[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4385-S4398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2018--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
important legislation before us, and that is the 2018 farm bill. This
is critical legislation for Nebraskans and for all Americans. It will
provide the certainty and predictability agriculture producers need to
do their job of delivering abundant, high-quality, nutritious food to
our Nation.
My husband, Bruce, and I have a family ranch in the Sandhills of
Nebraska. That is our home. That is where we live, and that is where we
work. I know firsthand that being a farmer or rancher is more than just
a job. It is a way of life, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It is one
of life's most noble callings to care for the land and God's creatures,
to be stewards of our natural resources, and to feed the world.
As a State senator of the Nebraska legislature and now as a U.S.
Senator, commonsense agriculture policy has been a top priority for me.
This year, I was honored to have the opportunity to join the Senate Ag
Committee, where I am the voice for Nebraska agriculture as we work on
this vital legislation for our State.
I want to thank Chairman Roberts for welcoming me to the committee
and for his excellent work on this bill. I also want to thank him for
making a trip to the ``good life'' this past May. Together, we held a
roundtable at the Nebraska State fairgrounds in Grand Island and toured
a soybean processing plant in Hastings. During these visits, we heard
feedback and input from Nebraska ag producers that we brought back to
Washington as the committee crafted this bill.
Production agriculture is the economic engine of Nebraska. Across our
State, there are more than 47,000 farms and ranches. From the panhandle
to Central Nebraska, to the city streets of Lincoln and Omaha,
Nebraskans understand the monumental role of agriculture as our State's
No. 1 industry. One in four Nebraska jobs is tied to agriculture, but
we all know there is a lot of anxiety in farm country today.
Current net farm income is down by over 50 percent compared to 5
years ago when we passed the last farm bill. While uncertainty
surrounds international trade and biofuels policy, we are looking at
experiencing depressed commodity prices and tight margins. Since the
beginning of June, Nebraska cash corn prices are down roughly 11
percent. Cash soybean prices are down 14 percent. This has resulted in
over $1 billion in potential lost receipts to corn and soybean
producers. Farmers and ranchers are worried.
For many years, I traveled the State of Nebraska to meet with and
listen carefully to folks about their ideas to address the issues they
face. I hosted several ag roundtables with local producers, Nebraska
stakeholders, government officials, and agriculture industry experts
about how we can boost our rural economies.
Many of our discussions explore the relationship between the
``internet of things'' and agriculture. A key point that has been
consistently made is the need for high-speed internet connectivity on
farms and ranches. I hold a number of these roundtables every year, and
it is always good to hear straight from producers about these important
issues. I also bring leaders in our government to Nebraska so that they
can develop a better understanding of our State and familiarize
themselves with the challenges producers deal with on a daily basis.
On a snowy day in May last year, I welcomed the Secretary of
Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, to our family ranch. The Secretary joined me
in hosting a roundtable discussion with more than 60 of our neighbors
and our friends. He heard about our suggestions on trade, marketing our
products, broadband deployment, and other concerns we as ag producers
have.
Working together with my colleagues here in the Senate, we have had
some great successes rolling back Federal regulations that have hurt
farmers and ranchers. For example, Congress worked with the
administration to halt the harmful waters of the United States rule,
which would have expanded the Federal Government's jurisdiction over my
State's water resources.
Earlier this year, as a part of the government spending bill,
Congress passed and the President signed into law a permanent fix,
which I championed. It ensures that farmers and ranchers are not
treated like superfund sites under those EPA regulations. Additionally,
we made some progress in eliminating regulations meant for oil
refineries that were unreasonably affecting producers who use on-farm
fuel storage tanks.
Leading up to the 2018 farm bill, I was pleased to work alongside the
USDA and the Nebraska Department of Agriculture to lift a 13-year ban
on U.S. beef shipments to Israel. I have also been outspoken about the
value of the South Korean market to Nebraska's high-quality agriculture
products. I advocated for our country to stay in the KORUS Free Trade
Agreement, and I visited with both the U.S. administration officials
and South Korean officials to stress the importance of the trade
relationship between our two countries.
I was pleased to see that the administration made a good trade deal
with South Korea. This is a step in the right direction. It will expand
opportunities for our producers and for the State of Nebraska.
These were big wins for our producers, but we can, we should, and we
must provide the predictability our producers need, especially during
these tough times. That means passing the farm bill and enacting it
into law.
Traveling around our State, a common theme that I hear is the
continued need for a strong farm safety net that upholds the integrity
of the crop insurance program. This is a critical risk management tool
that works for farmers. From the very beginning, I have
[[Page S4386]]
made safeguarding crop insurance my top priority throughout this
process, and I appreciate that the farm bill will enhance this vital
program for producers in my State and across the country.
This farm bill also recognizes the importance of our trade promotion
programs. Nebraska producers have demonstrated that they can excel in
the global marketplace. The bill before us merges the Market Access
Program, the Foreign Market Development Program, the Emerging Markets
Program, and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops into one new
Priority Trade Promotion, Development, and Assistance Program.
This new priority trade promotion program will ensure that the
baselines for these important programs will be upheld while allowing ag
organizations to leverage these critical dollars to promote our high-
quality ag products around the world. Moreover, the program will allow
the Secretary of Agriculture to address immediate trade needs
effectively to ensure that valuable market access is prioritized.
What is more, this bill takes major steps to expand broadband so that
our rural communities, which are harder to reach, are not left behind
in this digital era. There is no stronger example of the benefits of
innovation than the influence of internet access on the agriculture
industry. Today's rural areas are experiencing increased productivity
because of the advanced technologies fueling U.S. agricultural growth.
Just recently, I had the honor of welcoming the FCC Commissioner,
Brendan Carr, to Northeast Nebraska to further address this issue.
Together, we visited Northeast Community College, where we learned
about their fascinating precision agriculture curriculum, which focuses
on familiarizing students with new farming technology. Advanced
information technology and the data these systems gather help our
amazing agriculture producers make effective decisions as they feed the
world.
The Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act was included in the Ag
Committee's managers' package during the markup of the farm bill. This
would create a task force at the FCC charged with identifying breaks in
high-speed internet connectivity across America's farm and ranch land.
Additionally, in the committee markup for the farm bill, I was also
pleased to sponsor several amendments that were adopted unanimously in
the managers' package. My amendment encouraging producers to utilize
efficient water irrigation conservation technology directs the USDA's
Natural Resources Conservation Service to recognize the use of remote
telemetry data systems for irrigation scheduling as a best management
practice.
The 2018 farm bill will also provide some much needed relief for our
ag haulers. It is clear that the hours of service regulations for truck
drivers are inflexible, and they fail to consider the realities that
impact our livestock haulers.
I filed an amendment with my colleague, the senior Senator from
Arkansas, which would expand the definition of livestock to include
llama, alpacas, live fish, and crawfish. With this expanded definition,
agricultural haulers would receive exemptions for these products from
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's hours of service
requirements.
This legislation addresses many important issues for Nebraska's
producers, but it is not perfect. Pesticide applicators in Nebraska are
being forced to deal with redundant Federal regulations that provide no
environmental or water quality benefits, yet they are putting a
financial strain on producers. This is a bipartisan issue, and it needs
to be addressed. In fact, the EPA, under the Obama administration,
supported this fix.
I wish this bill did more to cut redtape and to provide relief for
our farmers and their families.
Additionally, I was disappointed that the bill doesn't include
commonsense flexibilities for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.
That is why I am a cosponsor to an amendment that would provide our
children, no matter where they live, with access to fruits and
vegetables, regardless of form. This bipartisan amendment would ensure
that the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program does not use our taxpayer
dollars to pick winners and losers based on product categories.
Instead, this amendment would provide our schools, particularly those
in the most rural areas of our country, with more flexibility to
provide their students with canned or frozen produce that is
nutritionally equivalent.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I am proud to fight for farmers, ranchers, and producers in the
Senate. Our ag producers are God's gift to Nebraska and to the world.
They are my neighbors and my friends. They are my family.
By coming together to pass this pro-farmer, pro-agriculture farm
bill, we can secure a better future for our producers and for our
country.
Again, I thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for their
good work on this bill. The House has done their job, and now it is our
turn.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Thank you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
National Great Outdoors Month
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, for Montanans, nothing beats getting
outside and getting outdoors for hunting, fishing, skiing, backpacking,
snowmobiling, you name it. It is our way of life in Montana. That is
why I am excited to announce that June is National Great Outdoors
Month.
The outdoor life in Montana has a very special meaning for me. I grew
up fishing, hunting, hiking, and skiing, in fact, all over the State of
Montana. In fact, in July of 1986, I proposed to my sweet wife Cindy
after we hiked to the top of Hyalite Peak, just south of Bozeman. It is
a peak a little over 10,000 feet. Seven and a half miles from the
trailhead to the top and back was a long 15-mile day, and I am grateful
she said yes.
In fact, during the summer, I spend a lot of time backpacking in the
Beartooths with our family. We bring along our mini Australian
shepherds and bear spray. It is good practice.
In Montana, outdoor recreation isn't just our way of life; it is also
our economy. In fact, outdoor recreation directly supports some 71,000
Montana jobs and generates $2.2 billion in wages and salaries and an
estimate of over $7 billion in consumer spending.
We see it every summer, every winter, and now every shoulder season
that people from around the Nation and around the world come to visit
America's great outdoors, but in Montana, it is all right here, in our
very own backyard. Whether it is hiking in Glacier, fly fishing in the
Gallatin, Jefferson, Madison, Stillwater, Yellowstone, Missouri, the
Big Horn, or skiing in places like Big Mountain, Red Lodge, Bridger, or
Big Sky, or floating in whitewater float trips, we are lucky to have
all of that right at our fingertips.
That is why it is important to recognize the value of the outdoors
during National Great Outdoors Month. I think, when you spend time
outdoors, you are not only experiencing Montana's great outdoors, but
you are giving back to our local economy and creating jobs. For our
young people, getting them outside, off their phones, and out into the
wilderness is a good thing.
