the bill--and, in my judgment, walked away from rural America
last year--we had to come back and do it again, so we used the work
product the Senate did last year as the basis of our work, and we had 2
weeks of debate on the floor of the Senate. We have added 14 more
amendments to the bill that is in front of us.
So I thank the majority leader for his hard work and leadership and
patience. As always, he knows how important agriculture is to our
economy, how important it is to support rural communities and families
and consumers around our country. I appreciate that he has not just
once but twice given us precious time on the Senate floor so that we
could do our job in standing up for rural America and for consumers
across this country.
I am proud we once again voted--or are about to vote today--in a
bipartisan way to move this bill forward. This bill has been bipartisan
from start to finish, and I believe that is the reason for our success.
I am grateful to colleagues who have worked in such a diligent way on
both sides of the aisle. There are many leaders on both sides of the
aisle on this bill. We wouldn't be here today without leadership on
both sides of the aisle, and I am very grateful for that. This is how
the Senate is designed to work, where people who care very deeply on
both sides of an issue can sit down--in our case, around a table in the
Senate agriculture room--look each other in the eye, talk to each
other, listen, and make the compromises necessary to come together with
a balanced bill. That is what we did.
Last year we passed the farm bill, as I said before, in a bipartisan
way as well. The House Agriculture Committee passed a bipartisan farm
bill last year, but for whatever reason the full House didn't consider
the bill. It was allowed to expire. The good news is that this year it
looks as though it is going to be different. That is good news for
rural America and the men and women who work hard every day to give us
the safest, most affordable, most abundant food supply in the world--in
the world.
I thank my incredible staff, who have done this now not once but
twice. Actually, because we engaged and had a work product when the
supercommittee deficit commission was operating, we have actually done
this three times. I think they could do farm bills in their sleep.
Hopefully they have not been sleeping when they have been writing this
one, but I am very grateful for their leadership.
I thank Chris Adamo, my terrific staff director for the Agriculture
Committee, who is living and breathing these issues every minute and
only takes occasional breaks to go fly fishing in Michigan. We have a
historic agreement on conservation and crop insurance in this bill
thanks to his leadership and that of our team.
Jonathan Coppess, our chief counsel, and Joe Shultz, our economist
extraordinaire, who understand the ins and outs of agriculture like
nobody else, have done so much as we have transitioned in this bill
toward market-based risk management tools for our farmers.
Jonathan Cordone, our general counsel, crossed every ``t'' and dotted
every ``i'' in this bill, and frankly, there are a lot of them. He has
been keeping track of all the amendments and making sure this process
runs smoothly.
Karla Theiman, who leads our livestock and dairy issues, has helped
make the energy title something we could really be proud of. I am very
grateful for all her leadership and hard work.
Tina May, who wrote our original conservation title and then decided
to go have a baby, is amazing. She knows more about conservation than
anyone I know, and we are very proud that not only the conservation
title in the Senate but one that is very similar in the House bears the
mark of her hard work and leadership.
I do want to note that Jonathan Coppess had a son during the last
farm bill and Tina had a son during this farm bill. So I am not sure
what it is about farm bills, but we will see what comes next.
One thing about Tina's maternity leave is that it allowed us to get
the T2 team back together. Kevin Norton came back from the USDA to work
with Catie Lee, as they picked up very excellently the heavy load and
made it look easy. Thanks to them, our country will have healthy
wildlife habitats and clean, fishable waters for generations to come.
Jacqlyn Schneider, who is another of our farm bill veterans, ably led
our nutrition team and has done such a wonderful job. She has done so
much for the diversity of American agriculture through organics, fruits
and vegetables, and all the things we call specialty crops, as well as
Jess Taylor. Jess has done terrific work in partnership as well.
Brandon McBride led our efforts to reorganize the rural development
title and worked so hard this year to make sure the energy title
continued to grow the economy in rural America.
Russ Behnam is our expert on technology issues--biotechnology
issues--on crop protection and has lent very important expertise to our
efforts. I am grateful.
Cory Claussen led our efforts on dairy last year, and his hard work
led to the major advances we have made in this bill for beginning
farmers and ranchers as well as for our veterans who want to get into
agriculture.
I am very proud that in our bill we have a new agriculture liaison
for our veterans. So many of our men and women coming home are from
small communities around America, and they want to have the opportunity
to go into farming, and we want to help them do that.
Cory is also leading our CFTC efforts, so Cory's work is just getting
started. Hanna Abou-El-Seoud, who kept the trains running on time, made
sure we were all prepared and prepped--no easy job as well. Alexis
Stanczuk and Kyle Varner, who is the newest member of our team, have
once again done a great job doing whatever needed to be done in order
to help us be successful. Jessie Williams, Nicole Hertenstein, Jacob
Chaney, and our entire great team on the committee have helped us to
get to this point.
I also wish to say thank you to my chief of staff Dan Farough, who
manages our personal office; Matt VanKuiken, my terrific legislative
director who followed the floor procedure and made sure everything was
happening as it should; Bill Sweeney, my great deputy chief of staff;
Cullen Schwarz, my communications director; and Ben Becker, our press
secretary who made sure we were telling the story of rural America and
this farm bill and the reforms in it every day. We couldn't have done
it without them and our entire team, Matt Williams, Will Eberle, and
Alex Barriger.
I wish to thank my State team and all of the outreach efforts led by
the outstanding Teresa Plachetka, Kali Fox, Mary Judnich, Brandon
Fewins, and Korey Hall, making sure that Michigan is truly represented
on every page.
This was a bipartisan effort, and I wish to thank everyone on Senator
Cochran's team, especially T.A. Hawks and James Gleueck, for their
leadership. Once again, Doug Elmendorf's CBO farm team came through
thanks to Jim Langley and everyone on their team.
I wish to thank Kasey Gillette from Senator Reid's office, who is
part of our extended family. It is great working with her again. This
is like a second annual family reunion, always having Kasey with us.
Nothing could get done around here without our excellent floor staff
who have been led by Gary Myrick and Tim Mitchell, and thank you to
everybody on our team for their very long hours as usual.
Of course, we wouldn't have had anything to pass without the amazing
expertise of our legislative counsel team, Michelle Johnson-Wieder and
Gary Endicott, and their invaluable assistance;
[[Page S4045]]
last, but not least, the great team at the USDA and who I believe is an
absolutely terrific Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, and his
General Counsel's Office.
There are so many people to thank. I will stop. There are other
colleagues who wish to speak. I just want everyone to know that when
you take basically 12 different chapters or titles--any one of which
could be its own piece of legislation--and put it together in something
called a 5-year farm bill, it happens because of a tremendous amount of
talent and experience and hard work and it happens because, in our
case, we have what I believe is the most seasoned Agriculture Committee
former chairs, former Secretary of Agriculture. We have people who know
agriculture and care about it deeply. With so much talent and
experience, it has been a real privilege--and continues to be--to chair
this committee.
