[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1254-S1257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Agriculture

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, there are few things that I enjoy more 
than bragging about my hometown. I live in a little town called Yuma, 
CO, out in the Eastern Plains. It is a town of about 3,500 people. If 
maybe you overexaggerate a little bit, it reaches 4,000. It is out in 
the middle of the High Plains of Colorado, 4,000 feet in elevation, 40 
miles or so from the Kansas-Nebraska border. It is a farming community, 
100 percent farming. Everything related to the town is farming. Even 
the clothing stores are related to farming because if you don't have a 
strong agriculture economy, nobody is buying blue jeans, nobody is 
going up to the car dealership to buy a pickup if the bushel of corn 
isn't priced right. So everything we do in that town is related to 
agriculture and farming.
  My family comes from a background of farm equipment business and 
started a business--101 years old this year--by my great-grandfather. 
My time working in the dealership started roughly when I was in 
seventh, eighth grade. They let me do some very complicated tasks, 
high-skill tasks they let me perform: cleaning the bathroom, sweeping 
the floors. I did that throughout my time in eighth grade, high school, 
and college. If I go back today, I am sure they would let me do the 
same job, clean the bathrooms and sweep the floors. Part of that is 
because I was selling the wrong parts to a lot of farmers who would 
come into the dealership. Maybe they were just keeping me off the parts 
counter for the time being. In fact, maybe that is why people voted for 
me, to get me off the parts counter and quit selling the wrong parts.
  Over my time working at the dealership, we witnessed a lot of good 
times in agriculture. I can remember one time going into my dad's and 
granddad's office and saying: You know what, the economy is really 
good. The price of corn is really high right now. We ought to order a 
whole bunch of farm equipment--a whole bunch of pieces of implements, 
tillage equipment, tractors, combines--and have them on the lot so we 
can take advantage of the good times in agriculture.
  My granddad paused and looked at my dad and said: No, I don't think 
we should do that because I don't think times are going to be good next 
year.
  They were right. This was back in probably the mid-1990s. They had 
seen it coming because of their experience in the business, the ebbs 
and flows of agriculture, the good times and the bad times. They were 
able to recognize, through their own experience, what different 
economic indicators meant to them and how they could forecast, using 
their experience, what was going to happen in the farm world the next 
year. So they decided not to order all that brandnew equipment. They 
decided not to order the tractors, the combines, and the tillage 
equipment. It was a good thing because the next year wasn't that great. 
If this 18-year-old, 19-year-old kid would have had his way, we would 
have had a whole lot of iron

[[Page S1255]]