I encourage everybody to recognize National Great Outdoors Month by
joining me in getting away from the TV, away from the phones, and
getting outside--get out there and experience all that the outdoors has
to offer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Family Separation
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last Friday, I visited Heartland Alliance,
a nonprofit organization in the city of Chicago, which, for more than
two decades, has provided care for immigrant children who are
classified as unaccompanied children.
The day I visited last Friday was my second visit to one of their
nine facilities in the city of Chicago. Very few, if any, people in
that city--a great city, and I am proud to represent it--even know that
Heartland Alliance exists. The children are kept in residential
neighborhoods, in places that look like ordinary homes. The only
giveaway is the security fence around the building is a little higher
than most of the
[[Page S4387]]
fences in the neighborhood. That is the only difference. In the busy
neighborhood, there is a house with dozens of children inside.
On the day I was there, Heartland Alliance of Chicago had 66 children
under their care who had been separated from their parents by our
Federal Government over the last several weeks. They were separated
under President Trump's zero tolerance policy. Two-thirds of these 66
zero tolerance children were under the age of 13. Twenty-two of the
children--zero tolerance children, separated from their parents--were
under the age of 5.
I went into the facility's nursery, where the infants and toddlers
were being held, and I couldn't imagine for a moment what it must have
been like when someone reached over and took that infant out of the
arms of that mother and decided to transport that baby thousands of
miles away. That is what has happened.
I met two little girls. I will not use their names, but their ages
are 5 and 6. When these tiny, little girls walked into the room
together, holding hands, I thought immediately they were twins. They
had a Bamm-Bamm hairstyle--maybe somebody will remember what I am
referring to from the old television show--and they were as cute as can
be. They were holding hands as they walked into the room. I thought, at
first, they were twins, and then I realized one was a little bit older
than the other. So I started asking them questions: their names and
their ages and where they were from. They were answering for one
another.
At the end of it, we asked: Are you sisters?
They said: No, ``amigas''--friends.
They, like so many other kids in this situation, were clinging to
anything that created a connection in their desperate little lives.
I brought with me some handmade cards that kids from my staff and
friends had made to give to them. They were just pieces of construction
paper with stickers inside, the kind kids love to make and love to
receive. I went around, and I asked each of them if they would like to
take one. They took them like they were Christmas toys, and they hung
on to them--another connection in a life that, sadly, has become
disconnected from the reality of their family.
I asked the staff at Heartland Alliance about these zero tolerance
kids. I said: Could you find the parents of these kids if you needed to
for a medical emergency?
They replied: Well, we could try. In some cases, we could, but in
many cases, it is like a scavenger hunt.
You see, their parents may be moved from place to place, and if
something happened, a medical emergency, it would be difficult to find
that parent. I thought about that.
My little granddaughters and grandson are 6, 7, 8 years old. If they
were brought into a hospital with some serious medical condition, the
first thing the doctor wants to know is, what is the history? Has this
child had a problem before?
These people don't know. There are no files that are coming with the
children that have their medical history, and, in many cases, there is
no way to contact their parents in an emergency situation.
This was a gut-wrenching visit. It is still with me today. It is just
hard to imagine that the Government of the United States of America
would forcibly take children away from their parents--parents who are
seeking a chance at asylum and safety from violence and persecution.
I am angry too. I am infuriated that not only have these families not
been reunited, but there doesn't seem to be an effective plan in place
to bring these kids back to their parents.
How did we reach this point? How, in the history of this country, did
we reach the point, where, on April 6, Attorney General Jeff Sessions
announced the Trump administration had created a new zero tolerance
policy for prosecuting border cases?
There is no requirement in law to prosecute every border case
criminally--none. These cases could be handled under civil law and
families can be kept together under the law, but this administration
chose to call every person at the border a criminal, even those who are
fleeing violence and death threats and seeking a chance at asylum. As
soon as they allege that the adult at the border is a criminal, then
they can rationalize separating the children from these possible
criminals, but, in most cases, the overwhelming majority of cases, the
only possible crime was the fact that they showed up at the border.
As far as we know, more than 2,300 children have been taken away from
their parents by the U.S. Government as a result of the zero tolerance
policy. They have been transferred to facilities in places far away,
sometimes thousands of miles away, like Chicago.
If the Federal Government separates children from parents while the
family is in custody, I believe the government has the solemn
obligation to ensure that each child can be located and properly
reunited with their parents. Isn't this basic? But what we hear from
advocates and the media is that the administration's handling of the
reunification process is a mess.
We are at a real risk of lost children, lost in a bureaucratic
system, adrift in a bureaucratic sea, who are delayed for who knows how
long from seeing their parents again. That is because this was done so
quickly, without any real thought to the impact it would have on the
children, the impact it would have on the mothers and dads, and the
impact it would have on the image of the United States around the
world.
The Trump administration needs to make it an immediate priority to
ensure that children who are separated from parents are brought back
together again quickly.
Over the weekend, the Department of Homeland Security said the
Federal Government ``knows the location of all children in its custody
and is working to reunite them with their families.'' I question that,
but I accept it. If it is true, there is no excuse for delay.
No law required the administration to separate these families, and we
don't need any new laws to be passed in this Chamber to reunite them.
We just need this administration to act, and we need Congress to exert
its oversight to verify that the administration is doing what it
promised.
I have worked for most of my Senate career to pass bipartisan
legislation to fix our broken immigration system. Time and again,
bipartisan efforts, supported by a majority of Americans, have been
blocked by a minority of vocal Republicans.
I worked for 6 months with John McCain and six other colleagues to
write a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which we brought to the
floor of the Senate and passed with an overwhelming vote. It would have
cured this problem and many others, but the House of Representatives
refused to even consider it.
Yesterday I sat down with several of my colleagues--Republicans and
Democrats--to discuss whether we can find a way to pass a law or state
of policy to stop the administration from separating families in the
future. I am always happy to sit down, on a bipartisan basis, roll up
my sleeves, and try to write a law that might serve the purpose of
making this a better country, curing the problems we face, and doing it
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but Pennsylvania Avenue
is a two-way street, and over the past few days, President Trump has
made statements about immigration reform that do not help at all and I
believe are contrary not only to the law and the Constitution but the
values of our country.
Last Friday, President Trump said Republicans should stop ``wasting
their time on immigration until after we elect more Senators and
Congressmen/women in November.''
Also, on Friday, he said the stories of children separated from their
parents were ``phony''--``phony.'' I have seen these kids. These aren't
phony kids, and they aren't phony stories.
On Sunday, the President tweeted:
We cannot allow all of these people to invade our country.
When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no judges
or court cases, bring them back from where they came.
That was the President's tweet. Statements like that and the
President's tweet make a mockery of our Constitution and its solemn
guarantee of due process of law.
The due process clause of the Constitution doesn't just apply to
citizens; it applies to all people in the United States. The idea of
abandoning due process when people seek asylum at
[[Page S4388]]
our borders and having, as the President said, ``no judges or court
cases,'' is antithetical to the Constitution and its principles.
I will continue to work in good faith with my colleagues to see what
Congress can do, but as long as President Trump is listening to
advisers like Stephen Miller and making statements like these, it is
hard to see how any bipartisan agreement can be reached on immigration.
While Congress works on this issue, the administration has a moral
obligation to immediately reunite all families they have separated
under that zero tolerance policy. They also have to make it clear that
the President's Executive order last week will continue to be followed,
and they will not separate any more families.
The third thing that we clearly need to do is to find a way for those
who present themselves at the border to be brought to their hearings in
a timely fashion to determine whether they are eligible for asylum. It
is that basic. We don't have to detain them for long periods of time to
achieve that.
We know there are three ways to get over 90 percent of these people
to the hearings as scheduled: No. 1, provide them with the advice of
legal counsel; No. 2, provide them with case management, such as those
provided by Lutheran services, Catholic services, and others, which are
willing to counsel them and work with them and tell them what the legal
system in America requires; No. 3, in extreme cases, ankle monitors.
Over 90 percent of the people show up for hearings with those three
basic things. We don't need to build multimillion dollar detention
facilities and internment camps for these families. For goodness' sake,
we can do this in a humane and constitutional way.
Then, we need to address some root causes of this issue. On Friday,
in Chicago, the regional head of the Drug Enforcement Agency came by to
sit down with me, and we talked about the flow of opioids, the flow of
heroin, and the flow of fentanyl into my State of Illinois. I am sure
it is as true in Ohio as it is in Illinois. There is no town too small
and no suburb too wealthy not to be hit by this drug epidemic that we
are currently facing.
I was shocked to learn that in any given month, 2,000 pounds of
fentanyl come into the city of Chicago--2,000 pounds--and the Drug
Enforcement Agency is lucky to intercept 20 or 30 pounds. The rest of
it is going to be consumed and distributed from that city.
Where is a lot of it coming from? It is coming from the cartels in
Mexico. It isn't the people from Honduras at the border that pose the
threat to America's security--not nearly as much as this drug epidemic.
Keep in mind that it is a two-way street in this drug epidemic. Not
only are these Mexican cartels sending these drugs to the United
States, killing our kids and killing our neighbors and friends, but we
are sending back to them laundered drug money and guns so these cartels
can take control in Mexico, in Honduras, in El Salvador, and in
Guatemala. When these gangs take control and threaten the lives of
people, they flee to the United States looking for protection. It is an
endless circle that should be broken by breaking the supply of drugs
coming into this country.
Any other President would be sitting down with the leaders of Mexico,
El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, addressing this drug issue head-
on. We have seen the tweets about kids who he calls ``phony'' coming to
our border. We need to truly have a meeting of Central American and
North American leaders to discuss this drug problem and all of the
problems it is creating not only in their countries but in ours.
We also need to move forward and pass the Dream Act. I have been
trying for a long time here--almost 17 or 18 years now--to pass the law
that will allow those who were brought to this country as children a
chance to earn their way into legal status. Almost 90 percent of
Americans support it. We need to pass it here.
Finally, I haven't given up on comprehensive immigration reform. For
goodness' sake, we see these problems every day--piecemeal problems,
one at a time, trying to address one here and one there. Isn't it time
that we take a look at the whole immigration system and concede that we
cannot accept everyone from all over the world who wants to come. We
just can't open our borders for everyone. We need security on our
borders. We also need a clear and humane system when it comes to
dealing with the current border crisis.