This farm bill is the product of 2 years of hard work by a long list
of talented people. As we vote today, we support 16 million people who
depend on agriculture for their jobs. We are providing $24 billion in
deficit reduction on a bipartisan basis. We are providing policies that
will conserve our land and our water resources for generations to come;
that help families who have fallen on hard times keep food on the table
for their children; a bill that helps our veterans get started in
agriculture; that supports our small towns all across America; and
recognizes the diversity of American agriculture and strengthens
efforts to give families the opportunity to buy fresh local food in
their supermarkets and have it available in their schools. This farm
bill creates jobs.
I am very proud of the work we have done, and I ask all of our
colleagues to support us in voting yes today on this bill.
I yield 5 minutes to Senator Klobuchar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise in support of this very
important bill.
First, I wish to thank Senator Stabenow for her leadership, as well
as the Senator from Mississippi. It was a true bipartisan effort. As I
heard her list all the names of these wonderful staff people who worked
on this bill, I also wish to mention my staff director Adam Durand.
The other thing I wish to mention is this wouldn't have happened
without Senator Stabenow, with her ever optimistic view, never giving
up on this bill.
It has been 354 days since the Senate passed its last farm bill--I
have been counting it down--and this is long overdue. This got done in
record speed because we had gone through all of these issues, 70-
something amendments, last time, and this time we were able to get the
farm bill through the Agriculture Committee in record time--in 3 hours.
Now it is on the floor, and I predict we will have strong bipartisan
support.
You ask why. First of all, last year our country experienced the
worst drought since 1956, costing the country tens of billions of
dollars. In Minnesota 74 counties were eligible for disaster relief due
to drought.
This year the late spring and wet conditions have prevented many
farmers in my State from even getting their crop into the ground. Dairy
farmers have been especially hurt because of the alfalfa shortage
because of the rot because of the water.
We can't do anything about the weather, but we can make sure our
country has a steady food supply and that we are not dependent on
foreign food. How do we do that? By having a smart, fiscally sound farm
bill.
I can tell you what we have is a bill that literally saves the
taxpayers $24 billion in 10 years over the last farm bill. That is why
it makes no sense for me to play a game of green light-red light and at
the end of the year we are going to extend the last farm bill that is
even more expensive, when we have a very smart farm bill here.
It matters in my State. My State is No. 1 in turkeys, sweet corn,
green peas, and oats, No. 2 in spring wheat, No. 3 in hogs and
soybeans, and No. 4 four in corn. But it is more than the crops and the
sugar beets and the wheat. We don't just raise livestock. We don't just
produce crops. We also produce the foods--milk at Land O'Lakes, the
turkey at Jennie-O, the animal feed at Cargill, the Spam at Hormel.
When we look at this farm bill, we have to understand it involves not
just our farmers--in fact, that is the smaller percentage of the farm
bill than, say, the nutrition program--but it also involves our entire
economy and how that all goes together from energy on down. What I like
about this farm bill is it does connect these dots and makes sure we
have a strong economy across the board, starting with our farmers, also
including strong conservation efforts.
I see the Senator from North Dakota Ms. Heitkamp. She and I, along
with Senator Hoeven, worked very hard to make sure there were strong
provisions in this bill for the conservation efforts, which include our
retention of water with floodings in the Fargo-Moorhead area, also
making sure we had strong efforts for agriculture research, something
everyone in our country cares about as we move forward.
We streamlined the conservation program from 23 to 13 programs. The
bill funds the energy title programs, which this last extension did not
do, and it also does a lot with ag research. I also had some of my
amendments included which help beginning farmers and ranchers; that
includes reducing the cost of crop insurance for beginning farmers by
10 percent. The second amendment helps beginning farmers access land
for grazing.
These are just a few of the things in this bill. We are excited about
this bill.
I would just end by saying, as Senator Stabenow did, that this is a
call for action. The Senate has gotten its act together. We were able
to work out a bipartisan compromise in the committee. We are able to
get a strong vote on the floor. Now it is time for Speaker Boehner to
call up the House bill so then we can work out the differences--as we
should--in regular order, in conference committee.
Our farmers deserve nothing less, the kids who depend on these school
nutrition programs deserve nothing less, and the conservation efforts
in our country, those who hunt, those who fish, those who enjoy the
outdoors, deserve nothing less.
It is time to get this bill done. We will vote on it tonight and then
it goes over to the House. I would like to get this bill out of the
House by the time we are ready to head into August, where we talk to a
lot of our farmers and they have a few words to say every time we speak
to them. I think the House would like to hear good things for a change.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am pleased to join the distinguished
Senator from Michigan in urging approval of this bill by the Senate. It
has been a pleasure working with her and other members of the
Agriculture Committee to produce a farm bill that meets the needs of
those involved in agriculture production and the consumers of the crops
produced by American farmers and ranchers.
This farm bil1 will also encourage and reward protection of water,
soil and forestry resources.
The bill also authorizes and improves Federal nutrition programs
administered by the Department of Agriculture. It contains reforms to
the nutrition title to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.
This bill deserves the support of the Senate.
The Senate debate on the farm bill has included votes on a number of
amendments over the last 2 weeks. American agricultural producers
deserve the certainty that comes with a strong 5 year farm bill. I am
pleased that we have come up with a bill that will meet that need.
This legislation will provide farmers in all regions of the country
with a robust and workable safety net, while also reducing by $24
billion the cost of the programs authorized by current law.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I yield time now to the Senator from
Florida for a colloquy with myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Greening
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I am grateful to the chairman of the
committee to engage in a colloquy with me
[[Page S4046]]
about a devastating disease of bacteria called greening, which is
devastating the citrus industry. We know of no cure. The bacteria kills
the citrus tree in 5 years, and we are not going to have a citrus crop
or industry unless we can find a cure for this bacteria.
The bacteria is transported by an insect called a psyllid, and once
the psyllid bores its snout into the bark of the tree and the bacteria
is injected into the foam or sap of the tree, it will kill the tree.
They found various methods of spraying to try to prolong the life of
the tree, but in essence the tree will die in about 5 years. It is in
every grove in Florida. It is now in the citrus industry in California
and Arizona and they have found the psyllid likewise in other gulf
coast States--Alabama, Louisiana--and greening is also in the State of
Georgia.
So what we are trying to do is set up a trust fund, which is
authorized in the bill, and to get it funded in order to find a cure
for this disease so an industry that has become so important to the
entire country can be saved.