we were paying interest on that year without being able to sell it.
  Colorado is pretty blessed, with 4,000 companies involved in 
agriculture, 173,000 jobs in Colorado directly involved in agriculture. 
The State has more than 35,000 farms and 31 million acres used for 
farming and ranching. If we look at the Colorado business economic 
outlook, the net farm income of ranchers and farmers in 2016 is 
estimated this year to be the lowest it has been since 1986, and the 
projections for 2017 are even lower.
  I grew up as a kid in the 1980s, watching perhaps the hardest times 
agriculture in the United States had faced in decades, watching a lot 
of people I knew my whole life going out of business, people having to 
sell the farm because of what was happening in the 1980s, leading to a 
banking crisis in agriculture in the 1980s, watching banks I had grown 
up with close.
  I am concerned in this country that we are going to see the same 
thing again, beginning in 2016, into 2017, and then into 2018 next 
year. I am very worried that those tough times we saw in the 1980s, and 
some of the tough with the good times we saw in the 1990s, and some 
really good years a few years ago are going to seem like distant 
memories come later this summer and into next year if we don't do 
something.
  I had the opportunity to visit with the Colorado commissioner of 
agriculture in my office last week, a gentleman by the name of Don 
Brown. Don Brown is from my hometown of Yuma, CO. It has done pretty 
well for itself, 3,000 people. The State commissioner of agriculture is 
from my hometown. The previous commissioner of agriculture, a gentleman 
by the name of John Stoltz, was from my hometown of Yuma. Both of them 
grew up in agriculture in that area, understanding what it is like on 
the High Plains, understanding what it is like to live through good 
times and bad times. Both of them today I think would tell you, they 
are very concerned as well about what happens over the next year, the 
next 2 years.
  It wasn't that long ago when we saw some of the highest priced 
commodities this country has ever seen, at least in a very long time--
the golden years of agriculture, some people said--where corn and wheat 
were priced high. People were able to pay their bills and buy new 
equipment. Commodity prices don't always stay that high though. The one 
thing a farmer will tell you is, the price of a piece of farm equipment 
stays high, the price of fertilizer seems to stay high. When prices 
come down on their commodities, the other prices--the inputs--stay 
high, and they find themselves in significant trouble.
  The price of corn today is estimated to be about $3.15 per bushel. 
That is what it was in 2016, less than half of the 10-year high price 
of corn of $6.86 in 2012, just a few years ago. To put that in 
historical context, the price of corn in 2016 at $3.15 is lower than 
the price of corn in 1974, the year I was born, when it was $3.20. The 
price of corn in 2016 was 5 cents lower than it was the year I was 
born, 1974. It is the same story across the board for Colorado. Wheat 
prices are down more than $1 from 2015 to 2016 alone and down more than 
50 percent since 2012. I can guarantee, even though I may have sold a 
lot of wrong parts at the implement dealership, those wrong parts 
didn't come down in price 50 percent.
  The livestock industry has seen similar trends, with cattle prices at 
their lowest level since 2010. In farming and agriculture, a lot of 
times we might see a year where the price of corn is high, but the 
price of cattle is low or the price of other commodities are high where 
the price of cattle is low, but when cattle are high, maybe other 
commodities are low. Farmers who have a diverse operation are able to 
offset the lows and the highs with a diverse operation--but not this 
year, and it looks like that may be the case next year.
  Declines in States' agriculture economy are not unique to Colorado. 
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research 
Service, revenues have decreased for agriculture nationwide by more 
than 10 percent since 2014.
  Recently, the Wall Street Journal wrote this, and I will show the 
headline of the Wall Street Journal piece just a couple of weeks ago. 
The Wall Street has an article entitled ``The Next American Farm Bust 
Is Upon Us.''
  We have had a lot of debates on this floor. We have had debates about 
Cabinet members. We have had debates about resolutions of disapprovals. 
We are talking about a lot of things, but there is a lot of suffering 
beginning in the heartland of America right now. A lot of farmers and 
ranchers are suffering. They are worried about how they are going to 
survive, not just into the next year but how they are going to survive 
into the next couple of months. The telltale signs of difficult times 
are all around us in agriculture. This article, ``The Next American 
Farm Bust Is Upon Us,'' begins to tell the story. Here is what the Wall 
Street Journal said:

       The Farm Belt is hurtling toward a milestone: Soon there 
     will be fewer than two million farms in America for the first 
     time since pioneers moved westward after the Louisiana 
     Purchase.
       Across the heartland, a multiyear slump in prices for corn, 
     wheat and other farm commodities brought on by a glut of 
     grain world-wide is pushing many farmers further into debt. 
     Some are shutting down, raising concerns that the next few 
     years could bring the biggest wave of farm closures since the 
     1980s.

  The article highlights the story of a fifth-generation farmer from 
Western Kansas. I mentioned my hometown is 40 miles away from Kansas. 
It looks very similar to the Eastern Plains of Colorado where I live. 
Here is his story:

       From his father's porch, the 56-year-old can see the 
     windswept spot where his great-grandparents' sod house stood 
     in 1902 when they planted the first of the 1,200 acres on 
     which his family farms alfalfa, sorghum and wheat today. Even 
     after harvesting one of their best wheat crops ever last 
     year, thanks to plentiful rain and a mild winter, Mr. Scott 
     isn't sure how long they can afford to keep farming that 
     ground.

  There is a lot of work we need to do to make sure Mr. Scott and 
farmers who live in my community around the Eastern and Western Slope 
of Colorado will be able to survive over the next year--steps so we can 
help to make sure we are addressing this crisis head-on, before it 
begins and develops into a full-blown farm crisis like we saw in the 
1980s. We must have serious regulatory reform.
  In a letter I received from the Colorado Farm Bureau, the letter 
read:

       Colorado Farm Bureau recognizes that a major impediment to 
     the success of American agricultural industries and the 
     national economy is rampant federal regulation and the 
     associated cost of compliance.

  We have to allow U.S. agriculture to flow to markets around the 
world, so in addition to that regulatory reform--some of which we are 
undertaking now through resolutions of disapproval by peeling back the 
overreach of government, we have to allow farmers access to more 
markets. That is a concern we all should share: What is going to happen 
with our trade policy in this country? Because if we decide to shut off 
trade in this country, if we decide to close access and avenues to new 
markets, the first people who are going to be hurt are those farmers 
and ranchers in Colorado and Kansas and throughout the Midwest of the 
United States. We have to have the opportunity to be able to send that 
bushel of wheat to Asia, that bushel of corn around the globe to make 
sure we are providing value-added opportunities for the world's best 
farmers and ranchers. Opening up new markets for Colorado and American 
agriculture is a clear way we can support rural economies.

