[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 109 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4701-S4717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            AGRICULTURE AND NUTRITION ACT OF 2018--Continued


               Filling the Upcoming Supreme Court Vacancy

  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, if this week has shown us anything, it 
is that courts matter. In three important decisions over 2 days, the 
Supreme Court majority endorsed Donald Trump's bigotry and handed him 
the power to exclude any group of people for any reason, as long as he 
couches it as a national security matter.
  Justice Alito led a narrow majority in a concerted effort to destroy 
unions--in this case, public sector unions--and Justice Thomas told 
States that they cannot tell women what reproductive services are 
available to them.
  We have also seen a Federal trial court judge in San Diego, who 
combined his understanding of the law with his capacity for human 
kindness, order that children who were separated from their parents at 
the southern border be reunited with them in short order.
  We have seen the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rule in favor of 
transgender public school students being able to use the bathrooms that 
match their gender identity.
  The work that judges do affects the real lives of people living and 
working in this country--people who are trying to care for their 
families, to serve their country, to earn a living; people who count on 
us here in Congress to make sure that they are safe and that their 
rights are protected. In the Judiciary Committee on which I sit, that 
responsibility is normally never greater than when we consider a 
nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  These are not normal times. When we have a President who avows that 
the Supreme Court should always be Republican, ignoring the independent 
role of the Court, the Senate's advice and consent process is even more 
crucial.
  Take a look at the President's tweet. He believes the Supreme Court 
is an extension of his political party. Last March, he reiterated: ``We 
need more Republicans in 2018,'' he said, ``and must ALWAYS''--he likes 
to capitalize--``ALWAYS hold the Supreme Court!'' Any nominee from this 
President comes to us with this taint attached.
  The President is not the only one to politicize the courts. Neil 
Gorsuch would never have made it to the Supreme Court if not for the 
majority leader, whose proudest achievement, according to him, is Neil 
Gorsuch's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  There is no question that the majority leader wants to ensure a 
conservative majority on the Supreme Court to upend the fundamental 
rights of millions of Americans. It started in 2016 when he refused to 
even meet with the President's Supreme Court nominee and would not 
grant him a hearing. The majority leader held this seat hostage 
precisely because he wanted someone who would serve as a rubberstamp 
for his radical conservative agenda.
  Here is what Mitch McConnell said when he did this. He said that the 
American people should have a voice in the selection of their next 
Court Justice. Under the McConnell rule, this vacancy created by 
Justice Kennedy's resignation and retirement should be treated no 
differently.
  If the people's voice should have been heard in 2016, it is no less 
important now, because these are clearly not normal times. On Tuesday--
the same day the Supreme Court ruled that the President could 
discriminate against people coming to our country on the basis of 
religion--the majority leader tweeted this picture of himself with Neil 
Gorsuch.
  The message is clear. The twisted process got the Republicans just 
what they wanted, and they want to do it again. They want to keep doing 
it, and we should not let them.
  Democrats should do everything we can to ensure that the Supreme 
Court stays independent and protects fundamental rights and values. The 
American people certainly deserve no less.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the Agriculture 
Improvement Act of 2018, or what is commonly known in our part of the 
country as the farm bill, which we are considering on the Senate floor 
this week.
  The farm bill is a vital piece of legislation to the people of my 
home State of South Dakota, where our economy depends on agriculture to 
survive. With more than 31,500 farms across the State, South Dakota 
ranks in the top 10 for ag production, providing a $25 billion impact 
on our economy annually. Stability and certainty for our farmers, which 
this farm bill helps to provide, is crucial as they do their part to 
feed and fuel a growing global population.
  I would like to thank Chairman Pat Roberts, Ranking Member Debbie 
Stabenow, and all of the other members of the Senate Ag Committee and 
their staff, who worked tirelessly to get this marketed-oriented bill 
to the floor for consideration by the full Senate body. This bipartisan 
bill will provide much needed certainty to our ag community at a 
pivotal time, when the ag economy is facing significant challenges. The 
ag economy is down more than 50 percent over the past 5 years, and the 
numbers don't look much better for 2018. According to the Department of 
Agriculture's own Economic Research Service, net farm income is 
projected to fall an additional 7 percent this year to $58 billion.
  A 5-year farm bill is necessary to give South Dakota producers the 
certainty they need to help weather times of economic downturn, such as 
the one we are experiencing right now in ag country. Additionally, the 
uncertainty surrounding trade and tariffs has created instability in 
the market, which is having a significant effect on our commodity 
prices.
  For example, in my home State of South Dakota, soybeans are one of 
the top commodities, and we rely heavily on exports to sell our soybean 
crop each year. A significant importer of U.S. soybeans is China, which 
accounts for about 25 percent of all of the U.S. soybean sales and 60 
percent of all soybean exports.
  While the tariffs on soybeans have not taken effect yet, they are 
already having a real impact on the market prices. Since the tariffs on 
Chinese goods were announced in early March, soybeans are down $1.86 
per bushel on the cash market, representing a $449 million loss in 
South Dakota alone when we look at farmers' balance sheets. The USDA 
had projected ag exports to be flat in 2018 before tariffs were levied 
on the ag industry--or at least before those tariffs were suggested to 
be added to the ag industry.
  With so much uncertainty surrounding trade deals since tariffs were 
announced, reauthorizing programs like the Market Access Program, or 
MAP, and the Foreign Market Development Program, FMD, are vital to help 
gain access to new markets for U.S. products. This bill does exactly 
that.
  These programs help encourage the development, maintenance, and 
expansion of the ag export market to foreign customers.
  I am pleased that this legislation also strengthens the crop 
insurance program with outlays projected to be approximately $7.6 
billion annually. Crop insurance is a highly effective public-private 
safety net that helps farmers customize protection for their individual 
operations. Sometimes I don't think we emphasize that this is one of 
those safety net items for which farmers and ranchers actually pay 
premiums to participate. Crops in my home State of South Dakota 
contribute roughly $10.3 billion to our economy. Last year, in South 
Dakota alone, more than 50,000 crop insurance policies were written to 
provide $4.8 billion in protection for over 17.5 million acres of 
cropland. Nationwide,

[[Page S4702]]

more than 310 million acres were enrolled in crop insurance, backing 
more than $106 billion of crop value. It is vital as a risk management 
tool for farmers across the entire country. By maintaining strong crop 
insurance provisions, this bill will help our producers weather these 
very tough times in ag country.

  Additionally, this legislation provides a modest increase in the cap 
of the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, to 25 million acres. That 
would be up from 24 million acres currently in the existing farm bill. 
While we would have preferred a more significant increase in CRP acres, 
to the tune of perhaps 30 million acres or more, a strong CRP program 
is an important tool to assist farmers and ranchers during these 
adverse times, such as during a drought like we experienced in South 
Dakota last year, or possible flood damage, which I fear we will be 
experiencing this year.
  This legislation also gives the Secretary of Ag the necessary 
authority to reorganize the USDA. Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue recently 
introduced a plan to reorganize the agency, including combining the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service with the Farm Service Agency and 
the Risk Management Agency, creating a new farm production and 
conservation mission, which would be under the Under Secretary, Bill 
Northey. Streamlining these programs will help sharpen the agency's 
focus on domestic agricultural issues, providing farmers and ranchers 
with a one-stop shop so that USDA can better meet their needs.
  Last year, as the Senate Ag Committee discussions on this farm bill 
took shape, I wrote to the chairman and ranking member of the committee 
to ask them to establish a foot-and-mouth disease vaccination bank to 
combat economic, food, and national security concerns. A major outbreak 
of foot-and-mouth disease, or FMD, would be financially devastating to 
our producers, and I am pleased this bill highlights an FMD disease 
bank as a priority at USDA.
  The final thing I will mention about the Ag Improvement Act of 2018 
is that it increases the cap for individuals seeking loans under the 
Farm Service Agency loan guarantee program. This program provides 
financial assistance to farmers and ranchers who want to expand and 
improve their operations. Under this legislation, the FSA direct loan 
program cap will go from $300,000 to $600,000 for direct ownership 
loans, $400,000 for direct operating loans, and from $1.39 million to 
$1.75 million for guaranteed ownership and operating loans. Increasing 
both the individual cap for these loans and the total amount of money 
available for lending will allow a greater number of producers to 
utilize the program. Farming and ranching have become increasingly 
costly, and increasing these limits will more accurately reflect 
inflation and increasing costs of ag production today and make sure 
that lenders have flexibility during times of hardship.
  South Dakota producers work hard every day to feed and fuel a growing 
global population. As in all businesses, some years are simply better 
than others. During those more difficult times, it is important that 
our farmers and ranchers have access to tools that can help them keep 
their operations vital. The certainty and stability of this farm bill 
will do that by allowing them to work to weather this current economic 
downturn, as well as strengthen the agricultural economy.
  I support the Senate's efforts to provide certainty to our farmers, 
and I will continue to work with my colleagues to see this bill across 
the finish line so that we can provide our ag economy with much needed 
certainty and help get our ag economy back on track.
  Let me also add that I believe we may very well see some very well-
meaning amendments today that make good sense, but these amendments 
might very well not be supported by enough of our Members to where the 
actual bill itself would survive if the amendments were included. My 
interest is in making certain that this farm bill is allowed to 
continue forward, to be reconciled with the House, and become law as 
quickly as possible. I would ask the other Members to seriously 
consider the impacts; while we may very well have some great ideas on 
how to make improvements, unless we have enough to maintain that 60-
vote margin in the U.S. Senate on a bipartisan basis, then we will have 
failed in providing that stability to the ag community in this time 
when they desperately need that reassurance.
  With that, Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to visit 
and talk about this very important piece of legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mrs. ERNST. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of Iowa's farmers 
and ranchers in support of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 or 
what we refer to as the farm bill. I thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking 
Member Stabenow for bringing this critical piece of bipartisan 
legislation to the floor for consideration.
  Farmers, ranchers, and rural communities are resilient--some of the 
toughest in the face of adversity. But low commodity prices, trade 
tensions, and unpredictable weather have taken a toll on many of our 
folks back home. These are the people Americans rely on day in and day 
out to put food on our tables, clothes on our backs, and fuel in our 
cars.
  In trying times, it is essential that we provide farmers and ranchers 
with the certainty and the predictability they need and they deserve. 
These folks helped guide my priorities for this bipartisan farm bill, 
which maintains a robust crop insurance, makes improvements to 
commodity programs, and promotes soil health and water quality.
  I am thankful that several of my provisions and amendments can be 
found within this bill. Long overdue reforms to the Conservation 
Reserve Program will refocus the program's intent on highly erodible 
and environmentally sensitive land and provide opportunities for the 
next generation of American farmers to access land to build 
economically viable farm operations.
  This bill also strengthens the ARC-County Program, limiting payment 
discrepancies and ensuring that farmers receive the necessary support 
they deserve. It also puts farmers first by providing critical support 
and mental health resources to those in need or those facing tough 
times.
  I do want to note one area of the bill where I think we need to do 
more, and that is on the issue of SNAP reform. Most notably, the bill 
misses an opportunity to help able-bodied SNAP recipients rise up out 
of poverty. SNAP is a program that is relied on by children, in 
addition to elderly Americans, people with disabilities, and many 
working families who are struggling to make ends meet. No American 
should go hungry, and SNAP provides critical assistance to our most 
vulnerable citizens.
  We also have an obligation to ensure that this safety net does not 
perpetuate a cycle of poverty and is not abused by those who should not 
be taking this benefit. Unfortunately, we have seen some shocking 
stories that show how SNAP has, at times, been misused. For example, I 
am reminded of the 28-year-old, lobster-eating, Cadillac-Escalade-
driving surfer from San Diego, CA, who had not worked in over a year 
and was receiving food stamps. He was unabashedly abusing the system 
and taking benefits away from those who need those benefits the most. 
Surfing is a pretty physically active sport--I think we can all agree 
to that--and it was safe to presume that this young man was able-
bodied. We should not allow this type of behavior to continue, and we 
should not allow more examples of people taking advantage of a safety 
net that is set up to help those who need it the most.
  While this example is an exception rather than the rule, I am 
concerned that the ability to abuse the system could increase the 
number of folks who simply choose to sit back and decide they will also 
ride the free waves, rather than get in the game and return to 
employment.
  We need to encourage those who can to start working again. Getting 
people back to work is the most effective way to prevent poverty, both 
in the near term and for people's long-term stability. Programs like 
SNAP should encourage able-bodied adults to participate in the labor 
force. According to the Census Bureau, 30.5 percent of adults who did 
not work lived in poverty in 2016. However, on the flip side,