I have talked at length with the chairman of the Finance Committee
Senator Baucus, who has been very supportive. As a matter of fact, we
passed a similar bill out of the Finance Committee in the last
Congress. I plan to work with Senator Baucus and Senator Stabenow to
make sure this trust fund becomes a reality as we move forward with
this farm bill.
Ms. STABENOW. I would just indicate to my colleague who has been such
a strong advocate for his State, for his growers, his people--I am very
grateful for that.
He has made his case very strongly. I understand that once a tree is
exposed to the disease, there is no cure. The tree will die within 5
years. It must be entirely replaced. In fact, as the Senator indicated,
this is something that affects many States--not only Florida but Texas,
California, Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia as well. So I know
this is a serious issue for our citrus growers, and I am committed to
working with Senator Baucus to make sure the trust funds for citrus, as
well as cotton and wool, are included in the final conference
committee.
I know these are concerns shared by a number of our colleagues, and I
look forward to working with the Senator from Florida as well as other
colleagues. This is a very important issue.
Mr. NELSON. I thank Senator Stabenow for her commitment to helping
fund a cure for citrus greening, and it is just that; it is an
emergency situation.
Because of the devastating nature of this citrus greening disease,
the citrus research trust fund must have guaranteed funding in the farm
bill. We simply can't wait any longer. Graciously, Senators Stabenow
and Baucus have both been so encouraging and have agreed with me
personally to restore the funding mechanisms of the trust fund when the
Senate and the House go to conference on the farm bill. When this farm
bill makes its way to the President's desk, the citrus trust fund needs
to be a fully functional and a funded component.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, let me just say in conclusion that I
look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure there is a
guaranteed source of funding for the citrus trust fund. I understand
the devastation to an entire industry that he is speaking about to and
look forward to working with him.
Mr. NELSON. I would just conclude by saying that I not only speak of
this for my State of Florida, of which citrus is one of its primary
industries and now the product of which is a staple on every American
breakfast table, but I speak also of our sister States, Arizona,
California--and, by the way, to the Presiding Officer I can say that
the psyllid and the bacteria are in the State of Hawaii as well--
Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama. I am very grateful for this
commitment.
USDA Biobased Markets Program
Mr. KING. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to talk with
the Chairman today to get clarity about the products that will be
included in the USDA Biobased Markets Program. The Senator's hard work
and vision on the issue of innovation in natural resources industries
has provided the essential leadership to support growth in this
critical economic sector.
I greatly appreciate the work that she and Senator Cochran did to
expand the program's application in this farm bill, including the
explicit definition of forest products and the expanded definition of
innovation as it applies to the program.
The Senator and I both represent States that have strong forest
products industries in fact in Maine there are over 16,700 people who
are employed by the forestry, logging, wood products, and pulp and
paper industries. This industry also helps ensure that Maine's 233,000
family woodland owners have income to conserve and sustain their
working forests. Both of our States' forest-based economies have been
hit hard by the downturn in the housing market as well as increased
pressure overseas so it is important that we do not further hinder them
in any way.
I have learned recently of the USDA Biobased Markets Program and the
fact that in some cases, this program favors foreign products and other
biobased products over forest products, which are some of the most
biobased products in existence.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator for raising this important issue.
In Michigan the same industries employ over 24,600 people and I agree
that these jobs are vital to the economy. I was pleased to be able to
lay out a clearer path forward in this farm bill for the inclusion of
forest products in USDA's Biobased Markets Program.
Mr. KING. I would like to clarify that it is not the Committee's or
the Senator's intent to exclude forest products from this program. And
I would also like to clarify the meaning of the new provisions around
innovation in the program.
Ms. STABENOW. Yes, it is our intent to include forest products that
apply an innovative approach to growing, harvesting, sourcing,
procuring, processing, manufacturing, or application of biobased
products. Products should be included regardless of the date of entry
of the product into the marketplace.
Mr. KING. Let me give the Senator an example of a forest products
manufacturer in my home state that I believe is incredibly innovative
in how they grow and source their materials for their products.
Verso Paper Company has 1600 employees at their two mills in
Bucksport and Jay. They make coated commercial printing papers that
utilize manufacturing technologies that deliver increasingly improved
print quality through new coating formulations that incorporate newly
developed chemicals and materials. These products are some of the most
biobased products in the marketplace and should be eligible for the
program.
In addition to these changes in their product, Verso has also in the
last few years, significantly increased innovation in the sourcing of
their products, by increasing the amount of certified, sustainable
fiber that feeds their mills.
An improvement in this year's bill is the addition of language that
allows for innovation in the sourcing and application of biobased
products. In regards to innovation in sourcing of biobased products
does the Senator agree that innovations like forest certification
systems would qualify products for the program?
Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate the Senator mentioning Verso, since they
also have a mill in Quinnesec, MI and recently made a significant
investment in upgrading its energy system. It is our intention that
products that are sourced with innovative sourcing strategies like
forest certification systems and products that have improved their
manufacturing are included in the program.
Mr. KING. I thank the Senator. And what about companies like Robbins
Lumber in Maine that produces solid wood products, like 2x4s or
flooring? While the product may be the same product that has been on
the market for decades, the company producing it now generates all the
heating for the mill and offices as well as the energy for drying
lumber from their own biomass waste, as compared with using energy from
the grid. Further, they have worked with several organizations to
permanently conserve thousands of acres of land for wildlife habitat
and recreation.
Ms. STABENOW. That truly is what we are trying to inspire with this
innovation provision we are trying to help companies think outside the
box in
[[Page S4047]]
how they can improve their processes. Their efforts in both energy
generation from waste and land conservation are both excellent examples
that they are doing so.
Mr. KING. I thank the Senator. Again I truly appreciate the attention
to this issue and look forward to working with you and USDA in the
implementation of this legislation to support the important forest
products industry which has been an integral part of the economy of
this country for centuries.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to make a few
remarks about the farm bill that's before the Senate this week.
As my colleagues know, this is our second attempt in 2 years to pass
a new 5-year farm bill. The Senate passed its version last Congress,
which is essentially the same bill we are debating today. Last year,
the House refused to consider the Senate bill with good reason. This
bill is loaded with costly farm subsidies and hidden pet-projects. I
believe most Americans would be angered to know how we are wasting
their hard-earned tax dollars.
Congress already plunged our Nation into $16 trillion worth of debt
partially through farm bills like this. On average, Congress spends
about $1 trillion more annually than the Federal budget allows.
According to the Congressional Budget office, the budget deficit for
fiscal year 2014 will be about $624 billion. This bill alone--all one-
thousand pages--will cost nearly $1 trillion. That's almost $1 billion
per page. We must reduce the size of the Federal Government and the
farm bill is certainly ripe for cuts.
I will concede that my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee
did make some effort to eliminate our more outdated farm subsidy
programs like the Direct Payments Program, which spends about $5
billion a year to pay farmers of staple crops like corn whether or not
they grow anything. Direct payments have held on for decades until now.