I hope this is a goal that even some Republicans can agree on, and it
doesn't take a new law to first reunite these kids with their parents
and to take a positive step forward.
Let's get this done before the Fourth of July. Let's reunite all
2,300 of these children with their parents so we can have the peace of
mind that we are dealing with this in an American way.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Healthcare
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, when I am back home in Wyoming, as I am
every weekend, people will often tell me about how they have suffered
under the healthcare law known as ObamaCare. I have been able to give
them some very good news recently about things that Republicans in
Congress and this administration have done to help people get out of
the ObamaCare problems they have been having and escape some of the
problems that have been caused by the law.
This is a headline in the Wall Street Journal from June 20: ``Exit
From ObamaCare.'' It is something that I have been working on ever
since the law was passed. What I have been able to tell people at home
in Wyoming is that we have now scrapped the law's terribly unpopular
individual mandate. We did that successfully this past year so that
people aren't forced to buy insurance that may not be right for them or
their families and, certainly, much more expensive than they would like
to pay.
That individual mandate was part of the law that said that every
American--everyone--had to have insurance, not that worked for them but
that Washington dictated, even if it wasn't the right choice for them
or their family.
I have told people about the work we have been doing to expand
people's options, their choices, and their freedom to use what are
called short-term, limited duration health plans. These are less
expensive health plans. They are free from the expensive, intrusive,
and burdensome regulations that ObamaCare has placed on the insurance
that they have been forced to buy.
Thanks to President Trump, I am now able to point to the latest thing
that Republicans have done to help millions of Americans get the care
they need from a doctor they choose at a lower cost to them.
Last week, the Department of Labor expanded the availability of what
have been known as association health plans. This Wall Street Journal
editorial called ``Exit From ObamaCare,'' I believe, is the best
example of it.
The idea is very simple. Large employers in this country can offer
their workers a variety of good health insurance plans, and they can do
it because they have the negotiating leverage that comes with a large
group of employers. Well, small businesses and people who work for
themselves don't have that same ability, that same leverage. Their
workers are often stuck looking for expensive coverage, and the place
where it seems to be most expensive, certainly, that I see, is in the
ObamaCare markets.
So an association health plan lets these groups of individuals, or
just individuals themselves, band together and negotiate as if they
were one big business. They get much better deals. So maybe it is like
all the Lyft drivers or Uber drivers or independent truck drivers
working in a State or working across State lines all joining together
or the small businesses that are members of the city's chamber of
commerce--all of those small businesses doing that. We have seen that
in Las Vegas, where the chamber of commerce there has been providing
opportunities for all of the small businesses to come together. They
have done it for over 30 years, but it was outlawed by the Obama
healthcare law. Once again, these businesses can now join together to
offer the same opportunities for coverage that the healthcare law
reserved only for people who worked with big businesses. It is a way
for people now--small businesses and their workers--to escape the
ObamaCare marketplace that has failed so many people across the
country.
[[Page S4389]]
According to one estimate, Americans who sign up for one of these
association health plans could save close to $10,000 a year on their
premiums compared to the individual ObamaCare market. The plans would
come with the same protections people get if they do work for large
companies and they have the same protections for people with
preexisting conditions, which, to me, is critical. My wife is a breast
cancer survivor--multiple operations, chemotherapy. It is important
that we continue to protect people with preexisting conditions, and
this does it.
We have all the same protections against losing coverage if someone
in the family gets sick, but it just allows them to join together in a
group to have much better buying opportunities and lower costs. They
will have the same protections for people who want to cover their adult
children up to 26 years of age. They will have the same bans on
lifetime limits for how much the insurance will pay.
Where I live in Wyoming, most of the businesses we have are small
businesses. It is the nature of our State. It is a rural economy. They
are the small shop owners, ice cream stores, and florists on the
corners. When I talk to people in Wyoming, every one of them considers
themselves a small business in the sense that they don't really use the
word ``small'' very much because they just think of themselves as
businesses in our State, businesses in our communities, businesses that
our families rely on and go to and shop at regularly. These are people
who want to do right by their workers, and they want to offer a lot of
the same benefits that bigger companies have and offer their workers.
So this new move by the Trump administration really does give all of
them a chance to do that, specifically when it comes to health
insurance and benefits for their employees.
So Republican policies have been so successful at creating a thriving
and growing economy that we now have more job openings in America than
we actually have people looking for work. That is how strong this
economic recovery has become.
Small businesses really do need to be able to offer these better
health benefits in order to compete for workers. They need to be able
to compete to provide affordable insurance so they can afford to
provide it for their workers. At the same time, people who own
insurance have seen prices more than double under ObamaCare. We need to
help those people get back to more reasonable rates so they are getting
the care they need from a doctor they want at a cost they can afford.
When Democrats wrote the healthcare law and passed it on straight
party-line votes, they actually targeted small businesses and forced
them to pay more. That is hard to believe, but it is true. So
Republicans are leveling the playing field.
Under this new plan--this exit from ObamaCare--it has been estimated
by the Congressional Budget Office that 4 million Americans will sign
up for this new option--4 million Americans. That is how popular this
is going to be. For people who don't have insurance right now because
they can't afford it, they are saying that 400,000 more Americans who
currently don't have insurance will be able to get insurance because it
will now be affordable for them. So they will finally have a chance to
get the high-quality insurance they couldn't afford under the mandates
of ObamaCare.
This isn't something that anyone is going to be required to sign up
for. It is something about which people will have the freedom to make
decisions and choices and the flexibility to see what works best for
them. That is what it is about--freedom and flexibility and choice.
People can decide for themselves if one of these association health
plans is the best option for them, the best option for their workers or
for their families. They will choose one of these plans only if they
decide it gives them better coverage and better value. Isn't that what
people want? They want choices and value for the money they spend.
It is interesting that just as a result of the fact that these
associated health plans came out and the options were provided,
Democrats don't seem to like the fact that Americans will have this
kind of choice. Washington Democrats like to talk about the benefits of
union workers being able to get together to negotiate for things like
better healthcare, but the same Democrats here in the Senate oppose
this new action by the Trump administration that just lets workers get
together to negotiate for better, more affordable healthcare coverage.
The only difference here is that the Republicans want to give this
opportunity to people who are self-employed or who work for small
businesses.
It does seem to be that the Democrats want to reserve the right only
for the union members--the big unions--and maybe they are the ones who
fund their Democratic campaigns for reelection.
There is nothing in the new association health plans that tries to
lure younger, healthy people away from ObamaCare plans. It just says
that here is a choice. Nothing requires people or businesses to
participate. It just provides millions of Americans with a choice:
ObamaCare or an association health plan. That is the difference. You
take a look and see what works best for you. See what you find value
in, where you are going to get value for your dollars, and make that
decision.
Republicans are for opportunities and options. Democrats seem to be
more for mandates and restrictions. We like to offer options,
opportunities, and openness. I think the American people prefer options
in this land of opportunity.
Democrats are going to go out on the campaign trail and claim that
what we have done now with these association health plans is to
sabotage ObamaCare. I have heard them talk. Don't believe it. If the
only way ObamaCare can survive is to force millions of hard-working
Americans to pay too much for their health insurance, then, ObamaCare
is the problem. Democrats don't seem to want to admit that. They also
don't really want to change any of the things that are broken in the
American healthcare system. They want it to stay broken so they can
push the plan for what we have heard some of the Democrats refer to as
a single-payer health plan. That is a completely government-run
healthcare system, where all of the bills are paid by the taxpayers. It
has become the liberal litmus test for the Democrats.
We are going to hear them a lot more talking about that in the weeks
and months ahead. When I look at that as a doctor who has practiced
medicine for 25 years, as an orthopedic surgeon taking care of families
in Wyoming, and having taken care of people from Canada, where they
have a single-payer system--a government-run system--what I have seen
from the patients I have taken care of who have come from Canada to the
United States for care--why did they come if it is free in Canada?--is
that they came because they couldn't afford to wait as long as they
would have to wait to get the care.
So when we look at what has been proposed by a number of the
Democrats, cosponsored by many--a single-payer healthcare system, a
government-run insurance plan--we are talking about a program with
higher taxes, longer lines, and fewer choices. I believe that is not
what the American people want. What they want is an exit from ObamaCare
into much more affordable insurance, something that works for them,
something where they have an opportunity to make their own choices and
have the flexibility to evaluate what is best for them and their
families.
We are offering real solutions to improve healthcare in this country.
We are giving families more freedom and more flexibility to choose what
works for them, not what Washington dictates.
I yield the floor.
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.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the farm bill--
something that we have in common, something that both of our States
know is very important for this country's economy. This legislation is
one of the most important chances we have in this Chamber to address
one of the
[[Page S4390]]
most pressing issues in rural parts of our country right now.
I want to speak about two of my most urgent priorities for this
year's farm bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
them.
The first is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which
most of us call SNAP. There are more than 40 million Americans who rely
on SNAP every day. More than 40 million people would go hungry if they
didn't have access to SNAP. Many of these Americans are disabled. Many
of them are elderly and retired. Nearly half of them are children.
Millions of them--and I truly mean millions--are working.
Congress should not take SNAP away from hard-working Americans just
because they don't fill out monthly paperwork. Last week, the House
passed its own version of the farm bill that would do just that. That
is shameful.
Here is the truth about SNAP. The vast majority of able-bodied adults
on SNAP are already working. They are already working. They have jobs.
Many of them work several jobs. They are doing everything they can to
get ahead, just to have a small slice of the American dream. They still
need SNAP. They need SNAP because their wages are too low.
To be clear, they already have to follow the work requirements. There
have been work requirements in place since 1971. But the farm bill
would just add more redtape, more paperwork for struggling families
just so they could eat dinner.
