[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 60 (Tuesday, April 9, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2669-S2672]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. Boozman, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Fischer, 
        Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, and Mr. Marshall):
  S. 4081. A bill to amend the Federal Crop Insurance Act to provide 
premium support for certain plans of insurance, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to talk about legislation that we 
are introducing today. It is called the FARMER Act. ``FARMER'' stands 
for Federal Agriculture Risk Management Enhancement and Resilience, and 
that is just exactly what this farm bill does, what this legislation 
does. Really, we think this is an important step to getting to a farm 
bill--and hopefully this year--because it is all about enhancing crop 
insurance.
  I am very pleased to be joined here on the floor by our ranking 
member on the Ag Committee, Senator Boozman, from Arkansas. He is 
cosponsoring the legislation, as are other members of our Ag Committee, 
including Senator Ernst of Iowa, Senator Fischer of Nebraska, Senator 
Grassley of Iowa, Senator Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, and Senator 
Marshall of Kansas--all Senators who have significant ag production in 
their State, both in terms of crops and livestock.
  And this is all about what we have right here: ``Keeping the farm in 
the farm bill.'' As a matter of fact, it is about putting more farm in 
the farm bill, and that is going to have to happen in order to get a 
farm bill accomplished this year.
  Well, how do we do that? What does that mean? That means 
strengthening crop insurance, our farmer's No. 1 risk management tool, 
and also updating ARC and PLC, which is the countercyclical safety net. 
ARC--Ag Risk Coverage--and PLC--Price Loss Coverage, that is the 
countercyclical safety net that our farmers rely on; so crop insurance, 
the No. 1 risk management tool for farmers nationwide, combined with a 
countercyclical safety net, updating ARC and PLC to make it relevant 
given the incredible increase we have seen in input costs that our 
producers face.
  When you look at fertilizer and all the inputs--fuel, everything 
else--all the inputs that our farmers and our ranchers are required to 
purchase now to raise that crop or for ranchers to raise those animals, 
those costs have gone up dramatically. And commodity prices for our 
food products have come down, which really puts pressure on our farmers 
and ranchers. That is why it is so important--so important--that we 
update crop insurance and the countercyclical safety net to make it 
relevant--to make it relevant--in terms of risk management for 
producers across this great Nation.
  We have a huge ag industry, very diverse, across all of our States, 
and so this really is fundamental--fundamental--to getting a farm bill 
done and done right and hopefully done this year.
  So this bill, as I say, focuses on the crop insurance piece. And so 
what does it do? Well, it does two things: One, it strengthens crop 
insurance by increasing the premium support and making it more 
affordable to purchase crop insurance and, two, it enables our farmers 
to insure to a higher level.
  There are two ways that they do that. One is at the enterprise level. 
So at the farm level, they buy crop insurance. This makes it more 
affordable to buy up to a higher level of coverage--say, 80 or 85 
percent coverage on a more affordable basis--and then they can get a 
second-tier policy that helps them. It is called Supplemental Coverage 
Option. That is actually based on a countywide average.
  So they can buy that supplemental coverage to insure up to a higher 
level, up to 90 percent, on a realistically affordable basis.
  Now, the other thing it does is it calls on the Secretary of USDA--
the Secretary of Agriculture--to look at the supplemental coverage. For 
States that have big counties like my home State of North Dakota or 
Senator Boozman's State of Arkansas or Texas and others, it requires 
that RMA--Risk Management Agency that provides crop insurance--looks at 
how these policies are done to make it work better for States that have 
large counties, which many of our States do.

[[Page S2670]]

