[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20633-20637]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2997, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2997) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2010, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Kohl/Brownback amendment No. 1908, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Kohl (for Murray/Baucus) amendment No. 2225 (to amendment 
     No. 1908), to allow State and local governments to 
     participate in the conservation reserve program.
       Kohl (for Nelson (FL) amendment No. 2226 (to amendment No. 
     1908), to prohibit funds made available under this act from 
     being used to enforce a travel or conference policy that 
     prohibits an event from being held in a location based on a 
     perception that the location is a resort or vacation 
     destination.
       McCain amendment No. 1912 (to amendment No. 1908), to 
     strike a provision relating to certain watershed and flood 
     prevention operations.
       McCain amendment No. 2030 (to amendment No. 1908), to 
     prohibit funding for an earmark.
       Johanns/Nelson (NE) amendment No. 2241 (to amendment No. 
     1908), to provide funding for the tuberculosis program of the 
     Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
       Brownback (for Barrasso) amendment No. 2240 (to amendment 
     1908), to require the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a 
     State-by-State analysis of the impacts on agricultural

[[Page 20634]]

     producers of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 
     2009 (H.R. 2452, as passed by the House of Representatives on 
     June 26, 2009).
       Coburn amendment No. 2243 (to amendment No. 1908), to 
     eliminate double-dipped stimulus funds for the Rural 
     Business-Cooperative Service account.
       Coburn amendment No. 2244 (to amendment No. 1908), to 
     support the proposal of the President to eliminate funding in 
     the bill for digital conversion efforts of the Department of 
     Agriculture that are duplicative of existing Federal efforts.
       Coburn amendment No. 2245 (to amendment No. 1908), to 
     strike a provision providing $3,000,000 for specialty cheeses 
     in Vermont and Wisconsin.
       Coburn amendment No. 2248 (to amendment No. 1908), to 
     prohibit no-bid contracts and grants.
       Coburn amendment No. 2246 (to amendment No. 2226), to 
     provide additional transparency and accountability for 
     spending on conferences and meetings of the Department of 
     Agriculture.
       Kohl amendment No. 2288 (to amendment No. 2248), to provide 
     requirements regarding the authority of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture and the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to enter 
     into certain contracts.
       Sanders amendment No. 2276 (to amendment No. 1908), to 
     modify the amount made available for the Farm Service Agency.
       Sanders amendment No. 2271 (to amendment No. 1908), to 
     provide funds for the school community garden pilot program, 
     with an offset.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the 
managers and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, or their designees.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
that the time be divided equally on both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what are the proceedings under the 
unanimous consent agreement?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time until 10:30 is equally 
divided.
  Mr. McCAIN. Following that, there would be a vote on two amendments; 
is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second 
rollcall vote be vitiated and replaced by a voice vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1912

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this vote will be on amendment No. 1912. 
The amendment eliminates, as recommended by the President of the United 
States, the USDA Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, 
also known as the Small Watershed Program.
  This program is the perfect example of how reckless earmarking can 
devastate a well-intentioned government program. Like the previous four 
Presidents' budgets, this administration has proposed to terminate this 
account--four previous Presidents--because ``Congress has earmarked 
virtually all of this program in recent years, meaning that the agency 
is unable to prioritize projects on any merit-based criteria, such as 
cost-effectiveness.''
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the Small Watershed 
Program was 97 percent earmarked in fiscal year 2009, which severely 
marginalized the ability of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to 
evaluate and prioritize projects.
  A 2003 Office of Management and Budget study showed this program has 
a lower economic return than any other Federal flood prevention 
program, including those in the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
  The onslaught of earmarks over the years has most certainly 
contributed to the current backlog of about 300 unfunded authorized 
small watershed projects, totaling $1.2 billion.
  As was originally intended, the Small Watershed Program may be a 
worthwhile program, but by inundating it with so-called 
``congressionally designated projects,'' the program is challenged to 
function properly to the point where four previous Presidents have 
recommended its termination. Nevertheless, the Appropriations Committee 
hasn't given up on plundering it just yet. The bill provides $24.3 
million for this program, including $16.5 million in earmarks for 
various unauthorized projects.
  I urge my colleagues to support the President's recommendation. 
Again, I will quote from the President's recommendation--the President 
of the United States:

       The administration proposes to terminate the Watershed and 
     Flood Prevention Operations Program. The Congress has 
     earmarked virtually all of this program in recent years, 
     meaning that the agency is unable to prioritize projects on 
     any merit-based criteria, such as cost-effectiveness.