This is the difference between the House farm bill and the Senate
farm bill: The Senate farm bill got it right; the House farm bill has
created this terrible requirement of paperwork just to get SNAP. One of
our House colleagues said that it is to promote ``self-sufficiency,''
as if low-income workers on SNAP aren't already working every waking
hour just to scrape by. The House plan is a blatant example of how out
of touch Congress is about poverty in this country. It is shameful that
some Members of the House from my own State would even support this
cruel plan when so many New Yorkers rely on SNAP every single day. I am
happy that the Senate farm bill has more heart than that.
The bill that came out of committee shows respect for all hard-
working families who need SNAP, and now we need to take it a step
further to do even more to help hungry children. I am submitting an
amendment to the Senate farm bill called the SNAP for Kids Act. It
would increase the amount of SNAP funding that families with kids in
school are allowed to receive. If we pass this amendment, we will help
families stretch their food budgets just a few more days at the end of
every month when they need it the most, before the next paycheck comes
in, and we will help keep millions of children in this country from
going hungry. That should be a priority here--protecting children--for
all of us.
I have two young children, and I know that many of our colleagues in
this Chamber also have young children. Our children will never have to
have access to SNAP to get basic nutrition. They will never know what
it is like to wake up hungry because their parents didn't have enough
food to feed them a nutritious dinner. I believe at my core that we
need to care about other people's children as much as we care about our
own, so I urge my colleagues to do what is right and support the SNAP
for Kids Act. Let's reject the House of Representatives' cruel plan and
commit ourselves to protecting SNAP instead of destroying it.
The second issue I want to talk about today is dairy prices. My home
State of New York is one of the biggest dairy-producing States in the
country. We are blessed with thousands of dairy farms and even more
hard-working men and women who wake up before the Sun rises every
single day to produce the milk that keeps our families healthy.
Unfortunately, over the last few years, our dairy farmers have taken
a serious hit from persistently low dairy prices. Many of our dairy
farms are operating below their cost of production. Over the last
decade, dairy farms all over New York have actually had to shut down
because of this crisis. Many are currently on the brink of failing.
This is what one dairy farmer said:
It's stressful. . . . Do I want to wake up and lose $30,000
a day?
Imagine the pain our dairy farmers and their families suffer when
they wake up before dawn, every day, without a break, and they still
can't make ends meet and provide for their own children. Imagine the
heartbreak and the depression of the last dairy farmer in a family--the
one who has to sell the farm despite generations of hard work because
he just can't make ends meet.
This is a crisis right in our backyard. It is hurting our
agricultural economy. It is hurting our rural communities, and, most of
all, it is hurting our farmers and their families. One big reason is
that our dairy insurance program didn't work.
I have heard from dairy farmers all across New York who have been
essentially ripped off by the dairy insurance program because the
program failed to cover our farmers when they needed it the most--when
milk prices have plummeted.
Our dairy farmers need a lifeline, and I was very proud to add a
provision to the Senate farm bill for $77 million of those premiums to
be returned. This is great news for our dairy farmers, but there is
still so much more we can do. I have asked the Secretary of Agriculture
for emergency funding to address this issue now, but he refuses to help
our dairy farmers.
I am submitting an amendment that would require the Department of
Agriculture to help our dairy farmers with emergency funding now. I am
asking the Secretary of Agriculture for the exact same amount of
funding he just gave cotton farmers across this country when they were
struggling.
The USDA should be fair and treat our dairy farmers with the same
support. I want this emergency funding to go directly to those farmers
who need it so they can keep producing milk--without going bankrupt--
long enough for the industry to come together to balance supply and for
Congress to create a more fair milk pricing system.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment too. It affects all of
us. I know you believe our farmers work hard every day. They need our
support. I urge all of us to stand with them.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Remembering Charles Krauthammer
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, allow me to say a few words on the passing
of a dear friend, Charles Krauthammer. Charles was a giant in the
conservative intellectual movement and community. With his passing, we
have lost not only a first-rate political mind but a model of civility.
As testament to his decency, leaders on both sides of the aisle paid
tribute to Charles over the weekend. Today, I know I speak for people
of all political stripes when I say we will miss him dearly.
Few were as formidable in debate as Charles Krauthammer. Although his
body was confined to a wheelchair, his intellect was boundless. With
even keel and gentle voice, he could carefully deconstruct the views of
his opponents, expressing his own ideas with preternatural eloquence.
In a political landscape marked by anger and acrimony, Charles stood
for reason and respect. Indeed, he was a voice of temperance in
intemperate times. While he never backed down in debate, he was also
well practiced in the subtle art of disagreeing without being
disagreeable. In so many ways, Charles showed us how political
discourse should be: balanced and rational, measured and informed, with
emphasis on facts over feeling.
I think we can all agree that civility took a beating this weekend,
but perhaps the biggest blow was losing Charles Krauthammer--a man who
embodied civility in his very being. At different times throughout our
history, we have been called upon to heed the better angels of our
nature. Charles was one of those better angels. He represented what we
could be if we listened to our better selves and if we listened to each
other.
As a nation, we have much to learn from the example of Charles
Krauthammer. In celebrating the life of an extraordinary man, we must
do
[[Page S4391]]
more than pay lipservice to his legacy; we must honor it through our
actions. We can do so by being strong in our convictions but soft with
our words, by being principled in our positions but respectful of other
views in this world. In a word, we can be more civil.
Open the newspaper, scroll through Twitter, or simply turn on the TV,
and you will see that this Nation suffers from a deficit of civility
quite unlike anything I have ever seen. The problem is bad. It is
getting worse, and both sides are to blame. Both sides are at fault for
escalating the rhetoric to irresponsible levels.
I have said this many times before, but it bears repeating: Our words
have consequences, and in an age of retweets, viral videos, and
shareable content, those words often echo well beyond their intended
audience and context. It is incumbent upon all of us--from the
President, to Congress, on down--to be responsible for our speech.
With that, I ask my colleagues, is there a better way to honor the
life of Charles Krauthammer than to follow the example of civility he
leaves behind? May we all, then, recommit ourselves to civility by
living as Charles lived. May his memory be a blessing to us all.
My wife is a wonderful person. She is a farm girl. She grew up on a
farm and really has earned everything she has ever had. She had a
brother named Ramon. Ramon was an athlete when he got struck--right
before the solutions to his illness were arrived at--and he became
crippled. Ramon was one of the finest men I ever met in my life. He was
very hurt by this malady that came upon him, but I can remember what a
decent, honorable, kind person he was and how he went on and got his
master's degree. He went all the way through undergraduate and got a
master's degree at Utah State University and then became a major
electrical engineer in Las Vegas. I remember one time carrying him--he
was so light--in my arms through the Los Angeles Temple of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was one of the finest men I
have ever known at any time, anywhere.
That is one reason why I recognize Charles so well. Charles
Krauthammer is one of the finest men I have known too. He and Ramon
were heroes of mine, people who took on the ramifications and
difficulties of life and beat them.
We are going to miss Charles Krauthammer. Not only was he brilliant,
but he was somebody who made sense. He was somebody who really could
relate to everybody. He was a really good person, just like my brother-
in-law, Ramon, was as good a person as you could have ever thought. I
think we all should stop and think about these two lives and recommit
ourselves to being more reasonable to our colleagues. We might all
realize there is more to this Earth than just fighting, finding fault,
and advancing our own cause. I believe this is the greatest of all
legislative bodies. We have come close to doing that--to doing what is
right, to showing respect for each other--but we don't always get
there. I am not sure you can always get there. Sometimes you really
have to speak out and you have to speak bluntly.
I just want to remind people that Charles Krauthammer and my brother-
in-law, Ramon Hansen, were two people who literally lived very good
lives, set very good examples, and overcame the challenges of being
crippled and terribly hurt to rise above and to do things that really
made a difference in this world.
I wish the Krauthammer family the very best. I care for them. I hope
they come and visit once in a while. We lost a great person this
weekend; I just wanted to say a few words about it.
This is a great body. We have great people on both sides. I would
like to see us work better together and accomplish more together in the
best interest of the greatest country on Earth. If we do that, I think
we will all, when the time comes, leave this place knowing we had done
our best.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Agriculture
Improvement Act of 2018, also referred to as the Senate's farm bill.
As a member of the Senate Ag Committee, I was proud to work with
Senator Roberts and our ranking member, Senator Stabenow of Michigan,
to pass a strong farm bill out of committee.
Times are challenging in ag country. Commodity prices are low, and
our farmers and ranchers face numerous challenges. Net farm income is
down 52 percent from where it stood 5 years ago, and bankruptcies are
up more than 39 percent from 2014. Moving this farm bill through the
Senate will help reduce uncertainty for our ag producers and will
benefit the broader economy.
I would like to say and I often say that good farm policy benefits
every single American every single day. Think about that. Our farmers
and ranchers produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in
the world, in the history of the world. So every single day, every
American benefits just in that respect and in other respects in terms
of the employment that is created, the positive balance of trade, the
innovation, and so many other things. In fact, the crops we grow and
the livestock we raise are used not only for food but also for fuel and
fiber.
But simply the fact that every single American benefits every day
from the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world means
that when we pass the farm bill, providing good farm policy that helps
support our farmers and ranchers so they can continue to provide that
food supply for Americans, we really are doing something for all
Americans and something that affects their lives, obviously, in a very
big way every single day.
I am pleased we were able to draft a bill that will give our farmers
and ranchers the support they need to continue to produce that food,
fuel, and fiber that make our country go and provide the same things to
so many in other countries throughout the world.
Leading up to consideration of the farm bill, we worked diligently to
gather input from farmers and ranchers in my State and across the
country. Over the past year, I have held roundtables back home. I have
hosted Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue so that he could hear directly from
our great farmers and ranchers about their priorities for this farm
bill.
I am grateful that the bill includes many of these important
provisions and that it will support the great work done by our farmers
and ranchers in North Dakota and across the country. I just want to
highlight a few of those measures.
We have worked hard to ensure that the bill maintains and strengthens
crop insurance, which is the primary risk management tool for our
producers. Let me emphasize that again. Crop insurance is the No. 1
risk management tool used by our producers across the country.