[[Page S4703]]

just 2.2 percent of full-time workers and 14.7 percent of part-time or 
part-year workers lived below the poverty line.
  Folks who are employed are not only better off financially, they also 
benefit from the sense of purpose and confidence that comes from a job. 
As I always say, there is dignity in a job. Take, for example, April, a 
Missouri woman who was on government assistance from the age of 16 to 
the age of 30, receiving food stamps and housing assistance. When she 
was caught shoplifting, she was forced to do community service. She 
volunteered at Watered Gardens, a rescue mission in Joplin, where folks 
living in poverty get the help they need while they are also working at 
the gardens. April was so inspired by her time there that she started a 
women's discipleship center in her community and is now living a 
fulfilling life.
  SNAP currently requires able-bodied adults without dependents to 
work, participate in training, or volunteer for at least 20 hours a 
week to receive assistance. That is the current requirement, but 
unfortunately 35 percent of Americans live in an area where work 
requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents have been 
waived. They have been waived. Of the 1,200 areas where this has been 
waived, over half have unemployment rates below 5 percent, and over 500 
of those areas are at full employment. These waivers were intended for 
States and communities that are experiencing economic downturns, not 
States like California, which has a statewide waiver, despite a record 
low 4.2-percent unemployment.
  Our economy is booming right now. We have a 3.8-percent unemployment 
rate. For the first time on record, the number of job openings exceeds 
the number of Americans looking for work.
  This is the best possible time for us to encourage work among able-
bodied SNAP recipients. That is why I introduced an amendment which 
would strengthen the waiver process to ensure that areas with low 
levels of unemployment are not exempt from SNAP's requirement for able-
bodied adults without dependents to work, train, or volunteer.
  I planned to offer this amendment today. I am not going to because I 
want to keep the farm bill moving for the sake of our farmers, but I do 
want to see this done at conference. Despite its imperfections, we have 
a bill before us that will feed hungry Americans, protect natural 
resources, mitigate risk, and support rural jobs.
  With heavy rainfall this past week across Northern Iowa, some hard-
working men and women are now facing even greater challenges. Flooded 
fields have producers worrying about crop damage. This all underscores 
the need for a strong and reliable safety net and timely passage of the 
farm bill.
  The goal and absolute requirement is to provide farmers and ranchers 
across our Nation the certainty and predictability they deserve during 
difficult times. I look forward to working alongside my colleagues to 
meet this goal by passing this farm bill, and I encourage support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come to talk about the farm bill and an 
amendment I filed along with Senators Cornyn and Heller, but I first 
want to thank Chairman Roberts for doing the remarkable job he does 
bringing people together on the Agriculture Committee. For the first 2 
years I was in the Senate, beginning in 2015, I was on Agriculture, and 
I really enjoyed watching the way he worked trying to bridge the gaps 
between different interests.
  In the Agriculture Committee, it is less along partisan lines and 
more along regional lines. So the fact that we have a farm bill before 
us, which I will support and I believe is good for farmers, is a 
testament to the leadership of Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member 
Stabenow.
  A lot of people probably don't realize that although North Carolina 
is a relatively small State, with the majority of our population in 
urban centers, we are also one of the top 10 agriculture States. We 
have over 80 commodities raised in our State which contribute about $84 
billion to our State in revenue. So it is a very important sector--in 
fact, I would argue, the most important sector.
  It is absolutely important that we get the farm bill right and that 
we have fair treatment for all crops. Chairman Roberts is working on 
that, and I am going to do everything I can to help him as we work with 
the House Members in conference.
  I want to spend the remaining part of my time talking about something 
that is also very important.
  About 80 percent of the farm bill is dedicated to the SNAP program. 
We heard Senator Ernst talk about it in her comments. It is a very 
important program for nutritional assistance, but it is also important 
we implement policies that make sure it is sustainable over time and 
that for those who are reliant on it, we ultimately do everything we 
can for those who are capable to no longer rely on it. How do we do 
that?
  Right now, there is a program for adults where, if you don't have 
dependents, there is an expectation about work requirements, but I 
believe we have to make sure we have more people looking for work, 
being trained for work as a requirement for getting the SNAP benefits.
  There will be a lot of people who are going to talk about the 
heartless nature of this program, but let's talk about what is really 
being proposed versus what you may hear in a floor speech or in the 
press.
  What this program is about is for people between the ages of 18 and 
50 who do not have children under the age of 6. Why 6? Because at that 
point they are generally going to school, so daycare issues are not as 
great. We are not talking about people who have a health problem or 
someone who has a disability. They are exempted.
  We are talking about adults who may have older children, who are 
able-bodied, and should be expected to work or do some sort of 
community service as a condition for getting the SNAP benefit.

  There are a lot of people we think we can provide the benefit, get 
them to work a minimum of 20 hours a week, and ultimately maybe get 
them a job where they would no longer need the SNAP benefit and be free 
of any dependence on government to make their ends meet.
  There are also people who may not have skills that can get them into 
a job at this point. So if you can't find a 20-hour-a-week job, you can 
at least perhaps get into a job training program so you have the 
necessary skills to make a living wage.
  A couple of months ago, I was visiting a center in Charlotte, about 
15 minutes out of my hometown, which has been stood up by Goodwill. It 
takes all comers. Anybody who wants new job skills can come to this 
facility. They can pursue certifications. They can do the prerequisite 
work there to then go to a community college or university. This 
program is about saying: If you don't have the skills you need today to 
get into that job that would free you from government assistance, then 
I think it is reasonable to expect that maybe 20 hours a week you go to 
training programs like this so you are better prepared to do it over 
time.
  That is essentially the nature of the amendment I have filed, along 
with the support of Senator Cornyn and Senator Heller.
  There are a couple of reasons why you want to do this. We need to 
make sure we can get as many people to work, No. 1, so they can be free 
of government assistance; and, No. 2, to make sure the economic burden 
on taxpayers does not become so great that, at some point, the only way 
we can pay for the SNAP benefit is to cut the SNAP benefit. In other 
words, I want to make sure these safety nets are always well-funded and 
always there for people who need it.
  I think this amendment and an opportunity to talk about it, and 
potentially make progress on this farm bill, is something I am excited 
about. I think we can do it in a way to make sure people who genuinely 
need it will get it, but those who genuinely have an opportunity to 
free themselves from government assistance over time can do that too.
  I will leave you with this. When I was 17 years old, I was supposed 
to go into the Air Force, and I was discharged because of an automobile 
accident. I had moved out of our home when I was 17. I found myself not 
going to college and actually not being employed. Fortunately, for me, 
there was a community

[[Page S4704]]

college or a technical school back in Nashville, TN, that I went to 
which gave me the job skills that, over a very short period of time, 
gave me a job which ultimately led to my professional career, and I 
guess ultimately led to me being a U.S. Senator. So I am speaking from 
personal experience.
  If I had taken the path of maybe just looking for a program that 
didn't have a work requirement, didn't necessarily have the motivation 
to go down the path I did--there are people out there whom I think we 
are going to lose who could be some of the greatest business 
executives, plant managers, artisans, and trades men and women we have 
ever seen. That is why programs like this and amendments like this I 
think require serious consideration and hopefully the support of the 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have been a member of the Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry Committee since I was first elected to the 
Senate. The work that committee has done throughout my tenure in the 
Senate has proven that a bipartisan, reasonable process is not only 
possible but is preferable to the rancor and rhetoric that so often 
curtails the important work before the Senate.
  The 2018 farm bill process once again demonstrates this distinctive 
quality of the Agriculture Committee, which has produced a vital 
legislative product that will improve our Nation's agricultural, food, 
and environmental systems. As a former chairman and ranking member of 
the Agriculture Committee, I know just how much work it takes to draft 
and advance a bill of this size, breadth, and influence, and I thank 
Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for working together to 
get this done.
  This bill stands in stark contrast to the version passed by the House 
of Representatives just last week, in which an ugly partisan process 
resulted in legislation full of environmental riders and harmful policy 
constraints that would devastate the millions of families that depend 
on our nutrition programs for basic nutrition. I urge all Senators to 
recognize that the bipartisan product reported nearly unanimously by 
the committee is a strong bill that provides leadership on food, 
agriculture, nutrition, natural resources, and rural development 
issues. The policies it advances are based on the best available 
science and will provide for effective management.
  This bill is so much more than just a ``farm bill'' or even a ``food 
bill.'' This is a bill that addresses a wide swath of American life and 
helps to set priorities for the policies that affect every single one 
of us. It is our chance to show farmers, foresters, families, rural 
communities, and every American consumer that we hear their concerns 
and can help everyone live a healthier, fuller life. Vermont farmers 
and families expect that the programs and guidance within the farm bill 
will help our struggling farms, large and small, to stay productive, 
ensure that children are well nourished, and protect our environment. 
This is a bill for every America and a bill for future generations.
  I have heard countless heartbreaking stories from Vermont dairy 
farmers who are struggling to stay afloat right now amid perilously low 
milk prices. In addition to dairy, I know that agriculture across the 
country is facing increasing difficulties when it comes to competition, 
trade, dropping prices, and dramatic weather challenges that have 
farmers everywhere on edge. I am proud that this bill will continue to 
address these. I particularly want to thank the chair and ranking 
member for the inclusion of the improved Dairy Risk Coverage Program 
that builds on the important margin protection improvements I was able 
to secure in February for our struggling dairy farmers. The bill also 
provides important support for the rapidly growing organic industry and 
local food systems and the opportunity for farmers to diversify their 
crops by growing and selling hemp products.
  We continue the proud tradition of providing nutritional assistance 
to our fellow Americans with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, or SNAP, and this bill continues our commitment to worldwide 
stability and productivity with programs like McGovern-Dole, Food for 
Peace, the Global Crop Diversity Trust, as well as valuable research to 
support farmers here at home and around the world. We know that, when 
families and children do not have to wonder where their next meal may 
come from, children do better in school, workers are more productive, 
and our Nation is stronger. The same is true when we support 
international efforts that combat poverty and provide lifesaving 
humanitarian assistance, we alleviate poverty and build stronger U.S. 
partners.
  Our Nation's conservation tradition is reinforced in this bill, with 
significant funding and necessary improvements to programs that allow 
farmers and forestland owners to make environmentally friendly 
improvements to their land and take care of the natural areas that make 
our lands and our countryside so vital, productive, and unique. 
Wildlife, biodiverse ecosystems, and the air, land, and water we rely 
on will be cleaner and healthier because of this bill. Through the 
support of the committee's chair and ranking member, the bill does not 
include problematic changes that would have weakened pesticide and 
forestry laws.
  This farm bill provides critical economic development support to 
address the unique challenges and needs faced by our rural communities. 
I am proud of the steps this bill makes possible to improve the lives 
of rural citizens everywhere by investing in rural community 
infrastructure and facilities, including a new priority for treatment 
centers for substance abuse disorders, while providing and expanding 
much-needed technical assistance and access to affordable capital for 
small and growing rural businesses that serve as economic engines in 
our rural towns.
  This bill is a good bill, a strong bill, and it is a breath of 
bipartisan fresh air. Coming on the heels of our recent passage of the 
first package of Senate appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019 
earlier this week, we are again proving that the Senate can move 
important and complicated legislation with bipartisan support when we 
take the time to work with each other and we commit to keeping these 
bills free of controversial items.
  This bill serves as an example of why we are all here: to help those 
who need it, to make sure our Nation is secure, and to protect our 
natural resources for generations to come. I will work with the 
chairman and ranking member to ensure that this bill passes and that we 
are able to send a strong and balanced bill to the President that we 
can all stand behind.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to amendment 
No. 3074.
  Agriculture is the economic engine of Nebraska, and the beef industry 
is the largest segment of Nebraska agriculture.
  In fact, in Nebraska, cattle outnumber people by more than three to 
one.
  The industry plays a critical role in my State's economic viability 
with nearly $7.2 billion in annual cash receipts.
  Nebraska is also the No. 1 cattle-on-feed State, illustrating our 
commitment to provide American families and dinner tables around the 
world with affordable, safe, high-quality Nebraska beef.
  As a Nebraska cattle rancher, I understand the purpose of the 
checkoff program and its direct impact on producers' ability to market 
their products.
  It is an investment into the future of my State's No. 1 industry.
  Funds collected from producers are used for research and promotion 
programs designed by producers to benefit the entire industry.
  Producer control has been a defining feature of the beef checkoff 
since its inception and is what drives its success.
  Since 1985, producers have proven perfectly capable of deciding how 
to spend their money and should be allowed to continue to do so.
  This amendment would harm agricultural producers and the rural 
communities they support.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I have some remarks with which to explain 
the two unanimous consent requests

[[Page S4705]]

that I am making. I understand, to accommodate the schedule of the 
Senator from Wisconsin, I will make the unanimous consent requests 
prior to my remarks.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized upon the 
disposition of the unanimous consent requests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2880

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from 
further consideration of S. 2880, a bill to establish a pilot program 
for long-term rental assistance for families affected by major 
disasters, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I 
further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed 
and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as 
chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, I have reached out to the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency for its views, and the Agency 
opposes this legislation.
  According to the Agency:

       FEMA has spent more than $432 million on . . . [the 
     Transitional Shelter Assistance program], and provided rental 
     assistance to more than 25,000 TSA participant families to 
     help them find permanent housing solutions.
       [Ninety-seven] percent of those enrolled in the program 
     have successfully transitioned to more permanent housing.
       The remaining households in [the Transitional Shelter 
     Assistance program] have either received rental or repair 
     assistance from FEMA; have a habitable home with utilities 
     on; or are not eligible for additional FEMA housing 
     assistance.
       Federal, state, and voluntary organization partners will 
     continue to provide assistance through disaster case 
     management to those who still require long-term solutions.