  So it goes on and on. Every analysis is that it has a lower economic 
return than any other program. Four Presidents have sought to eliminate 
it. We will probably lose this vote. But if there is ever a graphic 
example that once a program is established and once you fund it, it 
acquires a constituency and a powerful special interest and that 
funding continues on and on--we are proving, and we will continue to 
prove as we go through the appropriations bills, that there is no 
program that, once it exists, is going to be eliminated by this body, 
and that the appropriators continue to defy not only the President of 
the United States but logic and good sense as we amass deficits of 
monumental proportions which are mortgaging our children's and 
grandchildren's futures.
  We cannot even stop a program the President wants terminated, that 
has no value, that the Office of Management and Budget and any 
objective observer will say deserves termination. It is only $24.3 
million, but the appropriators will join and jawbone others, and we 
will lose this vote, the same way we lost a vote yesterday that, again, 
had been recommended for termination by the President of the United 
States.
  I didn't come up with this. It wasn't my idea to terminate it, 
although I certainly do think we should. It was the idea of the 
President of the United States. It is also every objective observer's 
idea. We will prove that not only will we not eliminate that program, 
but we send the message to the country that this program--even though 
the President wants it terminated, even though it has a clear record of 
total inefficiency--we will continue to maintain.
  Sooner or later, there will be more tea parties and more protests, 
and the American people are going to rise up and say: Stop it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin is 
recognized.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this program provides for cooperation 
between the Federal Government, State government agencies, and local 
organizations to prevent erosion, floodwater and sediment damages, and 
to further the conservation and proper utilization of lands in 
authorized watersheds.
  This program helps communities prepare detailed watershed work plans 
for flood prevention projects in cooperation with soil conservation 
districts and other local sponsoring organizations.
  Annual natural resource benefits include 90 million tons of soil 
saved from erosion; 47,000 miles of streams and stream corridors 
enhanced or protected; more than 1.8 million acre-feet of water 
conserved; nearly 280,000 acres of wetlands created, enhanced or 
restored; and over 9 million acres of upland wildlife habitat created, 
enhanced, or restored.
  This is a very important program. I urge Senators to oppose this 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have a lot of sympathy for the 
comments made by the Senator from Arizona. I think he has accurate 
points.

[[Page 20635]]

My colleague from Wisconsin makes points, as well, about the program 
overall.
  My point in rising is to say that the system is very difficult to 
change and to get things pulled out. That is why we have to change the 
system. What I have put forward for years is a proposal to take a BRAC-
type process--the military base closing process--and have it looked at 
and make a recommendation to the Congress and then one vote on the 
entire package. That is a way we found to eliminate military bases.
  When a program like this is started, or others, there are people who 
say: Wait a minute. This works for my district even if it doesn't work 
for somebody else. This is a high-priority project, even if it is not 
for somebody else. That system is such that it is built to spend, not 
built to cull, where you can cull things out and say this one doesn't 
look good, but this does, in trying to get it through a body of 100 
people. We are trying to get an Agriculture appropriations bill through 
that we have not been able to get done in 3 years. We haven't had floor 
time for an Agriculture appropriations bill. We are trying to move this 
forward.
  I think the Senator has some excellent points. We need to pass this 
sort of BRAC process for the rest of government so we actually do go at 
a culling process that everybody has faith in, which has worked before 
on military bases and we now can apply to the rest of government. That 
is a system where we can eliminate things, which we need to do in a 
number of areas. It is not going to happen on a one-shot-by-one-shot 
basis because some people say: This is a program that really works for 
my area. Then we get hung up on the floor with lengthy battles, and 
then we are never able to get the bill through.
  I urge my colleagues--and I hope some on the majority side will look 
at this CARFA bill, we call it, to see about putting that in place so 
we can get at these in a systematic way that everybody is agreeable to.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1912.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Byrd), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 70, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 257 Leg.]