The farm bill also includes a provision based on a pilot program I
have put forward to improve the fairness of ARC, which is the
Agriculture Risk Coverage Program, which is a very important part of
the countercyclical safety net for our farmers and ranchers. So we have
ARC, or the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program, and PLC, the Price Loss
Coverage Program, which comprise that safety net--that countercyclical
safety net--for our farmers, so that when prices are low, they get
help, and when they are high, they don't. That is the whole idea--to
help them through the tough stretches, along with, as I mentioned just
a minute ago, crop insurance.
The pilot program we incorporated into the bill really allows RMA
data, which is the Risk Management Agency data, to be used in addition
to the NASS data, or the National Agricultural Statistics Service data,
which has been used historically and provides flexibility so that you
get a good, commonsense result when you are applying that ARC Program
across the country to many different farmers in many different
circumstances.
The legislation also includes increased authorization for the Water
Bank Program that I advanced, which provides compensation for farmers
and landowners for flooded land through 10-year, voluntary conservation
agreements.
[[Page S4392]]
In addition, I supported measures to help address risks to animal
health, livestock export markets, and industry economic stability. That
is why I am glad this bill includes a new Animal Disease and Disaster
Response Program, as well as a foot-and-mouth disease vaccine bank.
That protects the animals, and that protects all of us as well.
This farm bill also prioritizes ag research, including supporting
important work done at North Dakota State University and at the North
Dakota Extension Service, which are working to enhance crop genetics
and production. The ag research done in our State and in our other
agriculture universities across this Nation have really revolutionized
farming and ranching. We can grow crops that are disease resistant and
raise livestock that is healthier and stronger because of the amazing
things that have been done in research. We need to continue that
because we not only supply food for this country but really for the
world. We are doing things that we never even dreamed of years ago
because of the amazing advancements in ag research.
In order to allow our producers to continue to compete and excel in
the global marketplace, the bill creates, expands, and maintains
critical export programs that support U.S. ag products. I am pleased
that the bill we passed out of our committee preserves the no-cost
sugar policy, which ensures that American producers can compete on a
level playing field with sugar from around the world.
The bill also includes measures important to Tribal communities,
including almost all of the provisions of the Cultivating Resources,
Opportunity, Prosperity, and Sustainability for Indian Country Act, or
the CROPS for Indian Country Act. The CROPS for Indian Country Act is
bipartisan legislation that I introduced and that we passed out of the
Indian Affairs Committee, which I chair. There are very important
provisions in that bill that we included in this farm bill. I thank
both the Ag Committee chairman and the ranking member for working with
us to include those provisions in the farm bill.
During committee markup, we were also able to strengthen the bill in
other ways as well. Another good example and something that we worked
very diligently to improve is legislation in regard to the NRCS.
Particularly, this legislation will improve NRCS wetlands determination
and ensure that NRCS is working more closely with our producers--by
that I mean in a more farmer friendly way.
The committee included my amendments to increase the participation of
Tribal producers on international trade missions, as well as to give
Tribal colleges and universities access to certain grant programs.
Another area about which we heard from many concerned farmers and
ranchers is access to credit. As they go through these challenging
times, they need access to credit. So I offered an amendment in
committee, which we passed. It increases the amounts for FSA, or the
Farm Service Agency, loan guarantees from about $1.39 million up to
about $1.75 million. That is under the guarantee program. We also
increased the direct loan program from $300,000 to $600,000 on a
chattel-type loan and $400,000 on operating loans. Again, this is about
making sure farmers and ranchers have access to credit.
This was advocated for by not only the ag community but also by the
financial community as a way to make sure that we can help farmers
through tough times but also so that we can help our young farmers get
access to the credit and the capital they need to get into the business
of farming.
The average age for a farmer now is 60 years old. That is the average
age for our farmers across the country. So we have to continue to work
to help with the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program so
that we get young people into the business of farming. It takes more
capital to do that, and that is why these programs are so important.
I am convinced the farm bill we are considering this week will give
our farmers and ranchers the tools they need to succeed in the next 5
years and beyond.
Congress has not enacted a farm bill in the same year it was
introduced since 1990. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support this farm bill so that we can continue to provide our
ag producers with the tools they very much need.
I am going to conclude with something I said at the outset and which
I try to remind people of every chance I get, and that is, again, that
good farm policy not only benefits our farmers and ranchers, but it
benefits every single American every single day with the highest
quality, lowest cost food supply in the world.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I just want to take a moment to thank my
friend from North Dakota for his leadership and the valuable input and
hard work that he provides to the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Committee. We have worked together now on two farm bills and now have
worked on the ARC Program and on conservation, trade, and research, but
also on the important Tribal provisions that I think are going to have
a very positive impact. So I just want to thank Senator Hoeven for all
of his hard work.
Mr. HOEVEN. Will the Senator yield?
Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to.
Mr. HOEVEN. I thank our ranking member. This is truly a bipartisan
bill that we brought out of committee through the hard work and the
leadership of both our chairman and ranking member. So I appreciate all
of her diligent, good efforts on the bill.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, agriculture is the lifeblood of my State of
South Dakota. More than 43 million of our State's roughly 50 million
acres are given over to farming and ranching. In fact, cattle actually
outnumber people in South Dakota. We have more than four times as many
cattle in our State, which is a pretty good example of just how
fundamental ranching is to South Dakota life. We routinely place in the
top 10 States for production of a number of crops, including soybeans,
corn, and wheat. Agriculture isn't just part of the South Dakota way of
life, it is the South Dakota way of life.
While I am one of those South Dakota residents who doesn't farm a
ranch, I have always considered it one of my great privileges to know
South Dakota farmers and ranchers and get to represent them in the U.S.
Congress. That is why, when I was in the House of Representatives, I
chose to serve on the House Agriculture Committee, and that is why I
serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee today.
Our biggest job as members of the Senate Agriculture Committee is to
work on producing farm bills. These bills set the rules of the road for
farmers and ranchers. They govern safety net programs like crop
insurance and livestock disaster programs, which are so essential for
individuals working in an industry where bad weather can wipe out a
year's work and place a family farm at risk. They set the rules for
conservation programs. They cover farm loan programs and much more.
This year's farm bill is particularly important as farmers and
ranchers are facing a tough ag economy. Commodity prices have plunged,
and net farm income is half of what it was 4 or 5 years ago. Now more
than ever, farmers and ranchers need to know with certainty what the
rules of the road will be so they can plan well for the future.
The farm bill we are considering this week is the fourth farm bill I
have had the chance to work on during my time in Congress. While there
are a handful of things I would like to improve further, I am pleased
with the product we have on the floor today.
Given the variety of programs and priorities they cover, farm bills
are always a big production. That is why I got a head start on this
year's farm bill last March when I introduced legislation that created
a new income protection program for farmers. That bill was the first of
nearly a dozen pieces of legislation I introduced over the past year. I
figured that starting the process early would allow us to not just
reauthorize agricultural programs but to strengthen and improve them,
and I am pleased the bill before us today does exactly that.
I am also pleased several of my proposals are included in the bill,
although the credit for that goes to the
[[Page S4393]]
farmers and ranchers who helped inspire these much needed policies and
policy changes. The fact is, nobody knows more about what works and
what doesn't work when it comes to agriculture policy than the people
out there every day working to make a living at farming and ranching.
That is why I make it a point to meet regularly with South Dakota
farmers and ranchers to hear how things are going directly from them.
They let me know which agriculture programs are working, which aren't,
and which can be improved. Many of my proposals for this year's bill
are the direct result of conversations with farmers and ranchers back
in South Dakota.
Perhaps the prime example of that is my proposal to help improve the
accuracy of the U.S. Drought Monitor. In April of this year, I held an
agricultural roundtable in Rapid City, SD. During this event, several
ranchers shared their concerns about accurate precipitation
measurement. Accurate precipitation measurements matter to ranchers
because this data is used to determine whether ranchers qualify for
grazing loss assistance and livestock forage loss assistance when
weather conditions threaten their feed supplies and the well-being of
their herds.
Ranchers have been frustrated by inconsistent rainfall and drought
determinations at the Department of Agriculture.
This spring, after last summer's drought, for example, the U.S.
Forest Service determined that some Federal grazing lands in western
South Dakota were too dry and consequently reduced the number of
livestock ranchers can graze on U.S. Forest Service lands. That left
ranchers struggling to find sufficient grazing lands for their cattle.
However, last year, the Drought Monitor classified that same area as
not dry enough to trigger eligibility for the Livestock Forage Program,
which provides assistance to ranchers whose pastures have suffered
grazing losses due to drought. Obviously, this kind of inconsistent
monitoring and resulting inconsistent Federal assistance is a problem,
and the ranchers in April let me know just how much of a problem it can
be.
So I came back to Washington and worked with my staff to develop
legislation to improve the accuracy of the Drought Monitor and to
require the Department of Agriculture to use consistent precipitation
monitoring data across its programs. I am happy to report that my
Drought Monitor legislation was adopted as part of the farm bill that
is before the Senate today.
I am also proud that the farm bill includes authorization for a
program I proposed that would strengthen soil health by reducing
farmers' crop insurance costs.
All farmers are familiar with the Conservation Reserve Program, or
CRP, which provides incentives for farmers to take environmentally
sensitive land out of production for 10 to 15 years, but a lot of
farmers have told me they don't want to retire portions of their land
for a decade or more, and they don't want to place expensive seed,
fertilizer, and other inputs on their poorest land, especially now,
when prices are at such low levels.
To address this, in March of last year, I offered a bill to create a
new program called the Soil Health and Income Protection Program. This
program would provide a new, short-term option for farmers that would
allow them to take their worst performing cropland out of production
for 3 to 5 years instead of the 10 to 15 years required by CRP rules.
In return for taking this land out of production, farmers would
receive a modest rental payment and increased crop insurance premium
discounts. This program would accomplish the dual goals of protecting
the environment while improving the bottom line for farmers. I am very
pleased that the authorization for the Soil Health and Income
Protection Program was included in the farm bill we are considering
today.
A number of other proposals I introduced also made it into the bill,
including proposals to improve the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program,
proposals to provide pasture, rangeland, and forage insurance premium
assistance for Native American ranchers and proposals to increase the
approval rate of the Livestock Indemnity Program applications.