  Again, as the chairman of the committee with oversight and 
jurisdiction over FEMA, I really do believe it is important to support 
FEMA's objection to this. For those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I have another unanimous consent request.
  Let me just say, as to the unanimous consent request that the Senator 
from Wisconsin has just objected to, indeed, FEMA does oppose this. 
That is the whole purpose of the UC request, for people are about to 
get shut out of the temporary housing that they have in their having 
been evacuated from Puerto Rico to Florida.
  According to FEMA, this program runs out on June 30. In fact, a law 
on the books says that FEMA could activate that program just as it did 
after Hurricane Katrina for the poor people in New Orleans who had to 
evacuate from their homes. In that case, most of them evacuated to a 
different State. A lot of them went to Houston, TX.
  If the Presiding Officer hears emotion in this Senator's voice, 
indeed, it is there. I will address the remarks later.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2066

  Mr. President, my second unanimous consent request involves a matter 
of Medicaid assistance and housing assistance to families who have been 
affected by a major disaster.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee, of 
which this Senator is a part, be discharged from further consideration 
of S. 2066, a bill to provide housing and Medicaid assistance to 
families affected by a major disaster; that the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time 
and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I have been asked by the chairman of the 
Senate Finance Committee to object on his behalf. On his behalf, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, both of these UC requests are because 
there are a lot of people who are hurting in the aftermath of two 
hurricanes having hit Puerto Rico and because the island is still in 
great distress. Our fellow U.S. citizens on the island of Puerto Rico 
are, indeed, in great distress. It is not only because of the slow 
assistance by FEMA but because of the lack of electricity, as parts of 
Puerto Rico today are without electricity, with its going on 10 months 
after the hurricane. It is because of the number of people who are 
fleeing the island and, therefore, the jobs are not available because 
the economy has been so crippled. Naturally, a number of those people 
have fled to where they can find safety and shelter and put their 
children in school. By the way, there are a number of schools in Puerto 
Rico that are closed.
  Not just tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans 
have fled the island to the States where there will be decent 
opportunities to get jobs, and a good number of them are in my State of 
Florida.
  In Florida, there are 600 families who have been in temporary 
housing. It is called TSA. It is called temporary shelter assistance. 
About 100 of those families have moved on to other States, and another 
100 of those families have returned to the island. Yet 400 of those 
families are still in our State, and a good number of those 400 
families are still in temporary shelter assistance.
  At least FEMA did not stop this assistance in March. We got them to 
extend it until the end of May and then pointed out that a lot of these 
families in that temporary assistance had children in school and that 
they needed to complete the academic year. The assistance was extended 
until 2 days from now, June 30.
  They have nowhere to go. By both husband and wife working two jobs, 
some of them have collected enough savings to be able to afford 
apartments. The problem is that the apartment rentals want security 
deposits that are three or four times the monthly rents. Many of these 
families do not have that much money saved as a result of their being 
unable to find work.
  It seems to me that the humane thing to do is to activate again the 
part of the law that is still on the books that was activated after 
Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, of which this Senator asked for 
unanimous consent and to which it has been objected by the Republican 
side, for the purpose of there being transitional housing assistance. 
That bill was filed by a number of us. It was the only way to get 
action since we just heard the chairman of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee say that FEMA was not going to extend it 
and does not support it.
  If it were good enough for the people who fled New Orleans during 
Hurricane Katrina, why isn't it good enough for the people in Florida, 
our fellow U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico, who have been equally 
devastated after their having fled the deplorable conditions on their 
native island?
  In the wake of those hurricanes, there are thousands of displaced 
families who are still unable to return to their homes. This includes 
the hundreds of families--and we estimate its being about 400 
families--who are in the State of Florida. Despite that fact, FEMA is 
still saying that it is ending this transitional shelter assistance.
  This decision to stop providing assistance to these families has many 
of them very scared. They are scrambling to figure out what they are 
going to do and to find affordable places. We have reached out to 
churches, and we have reached out to other charitable organizations to 
try to help them afford the deposits even when they have the income now 
from one or both spouses having worked two jobs to be able to afford 
the apartments.
  So what we have been trying to do with this legislation, now rejected 
by our Republican friends, is we have been trying to urge the Agency to 
do the right thing--use the existing law and activate it. It was done 
for New Orleans; why not now for Puerto Rico?
  The situation that many of these families find themselves in is a 
situation no family should have to go through. I suspect that what we 
are going to see come Sunday in Florida by the news organizations will 
be a chronicle of some who will be living in a car or going down to a 
homeless shelter. Some of them have lost everything because of these 
storms. Too many are

[[Page S4706]]

still unable to find work or to find affordable housing and especially 
the security deposit. For many of them, the only thing they have is the 
help FEMA is providing, but that is only good for 2 more days.
  We have tried, but the Senator from Wisconsin, at the direction of 
the Republican leader, has said they are not going to let this 
legislation come up.
  These folks are not looking for a handout; they just need a little 
help getting back on their feet after the storms took everything from 
them. The fact that FEMA has put an arbitrary deadline on this aid 
rather than trying to work with the people defies logic. FEMA's TSA 
Program is critical and it has been critical to providing for them. 
While I recognize that the TSA Program was a temporary fix, you just 
can't end a temporary fix when people are being thrown out on the 
streets. So that was an attempt to force FEMA to act, this request to 
pass the legislation forcing them to act. That is why this Senator made 
the unanimous consent request.
  The second unanimous consent request this Senator asked for was to 
activate a housing program of additional section 8 housing. Florida has 
used up its meager allocation. This would have given additional section 
8 housing for those among the least fortunate of us. I thank my 
cosponsors--Senators Blumenthal, Warren, Markey, Gillibrand, Harris, 
and Baldwin--for their understanding of this situation and for signing 
on as cosponsors with me.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Russia

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a problem that 
is growing and needs to be confronted or we will regret our decision to 
lay down in the face of Russian aggression and Syrian aggression inside 
of Syria.
  As you well know, we have been trying to find a solution in Syria for 
quite a while. We were able to reach an agreement about deescalation 
zones in southwestern Syria where, basically, the parties would 
disengage, and we reached a settlement with the Russians, U.N. 
Resolution 2254, to create some space to stop the fighting and the 
killing.
  What have we found? In recent days, the Syrian regime has intensified 
military operations within the southwest Syria deescalation zone 
negotiated by Jordan, Russia, and the United States. The Russian Air 
Force is flying in this area, and we are doing nothing about it.
  The bottom line is that if we allow Russia to get away with this and 
Assad to get away with this, it is going to hurt us everywhere else in 
the Mideast. When President Trump meets with President Putin on July 
16, I hope he will bring this up.
  The question is this: Are we going to let Putin walk all over us? We 
had 8 years of that, and I am kind of tired of it.
  Now, 6,000 civilians have already fled their homes. A lot of them 
have been killed in this area where we reached an agreement with the 
Russians and the Jordanians and the world at-large. These people were 
assured under this agreement that they would not be bombed or 
slaughtered anymore. Now the slaughtering and the bombing has started 
anew. They are going to look at us and everybody in the region is going 
to look at us as all talk and no action. The United Nations is going to 
be seen as weak.
  I like a strong President. I appreciate what President Trump has done 
to rebuild the military. I like the fact that we are talking with North 
Korea to avoid a conflict with North Korea, but I also like the fact 
that the President has told North Korea: We are going to stop your 
nuclear program and missile program. We would rather do it peacefully, 
but it is going to stop. Stop threatening the United States. We are 
trying to make it a win-win.
  We have taken the fight to ISIS in a new way. There are a lot of 
things to say about our military and foreign policy under President 
Trump, like getting out of the Iran deal, which was terrible. It is all 
good. It is about to erode in a big way.
  If we let Russia and Assad violate the agreement that we negotiated 
and they don't pay a price, then it is going to hurt our standing 
everywhere, and it is going to embolden Russia and Assad even more.
  This is a nightmare for Israel. Syrians have suffered enough at the 
hands of Assad and Russia. It is a nightmare for the Kurds, and it 
really affects our standing in the world.
  When this meeting happens on July 16 in Finland, I hope the President 
will bring this up if it is not resolved before then because, President 
Trump, if you let Putin get away with this and Assad get away with 
this, then, good luck everywhere else in the world.
  We have had 8 years of letting bad people get away with bad things. I 
hope you will bring it up and bring it to an end because our word 
should matter. Thousands of people have been displaced from their 
homes. Hundreds have been killed in violation of an agreement we 
signed, I think, last year.
  Secondly, the meeting with Putin is a good thing. You have to talk to 
your enemies, your friends, and everybody in between. National Security 
Advisor Bolton had it right. There are things we can work on with 
Russia and there are things we can't. Russia is an enemy. They are not 
a friend. They are an enemy of democracy, but you have to talk to your 
enemies as well as your friends.
  We do have some common ground--maybe even in Syria. Russia has had 
bases in Syria for a long time. I don't mind that they continue to have 
bases. I don't want to turn Damascus over to the Iranians, and I don't 
want Syria to be run by the Russians. I want Syria to be run by 
Syrians.
  There was a statement today by the President that Russia denies 
meddling in our election. You are right, Mr. President, they deny it, 
but they are lying. When you meet with Putin and he says we had nothing 
to do with it, I would take the opportunity to show him why we 
disagree. When you meet with Putin, I would explain to him what happens 
if you continue to meddle in our election.
  Not only did they meddle in the 2016 election--I am not alleging they 
changed the outcome, and I have seen no evidence of collusion between 
the Trump campaign and the Russians--but I am 100 percent convinced 
that it was the Russians who stole the Democratic National Committee 
emails and Podesta's emails. It was the Russians who took out ads all 
over the country pitting one American against the other.
  The bottom line is this: Russia did interfere in our democracy. They 
are doing it everywhere else in the world. When they say they didn't, 
they are lying.
  President Trump, if you don't bring this up, it will be a huge 
mistake. If you don't push back against the lie, it will be a huge 
mistake.
  As to what they are doing now, I hope President Trump will tell 
President Putin: We know what you are doing, and you had better knock 
it off because you continue to do this at your own peril. If we have a 
face-to-face between President Trump and President Putin and there is 
not a clear understanding by President Putin that we have had it with 
his interference in our democracy and his destabilizing the world at-
large, then it will be a huge mistake and a great opportunity lost.
  There are areas on which we can agree with the Russians and places 
where we can work with the Russians, but to have a good relationship 
with Russia, you have to have an honest relationship with Russia. Here 
is the honest relationship with Russia: Putin is no friend of 
democracy. He interfered in the 2016 election, and he is going to do it 
again in 2018. He really is not a Republican or a Democrat. He hates us 
equally.
  Remember the dossier--this piece of garbage that was collected in 
Russia by a foreign agent paid for by the Democratic Party? Where do 
you think they got that information from? Do you think Putin would 
hesitate 1 minute to undercut you if he thought it was in his interest? 
He will do what is in his interest, and when the pain is too great, he 
will back off.