  Let's be clear. What I said at the beginning of these comments--there 
are farm communities that have diversity in their economic 
opportunities. A farm economy may not be 100 percent dependent on farms 
or ranches. Maybe they have tourism. Maybe they have some recreational 
opportunities. Maybe they are close to a big city where people can live 
there and commute. But there are a lot of towns across the United 
States that are solely, 100 percent committed to agriculture. They 
don't have access to anything but farming and ranching. When the price 
is down, the town is down. When the town is down, Main Street erodes. 
When Main Street erodes, it affects our schools and our hospitals and 
our relationships and our families. And somebody has to be looking out 
for our farmers and ranchers because the next American farm bust is 
upon us.
  We have to take the necessary steps to pass a farm bill that gets our 
policies right when the new one expires. The current one expires in 
2016, and these discussions are just now underway. If we have 
regulatory reform, if

[[Page S1256]]

we open up new trade opportunities for agriculture and we give farmers 
certainty--those are three things we can do to help address this crisis 
before it becomes a full-blown crisis.
  We have to make sure that we support our farmers and ranchers, that 
we have their backs in good times and in bad times. Giving farmers 
certainty through a farm bill, through a regulatory landscape that 
provides certainty and relief, is important.
  I talked to a family member of mine the other day who talks about his 
fear that he sees conditions similar to what we saw in the 1980s. The 
final relief we can provide is relief from financial regulations that 
are stifling the ability of banks to provide workout opportunities for 
farmers and ranchers when they need it.
  Four things we ought to be doing for our farmers and ranchers: 
provide them certainty, regulatory relief, new trade opportunities, and 
targeted financial relief on regulations that are preventing workouts 
through our banks and our communities.
  We have the opportunity now to prevent this country from seeing what 
it saw in the 1980s, but let's not be reactionary. Let's do what we can 
to get ahead of this before we start seeing what Secretary-designee 
Perdue told me the other day. One of the customers of his agricultural 
business took his life because he didn't know what was going to happen 
to his farm, and his three kids are now left wondering what they are 
going to do.
  I hope this country understands how supportive we are of American 
agriculture and the actions we need to take to stand with them when 
times get tough.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to explain to my 
colleagues why I will be opposing the nomination of Scott Pruitt, the 
attorney general of Oklahoma, to be the next Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  I first want to start by saying I had an opportunity to visit with 
Attorney General Pruitt. He is a person who wants to serve our country, 
and we very much appreciate that. He has a distinguished career in 
public service, and we appreciate his willingness to continue to serve 
at the national level.
  My reason for opposing his nomination is that he has opposed most of 
the missions of the Environmental Protection Agency as the attorney 
general of Oklahoma. He has filed numerous lawsuits that would 
compromise the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
protect our environment.
  I come to this debate acknowledging that there are national 
responsibilities to protect our environment. The United States must 
also be engaged in global leadership as it relates to our environment. 
The people of Maryland want clean air. The people of Maryland want 
clean water. No State can guarantee to its citizens that its air will 
be clean or that its water will be safe. These issues go well beyond 
State boundaries. They go beyond national boundaries. It is for that 
reason that we need an Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency who will lead our Nation both in the appropriate controls and 
regulations to protect our air and water but also work for our country 
in regard to the global efforts to protect our environment for future 
generations.
  Let me talk about the issue of climate change. Climate change is one 
of the greatest threats of our times. We know that this year, according 
to NASA--they looked at the temperature rise in 2016 and found it to be 
the hottest year ever recorded. We know something is happening in 
regard to global climate change. It is affecting so many different 
areas. We have eroding shorelines that our constituents see. We have 
major military installations located along our coast that are at risk 