Perhaps that gives the American public a sense of the shelf-life of the
new farm subsidies we are debating today.
Unfortunately, the savings generated by eliminating direct payments
are plugged back into the farm bill to finance new, more expensive
subsidies like those that are part of the Federal Crop Insurance
Program. While I agree that our farmers need some form of safety net,
farm bill crop insurance isn't ``insurance'' as most people know it.
Crop insurance is just a roundabout way to influence the free market,
subsidize overproduction and ultimately fleece consumers. Taxpayers
spend $14 billion a year subsidizing about 60 percent of insurance
premiums for everything from oysters to almonds. Even non-food products
like tobacco get $33 million a year in crop insurance handouts. Worse
yet, crop insurance isn't about protecting famers against crop losses
due to weather or infestation; it protects farmers against revenue
loss. I am hard pressed to think of any other industry in America that
can take out an insurance policy at the taxpayer's expense to ensure
their profits. This is clearly egregious when one realizes that
commodity prices are at record-highs.
This is all part of farm bill politics. In order to pass a farm bill,
Congress must find a way to appease every special interest and every
commodity association. Here are some other examples of hand-outs that
special interests win in this year's farm bill: $150 million to
establish a ``Citrus Research Trust Fund'' as well as a ``Wool Apparel
Manufacture Trust Fund''; $25 million to study the health benefits of
lima beans and peas; $1.4 million to study commercial mushroom growing;
$1.3 million to study the DNA sequencing of Christmas trees; $25
million to teach school children how to grow food in backyard gardens;
$10 million for eliminating ``feral swine''; $200 million for the
Market Access Program, which subsidizes overseas advertising campaigns
for large corporations, like handing out samples of Tennessee whiskey
in India or subsidizing a sampling tour of mint candies in the U.K.
This is how we pass behemoth farm bills the Capitol Hill-rule of
``dispersed costs and concentrated benefits.''
Take for example the protectionist provision concerning catfish
inspections that was added in conference to the 2008 Farm Bill. It
forces USDA to create a special catfish inspection office that will
cost taxpayers $15 million a year. GAO has said it is duplicative and
wasteful of FDA seafood inspection services. But it helps prop up
domestic catfish farmers in southern States from having to compete with
Asian catfish imports. I had an amendment to repeal this office but was
denied the courtesy of a vote despite it having 15 cosponsors and
overwhelming support in the Senate. My statement on this matter is in
the Record of last week when I attempted to call up my amendment and
make it pending.
I also sought a vote on another amendment that I introduced with
Senator Toomey concerning the repeal of something known as ``permanent
farm law.'' Because of permanent farm law, it's not an option for my
colleagues or I who want to put our feet down and say enough is enough
to reckless farm bills. Permanent farm law is essentially old farm
bills from 1938 and 1949 that are still on the books that automatically
kick-in if we fail to renew the farm bill or pass a temporary
extension.
Reverting to permanent farm law requires USDA to implement economic
Soviet-style ``command and control'' policies that require farmers to
achieve ``parity prices'' rooted in 1914 which bear no resemblance to
today's market. Nobody wants permanent farm law because it would
severely disrupt planting decisions for farmers and, according to USDA,
will cost taxpayers up to $50 billion in subsidies and increase food
prices by $20 billion. Yet these Depression-era farm bills work as a
``deadman's switch'' to pressure Congress into passing modern farm
bills. This almost happened last year when the Senate passed a farm
bill and the House did not. Americans may remember we faced a ``dairy
cliff'' in December when milk would double to $7 per gallon of milk.
Within one week of the pressure from national media coverage over the
``dairy cliff,'' Congress rushed through a business-as-usual extension
of the 2008 farm bill that was absent of any reform.
There's no reason to keep a 1938 farm law on the books except to
force Congress into passing farm bills by holding consumers hostage. My
amendment would have repealed this permanent farm law to prevent this
budgetary gamesmanship from repeating. But again, the Senate's farm
bill managers refused to allow us a vote on this amendment as well.
At the end of the day, this farm bill will be hailed by its
supporters as reform-minded. But let me assure the American public, it
is anything but. It was managed under a closed-amendment process and
will prove to be just as wasteful and costly as any farm bill we have
seen to date.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this
bill.
Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to speak on amendment No.
1169, a bipartisan amendment that Senator Carper and I offered to the
farm bill to fix bureaucratic hurdles that impact farmers' access to
seeds. Like so many of the amendments that were offered to this farm
bill, our amendment unfortunately was not considered despite broad,
bipartisan support and a strong need for the legislation.
Legislation is needed to ensure that American farmers continue to
have sufficient quantities of seeds each planting season. Every year,
seed is produced in South America in the winter and is delivered just-
in-time for spring planting in the United States. Due to the historic
drought in 2012, it is estimated that 20 percent of U.S. corn seed will
be brought in from South America for planting in 2013.
All seeds are regulated by the Department of Agriculture, USDA. All
imported seed must be accompanied by the appropriate forms required by
Customs and Border Protection, CBP and USDA, allowing the U.S.
Government to electronically track the shipments. In addition to
providing information on the seed and the U.S. destination, if seed is
still in a research and development phase, it is imported under a
strict permitting program administered by USDA's Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, APHIS. As part of its oversight role, USDA
also frequently samples and tests incoming seed shipments.
The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA requires a Notice of
Arrival,
[[Page S4048]]
NOA for all pesticides that enter the United States. Recently and
without warning, EPA began requiring the same NOA form used for
imported chemical pesticides on seed import shipments. These
duplicative and unnecessary paperwork requirements imposed by EPA
threaten to disrupt vital seed shipments.
The NOA is designed for imports of commercial pesticides not seeds,
and EPA procedures are antiquated. The form cannot be processed
electronically. It must be physically presented to and signed by EPA
and then returned to the importer who then gives it to CBP so the
shipment can enter. Some 2,000 to 3,000 shipments of counter-
seasonally-produced commercial seed arrive 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week during the critical period from January to April, but EPA only
operates during regular business hours. This volume can quickly
overwhelm the NOA process. A delay of even a day can result in delayed
deliveries, delayed plantings, and reduced yield for farmers.
EPA has never issued any rule or guidance suggesting that seeds
containing a pesticide require an NOA to enter the country. However,
EPA officials have been enforcing this requirement for commercial seeds
containing a pesticide. No seeds should be subjected to these
additional paperwork requirements.
Our amendment to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act, FIFRA would clarify the roles of EPA and USDA and ensure that
unnecessary paperwork does not disrupt an adequate supply of seeds.
This language would clarify that the NOA required for the importation
of conventional pesticides is not required for imports of treated seed.