[[Page S4707]]

  I am counting on you, and the American people are counting on you, 
President Trump, and the world is counting on you to set the record 
straight when it comes to Putin's interference in democracy, including 
ours. I hope he understands after this meeting is over with that if he 
continues to go down this path, it is at his own peril. If we don't 
make it painful, he will keep doing it.
  We are doing a lot of good things in terms of pushing back against 
Russia but not enough, because if we were doing enough, they would not 
be interfering in the 2018 elections, and they are.
  Finally, as to whether or not they did it, every intelligence agency 
we have, under the Obama administration and now the Trump 
administration, says without equivocation that the Russians interfered 
in our election. It wasn't some 300-pound guy sitting on a bed 
somewhere. They stole the emails. They gave them to WikiLeaks. They are 
trying to divide us. They are not a friend of Republicans. They are an 
enemy to all of us.
  President Trump, use this opportunity to clear up the record and set 
it straight when it comes to Russia's interference in our democracy. 
Find common ground where you can. It makes sense to work with the 
Russians in Syria, and it makes sense to work with them in North Korea. 
It makes no sense to believe the lie or to make them believe that we 
believe the lie, and the lie is that they didn't interfere.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the 2018 
farm bill and the importance of passing this bill.
  I thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for their 
dedication and determination in producing a truly bipartisan bill that 
cleared the Agriculture Committee 2 weeks ago with a strong bipartisan 
vote. Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer have been dedicated to 
moving this bill to the floor. Under Chairman Roberts' and Ranking 
Member Stabenow's leadership, the committee held six hearings, 
examining every title of the bill, passed a bill out of committee on a 
nearly unanimous 20-to-1 vote, and included almost 70 amendments before 
getting it to the floor this week.
  The Agriculture Committee and the farm bill are models of how we can 
work across the aisle on tough problems and on major legislation that 
impacts every American--the farmers and ranchers who grow and raise the 
crops and livestock that sustain us, the hunters and conservationists 
who rely on the wetlands and grasslands protected, the families who 
rely on access to healthy foods.
  This is an important bill. I hear it every day from people in my 
State--fishermen and hunters, farmers in rural communities and leaders. 
They understand that we do not want to be a country that becomes 
dependent on foreign food. We don't want that to happen.
  In Minnesota, we produce a lot of food. Our economy is diverse from 
north to south and east to west--corn, soybeans, hogs, and turkeys in 
the southern and western part of our State; wheat, canola, and sugar 
beets in the northwest; and dairy and cattle in the central and 
southwest. As a State, we are No. 1 in turkeys. Yes, Mr. President, 
that is true. Minnesota is No. 1 in turkeys and sugar beets. We are No. 
2 in hogs, No. 3 in soybeans, No. 4 in corn, and fifth overall in 
agricultural production. But the prices farmers have received when 
selling these goods have been declining since 2013. USDA's Economic 
Research Service is forecasting net farm income to fall another 6.7 
percent this year, which would represent the lowest level since 2006.
  These commodities are increasingly sent around the world. From 2006 
to 2016, Minnesota producers sent $7.1 billion worth of ag products to 
markets around the world, making us the fourth largest agricultural 
exporting State in the United States. Our soybeans and dairy go to 
China, pork to Canada, beef to South Korea, and corn and poultry to 
Mexico. These exports are a crucial part of our economy, and the 
unknown on trade and the threat of terrorists, especially from allies 
with allies, such as Canada and what we have been seeing there--and I 
hope we will have a reasonable approach with our allies going forward--
those headlines are having real impacts on many farmers' bottom lines.
  Finally, no matter where the farm is located or what crops they grow, 
all Minnesota farms and rural communities face weather risks. This 
spring, many farmers and ranchers were delayed getting into their 
fields because of an April blizzard. We had rains that were unexpected, 
and the uncertainty out there in the countryside makes our work on the 
2018 farm bill even more important.
  What do I like about this bill? First of all, it continues to protect 
and improve the tools that help our farmers deal with risk. The 
improvements included in the commodity title will ensure more 
consistent payments across counties in the Agricultural Risk Coverage 
Program and more access to risk management tools, such as crop 
insurance.
  It also replaces the Margin Protection Program for dairy producers 
and invests additional funds in the new Dairy Risk Coverage Program. 
This is a major challenge in my State and many others.
  We have also started a vaccine bank for the first time--something 
Senator Cornyn and I worked on. He is here in the Chamber, and I thank 
him for his leadership in working on this vaccine bank that we have 
started. It will help us with avian flu, H1N1, and other diseases that 
we see with our animals.
  Senator Thune and I worked together on several provisions in the 
conservation title of the bill to help farmers get more out of their 
land. We also worked to increase the CRP cap to 25 million acres and to 
fix a loophole in the conservation sodsaver program.
  This bill includes a number of amendments. I see Senator Stabenow is 
here on the floor, and I again thank her for her leadership in helping 
us. Michigan, just like Minnesota, understands how important 
agriculture-based energy, biobased manufacturing, and clean energy 
technology programs and initiatives are. Those amendments were all 
included in this farm bill. I truly appreciate it, as well as the work 
that Senator Hoeven and I did to increase access to credit, while 
providing for better data reporting on borrowers and participation 
rates.
  I close with this: In these times of uncertainty in agriculture, we 
need to work to strengthen the farms and rural communities that sustain 
us every day. Whether it is hemp in Kentucky, hogs in Iowa, sugar beets 
and sweet corn in Minnesota, or energy in Michigan, this farm bill is 
about our Nation's future, and it is about adjusting what is working, 
making it a bill that meets the challenges ahead, and making sure we 
are investing in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest and not the 
oil cartels of the Mideast.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before the Senator from Minnesota 
leaves, I want to thank her for her amazing leadership as one of the 
senior members of the Agriculture Committee. She has not only made a 
significant difference as it relates to energy--and she talked about 
bioenergy and the biobased economy, which is so important for us, for 
jobs and energy independence. She has been a real leader there, as well 
as in conservation, commodities titles, local foods, and all of the 
ways in which this bill has come together. So I thank the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 3383

       (Purpose: To provide for certain work requirements for 
     able-bodied adults without dependents and to require State 
     agencies to operate a work activation program for eligible 
     participants in the supplemental nutrition assistance 
     program)

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3383 to the 
language proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 3224.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S4708]]

  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3383 to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 3224.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with and for the opportunity to make a 
few remarks about my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you.
  Mr. President, I am joined in this amendment with Senators Cruz and 
Lee. I thank Senator Roberts and Senator Stabenow for their work on 
this bill.
  The farm bill is a must-pass bill. It is important. I realize that. 
America was born on the farm. Seventy percent of the cost of this bill 
has to do with food stamps, and I am pleased to have the opportunity 
for us to discuss a way to improve our food stamp program.
  As I said yesterday, I don't want to take away food stamps from 
people in need. I do want fewer people to need food stamps. In our 
country, I am very proud of the fact that if you are hungry, we feed 
you. If you are homeless, we house you. If you are too poor to be sick, 
we pay for your doctor. But the best way to continue the food stamp 
program and our other social programs is to make sure that they are 
efficient and that we save as much money as we can from those who would 
abuse the program in order to really help those in need.
  This amendment will make responsible changes to the SNAP program by 
updating photo identification requirements related to electronic 
benefits transfer systems in the Food and Nutrition Act, and it will 
also take the very important step of having work requirements for able-
bodied adult individuals without dependents. We are not talking about 
someone with kids or taking Grandpa out of the nursing home. And it 
would require State agencies to operate work activation programs for 
eligible SNAP participants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Kennedy and 
Senator Lee in offering this amendment.
  The farm bill has many good and important elements in it that benefit 
our farmers and ranchers, who are a critical part of our economy in my 
home State of Texas and all across this country.
  A major component of this bill is, of course, the food stamp program. 
The food stamp program provides important support for people who are in 
need, but at the same time, we should not be trapping people into 
dependency.
  The amendment that I have joined with Senator Kennedy and Senator Lee 
in offering strengthens the work requirements for food stamps for able-
bodied adults. Right now, more than a third of the country lives in 
areas with no work requirements. Thirty-three States have some kind of 
waiver on the work requirements. Twenty-eight States have partial 
waivers. Five States and the District of Columbia have total waivers on 
work requirements. That is not right, and it has led to a troubling 
development. In recent years, a rapidly growing group of food stamp 
recipients has been able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 to 49, in 
prime working ages, who are not disabled and have no dependents or 
children to support. This population has quintupled, rising from 1 
million recipients in 2008 to about 5 million recipients in 2015.
  As a Senate, this should be a bipartisan proposal. We should come 
together to include work requirements to get people who are on food 
stamps back into the workplace, providing for their families.
  I urge our colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I want to step back and look at the reality of SNAP and the food 
assistance program today.
  The farm bill has two kinds of safety nets. It is a safety net for 
farmers and a safety net for families.
  The good news is, because the economy is doing better, we are going 
to save over $80 billion in the next 10 years on the food and family 
side because the economy is getting better and people don't need 
temporary help and they are going back to work. The challenge for us is 
that in this bill, we have a lot of farmers who need a safety net 
because we have seen prices drop by 50 percent and weather disasters 
and other things that have been very challenging for them.
  So, No. 1, I think this is an amendment in search of a problem. No. 
2, we already have work requirements--let's make that very, very clear. 
Despite things that have been said before, we already have work 
requirements in the SNAP program.
  Now, 75 percent of those who get food help are senior citizens, 
people with disabilities, and children and their parents--75 percent. 
Of the 25 percent--they are required to work at least 20 hours a week, 
and if they do not, then the most they can receive is up to 3 months' 
worth of food help in a 3-year period.
  The amendment essentially would limit and change that for people. For 
instance, it would subject parents of children as young as 1 years old 
to new work requirements, but there is no funding for training or 
support for childcare or anything to help that mom be successful.
  In the underlying bill, we have funded 10 States to help those who 
have extra challenges get into full-time employment, and we add 8 more 
States to that. That is the positive way to do it, not just saying that 
moms of children as young as 1 years old have to meet a work 
requirement in order to feed their children. This also eliminates 
waivers that States use in high-unemployment areas, like Tribal areas.
  Basically, what is being said here is that we shouldn't trust States. 
I think about all the times we hear from my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle about State block grants and about supporting States. 
This goes in the exact opposite direction--taking away the opportunity 
for States to be able to ask for waivers in high-unemployment areas.
  It also slashes work exemptions that States use to cover special 
populations, such as veterans. It would incentivize States to cut 
people off of SNAP by forcing States to meet unrealistic workforce 
targets or face stiff penalties, and it would cut the amount of time 
that someone--again, I mentioned that you have to work 20 hours a week; 
otherwise, you can receive no more than 3 months' worth of food help in 
a 3-year period. This would say ``No, no, no; 3 months is too much out 
of 3 years'' and it would take it down to 1 month.
  Finally, there is the Kennedy provision specifically requiring 
household members to show picture IDs to purchase food. Colleagues 
should know that this is strongly opposed by the Food Marketing 
Institute and the National Grocers Association and the manufacturers. 
It would impose new liabilities on more than 200,000 stores, including 
small businesses that participate in SNAP, which would then be liable 
and responsible for what happens under this provision.