One proposal I am still working to get included in the bill is a
proposal to allow more flexibility in the Conservation Reserve Program
haying and grazing policies. The CRP program plays a significant role
in South Dakota's economy. It provides a major portion of the habitat
for pheasants, which bring in about $200 million each year to South
Dakota's economy.
Farmers have spent years frustrated with the Department of
Agriculture's management of the CRP program, particularly the program's
sometimes excessive restrictions on land use and requirements to
destroy vegetative cover under midcontract management, even in drought
years when feed supplies are short.
The proposal I am working to get included in the final bill will
allow haying on one-third of all CRP acres and limited grazing on most
CRP land. This commonsense reform, along with other CRP reforms I have
proposed that are included in the bill in front of us today, will
address some of the farmers' major concerns with current land use rules
for acres that are enrolled in the CRP program.
As I mentioned, there are a few areas where I think we could have
done more or gone further to make improvements. I have proposals to
further increase CRP acres and proposals to make additional
improvements to the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program--or the ARC
Program.
I think we have a strong bill before us today. I am grateful for the
leadership of our Agriculture Committee chairman, Senator Roberts, and
the ranking member, Senator Stabenow. All too often these days,
measures that should be collaborative fall victim to partisanship, but
the debate over the farm bill was collegial and collaborative, and we
produced a strong bipartisan bill as a result.
It takes a special kind of person to be a farmer or a rancher. There
are no set hours and no paid vacations. Bad weather isn't just an
inconvenience, it jeopardizes your entire livelihood. Your job is
filled with late nights and early mornings. You can sit up all night
with a sick calf and then have to get out there sleepless the next
morning to work a full day in the fields. The work is physically
demanding, and it is performed no matter what the weather--blazing Sun,
freezing cold, or blowing snow or rain. Believe me, we have all of the
above in South Dakota.
We don't see the backbreaking work, the sweat and tears that have
gone into the production of that gallon of milk we pick up at the
grocery store on our way home, but every time we go to that grocery
store, we are the beneficiaries of the courage, the dedication, and
hard work of our Nation's farmers and ranchers. They feed our country,
and they literally feed the world.
I am grateful so many farmers and ranchers call South Dakota home,
and I hope the bill that is before us today will help make their jobs
just a little bit easier in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I just want to take a moment before the
senior Senator from South Dakota leaves the floor to thank him for his
leadership on so many provisions of this bill. I think the soil health
provisions are really important, the changes in ARC, and I am really
glad we were able to work together to address many of the issues the
Senator from South Dakota raised on the Conservation Reserve Program. I
very much appreciate all of his hard work in getting us to a place
where we have a good bill.
I know the Senator from South Dakota has other thoughts as well. We
will continue to work together to continue to improve it, but I very
much appreciate all of the Senator's hard work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
EPA Administrator Pruitt
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as I rise for my 209th ``Time to Wake
Up'' climate change speech, I return to a familiar subject: disgraced
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt.
Not that long ago, I was here discussing the baker's dozen of ethical
scandals swirling around Pruitt. From his $43,000 ``cone of silence''
phone booth to the millions he spent on a 20-
[[Page S4394]]
person security detail, to his lights-and-sirens escapades, to fancy DC
restaurant Le Diplomate, Pruitt has come to personify the swamp
President Trump promised to drain. And he just keeps on getting
swampier.
In just the few weeks since my last speech on Pruitt, we have learned
that he used one of his closest aides to plan his vacations, hunt for a
Washington apartment, and, most bizarrely, solicit a used hotel
mattress from the Trump Hotel. The aide did many of these tasks on
government time when she was supposed to be working for taxpayers. That
is a clear violation of Federal employment rules. Federal rules also
bar officials such as Pruitt from accepting gifts from their
subordinates, including these kinds of personal services even on
personal time. So one way or the other, this was pretty swampy. We also
learned, in a scene worthy of the finest banana republic, that Pruitt
had his staffer approach the founder of the fast food chain Chick-fil-A
about securing a franchise for Pruitt's wife.
As the New York Times recently wrote, ``Grifters Gonna Grift.'' But
with all deference to the editorial writers at the Times, I would add
that Pruitt's actions aren't just matters of grift; they also reveal
his servility to the interests of his fossil fuel backers over the
interests of the American public. My Republican colleague, Senator
Ernst of Iowa, recently said that Pruitt's efforts to undermine the
renewable fuel standard, including the abundance of waivers for
refiners, amount to broken promises to American farmers. ``He is about
as swampy as you get here in Washington, DC,'' she said. Amen.
You would think that someone so corrupt would not be long for a
President's Cabinet. You would be wrong. Just last week, in the face of
all of Pruitt's latest scandals, President Trump reaffirmed his support
for his EPA Administrator, saying that the Agency is doing really,
really well under Pruitt. The President doesn't see anything wrong with
having someone as scandal-plagued as Pruitt in his Cabinet. What he can
see is that the fossil fuel industry is solidly lined up behind its
servant, Pruitt. He has oil company interests and the front groups they
fund telling him to keep Pruitt on the job because Pruitt is rolling
back regulations polluters don't like.
Let's look at how well Pruitt is really doing for the polluters.
Let's start with Pruitt's record in the courts.
A number of EPA's regulatory actions or its failures to regulate have
been challenged in court.
Republicans continue to rubberstamp Trump's activist, extreme-
rightwing, and polluter-friendly judicial nominees, but American courts
nevertheless remain a forum in which outright lies are not countenanced
and in which regulatory agencies such as EPA have to demonstrate the
scientific, technical, economic, and legal basis of their regulatory
decisions. An agency whose political leadership dissembles or doesn't
do its homework won't do well in court.
So how has Scott Pruitt's EPA fared in the courts? In two words, not
well. Our Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member, Tom
Carper, recently released a report analyzing Pruitt's record in court.
As you can see from this chart, 66 cases have been filed against
Pruitt's EPA in relation to ethics and transparency. I know this comes
as little shock, given Pruitt's numerous and continuing ethical
shortcomings. Of the 14 of these ethics cases that have already been
decided by a judge, EPA lost 13 of them. That is a 7-percent success
rate for Pruitt. The other 79 cases challenge EPA's regulatory actions
or inactions.
This is what Pruitt is supposed to be there for--rolling back rules
protecting public health and the environment to make his fossil fuel
patrons happy. This is why he still has industry support. This is why
he is still running EPA despite all the scandals. You can be corrupt in
this administration as long as you are corrupt for the right people.
Of the six of these cases that have been fully reviewed by the
courts, Pruitt's EPA lost four of them, succeeded in delaying arguments
on one, and got another dismissed on mootness grounds after withdrawing
the challenged rule. In other words, Pruitt is zero for six before the
courts when it comes to defending his regulatory rollbacks. Pruitt is a
former baseball player, so he will understand it when I say that he is
batting way below the Mendoza line.
The courts have blocked Pruitt's attempt to delay the implementation
of a rule curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas wells.
Methane, of course, is a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes to
climate change. The courts also blocked Pruitt's effort to slow-walk
EPA's revision of lead paint standards. Pruitt wanted another 6 years
to revise the standards, and the courts gave him 90 days.
Many of Pruitt's biggest deregulatory actions, after a splashy
announcement, have yet to even be finalized, so they aren't yet ripe
for judicial review. But even on these half-baked rollbacks, Pruitt is
making mistakes that will provide ample ammunition in court for those
who will sue him.
Take Pruitt's rulemaking to rescind the Clean Power Plan--President
Obama's blueprint to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector. As
Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt sued three times to block the Clean
Power Plan. He has a long record against the Clean Power Plan in the
press, at industry conferences, and on social media. Many of the same
fossil fuel industry donors who have bankrolled Pruitt's political
career are on the other side, suing to block the Clean Power Plan.
Pruitt has not even revealed the full depth of his fiscal engagement
with the fossil fuel industry because he has never fessed up to who
gave money to his dark money political operation, so it is actually
probably worse than we know.
Well, here is where America's rule of law kicks in. America's rule of
law provides that those who are interested in an agency rulemaking
``have a right to a fair and open proceeding; that right includes
access to an impartial decision maker.'' Here, given Pruitt's strident
opposition to the Clean Power Plan as attorney general, combined with
his sickeningly close financial and political ties with the industry
opposing it, can there be any doubt that Pruitt possesses what under
law one would call an unalterably closed mind when it comes to the
Clean Power Plan? Courts will take notice of that sort of thing.
Then there is Pruitt's effort to exclude certain scientific studies
from consideration in rulemaking. Pruitt claims it is to boost
transparency. That couldn't be phonier. It is an effort to boost two
industries that are big donors to his political operations--fossil fuel
and tobacco.
For decades, fossil fuel and tobacco have pushed to prevent
regulatory agencies from considering scientific studies that rely on
people's medical records. They have figured out that because people
like their medical records to be private and because public health
studies rely on private medical records, if they can cook up the notion
that that is somehow a transparency problem, they can take the entire
corpus of public health science based on medical records and put it in
the bin. Blocking that public health evidence is a way for these
industries to screen out the most damning evidence in actual Americans'
actual health records of the effects of tobacco smoke and air pollution
on human health.
Pruitt's own Science Advisory Board isn't buying that one. He
rebuffed the Board's request for information about this proposed rule
and issued it without the Board's input. When he claimed that his
proposed rule was consistent with the position of various scientific
journals and groups, those journals and groups stood up and said: Oh,
no. They were quick to correct the record. And EPA's Science Advisory
Board just voted unanimously to examine the policy anyway.
You might think that such a rule may also exclude some industry-
funded studies, but never fear--internal emails obtained by the Union
of Concerned Scientists show that Pruitt's lackeys, themselves former
industry lobbyists, knew they had to make sure industry studies could
still be considered by EPA.
It would be great to take all of the real public health studies that
rely on real healthcare information, pretend that is a transparency
problem, shove them off to the side, and then have industry-funded
studies left to rely upon. Well, the Pruitt lackeys pulled a little
trick and put in the proposed rule that
[[Page S4395]]
the Administrator can include any study he likes, regardless of what
the rule may require, opening up a nice, safe harbor for his industry
sponsors' industry-funded studies.