All seeds would continue to be regulated by USDA under existing
statutes and would remain subject to all applicable USDA and CBP entry
requirements. EPA's authority to regulate the pesticides themselves
would not be affected.
This bipartisan legislation was adopted by voice vote as an amendment
to the House Agriculture Committee farm bill and is supported by the
American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association,
National Farmers Union, Agricultural Retailers Association, National
Corn Growers Association, and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
Senator Carper and I worked with Senator Boxer to make changes to our
amendment to address concerns about the scope of the amendment. We are
hopeful that when the farm bill is considered in conference, our
amendment is adopted.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Senate
farm bill, S. 954, which would make significant reforms to federal
agriculture programs and important investments in nutrition,
conservation, and rural development. In addition to providing a safe
and healthful food supply, America's farmers sustain our rural
communities, protect the environment, and preserve the open space that
is a vital part of our heritage.
This 5-year reauthorization bill demonstrates much-needed fiscal
responsibility by eliminating wasteful direct payments, which over the
years have provided financial benefits to hundreds of wealthy
individuals not involved in farming. Overall, the bill would cut
spending by $24 billion, which is a step in the right direction.
The farm bill contains some significant help for family farms in
Maine and throughout the country. It contains a provision I authored
with Senator Gillibrand that would reform the way the USDA sets dairy
prices, reforms that are supported by Maine's dairy farmers. The
provision would require the USDA to begin the hearing process to
restructure the milk pricing system and would direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to release the Department's recommendations to Congress.
S. 954 would maintain fruit and vegetable research programs, which
are critical for Maine's potato and wild blueberry growers. In
addition, the bill includes several local and organic food initiatives
that would benefit Maine's agriculture community.
The bill would also continue vital programs to address hunger and
nutrition promotion while strengthening the integrity and
accountability of federal nutrition programs. I was pleased to see the
adoption of commonsense reforms and the rejection of an amendment that
would have made harmful changes to the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program safety net.
Given the significant budget pressures, the bill would appropriately
improve the effectiveness of conservation and rural energy initiatives.
S. 954 demonstrates a continuing commitment to voluntary working lands
programs that help improve stewardship practices with technical
assistance and cost-share programs for working agricultural and private
forest lands, including in Maine.
There are, however, some disappointments. In an arbitrary decision by
the USDA, the fresh white potato is the only fresh vegetable or fruit
to be specifically excluded from the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC. I filed an amendment
that would allow for the purchase of nutritious and affordable fresh
white potatoes in WIC, which is cosponsored by a group of bipartisan
colleagues, including Senators Mark Udall, Risch, King, Crapo, Bennet,
Johanns, Schumer, Cantwell, and Baldwin. The modification I proposed is
strongly endorsed by Maine's potato industry and supported by sound
nutritional science, and I am disappointed I was denied a vote on it. I
will continue to press for this reform as the Senate and House
negotiate a final farm bill.
An amendment I cosponsored with Senator Leahy that would eliminate a
payment limit for organic farmers under the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, also did not receive a vote. It is also regrettable
that the amendment to reform the sugar program by Senator Shaheen,
which I cosponsored and which was endorsed by a broad coalition of
consumer, business, and environmental groups, failed to pass. According
to CBO, these reforms would save $82 million over the next 10 years.
The leadership of the Senate Agriculture Committee deserves credit
for putting together a bipartisan farm bill during this time of
partisanship. This bill is a welcome change from the previous
reauthorization, which was loaded with wasteful spending and subsidies.
I continue, however, to have concerns that the cost of this farm bill
remains too high and that more should be done to reform agribusiness
programs to help address our skyrocketing deficit. This is an area I
hope Congress will continue to work on moving forward.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, despite its name, farm bill policies
touch the lives of all Americans, not just those who work in the
agricultural sector. In addition to reauthorizing farm programs, this
legislation deals with domestic and international food aid,
conservation and the environment, trade, rural development, renewable
energy, forestry, and financial markets, among other issues. This
year's reauthorization presented an opportunity to enact significant
reforms in these critical areas. While some progress was made, I
believe the bill falls short of its potential and, ultimately, I cannot
support it.
The farm bill took an important step toward reform by ending the
longstanding practice of giving direct payments to farmers of certain
commodity crops, regardless of whether a farmer experienced losses or
even planted a crop. It also places caps on the amount of farm payments
an individual can receive, expands crop insurance opportunities for
specialty and organic crops, establishes conservation compliance as a
requirement for receiving premium insurance subsidies, and invests in
rural broadband.
In spite of these successes, however, the farm bill does not do
enough for Rhode Island families.
Of greatest concern to me, it includes a $4.5 billion cut over 10
years to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP also
known as food stamps. These cuts could lead to a reduction in food
stamp benefits for an estimated 500,000 households across the country,
including possibly 20,000 households in Rhode Island. SNAP is our
Nation's most important anti-hunger program. In this challenging
economic climate, which has affected low-income individuals more
harshly than anyone, and from which Rhode Island is recovering very
slowly, it is wrong to cut critical food-assistance funding.
I am also discouraged that this legislation provides no funds for
fisheries
[[Page S4049]]
disasters, including those declared in 2012. Like our farmers,
fishermen feed this nation. Americans enjoyed an average of 15 pounds
of fish and shellfish per person in 2011, making us second in total
seafood consumption in the world. Accordingly, fishing is also a major
economic cornerstone of our coastal communities. In 2011, fisheries
supported over 1.2 million jobs in the United States.
Despite adhering to strict catch limits, many fishermen and historic
fishing communities are suffering dramatic declines in stocks. In 2012,
Commerce Secretary Bryson and Acting Secretary Blank issued fisheries
disaster declarations ranging from Alaska to Samoa, and from
Mississippi up to my home State of Rhode Island. Despite being included
in the Senate version, emergency funding for many of these fisheries
was left out of final version of the Sandy disaster relief bill
ultimately signed into law.
Farm bill programs provide billions of dollars in subsidies and
technical assistance to farmers every year. In comparison, fishermen
have little access to similar kinds of federal subsidies. Several
amendments have been filed that attempt to correct this inequity,
including the creation of a pilot program for Farm Service Agency
operating loans and crop insurance for shellfish growers. We are a long
way, however, from adequately supporting and protecting the role of
fisheries in our food supply chain. Fishermen remain second-class
citizens when it comes to federal support.
Finally, American agriculture springs from the richness of our land
and natural resources, and the farm bill has long supported programs to
conserve and protect those resources. As the harmful effects of climate
change become more prevalent, our agricultural policy should reflect
the threat posed to farming and food production by these changes. In
this farm bill, ``climate change'' and ``extreme weather'' are hardly
even mentioned. Congress can start by opening the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program to climate change adaptation and mitigation
projects.