  It would create barriers for seniors, people with disabilities who 
rely on caregivers to purchase their groceries, and others who depend 
on someone else to get them their food assistance, and homeless 
individuals, including veterans, without IDs might be denied food as a 
result of this provision.
  I join with the distinguished chairman who will be making a motion to 
table this amendment. We will have the opportunity to thoughtfully 
address these issues in a conference committee.
  This amendment, in my judgment, would undermine what has been a very 
positive bipartisan effort to get a farm bill done and, in fact, would 
stop us from being able to complete this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I think I owe an apology to many of my 
Republican colleagues, if I could call for regular order, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I think I owe an apology to many of my 
Republican colleagues, and I hope I can get their attention.
  We have talked a lot about the need for a farm bill. We have talked 
about

[[Page S4709]]

how we are in a rough patch in agriculture and how it affects every 
part of the country--all regions, all crops--and that we have crafted a 
farm bill in a bipartisan way with most of the titles.
  I have not talked enough to stress what we have done with regard to 
the SNAP program, in terms of reform and efficiencies, and solving that 
bonus program that was full of errors, prompting the IG to fine several 
States.
  Bear with me. I want to go over some of this progress that I think my 
colleagues will be interested in.
  I thank my colleague for his amendment, which would modify the work 
requirements under SNAP, as has been indicated, and require a photo ID 
with the use of a SNAP EBT card. I understand the intent to work toward 
self-sufficiency among SNAP participants. By the way, the best thing we 
have done is we have seen the economy improve and have seen to it that 
people have jobs and can get jobs and actually get off of food stamps.
  While I understand the intent is to promote work by broadening the 
application of the requirements, our bill would focus more on 
employment and training in the work requirements. The point I am trying 
to make is that in addition, many of the provisions in the amendment 
are duplicative of current law and regulations and would create 
significant administrative burdens for the Department of Agriculture 
and State agencies--something we don't want.
  Our bill is focused on more accountability in the employment and 
training programs to get folks back on the path to employment. Ten 
States have pilot programs, taking a look at exactly how they can 
accomplish this goal. Eight more we deal with in this bill. That is 18 
States where we have pilot programs where we can actually make progress 
and that is by States innovating, by adopting State pilot programs, as 
I have just mentioned.
  We authorize new State innovation employment and training pilots. I 
just basically addressed that. We make sure State work programs consult 
with local employers when setting up and evaluating a training program. 
That means we are much more specific. We set up a process for groups of 
employers and nonprofit stakeholders to conduct their own training 
programs that count for SNAP participants with minimal regulatory 
burden.
  So we are achieving regulatory reform while, at the same time, 
getting basically nonprofit stakeholders to come in and actually take 
part. That is a good thing.
  These are all things that will provide the tools to States, to 
people, to employers, and to nonprofits that will get people working 
again.
  I urge my colleagues to support my motion to table this amendment, 
and then we can find the appropriate balance in getting people working 
again. Obviously, we point out that this issue is going to come up 
again when we go to conference--if we can get a bill; if we can at 
least keep on the bipartisan track to get a farm bill done.
  Again, I appreciate the effort to combat fraud in SNAP, but I am in 
opposition to this amendment, along with the independent grocers, the 
convenience stores, and retailers all across the country.
  Current law allows States to have a photo on EBT cards, but most 
States have concluded that the cost of putting a photo on the card 
would outweigh any savings from fraud prevention. For the few States 
that have opted for a photo EBT card, it has created so much confusion 
at the register for many retailers, since EBT cards are shared with 
different people in a household. It is a problem.
  While I share concerns about the SNAP program's integrity, the bill 
already includes several provisions that would improve the integrity of 
the program, such as the use of increased data matches across the 
program.
  These are efficiencies I haven't talked about to my Republican 
colleagues. I know the ranking member certainly has made her caucus 
aware of them. Therefore, I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment.
  Mr. President, I move to table the Kennedy amendment No. 3383 and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cortez Masto
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Barrasso
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Heller
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     McConnell
     Paul
     Risch
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Duckworth
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  We are getting very close to finalizing the farm bill on a bipartisan 
basis. We just have some UC requests we are going over. Stay tuned. I 
hope Members understand that when we do have a vote--this vote was over 
60 minutes. There was some commentary on it. I understand that, but 
certainly we can do better than that on behalf of our ranchers, 
farmers, growers, and the great State of Texas. Thank you very much, 
and we will be back to you just as quickly as we can. I know people 
have very important schedules to meet.
  I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I will join with Chairman Roberts. We 
are close to the final UC and to the final vote. We will ask folks to 
stay close, and we hope to begin that process shortly, with everyone's 
support and indulgence. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of Tara Sweeney

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes 
while we have an interlude here with the farm bill to speak along with 
my colleague Senator Sullivan about the nomination of, in my view, an 
extraordinary Alaskan--Tara MacLean Sweeney, who has been nominated to 
serve as Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of 
Interior.
  It is certainly my very strong hope that Ms. Sweeney can be confirmed 
to this position before we leave for the Fourth of July recess. I see 
no reason why this body should delay confirmation.
  I want to give just a little bit of background and share, along with 
my colleague Senator Sullivan, some of the attributes we are talking 
about here.
  Ms. Sweeney is truly a noncontroversial nominee. She has support 
across

[[Page S4710]]

the political spectrum. She was reported out of the Committee on Indian 
Affairs by a voice vote. There was no dissent. She is endorsed by the 
National Congress of American Indians, and she enjoys strong support 
across Indian Country--not only from Alaska Natives up in our State but 
truly across Indian Country. She is Inupiaq. She is a very 
distinguished leader, respected among indigenous peoples not only here 
in the United States but abroad. She is truly eminently qualified for 
the position.
  So I want to share briefly the history of how we got here. It has 
been many months--many, many months--and I think it is important to 
know the process she has gone through. The President announced his 
intent to nominate Ms. Sweeney on October 16, 2017. We received it in 
the Senate about a week later, and from there she entered into this 
frustrating bureaucratic purgatory is probably the best way to describe 
it.
  So I mentioned that Ms. Sweeney is an Inupiaq from the North Slope, 
and like every other Alaska Native who was born before December 18, 
1971, she is a beneficiary of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 
Under that legislation, Ms. Sweeney received 100 shares of stock in the 
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. This is one of the 13 corporations 
that has been created by Congress. Ms. Sweeney also inherited some 
additional shares from her mother who died in 1996.
  The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act prohibits Ms. Sweeney from 
disposing of those shares. Why is that? These are not shares that are 
like shares in IBM or General Electric. These shares are her birthright 
as an Alaskan Native. The Department of Interior has concluded that Ms. 
Sweeney's continued ownership of those shares creates no ethical 
impediments to the discharge of her duties--none whatsoever. She has 
also entered into an ethics agreement under which she will recuse 
herself from matters involving the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, 
where she served as a corporate officer prior to her nomination.
  Really, there is no conceptual difference between Ms. Sweeney's 
service with her Native corporation and the service of her predecessor 
Assistant Secretaries for Indian Affairs who all came to the office 
after serving as elected Tribal leaders. In those instances, none of 
the predecessors to Ms. Sweeney were disqualified for confirmation for 
Tribal service, and she certainly should not be either.
  Ms. Sweeney's corporation manages lands set aside for Native people; 
so do nearly all of the federally recognized Tribes. Her corporation 
engages in a variety of successful business activities that parallel 
those engaged in by federally recognized Tribes in the lower 48. Voting 
membership in Ms. Sweeney's corporation is constituted entirely of 
Native people, just like membership in the lower 48 Tribes, and the 
governing body in Ms. Sweeney's corporation is constituted entirely of 
Native people, just as the governing bodies of the lower 48 Tribes. 
There is no valid reason--certainly no valid reason to delay the 
confirmation of Tara Sweeney to the post of Assistant Secretary for 
Indian Affairs.
  This is an agency that I think those of us who have been involved on 
the Indian Affairs Committee, as I have for my entire tenure in the 
Senate, know that leadership in this critical agency for our first 
peoples is absolutely a priority.
  There is so much that needs to be done within the Agency. The Bureau 
of Indian Education, which Ms. Sweeney will oversee as an Assistant 
Secretary, has earned a place on the Government Accountability Office's 
list of high-risk programs for the 115th Congress. One of her 
challenges will be to improve the Bureau of Indian Education.
  When you think about the responsibilities you have as Assistant 
Secretary with NBIA to address not only the education issues, the 
health and safety issues, and the life and well-being of our Native 
people, she has a lot of work to do. So leadership at the top is going 
to require a handful of things. The first is steady leadership and a 
strong commitment to lead. You just can't get to leading the agency 
until you have been confirmed to the position. The second thing that 
has to happen is to ensure that the agency is staffed and has the 
resources to care for our Native children. The third is to have an 
action plan in place that identifies the root causes of the agency's 
problems and to identify real solutions. The fourth is the formulation 
of corrective measures and to validate the work. The final one is to 
demonstrate progress that the agency has overcome some of these issues.

  I can tell you for a fact that Tara Sweeney is ready. She is beyond 
ready. She has been teed up to do this, in my view, literally, her 
whole life. She has gone through a very rigorous process. She has been 
overwhelmingly endorsed by Native peoples across the country, those 
whom she would serve in this capacity. She knows there are significant 
issues and problems within the BIA that need to be addressed that are 
going to be difficult, and she has said in front of us and to those of 
us who know her well: I am not afraid to kick down doors. I am not 
afraid to stand up and speak out loud for the people whom I will serve.
  I know she takes these responsibilities very seriously. I know her 
leadership skills. I know her managerial skills. I have no doubt that 
she will do everything in her power to overcome these deficiencies that 
the GAO has identified, but I also should be clear that there will be 
no progress within the agency until one of the single most important 
positions to Indian Country is permanently filled with an Assistant 
Secretary.
  I know we are having challenges moving through nominees on this floor 
right now, but I would urge my colleagues to look at Tara Sweeney's 
credentials. Look at her background. Look at how she has come to this 
place. She is not a controversial nominee. She is well-qualified. She 
did extremely well at her hearing before the Indian Affairs Committee. 
She has answered every question that has been asked of her. Indian 
Country is united in support of her.
  I just ask that, for the good of the first peoples in this country, 
they have that leadership at the top to come in and address so many of 
these serious issues that face them today. Let us come together with 
this nominee and move her through the process in a prompt and expedient 
way.
  I will close with one last comment before turning to my colleague, 
and that is that of the 12 previous Assistant Secretaries at the BIA 
over the years, 11 of those 12 have moved through confirmation here in 
the Senate unanimously, without even a vote. Only one was required to 
have a vote. As I recall, the outcome in support of that individual was 
87 votes in favor. This is not a controversial position. This is not 
partisan in any way.
  This has to be an individual that is willing to bring together 
people--our first peoples and those of us at government levels--to work 
together to address the very real, serious, and significant concerns 
that we have.
  Tara Sweeney is just that person. I would urge colleagues: Please, 
please, let's advance her quickly and expeditiously across the floor of 
the Senate.
  I would turn to my colleague who has worked very hard and also knows 
Ms. Sweeney to be an extraordinarily capable Alaskan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator 
Murkowski from the great State of Alaska--our great State--for talking 
about someone we really care about and someone who will do really 
important things for the entire country.
  Senator Murkowski talked about Tara Sweeney's background. When we had 
the confirmation hearing in Indian Affairs, I had the honor of 
introducing her. She did fantastic in that interview. Republicans and 
Democrats all agree.
  When you look at her background, she is a leader. You can read her 
resume. You can see all of the things that this relatively young woman 
has accomplished. Senator Murkowski mentioned some. She was, for 
example, the cochair of the Alaska Federation of Natives. That is an 
elected position in Alaska. Almost 20 percent of our population is 
Alaska Native. She was one of the youngest cochairs ever on that 
incredibly important organization.
  She was the chair of the Arctic Economic Conference. She has also 
served in leadership positions at her Alaska Native Regional 
Corporations and the

[[Page S4711]]

National Congress of American Indians, and she is ready to lead an 
organization that needs leadership. She is clearly qualified.
  Sometimes there can be confusion in terms of the laws that this body 
passes. In 1971 the Congress of the United States passed, and the 
President of the United States signed, the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act, or ANCSA back home. As Senator Murkowski mentioned, 
this set up not reservation systems like we have in the lower 48 but a 
very innovative approach to Alaska Native claims for their land, and 44 
million acres of State and Federal land went to the possession and 
ownership of the first peoples of Alaska. It was very innovative.
  This body created Alaska regional corporations and village 
corporations, of which all our Alaska Native people are shareholders. 
My wife is a shareholder. My daughters are shareholders. That was 
mandated by the Congress. Yet, as Tara Sweeney has gone through her 
confirmation process, the Federal Government seemed to wake up to the 
fact that Alaska Native individuals owned shares in these Alaska 
corporations that Congress created, and time and again, they started to 
seemingly almost hold it against her.
  Let me give you a little bit of a timeline of the delays that Senator 
Murkowski mentioned. She was nominated by the President to serve as the 
Assistant Secretary on October 16, 2017. That is almost 9 months ago.
  First, her nomination went through a very long process through the 
Office of Government Ethics--again, because of the birthright shares 
that she is entitled to as an Alaskan Native because Congress told them 
that. So there was confusion. Again, a lot of people didn't know what 
this was. At one point, there was even the sense that she couldn't have 
the job until she sold her shares. But she can't sell her shares, as 
Senator Murkowski said. It is not like owning IBM or Microsoft.