All of this sounds pretty arbitrary and capricious to me. And
``arbitrary and capricious'' by the way, is the legal standard courts
will use to evaluate challenges to this phony baloney rule.
Pruitt's drive to weaken fuel economy standards also looks to be on
shaky legal ground. They cobbled together a 38-page document in April
announcing Pruitt's intention to roll back the 2012 auto fuel
efficiency standards. That cobbled-together report is devoid of the
type of serious, detailed analysis that courts typically look for in
such a rulemaking. Half of that little document is just quotes from car
companies objecting to the rule. By comparison, the Obama
administration assembled a 1,217-page document justifying those
standards, chockful of real scientific, technical, and economic
analysis--all of the stuff the Pruitt EPA is allergic to.
Once again, Pruitt's work product looks pretty arbitrary and
capricious--short on facts, short on analysis, long on giveaways to
industries that fund him. It is entirely understandable that the
interests to which Pruitt is beholden would be fighting for him to keep
his job. They love this. For them, Pruitt running this public health
agency into the ground is a feature, not a bug, of the Pruitt tenure.
They are just in it for the regulatory rollbacks.
I hope they recognize a lot of Pruitt's work is so sloppy that,
ultimately, it will likely not stand up in court. I hope President
Trump understands the guy he thinks of as his great deregulator isn't
very good at deregulating.
Only time will tell how long Scott Pruitt can survive the mounting,
swirling, ethical ordeals of his own making. We will also see how his
industry friendly regulatory record fares under the scrutiny of honest
courts. Something tells me I will be back here in the not-too-distant
future with more to say about the troubled and disgraceful tenure of
Scott Pruitt.
I yield the floor.
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.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Family Separation
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, over the past few days, the issue of
family separation has reached a fever pitch. All you have to do is look
at the daily newspapers or cable television, and you know that is true.
This is a crisis that has been brewing since the surge of young
migrants across our border way back in 2014 and is just now reaching a
new peak.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: I find it ridiculous
to suggest that members of my political party--the Republican Party--
somehow support the idea of separating families. No one wants families
separated. No one wants to see families exploited. To suggest otherwise
is to feed the frenzy that has been whipped up over the last few days.
Lost in this frenzy is the reality that the only groups standing to
truly benefit while America is divided are smugglers, drug cartels, and
human traffickers. They know about the weaknesses and loopholes in our
current immigration law, and they aren't afraid to use those weaknesses
and loopholes. For these people, it is all about profit. Smugglers,
drug cartels, and human traffickers don't care about human lives.
In 2015 and 2016, I questioned the Obama administration's Department
of Homeland Security after receiving reports that human trafficking was
increasing, and some smugglers weren't being arrested even after
smuggling people across the border dozens of times. The lack of
consequences emboldened these smugglers.
At that time, I also asked the Obama Department of Homeland Security
about a dangerous tactic used by smugglers to pair kids with unrelated
adults to create the appearance of a family unit. The word
``appearance'' is key here.
Knowing the legal loopholes better than most, these smugglers knew
that our laws, like the Flores settlement agreement, prevented family
detention.
Flores vs. Reno effectively prohibits the government from maintaining
custody of immigrant children even when they are with their families.
Through this agreement, the government had sent the message that if you
come alone, you will be detained, but if you come with a family, and as
a family, you will likely be released. Understanding this, these smart
smugglers knew they could sell this false freedom and build a cruel new
business model.
In 2015, I was horrified to learn that human smuggling rings were
exploiting children and selling them to the highest bidder to get to
the United States and avoid detention. That is right. Smugglers would
use kids like pawns in an effort to help adults avoid detention when
coming across the border. To truly help families, any solution we come
up with must protect against this evil stunt by the smugglers.
Department officials reported that kids were being kidnapped, or
adopted, and then smuggled with their unrelated adult so-called
``family member'' to the United States.
U.S. Government officials work closely with foreign officials, trying
to locate and safely return these kidnapped children to their mothers
and fathers. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen. For example, a
woman paid a smuggling organization in Brazil $13,000 in fees to
smuggle her to the United States. She flew from her home country of
Brazil to Mexico, where she was paired with a minor child. She was then
instructed to claim the child as her own upon arrival to the United
States.
After learning about this scam, ICE intervened, and the woman was
removed. The child, however, was never found. She will never be
reunited with her real family. She is likely separated from that real
family forever. That is all because the flaws in our current
immigration system permitted--and even encouraged--her to be
trafficked.
I heard just yesterday that U.S. Customs and Border Protection has
temporarily stopped referring cases for criminal prosecution, but that
is exactly what the Obama administration did during their tenure. It is
exactly why we are dealing with this terrible situation that separates
children and families in the first place. Failure to refer cases for
prosecution will only give a green light to these smugglers, once more
putting at risk the very kids we are worried about protecting, and we
ought to be worried about protecting them.
This tactic of creating fake family units isn't new and isn't limited
to just a one-time deal. Last week, Secretary Nielsen reported that
this tactic is still being utilized. She stated:
In the last five months, we've had a 314 percent increase
in adults and children arriving at the border, fraudulently
claiming to be a family unit. This is, obviously, of concern.
These fake family units are often provided with fraudulent documents
to support that the group is actually a family unit when we all know it
is not a family unit. There is a whole industry that exists to create
fake birth certificates and many other documents that show a familial
relationship. As the tactic to create these fake family units has
become more popular, the underground market has exploded. Smugglers are
very smart, and many of them are masters of gaming our immigration
system.
Let me reiterate that the way the Flores vs. Reno agreement is
currently applied, the government can't keep immigrant children even if
they are with their parents. Flores discourages the Federal Government
from keeping families together in Department of Homeland Security
custody. If we remedy this situation, not only would we be able to keep
families together, but we would also be telling the smugglers who
profit from this that their days of making millions of dollars off the
most vulnerable are over. The most vulnerable--the kids we are talking
about--aren't getting the protection they ought to get when they are
separated from their parents.
To me, the answer to this problem appears to be very simple. We
should repeal the Flores decision only as it applies to accompanied
children so that the Department of Homeland Security
[[Page S4396]]
can keep families together in family residential centers. That is very
simple, and that is very quick. That is why, last week, I worked hand
in hand with Senator Tillis to produce a bill that would do just that.
Senator Tillis's thoughtful bill, in addition to repealing parts of
the Flores decision, would also allow more immigrant court judges to be
hired and would provide for detained families to have their cases heard
first.
Senator Tillis's bill would immediately end this crisis and wouldn't
return us to the failed catch-and-release policies that even the former
Obama Department of Homeland Secretary, Jeh Johnson, has acknowledged
are poor public policies.
I hope my colleagues will join with Senator Tillis and this Senator
to fix this problem. The American people are counting on it. Thousands
of families are depending upon it.
I yield the floor.
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.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
A Living Wage
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, we know Americans work harder and longer
than ever before and have less and less to show for it. Hard work
doesn't pay off the way it used to. Workers in Ohio have known that for
a long time--that their paychecks don't stretch far enough. This month,
the State's second largest newspaper, the Columbus Dispatch, reported
on just how bad things are for far too many Ohioans.
The Dispatch reported on a new study by the National Low Income
Housing Coalition and the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio
that found--get this--that only 2 out of the 10 most common jobs in
Ohio pay enough for one to be able to afford a modest two-bedroom
apartment.
Think about the number of people who work in fast-food restaurants.
Think of the number of people who clean hotel rooms. Think of the
number of people who are orderlies in big hospitals. Think of the
number of people who do clerical work or who are bank tellers who
simply don't make enough to live any kind of a lifestyle which, when
they were kids, they expected to live.
Look at it this way. Average renters in Ohio earn just over $13 an
hour--$2 less than the $15.25 an hour they need to rent a basic two-
bedroom. Now, that is statewide, but in Columbus, which is the State's
largest city, it is worse. You need to earn $17.50 per hour to rent a
basic two-bedroom apartment.
Policy Matters Ohio has also done great work in shining a light on
working Ohioans. Its report this spring found that last year, 6 of the
10 most common jobs in our State paid so little that workers would need
food stamps to feed a family of 3. Six of the ten most common jobs in
Ohio paid so little that workers would need food stamps if there were
three in the household.
Think of what this means. These are Ohioans who are doing everything
we have asked. They hold down jobs. They get up every day. They go to
work. They serve their communities. They are holding up their end of
the bargain--the bargain we are supposed to have in this country. Yet
the corporations they work for don't pay them what they are worth. It
is not just the workers in these jobs who get hurt by this, it is
obviously their families, and, interestingly, it is the taxpayers.
Here is why: When corporations refuse to pay workers living wages,
when they refuse them opportunities to save for retirement, when they
refuse to provide decent healthcare, they create a drag on the economy.
Do you know why? It is because taxpayers pick it up. Someone has to
pick up the tab when corporations pay $9 and $10 and $11.
I was at my high school reunion a couple of years ago. At dinner, I
sat across the table--my wife and I did--from a woman who has worked
for a bank, for a very well-known, huge national bank. She had worked
there for 30 years as a teller, and she made $30,000 a year, after 30
years, working as a teller.
So what happens to people like her? The taxpayers end up helping to
finance their, generally, barely adequate standards of living. I will
get to that in a second.
No one who works 40 hours should be forced onto food stamps or
housing vouchers or Medicaid or other government aid just to stay
afloat. American citizens--American taxpayers--shouldn't be forced to
subsidize wages for megacorporations. Yet that is what is happening in
Ohio, what is happening in Wisconsin, and what is happening around the
country.
If people are making $10 an hour, they are probably getting their
insurance from Medicaid, which is paid for by taxpayers. They are
probably getting the earned-income tax credit, which is a refundable
tax credit that is provided by taxpayers. They are probably getting
food stamps, which are provided by taxpayers--the SNAP benefit. They
are probably getting housing vouchers. What this means is, because a
company only pays $10 an hour, taxpayers have to provide the rest, so
taxpayers are fundamentally subsidizing them.
Think of these huge retail operations in this country. Think of these
huge fast-food restaurants. Think of the executives for those
corporations who are making $2 million, $5 million, $10 million a year.