The farm bill is important and wide-ranging legislation.
Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate leaves out essential
protections for low-income Americans, hard-hit fisheries, and precious
natural resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to
amendment No. 991, filed by my colleague, the junior Senator from South
Dakota.
This amendment would eliminate $2 billion from SNAP by limiting the
funds available for cost-effective nutrition education programs.
While I appreciate and share my colleague's deep commitment to
deficit reduction, this amendment would do so at the expense of those
who can least afford it.
It is a shortsighted amendment pennywise and pound foolish.
A $2 billion cut to this program would chip away at vital programs
that combat obesity, a growing epidemic that weighs on our health care
system and our economy. Estimates of the medical cost of adult obesity
in the United States range from $147 billion to nearly $210 billion per
year, according to the Trust for America's Health.
Cutting this program may save money in the short term, but it would
cripple ongoing efforts to deliver innovative and effective nutrition
education to the most vulnerable populations in our country.
And these education programs are working, Madam President.
According to a study published in the Journal of Nutrition Education
and Behavior, USDA's SNAP nutrition education programs contributed to a
17 percent increase in the number of California adults who ate at least
five servings of fruits and vegetables each day.
The study showed that the greatest improvements in daily fruit and
vegetable consumption were seen in populations with the greatest need.
There was a 91 percent increase among the poorest segment of the
population, those with less than $15,000 in annual income, who consumed
five or more serving of fruits and vegetables per day; a 77 percent
improvement in the African American population, and a 43 percent
improvement in the Latino population.
The staggering cost of obesity will continue to increase until we
take significant action to improve our health and diet.
That's not to say that there's no room for reform; there certainly
is.
That is why Congress passed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act 3 years
ago, a bill that made significant reforms to SNAP nutrition education
programs.
Most notably, the law changed how the program is funded to make it
more equitable. The formula now reflects the actual number of SNAP
beneficiaries in each State.
Some would have us believe that the amendment, which mandates an
across-the-board $5 cap per recipient, is fiscally responsible. I don't
think that is the case. I believe this is simply an attempt to
redistribute SNAP funding to States that have shown no interest in
reducing obesity among SNAP beneficiaries.
Under the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, funding for the SNAP
Education Program is allotted based on two factors: a State's
historical contributions to healthy eating and lifestyle programs, and
the number of SNAP participants in the State.
The amendment offered by my colleague from South Dakota undoes that
formula, instead allocating funds solely on a per-recipient basis.
The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act formula was the product of a
compromise.
The old formula, which allowed the Federal Government to match all
State contributions to programs that encourage healthy eating and
lifestyles for SNAP recipients, was not affordable.
By eliminating the unlimited match provision and replacing it with a
block grant, the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act was able to save
taxpayers more than $1 billion over 10 years.
In exchange for this reduction, a new formula was created. Under the
new provision, States that committed hundreds of millions of their own
dollars to reduce obesity, like California and Michigan, received
marginally higher obesity education funding from USDA.
And States that had not dedicated their own resources to combating
obesity received a relatively smaller share of the funding.
Allowing the changes from 2010, which are just now being implemented,
to take effect is the best way to effectively reform this program.
This amendment would devastate a program that helps SNAP-eligible
children and families learn to stretch their food budgets, reduce
hunger, make improvements to their diets and reduce obesity.
I urge my colleagues to let USDA implement the thoughtful
comprehensive reforms from 2010.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs
Act of 2013 contains many important provisions for my State of Michigan
and for our Nation's farmers and that is why I am voting in support.
The Senate passed a farm bill in 2012, but the House took no action.
This was unfortunate, as that farm bill as well as the one before us
now contain important reforms to agricultural programs. Reforms that
will better help farmers manage their risk and better protect the
environment.
CBO estimates that the Senate introduced bill would reduce direct
spending by $18 billion over a 10-year period. The bulk of these
savings come from the elimination of direct payments to growers and
restructuring of conservation programs. While achieving this budgetary
savings, the bill provides important funding for agricultural
producers. I am pleased that this farm bill provides funding for
specialty crops. My home State is second only to California in the
number of crops grown and is second to none in production of 18
different commodities including tart cherries, cucumbers, blueberries,
dry black and red beans and cranberries. The bill before us provides
mandatory funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, continues
funding for specialty crop block grants and consolidates efforts to
fight invasive pests.
The bill also includes important conservation provisions to reduce
erosion, improve wildlife habitat, and protect water quality, including
that of the Great Lakes. Compliance with conservation measures is
required for lands receiving Federal assistance. Every year, about 600
million tons of topsoil erode from agricultural lands in the Great
Lakes region. This soil erosion also includes fertilizer and other
[[Page S4050]]
chemicals, polluting waterways and contributing to harmful algal
blooms, a growing problem in the Great Lakes. The conservation
requirements in the bill would help prevent this from occurring, as
well as protecting the soil quality and productivity of the farmland.
I am also pleased the bill includes the Regional Conservation
Partnership Program, which would support locally-led conservation
projects in priority watersheds such as the Great Lakes. The program
would allow a broad range of issues to be addressed including sediment
reduction, water quality improvements, and habitat conservation.
Because the Great Lakes region already has a regional plan in place,
our region should be able to effectively compete for the $110 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 to be done. The conservation funding
provided in the farm bill would help to protect and restore the Great
Lakes as well as Michigan's inland waterways.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, sometimes Congress passes legislation
that directly creates jobs. More often, we approach job creation
indirectly, with legislation that lays the groundwork for a more
productive and dynamic private sector. An excellent example of this is
this new farm bill.
The chairwoman, Senator Stabenow, and the ranking member, Senator
Cochran, deserve congratulations and our sincere gratitude for all of
their efforts and their success in bringing this bill through the
Agriculture Committee and to the Senate floor. And because this bill
reflects so much of the work done in the last Congress, I also want to
recognize the many contributions of Senator Roberts.
As a senior member and former chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, this is the eighth farm bill I
have worked on since coming to Congress in 1975. I chaired the
committee during passage of the 2002 and 2008 bills. From that
experience, I can tell my colleagues the new farm bill--the Agriculture
Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013--is good for Iowa and our entire
Nation.
It is a difficult enough process to craft a farm bill without the
extra hardship of having to take spending reductions out of the budget
baseline. These budget cuts are very difficult because there are
compelling needs respecting food, agriculture, and rural America. This
measure embodies genuine sacrifices and serious deficit reduction. It
exceeds the farm bill deficit reduction in the budget resolution we
passed here in the Senate.
This bill reflects a bipartisan balance among numerous competing
demands. It was broadly supported in the committee and I hope it will
be broadly supported by the full Senate. Again, I commend the
leadership of our committee for striking that balance and building
support for this legislation.