  Certainly, we were saying that if that were the precedent, you would 
rule out an entire class of great people--our constituents--from 
serving in the Federal Government. That couldn't be the precedent.
  She has worked through this with the Office of Government Ethics, 
which has completely cleared her with regard to how she is going to 
manage these shares and recuse herself from anything her regional 
corporation has before her, which, by the way, historically, has almost 
never happened. She said she would do this in writing. That satisfied 
the Office of Government Ethics.
  Her nomination hearing was held on May 9, where she again committed 
to recuse herself from matters that pertain to her regional 
corporation.
  On June 6, she was unanimously voted out of the Senate Indian Affairs 
Committee. During the confirmation hearing, she said several times that 
she would recuse herself. In that hearing, as I mentioned, members on 
both sides again asked for assurances that she would recuse herself 
from issues pertaining to her regional corporation, and again, she 
provided assurances in writing after the hearing.
  You are starting to see a pattern here. I am not sure there is anyone 
who has gone through Senate confirmation recently who has had to 
reassure and say she is going to recuse herself again and again on an 
issue more than Tara Sweeney has. It is pretty remarkable, when you 
think about the fact that the reason she has these shares is because 
this body voted to create the act in 1971, and yet there is amnesia all 
over this city and, certainly, in this body.
  Once again, as we are trying to move her to the floor, it looks like 
there has been another demand for another assurance and another letter 
on the same issues. So once again, Ms. Sweeney has provided that. 
Certainly, I hope that my colleagues--whoever is demanding this--will 
say: That is enough. If this very highly qualified person owned IBM or 
Microsoft or something like that, this would have been done and over. 
She would have recused herself. Yet, somehow, because she is an Alaska 
Native shareholder, there seems to be cause for additional delay. I 
think that is sad.
  I certainly hope that is not intended to somehow focus on making it 
more difficult for an Alaska Native to serve in such an important 
position. I hope that is not what is going on here. The pattern is 
starting to get a little bit difficult to endure.
  I think further delay, as Senator Murkowski mentioned, is a 
disservice to someone as qualified as Tara Sweeney, and it is not 
reasonable. She has been waiting for months. Every time there has been 
a demand made on her, she does it. Every time there is a letter to ask 
her to reassure something, she has reassured several times. She does 
it, but there is delay. That is not good for the individual. It is not 
good, actually, for trying to get good people to serve in the Federal 
Government, which we all want.
  Senator Murkowski also underscored that further delay is not good for 
anyone who is an Alaska Native or an American Indian or somebody who 
cares about them, like we do, because right now, the most important 
position in the Federal Government, the Assistant Secretary for Indian 
Affairs at the Department of Interior--which will be headed by someone 
who is immensely qualified in Tara Sweeney--is not filled. As Senator 
Murkowski mentioned, there is so much work to be done. This woman is a 
leader. She will get on it. She will get on it to help Alaska Native 
people and to help lower 48 American Indians.
  We all know there are significant challenges on reservations and in 
some of the Alaska Native villages. We need a leader, and we have the 
leader. We have her. I am really concerned if there is going to be any 
more delay. What this body should do is confirm her right now.
  Senator Murkowski and I are getting ready to ask at a certain point 
today, before the Senate moves to recess for the Fourth of July recess, 
for a unanimous consent request. As far as I can tell, almost every 
Senator knows that this is important. I am certainly hoping all my 
colleagues are not going to ask for further delay. I am certainly 
hoping they are not going to ask for further delay that somehow relates 
to her being an Alaska Native. That would be highly inappropriate.
  Hopefully, we can move this nomination forward for confirmation today 
so that Tara Sweeney can get to work for some of the most important 
people in this country. We have been without a leader in this position 
for way too long.
  I am certainly encouraging my colleagues--everybody here--to clear 
this unanimous consent request when we make it, and that we get her 
confirmed today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to 
talk about the Nation's first line of defense against hunger--the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
  Since day one in the Senate, I have fought to pass a farm bill that 
stands up for North Dakota's farmers, ranchers, and low-income 
families. In 2014 we passed a strong farm bill, which I helped to 
write, negotiate, and pass. Since then, I have been working on the next 
farm bill.
  Now the Senate is incredibly close to passing the next farm bill, 
which we crafted with strong support from Democrats and Republicans. 
This important bill shows that the Senate can work to find compromise 
and support the American people.
  A key component of any farm bill is the safety net for farmers and 
ranchers during tough times, like crop insurance. It also includes a 
safety net for families who fall on hard times.

  Our Nation is one of the most prosperous nations in the world. Yet, 
despite our great wealth, more than one out of seven Americans live 
below the poverty line. SNAP provides the critical safety net for these 
Americans who are food-insecure.
  In my own State of North Dakota, about 54,000 North Dakotans 
participate in SNAP on any given day. SNAP plays a critical role in 
helping these families put food on the table in what is oftentimes one 
of the most stressful periods in a person's life. Of those 54,000 North 
Dakotans, 43 percent are children, 28 percent are seniors, and about 4 
percent are veterans.
  Families can find themselves needing this assistance for a number of 
reasons. First, their hours may have been reduced at work, they may 
have been laid off, their places of employment may have gone out of 
business, or an individual may be unable to work due to a disability or 
serious illness. Additionally, nearly 9 percent of seniors

[[Page S4712]]

live below the poverty level. SNAP helps those seniors with their basic 
needs, many of whom live on fixed incomes.
  Not one of us can predict when an unexpected life event will happen 
to us. Thankfully, SNAP is available to provide at-risk families with 
the safety net they need.
  Other than those with disabilities, the elderly, or others who cannot 
work, very few people stay on SNAP for more than 3 months in a 36-month 
period. Half of those new to the SNAP program will leave it within 9 
months once they become financially stable.
  Yesterday, I stood here to talk about the critical, bipartisan work 
of the chairman and ranking member on the Senate Ag Committee and what 
they have done for ranchers and farmers.
  This bipartisan farm bill includes a number of provisions that work 
to improve employment and job-training opportunities and programs that 
help parents find new jobs or obtain new skills so that they can 
qualify for higher paying jobs. This includes expanding SNAP employment 
and training demonstration pilots that were authorized under the 2014 
farm bill. These pilot programs create more opportunities to build 
evidence on what works best in helping SNAP participants secure and 
retain jobs and advance in the labor market.
  Additionally, the Senate farm bill encourages States to create new 
public-private partnerships around job training and leverage existing 
private sector job-training programs for SNAP participants.
  During consideration of the 2014 farm bill, the Senate Ag Committee, 
on which I proudly sit, also worked to responsibly cut $4 billion of 
waste, fraud, and abuse from the program, while protecting low-income 
families who rely on this lifesaving program during times of need. The 
Senate bill continues to improve SNAP's integrity by preventing dual 
participation by enabling States to check whether applicants have 
already enrolled in other States.
  In other words, the SNAP program as laid out in the farm bill that we 
will be considering is a program that has the necessary reforms and the 
necessary balance. No one--no one--in this body wants someone who is 
unworthy to receive SNAP benefits, but we also do not want families who 
need that critical benefit to find it onerous or impossible to access 
food for their children, food for their grandchildren, or food for our 
veterans.
  A week ago, the House of Representatives narrowly passed its version 
of the farm bill by two votes, which would drastically cut SNAP. This 
partisan bill was even opposed by 20 Republican Members. As ranking 
member of the House Agriculture Committee, Collin Peterson said the 
following about the vote:

       The partisan approach of the Majority has produced a bill 
     that simply doesn't do enough for the people it's supposed to 
     serve. It still leaves farmers and ranchers vulnerable, it 
     worsens hunger, and it fails rural communities.

  This approach makes reckless cuts to the nutrition safety net and in 
so doing significantly jeopardizes our chances of passing a farm bill. 
Any effort to separate farm programs from nutrition programs threatens 
the urban-rural coalition that has kept the farm bill a bipartisan 
effort for years.
  Simply put, the House bill threatens these critical lifelines for 
struggling families, seniors, and Americans with disabilities. There is 
no place for politics when it comes to protecting these vulnerable 
members of our society.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the House 
farm bill would cause more than 2 million individuals in more than 1 
million households to lose their benefits. This simply will not impact 
single adults, but when a parent loses their food assistance, there 
isn't enough money to buy for the whole household, including children.
  The House farm bill would pull the rug out from underneath low-income 
families by expanding the already rigid work requirements in SNAP. This 
includes working parents, children, seniors, veterans, and disabled 
Americans. A quarter of a million children would lose their access to 
school lunch.

  Last Saturday, I was asked to participate in a discussion with the 
faith-based community in my State regarding their concerns about the 
SNAP program. At that time, we were told a couple of stories that I 
think are significant for review here in the Senate.
  I want to start off by telling you about Kim. Kim is a woman, a 
single mom with two beautiful children. She lives in Bismarck, ND. She 
works as an accounting assistant, and when she doesn't have full-time 
hours, she works as a substitute at area daycares. Since her divorce 3 
years ago, her family has been eligible for SNAP benefits.
  Kim said: ``We do what we can, but usually we are eating ramen by the 
end of the month--don't want to eat cheap food, but there's never 
enough money to buy healthy foods.''
  To stretch their food budget, Kim tries to get the children to The 
Banquet, which is a local feeding ministry, for meals two to three 
times a week. They also visit the local food pantry.
  She told us:

       I can only speak for myself, but I'm grateful for this 
     program every single day. I'm working hard. If I don't have 
     enough to eat, I can't work. If I'm not healthy, I'll need 
     even more support.

  This is an incredibly common theme among SNAP families.
  I think it is worth mentioning that the average meal benefit in North 
Dakota--I want to repeat this--the average benefit per meal in North 
Dakota is $1.32. You can't even get a bowl of Senate bean soup for 
$1.32.
  Next, there is Ricky. Ricky was born in Minot, ND, where he grew up 
in poverty, and his family spent the majority of their lives on what 
was then known as food stamps. Ricky has since moved to Fargo, and a 
number of years ago, Ricky suffered an unfortunate accident in his 
workplace. So Ricky was working. He got injured, and he woke up from a 
coma 3 weeks later. He was later diagnosed with epilepsy, and he no 
longer can drive or work. Like Ricky, his parents are also disabled, 
and the program has offered them a consistent safety net during their 
difficult times.
  From his childhood, Ricky recalled that his family rarely had money 
for food. He said:

       If it wasn't for food stamps, we could have starved easily. 
     There were times when my family couldn't even celebrate 
     birthdays because we didn't have anything.

  Now in his late twenties and living on his own in Fargo, 
unfortunately the difficult times surrounding hunger are still a 
concern for Ricky, for reasons outside of his control. Understanding 
his difficult situation and all that the SNAP program has meant to him 
and his family, Ricky is passionate about stopping lawmakers from 
making unnecessary cuts to this program. For Ricky and his family, the 
SNAP benefits they have received are more than just a benefit; they are 
a way of life and a lifeline.
  For individuals who are homeless or trying to get back on the right 
track, SNAP can play an invaluable role in providing a bit of security.
  Folks who have benefited from the helping hand SNAP provides are all 
around us. They could be our neighbors. They could be our friends. They 
could even be a rural pastor.
  Many years ago--about 6 years ago--when I was traveling the State, I 
had an opportunity to have a discussion in a rural community. That 
discussion went something like this:
  Many people raised concerns about people taking government benefits 
when they didn't need them. I sympathized. I don't think that we 
should. I think we need to stop waste, fraud, and abuse. But we know 
those government programs are there for a purpose.
  After there was a long discussion about SNAP, or food stamps, the 
room cleared, and a young pastor came up to me. His wife was with him, 
holding their latest child, who looked to be about a 2-year-old 
toddler.
  He said: I didn't want to say this in front of the community. I 
didn't want to tell you about this in front of the community, but I 
want you to know that I am on SNAP. My family is on SNAP. We still 
can't buy milk. We still buy powdered milk to feed our children. If I 
want to do my rural ministry, I am not paid enough to support and feed 
my family, so I am working, and I am on SNAP. I can't afford food as a 
rural pastor.
  I think many times we don't realize those around us who are 
struggling, those who contribute as teachers, as teachers' aides, CNAs. 
People are working hard. They may be tripped up by