They are not paying their line workers anything close to their economic
value. Do you know what happens then? It means taxpayers are
subsidizing these huge companies with their exorbitant executive
salaries.
This month, the Dispatch talked with a home health aide who lives on
the east side of Columbus. Her name is Karon Taylor. Ms. Taylor works
hard to support her daughter and grandchildren. She only makes $11 an
hour, which is well below the $17 I mentioned that you need in Columbus
to be able to afford a family apartment. She relies on federally
subsidized housing.
She told the Dispatch:
I know how to budget, and I can stretch $20 really far.
Wages--that's the problem.
She works hard, and she does her part, but she needs help to make
ends meet because companies refuse to pay workers like her a living
wage. It doesn't have to be that way.
Last year, as some in this body remember, I introduced a bill called
the corporate freeloader fee. It works this way: If you are a huge
corporation--I am not talking about a mom-and-pop restaurant, and I am
not talking about a lawn care service with 10 employees or about one
who is self-employed or about one with 30 employees or even 100
employees; I am talking about large corporations, if you choose to pay
your workers so little that they are disproportionately forced onto
government assistance so that they are eligible for all of these
programs--again, food stamps, Medicaid, the earned-income tax credit,
subsidized housing--you need to reimburse American taxpayers.
You are a huge corporation. Your executive vice presidents make $1
million; the senior executive vice president makes $5 million; the CFO
makes $7 million; the CEO makes $10 million. Yet you are paying your
workers $10, $11, and $12 an hour, and they go onto government
assistance. Do you know what? Instead of passing the Senate tax bill
that gave all kinds of tax benefits to the rich--the bill that was
negotiated down in the majority leader's office, where all of the
special interest lobbyists scurried in and out when you turned the
lights on--if we had passed the tax bill with my patriot employer tax
credit, which I will talk about in a moment, and with the corporate
freeloader fee, we would have seen a very different tax bill. We would
have seen a tax bill that would have said to these companies: Pay your
workers a little better, and you will get a little better of a tax
break.
If you are a huge corporation and you pay your workers so little that
they are forced to go onto government assistance, you reimburse
American taxpayers. That is the corporate freeloader fee. On the other
hand, if you are a company like a whole lot of companies in my State
and you pay good wages--if you pay $15 an hour or more--and offer good
benefits and if you keep jobs in this country and production in this
country, if you don't offshore your production to Mexico or China, then
you get a tax cut. That is the patriot employer tax credit.
[[Page S4397]]
Months and months ago, I spoke to the President of the United States
in a discussion with about 10 Senators--in the Cabinet room--about
these two ideas. The President said he liked the patriot employer tax
credit, giving tax benefits to those who do the right thing.
Apparently, he seemed to like the corporate freeloader fee also,
punishing those corporations that don't do the right thing and making
them simply pay a fee to the government for that. In the end, the
President of the United States joined the majority leader and the
Speaker of the House in writing a tax bill, whereby, 5 years from now,
80 percent of the benefits in that tax bill will go to the richest 1
percent of the people in the country.
Imagine instead if that tax bill had actually been written like
this--in a way that would have seen wages go up and the standard of
living go up. Instead, the special interests went to work. Instead of
tax reform that would have given companies real incentives to invest in
workers, we got a tax cut that will lead to billions in stock buybacks
that will benefit corporate executives.
In that meeting at the White House, the President also said: Our tax
bill is going to mean a $4,000 to $9,000 raise for the average American
worker per year.
I am like, really?
Nothing even close to that has happened. Instead, what companies have
done is they have taken their largesse that has been provided by
middle-class and working-class taxpayers--the 80 percent of benefits
going to the 1 percent wealthiest people in corporations--and they have
done stock buybacks. They have increased their own executive
compensation. Workers have gotten almost nothing. Workers have gotten
squeezed on both ends, whereby paychecks haven't grown fast enough,
corporations have paid poverty-level wages, and housing has gotten more
expensive.
Think of this. One-quarter of renters--one-quarter of the people who
rent in my State, who are not much different than those who are
anywhere else--pay half of their income in housing. There are 400,000
renters in Ohio who pay half of their income or more in housing. Do you
know what that means? It means, if the car breaks down, it means if a
kid gets sick, it means if you miss work for 2 weeks for some reason,
you are probably going to get evicted. It happens every day in every
city, in every community, in every rural area in my State.
We know we need to do more to preserve and grow our stock of
affordable housing in this country. Instead, the administration is
making it worse. It has proposed to hike rents by 20 percent for almost
all Ohio families who receive housing assistance.
In going back to Ms. Taylor in Columbus, OH, she is a home health
aide. She still isn't paid enough. Average rents for Columbus families
would go up by a projected 22 percent. Do you think her company is
going to pay her 22 percent more or even 10 percent or 5 percent more?
Her housing costs would go up because of a decision by Dr. Carson--
ratified by the White House--to cut that help, to reduce that help.
Housing, healthcare, education, gas, and transportation are all getting
more expensive. Workers wages aren't keeping up because corporations
don't value workers.
We know one solution to this problem--giving workers a voice in the
workplace. A single worker can't take on a corporation. A single worker
can't take on the CEO and can't take on the behemoth in the executive
suite. That is why you need collective bargaining.
Last September, 400 security officers in Columbus got raises--from as
low as $9 an hour to a minimum of $12.45 an hour. They signed their
first union contract with the Service Employees International Union,
Local 1. That union card bought them a minimum $2.50 raise. That is
still below what workers need, but it is progress. They joined
together, and they demanded a unified voice in the companies they
helped to build. It is not just unions. We need stronger workplace
standards to make sure workers get the pay they earn.
In Columbus, OH, 2 years ago, I stood with the Vice President of the
United States and the Secretary of Labor, and we announced an overtime
rule, wherein 130,000 Ohioans would get a pay increase or would work
fewer hours for the same amount of money.
Here is how it works: If you are the supervisor on the night shift at
a fast-food restaurant and you are making $35,000 a year and your
company--a fast-food restaurant, a big national company--decides to
call you management, it can make you work 50 hours, 60 hours, 70 hours
a week and pay you not a cent of overtime. So this updating of the
Federal overtime rule that we did--that the Secretary of Labor did,
with Vice President Biden and President Obama, 2 or 3 years ago or so--
said that 130,000 Ohioans would get paid time and a half for that 50th
or 55th hour, instead of going straight salary just because the company
classified no overtime.
Unfortunately, the folks in the White House--the folks who promised
to drain the swamp--have sided with the fast food restaurants and with
the big employers, and they are trying to strip away that overtime rule
so those workers will continue to have to work 50 or 60 hours and not
get a dime for it, meaning less time for their children, less time with
their families, less leisure time, less pay--all of that.
So, fundamentally, whose side are these people on? They are always on
the side of the wealthy. They are always on the side of the richest
corporations. They are always on the side of the privileged. They are
never on the side of people who fight, work, and struggle just to stay
above water. At the same time, we need to go after corporations that
misclassify their workers. They pretend they are independent
contractors so they can avoid paying into Medicare and Social Security
and paying their share of taxes and wages. From housing to wages to
workers' rights, we need to change how we think about these issues.
It is not multinational corporations that drive the economy. It is
workers. Since 2010, since the auto rescue, every single month from
2010 until this month at least, June 2018, we have had an increase in
the number of net jobs created in this country--every month since 2010.
Granted, the President's comments notwithstanding, the growth in jobs
in 2017 was less than the 5 years before. We have had a slowly
increasing economy where job growth isn't as big as we want and wage
growth certainly isn't as big as we want, but we have seen it because
in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, the government understood that you grow
an economy from the middle up. You don't give tax cuts to the richest
people saying it is going to trickle down. You give tax breaks and
focus on growth in the economy in the middle level, so that workers
making minimum wage get raises. As I said, it is not multinational
corporations that drive the economy, it is workers making the minimum
wage, workers paid in tips, workers on factory floors, workers behind
desks, workers in hospital wards, in restaurant kitchens, and in
classrooms, and workers on salary and workers punching the clock. It is
about fighting for the little guy, whether she punches a clock or
whether he works in an office; fighting for the little guy, whether she
works construction or whether he works in manufacturing; fighting for
the little guy, whether he sits behind a computer terminal or whether
she is midlevel management in a fast food restaurant. You grow the
economy from the middle class out.
But if you don't value work, Americans can't earn their way to a
better life for their family, no matter how hard they work. That is
what people around here don't understand. I sat at this desk watching a
very close vote last year where 49 of my colleagues--49 out of 100
colleagues--all of whom have government-paid health insurance, stood on
this floor and voted yes to taking away insurance from 900,000 people
in my State, and in Wisconsin from 400,000 or 500,000 people. People
who have government insurance paid for by taxpayers, who are U.S.
Senators who have these jobs, who have these titles, who have this
income and these benefits, were willing to take insurance away from
millions of people, and hundreds of thousands of people in my State
alone.
Again, if work isn't valued, if my colleagues in this body don't
understand the value of work--and they don't seem to, frankly, with the
way so many of my colleagues vote--Americans can't earn their way to a
better life for their families--again, no matter how hard they work.
[[Page S4398]]
That is what we have to change. Until Wall Street, corporate
boardrooms, and Members of the Senate respect a hard day's work, we
will continue to see the consequences. The gap between Wall Street and
Main Street will keep growing, it will be harder and harder for workers
to afford housing and other expenses. Our middle class will continue to
shrink, as it has, and our economic growth will continue to lag behind.
We can work together to fix that.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERTS. For the information of our colleagues, the Senate will
proceed to the bill tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., and the amendment
process will begin.
After Senator Stabenow and I offer the bipartisan substitute, the
first amendment offered on this side will be the Thune amendment on the
Conservation Reserve Program.
There will be no further rollcall votes tonight.
I yield to my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the
committee, Senator Stabenow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are moving forward
and looking forward to the first amendment we will be voting on,
Senator Thune's amendment, of which I am very supportive. I am looking
forward to working with my colleagues as we move through the bill.
Hopefully, we are on the road to getting this done this week.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________