Overall net farm income has been strong in our Nation in recent
years, and that has given a boost to rural economies. But this strong
income has not been enjoyed by all producers of all commodities, or in
all regions of the country. For example, many farmers and ranchers are
still struggling to survive the devastating impact of drought and other
natural disasters.
This bill wisely continues programs that offer some income protection
and stability in the face of the inevitable natural disasters and
swings in farm production levels and commodity prices. At the same
time, this bill continues and builds upon important reforms in recent
farm bills, for example, by strengthening and tightening payment
limitations.
A landmark reform in this bill is eliminating what are called the
direct commodity payments. From their inception, I did not believe the
direct payments were sound or responsible policy. They were inadequate
when farm prices and incomes fell. Yet when prices and incomes rose,
the payments continued anyway, which was unjustified, and even
embarrassing.
And so I support replacing the direct payments with the revenue
protection program in this bill focused on protecting farmers against
losses of revenue, taking into account both prices and yields. The new
revenue program is an evolution of the Average Crop Revenue Election--
ACRE--program that I was pleased we included in the 2008 farm bill.
This bill also continues a strong crop insurance program, and in fact
it makes it even more beneficial to farmers. That is certainly of
substantial economic value to Iowa farmers.
In the conservation title, I commend Senator Stabenow, Senator
Cochran, and Senator Roberts for important improvements in the
programs, and for continuing the Conservation Stewardship Program and
other critical initiatives with substantial funding levels. I do very
much regret that conservation funding is cut from the budget baseline
levels, but I commend and thank the leaders of our committee for
limiting those conservation budget cuts.
I especially want to express my strong congratulations for the
momentous agreement that was reached between the farm community and the
conservation community to reinstate minimum conservation requirements
in order for a farmer to receive Federal crop insurance subsidies. This
is a very important policy reform. I very strongly urge my colleagues
to support this agreement on making basic conservation an integral part
of crop insurance.
I am pleased this bill continues to provide fresh fruits and
vegetables to school children across the country. That is an initiative
I started and expanded as chairman. I regret, however, that this
legislation reduces funding for nutrition assistance to low-income
Americans. I commend the chairwoman and ranking member for limiting
these reductions. I intend to try to mitigate cuts to antihunger
programs as the legislative process moves forward.
In the several farm and rural energy programs in the bill, I am very
pleased with the substantial level of mandatory funding dedicated to
continue these effective and beneficial initiatives.
So, again, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for their
good work and pledge my support to them in moving this bill through the
Senate and to conference with the House--once the House passes its
bill, we hope--and then to the President.
This new farm bill is vitally important to our Nation and especially
to productivity, vitality and jobs in our Nation's food and agriculture
sector. It is far too important to be delayed any longer.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today I will vote to pass a bipartisan
measure to reauthorize the many important programs and reforms included
in this year's farm bill. Chairman Stabenow and Senator Cochran are to
be commended for the good work they and other Agriculture Committee
members put into developing this legislation.
This bill is the most sweeping reform of agriculture programs in
recent memory. Gone are outdated direct payments that are made
regardless of profitability of the farm. Instead, we strengthen the
crop insurance program, a vital safety net for our producers, while
making commonsense reforms. The amendment I offered with Senator Coburn
reducing premium support for the wealthiest farmers is a part of these
reforms. So is the move to require conservation compliance from farmers
who benefit from subsidized crop insurance. I hope these will be
retained in a final conference version of the bill.
The energy title includes mandatory funding for programs to expand
bio-based manufacturing, advanced biofuels, and renewable energy. These
programs help companies in Illinois like Archer Daniels Midland and
Patriot Renewable Fuels process and manufacture products in rural
America. There are many examples in Illinois of new markets being
developed and new jobs being created in rural areas because of the
growth in bio-based industries.
The bill also includes mandatory spending, reauthorizes, and expands
several programs in the research title. A new Foundation for Food and
Agriculture Research will leverage public dollars to generate private
investment in ag research. These investments are important to Illinois
producers and major research institutions like the University of
Illinois, Southern Illinois University, the Peoria Agriculture Lab, and
several other universities and labs across Illinois.
Finally, the bill ensures that programs are in place to help our
rural communities grow and thrive and it reauthorizes food assistance
programs for
[[Page S4051]]
those most in need, at home and abroad. And it does all this while
saving roughly $24 billion compared to pre-sequestration budget levels.
As the Senate and House work through conference, I urge my colleagues
to protect access to SNAP for the over 23 million households that
depend on the program. It is my great hope that when a final version of
the 2013 farm bill is considered in the Senate, I will be able to fully
support a bill that protects this important nutrition program.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, across Vermont's food system, businesses
are starting, expanding, and creating good jobs. Ever more local food
is available in stores, restaurants, and institutions throughout the
State and in greater supply, for more months of the year. Important
programs are reaching more food insecure Vermonters with fresh, healthy
food. Thanks to the Senate farm bill we will continue to see these
improvements in Vermont and across the country
Nationwide agriculture supports 16 million jobs. In Vermont our farms
and private forestlands play a large role in our economy and our
State's cultural and historical identity. Iconic images of Vermont's
farms and forests bring millions of visitors to the State each year,
supporting our local communities.
The 2013 farm bill that the Senate passed today will continue to
support our farmers and rural communities, while also reforming
agricultural programs to save taxpayers billions of dollars. I am
encouraged that the Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie
Stabenow and our ranking member Thad Cochran have been able to bring
the Senate together to pass a bipartisan farm bill. A farm bill that
saves more than $23 billion. A bill that includes many compromises.
This bill provides an important framework to help farmers and ranchers
in all regions of the country manage their risks more effectively,
especially our country's dairy farmers, who strongly support the dairy
provisions in the Senate-passed farm bill.
I must also thank the chairwoman for her assistance with my gigabit
broadband pilot amendment. This small pilot effort is an important
addition to the bill and the broadband program and will help to ensure
that the taxpayer dollars we are investing in networks will not become
obsolete within the next few years. Gigabit Internet is spreading to
cities across the country, and this pilot will allow USDA to test out
investment in gigabit networks in rural areas on a pilot basis. The
next generation gigabit networks will transform everything from the
reliability of the electrical grid, to education and healthcare in
rural America. We cannot leave rural America behind in the dust while
the rest of the country moves into this next stage of the digital era.