[[Page S4713]]

some of the onerous standards and onerous bureaucratic requirements in 
the farm bill that was passed by the House.
  I think it is critically important that we understand that there are 
very, very few people in America who are abusers of this program. There 
are very, very few people in America who would take a handout unless 
they absolutely needed it. They need a hand up. They need job training. 
They need sympathy for their disabilities. And they need to know that 
we live in a country that cares for the hungry around us.
  As we consider the farm bill, it is important to remind ourselves 
about those who are not as fortunate as we are, those who struggle to 
put food on the table for their families or who might not be able to 
put food on the table because they were laid off or their hours were 
reduced at their minimum wage jobs.
  The chairman and ranking member have worked diligently to find ways 
to continue to improve SNAP's integrity and operations.
  I hope the Senate votes on and passes this strong bipartisan farm 
bill in the next few days. I hope the House decides to keep working 
through August, just as the Senate will do, to reach an agreement and 
pass a strong farm bill before it expires and jeopardizes SNAP further.
  The farm bill gives farmers the certainty they need to get through 
tough times, and it is important that it also maintain a strong safety 
net to give certainty to our Nation's families that they can get the 
support and food they need at the same time.
  I urge all of my colleagues to stand with the ranking member and the 
chairman and all of the Senate Agriculture Committee in supporting this 
farm bill and supporting the nutrition title of this bill.
  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. LEE. 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. LEE. Mr. President, most people in America are probably familiar 
with the advertising slogans: ``Pork, the other white meat'' and 
``Beef, it's what's for dinner,'' but what they might not know, what 
they might not be as aware of is the cronyist underbelly of slogans 
like these.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture checkoff programs behind these 
very slogans and others like them tend to collect compulsory fees from 
producers of milk, eggs, beef, and other agricultural products. These 
funds are then used to promote and do research on those particular 
commodities.
  Unfortunately, these programs have been rife with opportunities for 
abuse. Many of these programs have crept far beyond the scope of their 
statutory mandate by engaging in illegal lobbying and anticompetitive 
activities. Take, for example, the case of a small California company 
called JUST, Inc., formerly known as Hampton Creek, which a few years 
ago was attacked for selling its vegan mayonnaise known as Just Mayo in 
stores nationwide. It turns out that a Federal entity called the 
American Egg Board conspired with USDA employees and top executives 
from the egg industry to threaten and coerce retailers into not 
carrying the Just Mayo brand.
  The original intent of these programs was to research and promote 
certain commodities, not to disparage other ones, and they certainly 
were not intended to prevent any new products from having a fair chance 
in the marketplace.
  Let me just stop, by the way, while we are talking about Just Mayo 
and that incident, to take note of the fact that it ought to be very 
concerning to us that the Federal Government became involved in a 
campaign to pressure someone about whether they could set up a brand of 
vegan mayonnaise and call it that.
  So what were supposed to be promotional boards have instead become 
protectionist boards. What is more, checkoff programs force farmers to 
pay into a system that sometimes actively works against their interests 
and, on top of that, the boards for these programs have come under fire 
for a lack of transparency and for misuse of their funds. Some have 
gone so far as failing to submit congressionally mandated spending 
reports, refusing and delaying requests under FOIA, and even engaging 
in protracted legal battles to prevent public audits from being 
disclosed.
  In short, these programs--the so-called checkoff programs--are in 
significant need of reform. This is why I have worked hard with my 
colleagues--Senator Booker, Senator Hassan, Senator Paul, and Senator 
Warren--to introduce amendment No. 3074. This amendment would address 
some of the most grievous abuses of these commodity checkoff programs.
  First, the amendment would prohibit them--these checkoff programs--
from contracting with any organization that lobbies on agricultural 
policy with an exemption for research at institutions of higher 
education. It would also prohibit employees and agents of the checkoff 
boards from engaging in activities that may pose a conflict of 
interest. Furthermore, the amendment would establish uniform standards 
for checkoff programs that prohibit anticompetitive activity and any 
unfair or deceptive practices.
  While this amendment would not abolish checkoff programs, it would 
implement much needed transparency measures so farmers can see what 
their checkoff dollars are actually being spent to do. These 
commonsense reforms will not be convenient perhaps to the giants of the 
agricultural industry--at least not the ones using checkoff dollars to 
rig the system in their favor. These commonsense reforms will help 
farmers--and particularly the little guys--from the small farms and the 
startup companies to see exactly where the fees they pay are going and 
ensure that their hard-earned money is not being used unfairly against 
them.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment to bring 
about much needed reform with checkoff programs.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senator Lee and 
Senator Booker would prohibit checkoffs from partnering with farm 
groups and others that engage with government. This prohibition would 
extend far beyond farm country, and it would have negative impacts on 
the general public. This is because checkoffs partner with a diverse 
number of entities, not just farm organizations, to conduct research 
and education campaigns on environmental, conservation, improved 
nutrition, and other critical areas that benefit our entire society.
  Examples of entities who have contracted with checkoffs and would be 
barred from continuing checkoff work because they engage in lobbying 
include the American Heart Association, the American Association of 
Pediatrics, and the National Women, Infants and Children Association. 
These organizations and many others would be prohibited from partnering 
with checkoffs if this amendment were adopted.
  I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the impact this 
amendment would have, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the Lee-Booker 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I join with the chairman in asking 
members to vote no on this amendment. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be agreed to en bloc: the amendment by Senator 
Isakson, No. 3348; Senators Wyden and Murkowski, No. 3346; Senator 
Enzi, No. 3181; Senators King and Collins, No. 3221; Senators 
Gillibrand and Toomey, No. 3390; Senator Heinrich, No. 3287; Senator 
Rubio, No. 3364; Senator Sullivan, No. 3303, Senator Hirono, No. 3321; 
Senators Cortez Masto and Portman, No. 3388; Senator Durbin, No. 3389; 
Senators Brown and Portman, No. 3323; Senator Cantwell, No. 3365; 
Senator Moran, No. 3171; and Senator Thune, No. 3371. I further ask 
that it be in order for the following amendment to be called up and 
reported by number: the amendment by Senator Lee, No. 3074. I further 
ask that the cloture motions with respect to H.R. 2 be withdrawn and 
the Senate now vote on the

[[Page S4714]]

following amendments in the order listed: Senator Lee, No. 3074; 
Senator Thune, No. 3134; and Senator Roberts, the substitute No. 3224; 
further, that the Lee amendment be subject to a 60-vote affirmative 
threshold for adoption; and that following disposition of the Roberts 
amendment, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and 
the Senate vote on passage with no intervening action or debate and 
that passage be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3348, 3346, 3181, 3221, 3390, 3287, 3364, 3303, 
3321, 3388, 3389, 3323, 3365, 3171, and 3371) were agreed to, as 
follows:


                           amendment no. 3348

   (Purpose: To modify the provision relating to economic adjustment 
  assistance for upland cotton users, to provide payments for losses 
  relating to peach and blueberry crops, and to strike the provision 
        relating to the use of the Commodity Credit Corporation)

       On page 26, line 16, strike ``2020'' and insert ``2021''.
       At the end of subtitle E of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 15__. LOSS OF PEACH AND BLUEBERRY CROPS DUE TO EXTREME 
                   COLD.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide compensation 
     for expenses relating to losses of peach and blueberry crops 
     that occurred--
       (1) during calendar year 2017; and
       (2) due to extreme cold, as determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Funding.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary shall use to carry out this 
     section $18,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       Strike section 1710.


                           amendment no. 3346

(Purpose: To provide that research and extension grants may be made for 
             the purposes of researching hop plant health)

       On page 1203, strike line 3 and insert the following:
     ricultural systems.
       ``(16) Hop plant health initiative.--Research and extension 
     grants may be made under this section for the purposes of 
     developing and disseminating science-based tools and 
     treatments to combat diseases of hops caused by the plant 
     pathogens Podosphaera macularis and Pseudoperonospora 
     humuli.''.


                           amendment no. 3181

       (Purpose: To improve the Rural Energy for America Program)

       Strike section 9107 and insert the following:

     SEC. 9107. RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM.

       Section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
     of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8107) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) to purchase and install efficient energy equipment or 
     systems.'';
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``(g)'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``(f)'';
       (3) by striking subsection (f);
       (4) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f); and
       (5) in subsection (f) (as so redesignated), in paragraph 
     (3), by striking ``$20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 
     through 2018'' and inserting ``$50,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2019 through 2023''.


                           amendment no. 3221

(Purpose: To provide for a report on funding for the National Institute 
         of Food and Agriculture and other extension programs)

       At the end of subtitle E of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 125_____. REPORT ON FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE 
                   OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE AND OTHER EXTENSION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which the census of agriculture required to be conducted in 
     calendar year 2017 under section 2 of the Census of 
     Agriculture Act of 1997 (7 U.S.C. 2204g) is released, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, 
     Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a report that describes 
     the funding necessary to adequately address the needs of the 
     National Institute of Food and Agriculture, activities 
     carried out under the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), 
     and research and extension programs carried out at an 1890 
     Institution (as defined in section 2 of the Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 
     U.S.C. 7601)) or an institution designated under the Act of 
     July 2, 1862 (commonly known as the ``First Morrill Act'') 
     (12 Stat. 503, chapter 130; 7 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), to provide 
     adequate services for the growth and development of the 
     economies of rural communities based on the changing 
     demographic in the rural and farming communities in the 
     various States.
       (b) Requirements.--In preparing the report under subsection 
     (a), the Secretary shall focus on the funding needs of the 
     programs described in subsection (a) with respect to carrying 
     out activities relating to small and diverse farms and 
     ranches, veteran farmers and ranchers, value-added 
     agriculture, direct-to-consumer sales, and specialty crops.


                           amendment no. 3390

    (Purpose: To prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats for human 
                              consumption)

       At the end of subtitle E of title XII, add the following:

     SEC. 125__. PROHIBITION ON SLAUGHTER OF DOGS AND CATS FOR 
                   HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (c), no 
     person may--
       (1) knowingly slaughter a dog or cat for human consumption; 
     or
       (2) knowingly ship, transport, move, deliver, receive, 
     possess, purchase, sell, or donate--
       (A) a dog or cat to be slaughtered for human consumption; 
     or
       (B) a dog or cat part for human consumption.
       (b) Scope.--Subsection (a) shall apply only with respect to 
     conduct--
       (1) in interstate commerce or foreign commerce; or
       (2) within the special maritime and territorial 
     jurisdiction of the United States.
       (c) Exception for Indian Tribes.--The prohibition in 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to an Indian (as defined in 
     section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)) carrying out any activity 
     described in subsection (a) for the purpose of a religious 
     ceremony.
       (d) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall 
     be subject to a fine in an amount not greater than $5,000 for 
     each violation.
       (e) Effect on State Law.--Nothing in this section--
       (1) limits any State or local law or regulation protecting 
     the welfare of animals; or
       (2) prevents a State or unit of local government from 
     adopting and enforcing an animal welfare law or regulation 
     that is more stringent than this section.


                           amendment no. 3287

   (Purpose: To modify the study of marketplace fraud of traditional 
                                 foods)

       Strike section 12518 and insert the following:

     SEC. 12518. STUDY OF MARKETPLACE FRAUD OF TRADITIONAL FOODS 
                   AND TRIBAL SEEDS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study on--
       (1) the market impact of traditional foods, Tribally 
     produced products, and products that use traditional foods;
       (2) fraudulent foods that mimic traditional foods or Tribal 
     seeds that are available in the commercial marketplace as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act;
       (3) the means by which authentic traditional foods and 
     Tribally produced foods might be protected against the impact 
     of fraudulent foods in the marketplace; and
       (4) the availability and long-term viability of Tribal 
     seeds, including an analysis of the storage, cultivation, 
     harvesting, and commercialization of Tribal seeds.
       (b) Inclusions.--The study conducted under subsection (a) 
     shall include--
       (1) a consideration of the circumstances under which 
     fraudulent foods in the marketplace occur; and
       (2) an analysis of Federal laws, including intellectual 
     property laws and trademark laws, that might offer 
     protections for Tribal seeds and traditional foods and 
     against fraudulent foods.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     completion of the study, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall submit a report describing the results of 
     the study under this section to--
       (1) the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (2) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (3) the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
     of the Senate;
       (4) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
       (5) the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate.
       (d) Privacy of Information.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall protect sensitive Tribal information gained 
     through the study conducted under subsection (a), including 
     information about Indian sacred places.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3364

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to carry out programs in Cuba in 
    contravention of the National Security Presidential Memorandum 
 prohibiting transactions with entities owned, controlled, or operated 
 by or on behalf of military intelligence or security services of Cuba)

       On page 257, line 2, insert after the period the following: 
     ``Funds may not be used as described in the previous sentence 
     in contravention with directives set forth under the National 
     Security Presidential Memorandum entitled `Strengthening the 
     Policy of the United States Toward Cuba' issued by the 
     President on June 16, 2017, during the period in which that 
     memorandum is in effect.

[[Page S4715]]

  



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3303

(Purpose: To ensure that the Secretary of Agriculture enforces certain 
Buy American requirements with respect to fish harvested within United 
                             States waters)

       On page 1203, strike lines 20 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) fully enforce the Buy American provisions applicable to 
     domestic food assistance programs administered by the Food 
     and Nutrition Service, including, for use in those domestic 
     food assistance programs, the purchase of a fish or fish 
     product that substantially contains--
       (A) fish (including tuna) harvested within--
       (i) a State;
       (ii) the District of Columbia; or
       (iii) the Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States, as 
     described in Presidential Proclamation 5030 (48 Fed. Reg. 
     10605; March 10, 1983); or
       (B) tuna harvested by a United States flagged vessel; and


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3321

 (Purpose: To provide additional assistance under the noninsured crop 
               assistance program for certain producers)

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

     SEC. 1602. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN PRODUCERS.