  So those are the kind of enhancements to crop insurance that really 
serve our farmers, and it is not just our farmers. We are also doing 
more for our ranchers and our livestock producers, but really it is 
much more than that. This legislation helps our farmers; it helps our 
taxpayers; and it helps all Americans.
  And let me touch on that for just a minute. First, in terms of our 
farmers, obviously, they face tremendous challenges due to weather--
they have no control over the weather--and prices.
  You know, we have this network of family farms and ranches across 
this country. They are price-takers. They don't get a chance to set any 
prices. So crop insurance, that is why it is their No. 1 risk 
management tool because when they don't have a crop or they have a very 
substandard crop, this crop insurance enables them to stay in the game 
so that family farms can continue to be around for the next year, so 
that ranchers can continue to be around for the next year.
  It is vitally important when they have no control over, like I say, 
weather or prices. It is to keep them in the game for the long term.
  That benefits our taxpayers because we have the highest quality, 
lowest cost food supply in the world, and this is the most effective 
way to keep that network of family farms and ranchers out there on the 
land.
  And that really benefits every single American every single day 
because what do our farmers do? They produce food, fuel, and fiber for 
this Nation. Well, that is national security, for sure. Food security 
is national security. But think about this for a minute. We have the 
highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. Every American 
benefits from that every day. Every time you have something to eat in 
this country that you buy in our great grocery stores, brought to them 
from the farm, from the ranch--we have the highest quality and the 
lowest cost.
  Americans spend less of their budget on food, and they have better 
food than anyone else--more choices, more options, higher quality. But 
Americans spend less of their budget on food than any other developed 
country, brought to them by our farmers and ranchers.
  That is a remarkable benefit. That is a benefit that every American 
receives every single day. And that is why it is so important that we 
get farm policy right. That is why we have got to get it right.
  And here is the final point I want to make before I turn things over 
to my esteemed colleague Senator Boozman. We can't take this network of 
farmers and ranchers that we have in this country for granted. We have 
about 16 million people involved in agriculture, directly or 
indirectly. But our food is brought to us by farms and ranches, a 
diverse set of family farms and ranches across this country, and we 
can't take that for granted.
  And if we don't have this safety net, if we don't have crop insurance 
that they can afford to buy--which they buy--and if they can't access 
this countercyclical safety net, we don't have that network of farms 
and ranches.
  Like a lot of other industries in this country, we can end up with 
just a few big companies. And I wonder how that is going to work out 
because all that competition you see from these millions of farmers and 
ranchers providing that highest quality, lowest cost food supply, that 
could change, right? So we can't take this for granted.
  So when it comes to getting the farm bill done, we have got to get it 
right. We have got to get it right. And that is what this is all about: 
getting crop insurance right and making sure that our farmers can both 
access crop insurance and the countercyclical safety net--ARC and PLC--
at the same time. They need both.
  Look, this is about getting a farm bill done. This legislation needs 
to be included in the farm bill, and it will go a long way toward 
making sure that we get a farm bill done and hopefully done this year.
  And I would like now to turn it over to Senator Boozman for his 
remarks.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. I want to thank my good friend from North Dakota Senator 
Hoeven for his leadership on this issue. Under normal circumstances, we 
would have been celebrating the passage of a new farm bill by now. 
Unfortunately, we are not there yet, and our farmers continue to face 
far from normal circumstances. But we are making progress, and I am 
committed to meaningfully addressing the needs of farmers, ranchers, 
and rural communities.
  Alongside bolstering the title 1 reference prices, maintaining and 
improving crop insurance is at the top of the list for my farm bill 
priorities. But more importantly, these are the top priorities of 
farmers across the country.
  The first of many farm bill listening sessions I have participated in 
started with a roundtable in Senator Hoeven's home State of North 
Dakota. The takeaway from that event has been echoed across the 
countryside and in meetings throughout Washington: We need more 
``farm'' in the farm bill.
  This next farm bill must update the risk management tools farmers and 
ranchers need to succeed in order to reflect the nature of the 
challenges under which they operate today. Here is the reality: 
Producers are experiencing unprecedented challenges, regulatory 
uncertainty, and historic volatility in the farm economy, all of which 
are predicted to even get worse.
  A producer from Minnesota told me recently that record high input 
costs, coupled with declining crop prices, would mean that she would 
have to harvest a record yield just to break even. That is not a 
scenario farm families want to pass on to the next generation.
  Historic inflation, rising interest rates, a record trade deficit, 
devastating natural disasters, and global disruptions will make it more 
difficult for our farmers to succeed in the years to come. And with an 
outdated farm safety net, described by a Texas farmer as 2 inches above 
the concrete, agriculture is left wondering what level of crisis is 
necessary to compel Washington to act.
  I commend Senator Hoeven's leadership in introducing the FARMER Act 
and proactively addressing the needs of farmers and ranchers who have 
asked for improvements to the Federal Crop Insurance Program.
  The FARMER Act includes critical components to modernizing the farm 
safety net for producers across all regions and all commodities. From 
wheat in North Dakota to cotton in Georgia, to peaches in New Jersey, 
corn in Illinois and Colorado, to apples in Vermont and soybeans in 
Ohio, producers in every State could reap the benefits of more 
affordable crop insurance options.
  The strength of this approach is underscored by the endorsement of 
over 20 grassroots organizations representing the voices of farm 
families from across the country.
  We can pass a farm bill that strengthens title 1 and title 11, while 
also making improvements across every other title and meet our shared 
goals.
  This isn't an either-or decision. The next farm bill provides an 
incredible opportunity to make things right for farmers, ranchers, 
rural communities, and those in need. Working together we can protect 
and enhance voluntary conservation programs, provide investments needed 
to open new export markets, and expand existing markets, build on 
research that allows our farmers to do more with less while reducing 
environmental impacts, protect the health of our Nation's herds and 
flocks and help rural communities flourish and prosper.
  Passing such a bill is never an easy task, but it is one that this 
body has come together to accomplish time and time again. I look 
forward to continuing to work with Chairman Stabenow and my Senate 
colleagues to pass a farm bill that achieves these goals, and I very 
much appreciate the work of Senator Hoeven and his contribution to that 
process.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I want to say thank you to the ranking 
member on the Senate Ag Committee, Senator Boozman. And I am especially 
proud to be here with the Senator from the great State of North Dakota, 
Senator Hoeven, and support our FARMER Act.
  Crop insurance is the backbone of every farm bill. When I talk to 
producers back home, they tell me crop insurance is their first, 
second, and third priority. It is important not just to producers, but 
it also helps stabilize groceries on the other end by having a