I urge the U.S. House of Representatives to follow suit by bringing a
farm bill up for debate as soon as possible. Time already is running
short for us to bring Senate and House bills to a conference committee
to work out the vast differences and arrive at a compromise farm bill
that can be signed into law prior to the Sept. 30 expiration of the
current bill. Farmers face enough uncertainty in their work and do not
need Congress to compound the variables with which they must contend by
once again delaying final action on a farm bill. Our farmers and the
American people deserve a new farm bill and a balanced bill like the
one we have passed in the Senate today, a bill which supports our
nutrition, conservation, rural development, and farm programs. Our
farmers cannot afford to be kept in limbo any longer by congressional
gridlock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
is expired. The question occurs on amendment No. 998, offered by the
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this amendment is very simple. It sets up
a pilot program for real ultra-high-speed Internet in rural areas. We
are going to have this in urban areas. All we are saying is let rural
areas--and every single Senator represents a rural area somewhere in
their State--allow rural areas to compete with urban areas for jobs,
for education, for medical care.
The ultra-high-speed Internet service pilot is narrow in scope,
carefully drafted. I know it is supported by the distinguished chair
and distinguished ranking member. It has the potential of bringing, as
I said earlier, the innovation of Silicon Valley to the Upper Valley in
Vermont and rural areas across the country.
It is almost what we had to argue about rural electricity back before
I was born--whether rural areas would be the same as urban areas. This
makes it possible.
I urge its passage.
Ms. STABENOW. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Leahy amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Leahy
amendment.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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 proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Blumenthal), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the Senator from
Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Udall), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from
Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Scott) would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Baldwin
Baucus
Bennet
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--38
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chiesa
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Fischer
Flake
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Wicker
NOT VOTING--14
Begich
Blumenthal
Brown
Chambliss
Graham
Manchin
McCain
Murkowski
Paul
Sanders
Scott
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
The amendment (No. 998) was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. We have one more vote tonight on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the third
time.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time,
under the previous order the question is, Shall it pass?
Mr. COATS. Madam 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.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the
[[Page S4052]]
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Udall), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 27, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]
YEAS--66
Alexander
Baldwin
Baucus
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Chiesa
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Cowan
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warren
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--27
Ayotte
Barrasso
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Enzi
Flake
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Lee
McConnell
Portman
Reed
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--7
Begich
Manchin
McCain
Murkowski
Paul
Udall (CO)
Warner
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Vote Explanations
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was not able to vote on final
passage of the farm bill today due to an urgent personal matter, but I
want the record to reflect my strong support for the Agriculture
Reform, Food and Jobs Act. Last year I voted in favor of the farm bill
and would have once again supported this bipartisan legislation. S. 954
gives Virginia's farmers the certainty they need, supports the
economies of our rural communities and also improves current farm
programs. I am proud that the bill contains two of my priorities:
ensuring farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed get a fair share of
conservation funding and reforming broadband financing programs to
provide greater accountability and transparency. I would like to thank
the chairwoman and ranking member for their tireless efforts, and wish
I could have been there to cast my vote for this important, bipartisan
legislation.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I was unable to return
to Washington, DC, prior to the votes this evening due to unavoidable
travels delays that were beyond my control and was therefore unable to
cast a vote for rollcall votes No. 144 and 145, Leahy amendment No. 998
and final passage of the farm bill, S. 954. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea'' on each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
5 minutes. Following my remarks, Senator Sessions will have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
THE FARM BILL
Mr. BROWN. Under the leadership of Chairman Stabenow and Ranking
Member Cochran, the Senate has again passed a bipartisan deficit-
reducing bill that will help our farms, our families, our economy, and
our environment.
The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 is a good start to
cultivating a new era of prosperity in our country and reinvesting in
rural America. That is because this bill benefits all Americans,
especially in my home State of Ohio.
One in seven jobs in Ohio, in places such as Custar and Defiance, is
related to food and agriculture. To keep our economy growing, the farm
bill must remain a priority here in Congress. We have shown the Senate
can do its part.
To people who are uncertain about our ability to work across the
aisle, I say look at this farm bill. To people who are concerned about
spending in Washington, I say look at this farm bill. To people who are
disheartened about our ability to help low-income families make ends
meet, I say look at this farm bill.
This bill saves more than $24 billion, and it maintains important
investments in conservation, nutrition, renewable energy, and rural
development. Farmers across Ohio and across the country tell us they
want a leaner, more efficient, and market-oriented farm safety net.
Taxpayers deserve that too.
By eliminating direct payments, linking crop insurance to
conservation compliance, and by further reforming our risk management
programs, the Senate has taken that first step.
Every farmer knows the importance of building on last season's work.
Last year, Senators Thune, Durbin, Lugar--the predecessor--the
Presiding Officer, and I proposed the Aggregate Risk and Revenue
Management Program, streamlining the farmer safety net, making it more
market-oriented. The Agricultural Risk Coverage Program included in
this bill gives farmers the tools they need to mitigate risks, ensuring
that payments happen only when farmers need them most. The program
relies on current data and, as a result, is more responsive to farmers'
needs and more responsive to taxpayers.
It also includes a provision to help Ohio farmers and producers sell
their products directly to consumers. It will make a world of
difference to families and schools that want to eat locally grown food.
I appreciate the efforts, interest, and support of Senator Cochran in
those efforts.
However, this bill does not include my food and agriculture market
development amendment, cosponsored by 14 of my colleagues, to provide
needed funding to several important programs that support the
development of a stronger, more sustainable food system. We will work
on that in the House.
By aligning our agricultural, health, and economic policies in ways
that ensure farmers get a fair price for their product, all Americans
can have access to affordable, healthy food, while contributing to
strong communities and thriving local economies.
The farm bill affects every American every day. It is a deficit
reduction bill. It is a jobs bill, conservation bill, rural development
bill, and it is bipartisan.
I commend again Senator Stabenow and Senator Cochran for their work
in crafting this bill, and their joint effort to work across party
lines is to be commended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senate for passing
this very important farm bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs
Act of 2013.
I especially thank my colleagues Debbie Stabenow and Pat Roberts and
their staff members for the hard work they devoted to this effort.
Their bill, when it was begun, passed the Senate last year. Their
legislation became the starting point for our work this year on the
bill.
The chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow, and
her staff director, Chris Adamo, have been outstanding leaders in this
effort. I would at this opportunity thank them and all of the members
of their staff for their hard work in developing a strategy and
developing language of a bill that could enjoy such broad support.
Members of our committee staff and my personal office staff have
worked very hard too in this effort. I would like to thank them for
their contributions. I appreciate their hard work. They include my
staff director, T. A. Hawks, Nona McCoy, Kevin Batteh, Darrell Dixon,
Adam Telle, Daniel Ulmer, Ben Mosely, Taylor Nicholas, Julian Baer,
Andrew Vlasaty, Chris Gallegos, Steven Wall, Keith Coble, Anne Hazlett,
James Glueck, and Sarah Margaret Hewes. The staff members have done an
outstanding job, and
[[Page S4053]]
I am very pleased they have been members of our team. For all of them
and especially for the Senators and the support we have received today,
we appreciate the support very much.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________