       (a) Definition of Qualifying Natural Disaster 
     Declaration.--In this section, the term ``qualifying natural 
     disaster declaration'' means--
       (1) a natural disaster declared by the Secretary under 
     section 321(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1961(a)); or
       (2) a major disaster or emergency designated by the 
     President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
       (b) Availability of Additional Assistance.--As soon as 
     practicable after October 1, 2018, the Secretary shall make 
     available assistance under section 196 of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7333) to producers of an eligible crop (as defined in 
     subsection (a)(2) of that section) that suffered losses in a 
     county covered by a qualifying natural disaster declaration 
     for production losses due to volcanic activity.
       (c) Amount.--The Secretary shall make assistance available 
     under subsection (b) in an amount equal to the amount of 
     assistance determined under section 196(d) of the Federal 
     Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7333(d)), less any fees that are owed by producers under 
     section 196(k) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 7333(k)).


                           Amendment No. 3388

       (Purpose: To establish the Council on Rural Community 
     Innovation and Economic Development.)

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of June 27, 2018, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3389

(Purpose: To reauthorize the rural emergency medical services training 
   and equipment assistance program under section 330J of the Public 
                          Health Service Act)

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

     SEC. __. REAUTHORIZATION OF RURAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 
                   TRAINING AND EQUIPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Supporting and Improving Rural EMS Needs Act of 2018'' or 
     the ``SIREN Act of 2018''.
       (b) Amendments.--Section 330J of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-15) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``in rural areas'' and 
     inserting ``in rural areas or to residents of rural areas'';
       (2) by striking subsections (b) through (f) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) Eligibility; Application.--To be eligible to receive 
     grant under this section, an entity shall--
       ``(1) be--
       ``(A) an emergency medical services agency operated by a 
     local or tribal government (including fire-based and non-fire 
     based); or
       ``(B) an emergency medical services agency that is 
     described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code; 
     and
       ``(2) submit an application to the Secretary at such time, 
     in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--An entity--
       ``(1) shall use amounts received through a grant under 
     subsection (a) to--
       ``(A) train emergency medical services personnel as 
     appropriate to obtain and maintain licenses and 
     certifications relevant to service in an emergency medical 
     services agency described in subsection (b)(1);
       ``(B) conduct courses that qualify graduates to serve in an 
     emergency medical services agency described in subsection 
     (b)(1) in accordance with State and local requirements;
       ``(C) fund specific training to meet Federal or State 
     licensing or certification requirements; and
       ``(D) acquire emergency medical services equipment; and
       ``(2) may use amounts received through a grant under 
     subsection (a) to--
       ``(A) recruit and retain emergency medical services 
     personnel, which may include volunteer personnel;
       ``(B) develop new ways to educate emergency health care 
     providers through the use of technology-enhanced educational 
     methods; or
       ``(C) acquire personal protective equipment for emergency 
     medical services personnel as required by the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Administration.
       ``(d) Grant Amounts.--Each grant awarded under this section 
     shall be in an amount not to exceed $200,000.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `emergency medical services'--
       ``(A) means resources used by a public or private nonprofit 
     licensed entity to deliver medical care outside of a medical 
     facility under emergency conditions that occur as a result of 
     the condition of the patient; and
       ``(B) includes services delivered (either on a compensated 
     or volunteer basis) by an emergency medical services provider 
     or other provider that is licensed or certified by the State 
     involved as an emergency medical technician, a paramedic, or 
     an equivalent professional (as determined by the State).
       ``(2) The term `rural area' means--
       ``(A) a nonmetropolitan statistical area;
       ``(B) an area designated as a rural area by any law or 
     regulation of a State; or
       ``(C) a rural census tract of a metropolitan statistical 
     area (as determined under the most recent rural urban 
     commuting area code as set forth by the Office of Management 
     and Budget).
       ``(f) Matching Requirement.--The Secretary may not award a 
     grant under this section to an entity unless the entity 
     agrees that the entity will make available (directly or 
     through contributions from other public or private entities) 
     non-Federal contributions toward the activities to be carried 
     out under the grant in an amount equal to 25 percent of the 
     amount received under the grant.''; and
       (3) in subsection (g)(1), by striking ``2002 through 2006'' 
     and inserting ``2019 through 2023''.


                           amendment no. 3323

  (Purpose: To add a provision relating to extension and agricultural 
                 research at 1890 land-grant colleges)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. EXTENSION AND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AT 1890 LAND-
                   GRANT COLLEGES, INCLUDING TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY.

       (a) Extension.--Section 1444 of the National Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 3221) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Fiscal year 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022.--In addition 
     to other amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     this section, there are authorized to be appropriated for 1 
     of fiscal year 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022 such sums as are 
     necessary to ensure that an eligible institution receiving a 
     distribution of funds under this section for that fiscal year 
     receives not less than the amount of funds received by that 
     eligible institution under this section for the preceding 
     fiscal year.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the undesignated matter following paragraph (2)(B)--
       (i) by striking ``paragraph (2) of this subsection'' and 
     inserting ``this paragraph''; and
       (ii) by striking ``In computing'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) In computing'';
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``Of the remainder'' 
     and inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (4), of the 
     remainder''; and
       (ii) by striking ``(2) any funds'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(3) Additional amount.--Any funds'';
       (C) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``are allocated'' and inserting ``were 
     allocated''; and
       (ii) by striking ``; and'' and inserting ``, as so 
     designated as of that date.'';
       (D) by striking ``(b) Beginning'' in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1) and all that follows through ``any funds'' in 
     paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Distribution of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds made available under this section 
     shall be distributed among eligible institutions in 
     accordance with this subsection.
       ``(2) Base amount.--Any funds''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Special amount for fiscal year 2019, 2020, 2021, or 
     2022.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for 1 of 
     fiscal year 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022, if the calculation 
     under paragraph (3)(B) would result in a distribution of less 
     than $3,000,000 to an eligible institution that first 
     received funds under this section after the date of enactment 
     of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-79; 128 Stat. 
     649) for a fiscal year, that institution shall receive a 
     distribution of $3,000,000 for that fiscal year.
       ``(B) Limitation.--Subparagraph (A) shall apply only if 
     amounts are appropriated under subsection (a)(5) to ensure 
     that an eligible institution receiving a distribution of 
     funds under this section for fiscal year 2019, 2020, 2021, or 
     2022, as applicable, receives not less than the amount of 
     funds received by that eligible institution under this 
     section for the preceding fiscal year.''.
       (b) Research.--Section 1445 of the National Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and

[[Page S4716]]

     Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) Fiscal year 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022.--In addition 
     to other amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     this section, there are authorized to be appropriated for 1 
     of fiscal year 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022 such sums as are 
     necessary to ensure that an eligible institution receiving a 
     distribution of funds under this section for that fiscal year 
     receives not less than the amount of funds received by that 
     eligible institution under this section for the preceding 
     fiscal year.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Special amount for fiscal year 2019, 2020, 2021, or 
     2022.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), for 1 of fiscal 
     year 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022, if the calculation under 
     subparagraph (C) would result in a distribution of less than 
     $3,000,000 to an eligible institution that first received 
     funds under this section after the date of enactment of the 
     Agricultural Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-79; 128 Stat. 649), 
     that institution shall receive a distribution of $3,000,000 
     for that fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--Clause (i) shall apply only if amounts 
     are appropriated under subsection (a)(6) to ensure that an 
     eligible institution receiving a distribution of funds under 
     this section for fiscal year 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022, as 
     applicable, receives not less than the amount of funds 
     received by that eligible institution under this section for 
     the preceding fiscal year.'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) Of funds'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(C) Additional amount.--Except as provided in 
     subparagraph (D), of funds'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) by striking ``are allocated'' and inserting ``were 
     allocated'';
       (II) by inserting ``, as so designated as of that date'' 
     before the period at the end; and
       (III) by striking ``(A) Funds'' and inserting the 
     following:

       ``(B) Base amount.--Funds''; and
       (iv) in the matter preceding subparagraph (B) (as so 
     designated), by striking ``(2) The'' and all that follows 
     through ``follows:'' and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Distributions.--
       ``(A) In general.--After allocating amounts under paragraph 
     (2), the remainder shall be allotted among the eligible 
     institutions in accordance with this paragraph.'';
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Three per centum'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Administration.--3 percent''; and
       (C) in the matter preceding paragraph (2) (as so 
     designated), by striking ``(b) Beginning'' and all that 
     follows through ``follows:'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Distribution of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds made available under this section 
     shall be distributed among eligible institutions in 
     accordance with this subsection.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3365

 (Purpose: To avert the waiving of liability for a utility whose line 
                   clearing work ignites a wildfire)

       In section 8632(f), strike paragraph (2) and insert the 
     following:
       (2) Project work.--If the Secretary approves a supplement 
     to an approved plan under subsection (c) of section 512 of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1772) or an agreement entered into under subsection (d)(1) of 
     that section that covers a vegetation management project 
     under the pilot program, the liability provisions of 
     subsection (g) of that section shall apply to the vegetation 
     management project.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3171

(Purpose: To include a provision on requirements for the calculation of 
a separate actual crop revenue and agriculture risk coverage guarantee 
          for irrigated and nonirrigated covered commodities)

       In section 1104(5), redesignate subparagraphs (A) through 
     (C) as subparagraphs (B) through (D), respectively.
       In section 1104(5), insert before subparagraph (B) (as so 
     redesignated) the following:
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``in accordance with 
     subsection (h),'' before ``to the maximum extent 
     practicable'';
       In section 1104(6), strike ``(h) Publications.--'' and 
     insert the following:
       ``(h) Calculation of Separate Actual Crop Revenue and 
     Agriculture Risk Coverage Guarantee.--
       ``(1) In general.--On request of a county Farm Service 
     Agency committee, in coordination with a Farm Service Agency 
     State committee, the Secretary shall consider a 1-time 
     request to calculate a separate actual crop revenue and 
     agriculture risk coverage guarantee for irrigated and 
     nonirrigated covered commodities under subsection (g)(2) in a 
     county if, during the 2014 through 2018 crop years--
       ``(A) an average of not less than 5 percent of the planted 
     and considered planted acreage of a covered commodity in the 
     county was irrigated; and
       ``(B) an average of not less than 5 percent of the planted 
     and considered planted acreage of the covered commodity in 
     the county was nonirrigated.
       ``(2) Source of information.--In considering a request 
     described in paragraph (1) and calculating a separate actual 
     crop revenue and agriculture risk coverage guarantee for 
     irrigated and nonirrigated covered commodities in a county, 
     the Secretary may use other sources of yield information, 
     including the yield history of representative farms in the 
     State, region, or crop reporting district, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(i) Publications.--


                           amendment no. 3371

   (Purpose: To provide that producers may change their election to 
participate in agriculture risk coverage or price loss coverage in the 
                            2021 crop year)

       At the end of subtitle A of title I, add the following:

     SEC. 11__. OPTION TO CHANGE PRODUCER ELECTION.

       Section 1115 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 
     9015) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Option to Change Producer Election.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a), for the 2021 crop year, all of the producers 
     on a farm may make a 1-time, irrevocable election to change 
     the election applicable to the producers on the farm under 
     that subsection or subsection (c), as applicable, to price 
     loss coverage or agriculture risk coverage, as applicable, 
     which shall apply to the producers on the farm for each of 
     the 2021, 2022, and 2023 crop years.''.


                Amendment No. 3074 to Amendment No. 3224

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], for Mr. Lee, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3074 to amendment No. 3224.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of June 25, 2018, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Lee 
amendment.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Ms. 
Duckworth), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cortez Masto
     Cruz
     Durbin
     Flake
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lee
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Paul
     Reed
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--57

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jones
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Tillis
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Alexander
     Duckworth
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blunt). Under the previous order requiring 
60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3134

  The question now occurs on agreeing to the Thune amendment No. 3134.
  The amendment (No. 3134) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3224

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
Roberts amendment No. 3224, as amended.

[[Page S4717]]

  The amendment (No. 3224) in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Arizona 
(Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 11, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                                YEAS--86

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Isakson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--11

     Burr
     Corker
     Cotton
     Flake
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Paul
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Alexander
     Leahy
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for passage of the bill, the bill, as amended, is passed.
  The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________