[[Page S2671]]

good, constant supply by allowing the farmer to plant next year's crop 
after Mother Nature strikes. It helps keep those prices down at the 
grocery store as well.
  You know, I am often asked why crop insurance is so important. And I 
want to quote the late President John F. Kennedy when he summed up the 
plight of the farmer pretty well. This is what President Kennedy said:

       The farmer is the only person in our economy who buys 
     everything at retail, sells everything at wholesale, and pays 
     the freight both ways.

  Look, our input costs are driving the value of our crops up, and thus 
the cost of crop insurance is going up along with it. Unfortunately, 
commodity prices don't reflect that. Instead, we are seeing an alltime 
drop in farming income--year over year drop that we have seen in 
decades.
  But the FARMER Act truly puts ``farm'' back in the farm bill with a 
reasonable cost. It helps take on this added burden of crop insurance, 
which, again, allows the farmer to plant next year's crop and makes us 
the most single most important program at USDA.
  I am proud to be here today urging that this body pass the FARMER 
Act--perhaps included on the farm bill would be a good place for it as 
well--to protect the economic security of rural America and keep food 
prices stable for American consumers.
  I am happy to yield back to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I thank Senator Marshall. Obviously, he speaks on behalf 
of a very important ag State--Kansas. I thank Senator Boozman and all 
the cosponsors on this legislation.
  As Senator Marshall said very well, this is the most cost-effective 
way to make sure that we keep our farmers and ranchers out there 
providing this incredible food supply that benefits every American 
every day.
  One final point that Senator Boozman referenced. We have the support 
already--the endorsement of virtually all of the major farm groups, you 
know, the farm production groups in the country representing our great 
farmers. Their endorsement tells you very clearly that we need to have 
this enhancement to crop insurance in the farm bill to get the farm 
bill done.
  Again, on behalf of our sponsors of this legislation, I would like to 
thank them. We are going to work very diligently to do everything we 
can to work with all of our colleagues to get a farm bill done.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Ms. Duckworth):
  S. 4092. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to implement a 
limitation on contracting for supplies needed for the Department of the 
Army for certain workload activities at arsenals of the Department of 
the Army, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 4092