as a result of rising sea levels from ice melt. We have populations 
that are at risk in the United States.
  Let me give one example, if I might. Smith Island, MD, is a very 
proud community. It is a community that historically has been one of 
the strongest in regard to watermen and dealing with the fruits of the 
Chesapeake Bay. It is a proud community, and it is in danger of 
disappearing because we have sea level rises resulting from ice melting 
from climate change. We know there is a problem developing that we need 
to deal with. It is affecting our economy.
  In my State of Maryland, the seafood industry is concerned about the 
future of the blue crab crop. They know that juvenile crabs need sea 
grass in order to be able to be protected and mature into full-blown 
blue crabs. With water becoming warmer, the future of sea grass is 
challenged, putting the blue crab at risk.
  That is just one example. There are many more examples I can give 
about how it is affecting the economy of my State. It is affecting our 
ability to enjoy our environment, the recreation itself, and it is 
certainly providing a real risk in regard to the real estate. We have 
some very nice real estate located right on the coast or on barrier 
islands that is at risk of being lost as a result of climate change. We 
see more and more major weather events occur on a much more regular 
basis, causing billions of dollars of damage and putting lives at risk.
  We know climate change is here. It is happening. The science is 
pretty clear. When we asked Attorney General Pruitt his view about the 
science of climate change, his answer was ``far from settled.''
  The science is well understood. What we do here on Earth--the release 
of carbon emissions--is causing an abnormal warming of our climate. 
There are activities that we can do to reduce that effect on our 
climate. We know that. That is what science tells us. We know we can 
affect the adverse impacts of climate change if we take action. That is 
what scientists are telling us.
  The world came together on this issue in COP21. I was proud to head a 
delegation of 10 Members of the U.S. Senate as we went to Paris to make 
it clear to the international community that the United States wanted 
to be part of a global solution to climate change. Not any one country 
can reverse the trendline that we are on that is catastrophic; we need 
all nations to do everything they can to reduce the impact of climate 
change by reducing their carbon and greenhouse emissions. That is what 
the global community needs to do, but we have been unable to get the 
global community for all countries to live up to their 
responsibilities.
  Under President Obama and our leadership, we were able to get the 
world community--over 190 nations--to come together in Paris, in COP21, 
for every nation to take responsibility to reduce their carbon 
emissions so that we all can benefit from that effort.
  I am concerned as to whether Mr. Pruitt, if confirmed as the EPA 
Administrator, will continue that U.S. leadership. He has not been at 
all committed to U.S. programs on dealing with climate change, let 
alone our international responsibilities to lead other countries to do 
what they need to do. I will give one example. Part of our way of 
showing the international community that we are serious about the 
climate issue was the powerplant rule issued under the Obama 
administration. Attorney General Pruitt joined a group in opposing that 
powerplant rule through filing suit against the implementation of that 
particular law.
  We need someone who is going to lead on this effort in America and 
understand that we have responsibilities to lead the international 
community. We are at great risk from the impact of climate change, and 
that needs to be understood and recognized by the leader of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. I am not convinced Attorney General 
Pruitt would do that.
  I want to talk a little bit about clean air. Maryland has taken 
pretty aggressive steps to improve the air quality from emissions 
within the geographical boundary of the State of Maryland. That is what 
every State should do. But here is the challenge: Maryland is downwind 
from many other States' emissions, so we are seeing days in which our 
air quality is below what it should be, not because we haven't taken 
action but because we don't have a national policy to protect our clean 
air.
  The health of Marylanders depends on the Federal Government being 
aggressive in guaranteeing that all citizens of this country--that 
steps are taken to protect the air they breathe. I can tell you the 
number of children who have asthma who suffer when the air quality is 
not what it should be. It is not only wrong from the point of