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Arsenal Workload Sustainment 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States has a long and proud history of 
     manufacturing defense products.
       (2) Factories and arsenals of the Department of the Army 
     that are owned and operated by the United States Government 
     are a critical component of the organic industrial base.
       (3) The 2023 National Defense Industrial Strategy 
     recognizes the need of the Department of Defense to more 
     strategically utilize the organic industrial base in order to 
     maintain a competitive military advantage.
       (4) Sufficient workload at arsenals of the Department of 
     the Army that are owned and operated by the United States 
     Government ensure cost efficiency and technical competence in 
     peacetime, while preserving the ability to provide an 
     effective and timely response to mobilizations, national 
     defense contingency situations, and other emergency 
     requirements.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON CONTRACTING FOR SUPPLIES NEEDED FOR THE 
                   DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FOR CERTAIN WORKLOAD 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 7532 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary of the Army'' and inserting 
     ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Treatment of Workload Activities.--
       ``(1) Percentage limitation.--Not more than 50 percent of 
     the funds made available in a fiscal year for a military 
     department or a Defense Agency for workload activities 
     pursuant to subsection (a) may be used to contract for the 
     performance by non-United States Government personnel of such 
     workload for that military department or Defense Agency.
       ``(2) Amounts for activities by employees of department of 
     defense.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any funds made available in a fiscal 
     year to a military department or a Defense Agency for 
     workload activities pursuant to subsection (a) that are not 
     used for a contract described in paragraph (1) shall be used 
     for the performance of those activities by employees of the 
     Department of Defense.
       ``(B) Treatment of public-private partnerships.--Workload 
     activities conducted pursuant to subsection (a) under a 
     public-private partnership shall be deemed to be activities 
     performed by employees of the Department of Defense for 
     purposes of subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Waiver of limitation.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Defense may waive the 
     limitation under paragraph (1) for a fiscal year if the 
     Secretary determines that the waiver is necessary for reasons 
     of national security.
       ``(B) Effect.--A waiver under subparagraph (A) shall not 
     take effect until the date that is 30 days after the 
     Secretary submits to the congressional defense committees a 
     notification of the determination under such subparagraph, 
     together with a justification for the determination.
       ``(4) Preferences for public-private partnerships in source 
     selection process.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall give preference to a 
     non-public partner who has entered into a public-private 
     partnership under section 2474 of this title in the source 
     selection process if such partner uses an arsenal of the 
     Department of the Army that is owned and operated by the 
     United States Government as a partner in any type of 
     contractual agreement with the United States Government to 
     conduct workload activities pursuant to subsection (a), by 
     adding 20 percent to the price of any offer that does not use 
     an arsenal of the Department of the Army that is owned and 
     operated by the United States Government as a partner in its 
     bid.
       ``(B) Non-public partner defined.--In this subparagraph, 
     the term `non-public partner' means a corporation, 
     individual, university, or nonprofit organization.
       ``(5) Conformance.--The establishment of sustained workload 
     conducted under subsection (a) shall be consistent with the 
     requirement under paragraph (1) and shall be performed 
     consistent with following:
       ``(A) The technical proficiencies set forth under section 
     2474(a) or 4841 of this title.
       ``(B) Fragility and criticality assessments of the Army.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7544(c) of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1), by striking ``may be carried out at an Army 
     industrial facility under a cooperative arrangement entered 
     into under subsection (a) only under the following 
     conditions'' and inserting ``is presumptively and 
     conditionally approved to be carried out at an Army 
     industrial facility under a cooperative arrangement entered 
     into under subsection (a) unless it is demonstrated that the 
     following conditions are not met''.
       (c) Annual Report.--
       (1) In general.--On and after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees, with the budget of the 
     President submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United 
     States Code, for a fiscal year a report that details the 
     following:
       (A) An outlook of expected workload at each arsenal of the 
     Department of the Army that is owned and operated by the 
     United States Government during the period covered by the 
     future-years defense program submitted to Congress under 
     section 221 of title 10, United States Code.
       (B) A breakout, by relevant budget accounts, of workload 
     that was achieved in the prior fiscal year, whether directly 
     or through public-private partnerships.
       (C) The capital investments required to be made at each 
     arsenal of the Department of the Army that is owned and 
     operated by the United States Government in order to ensure 
     compliance and operational capacity.
       (2) Appropriate congressional committees defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (A) the Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittee on 
     Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittee on 
     Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.

[[Page S2672]]

  

                          ____________________