[[Page S1257]]

view that we have an obligation to our children to make sure we give 
them the healthiest air to breathe, it is also costing our economy 
because every day that child stays home, a parent cannot go to work. 
The child loses their time in school; they are being disadvantaged. If 
they have to take a day off from summer camp, the parent has to stay 
home, and it is wasting resources in this country.
  For many reasons, we need an Administrator of the EPA who is 
committed to a national effort to make sure the air we breathe is clean 
and healthy.
  Likewise with clean water. Some of us remember when the Cuyahoga 
River caught fire in 1969. We know that pollution was so bad, you 
literally could set our rivers afire. We took steps. And it was not 
partisan--Democrats and Republicans came together with the Clean Water 
Act. We recognized that the Federal Government has the responsibility 
to protect the quality of our water so that we have safe, clean water 
in America.
  I think we have been working to improve the Clean Water Act 
consistently on a nonpartisan basis, but now we have Supreme Court 
decisions that challenge what water the Federal Government can 
regulate. Congress has not taken steps to clarify that. The 
administration took efforts to try to clarify that under the waters of 
the United States, only to see a Court action to put that on hold in 
which Mr. Pruitt joined as the attorney general of Oklahoma, once again 
slowing down our effort to protect the clean waters of America.
  I have spoken numerous times on the floor of the Congress about the 
Chesapeake Bay and how proud I am to be a Senator from Maryland, one of 
the six States that are in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, along with the 
District of Columbia.
  We know that the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. It has been 
so designated by many Presidents of the United States. It is the latest 
estuary in our hemisphere. The watershed contains 64,000 square miles, 
has over 11,000 miles of shoreline, and 17 million people live in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed--150 major rivers, $1 trillion to our economy. 
It is part of the heritage of my State and our region. We are proud 
that it is part of our life. It is part of why people like to live in 
this region. They know the Chesapeake Bay makes their life so much more 
enriched and so much more valuable.
  The Chesapeake Bay is in trouble. I could talk about it from a 
technical point of view. It doesn't flush itself as quickly as other 
water bodies. The historic oyster population is not what it has been. 
We have to, therefore, make special efforts to clean up the Chesapeake 
Bay. Over 30 years ago, almost 40 years now, while I was in the State 
legislature, when I was speaker of the house, I worked with Governor 
Harry Hughes, and we developed a State program to deal with the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  We did it the right way. We started at the local levels. We got all 
the stakeholders together: the farmers, the developers, the local 
governments, the private sector, our local governments, the State 
government. We worked with Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania is where 
the Susquehanna River flows, and that produces most of the fresh water 
that goes into the Chesapeake Bay. We worked with Delaware, Virginia, 
New York, and West Virginia, and we developed the Chesapeake Bay 
Program that is worked from the local level up. We get together to 
determine what is reasonable: What does science tell us we can do?
  We have all the stakeholders sitting around the table as we develop 
these plans. They all sign up. Our farmers recognize that clean water 
will make their agriculture more profitable. They recognize that. 
Developers understand that we need a clean Chesapeake Bay as part of 
our ability to develop profitable real estate in our community. These 
are not inconsistent. A serene environment, clean agriculture, a strong 
agriculture, a strong economy are all hand in hand together.
  It is not a choice between one or the other. We recognize that. That 
is why the Chesapeake Bay Program has never been partisan in Maryland. 
We have had Democratic and Republican Governors who supported the 
Chesapeake Bay Program. We have had legislators lead this effort from 
both parties. Senator Mac Mathias, who served as the U.S. Senator from 
Maryland, was the champion of bringing the Federal Government into the 
Chesapeake Bay Program. The program is working. It is making the bay 
safer today, but we still have a long way to go.
  We enforce it through the TMDL, the Total Maximum Daily Loads, so we 
can monitor that we are making the progress we said we could make, 
based upon best science. And that is what the local stakeholders have 
signed up for.
  When we did our TMDL's, it was challenged. It was challenged in the 
courts. Mr. Pruitt was one of those who brought a challenge against the 
TMDL Program in Maryland. I am thankful that the Third Circuit upheld 
the legal right of the TMDL, and the Supreme Court affirmed that 
decision by the Third Circuit. So we won the legal case.
  But it troubles me that a program that is from the ground up, from 
the local governments up, in which the Federal government is a 
partner--why it would be challenged when it was supported by the local 
communities. To me, that case should never have been challenged.
  We need the Federal Government to continue to participate with us. 
The Chesapeake Bay Program is supported through the farm bill, through 
the Water Resources Development Act, through the Clean Water Act, and 
through annual appropriations. So we need continued support at the 
Federal level for the Chesapeake Bay Program. And we need a champion in 
the Environmental Protection Agency that will help us in that regard.
  I want to talk briefly about the Safe Drinking Water Act. Safe 
drinking water is critically important. We know that in recent years, 
we have found too much lead in drinking water. We all know, of course, 
the story of Flint, MI. I could take you to Baltimore where our schools 
have to cut off their water fountains because of the unsafe levels of 
lead in the drinking water, if they were permitted to drink from the 
water fountains.
  We can tell you about so many communities in the Nation that have a 
desperate need to clean up their safe drinking water so that we can 
protect our children from lead poisoning. I hope my colleagues 
understand that there is no safe level of lead in the blood. It robs 
children of their future. It poisons them. I think most people are 
familiar with the Freddie Gray tragedy in Baltimore. Freddie Gray was a 
victim of lead poisoning when he was young.
  We owe it to our children to make sure we do everything we can so 
they are not exposed to lead. I asked questions about that during the 
confirmation hearing of Mr. Pruitt. The answers were less than 
acceptable and showed his lack of real information about the dangers of 
lead.
  Every Congress should look at their responsibility to build on the 
record, to leave a cleaner and safer environment for the next 
generation. The EPA Administrator should be committed to that goal. I 
do not believe Mr. Pruitt will be that type of leader. For that reason, 
I will vote against his confirmation.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.