                                YEAS--27

     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Johanns
     Kaufman
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Risch
     Sessions
     Thune
     Webb

                                NAYS--70

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Kennedy
     Mikulski
  The amendment (No. 1912) was rejected.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 2030

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak in opposition to the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona to strike funding for Iowa State 
University's Rural Vitality Center.
  According to the Small Business Administration, Iowa historically has 
ranked near the bottom nationally in business startups. Small 
businesses with less than five employees account for 86 percent of Iowa 
businesses, yet these enterprises increasingly are bypassed by existing 
entrepreneurial assistance and capital networks, particularly in 
nonmetro areas. The Iowa Rural Vitality Project is Iowa State 
University's response to help foster innovation and economic vitality 
in rural Iowa.
  The Vitality Center engages with academic institutions, community 
leaders, and economic development agencies to leverage resources. The 
center provides statewide leadership by building community capacity for 
assisting and supporting entrepreneurs and community foundations.
  During the past year, the Vitality Center has led an effort to 
organize a statewide microloan foundation and complementary community 
microenterprise development initiatives. The program targets low- and 
moderate-income people and underserved rural areas. The microloan 
program helps fund businesses that don't quite meet the commercial 
lenders' requirements for credit, which is even more important during 
these tight lending times. This initiative is creating two to three new 
business startups per month that would not otherwise exist.
  According to Iowa State University, the funding approved for fiscal 
year 2010 will be used to encourage the development of 20 community-
based entrepreneurial development systems, allow for expanded 
philanthropic capacity in 10 community foundation projects, and 
research new strategies for enhancing rural vitality for rural and 
underserved communities. Their program, with this funding, will help 
continue their creation of jobs across the State.
  The Feds aren't the only ones supporting this center. They have 
received grants from private sources and the State legislature for 
their efforts. It also receives a $1 for $1 match from each community 
demonstration project for approximately 10 projects, and approximately 
a $2 non-Federal to $1 Federal match from Iowa State University on the 
center operations budget.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to strike the funding 
for this center.


                           amendment no. 2030

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, all time is yielded back on McCain amendment 
No. 2030.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate on the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2030) was rejected.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Brown 
be recognized for a period of approximately 8 minutes, followed by 
Senator Sanders, to speak until 11:15 a.m., until our recess occurs.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.


                           health care reform

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise again, as I have every day for the 
last week or so, to share some letters from Ohioans--from people in 
Painesville, Findlay, Lima, Springfield, Zanesville, and all over my 
State--which speak to people and their health care situations.
  We hear discussion in this Chamber of market exclusivity and the 
gateway and the exchanges and all these kinds of Washington terms that 
people don't necessarily understand, but we don't talk often enough 
about how this

[[Page 20636]]

health care system today is damaging the country. We don't think often 
enough about the situations people find themselves in.
  We are not just enacting health care reform. If we do nothing, if we 
continue down this road, it means that small businesses, that are so 
overwhelmed with health care costs, are going to go out of business; 
that more small businesses are going to have to eliminate their 
insurance programs; and larger businesses--our biggest companies in the 
country--are having trouble competing internationally because of health 
care costs. People are paying huge costs out of pocket for their copays 
or deductibles, and so they cannot afford health care insurance. This 
means many people have deferred care, which is no care.
  At the same time, we see the Nation's insurance companies all too 
often using preexisting conditions to deny care; using lifetime caps to 
deny care. This system is broken. Many parts of the system work, and 
the point of this bill is to protect what works and to fix what is 
broken in our health care system.
  For 4 or 5 minutes, I wish to share some letters I have received from 
people around my State of Ohio about the situations they are facing 
with their health care. This is Debra, from Adams County. Adams County 
is three counties east of Cincinnati on the Ohio River.
  Debra writes:

       In October 2003, I discovered I had breast cancer. Luckily 
     we found it early and I was treated with a lumpectomy and 
     radiation treatments. I'm doing fine now. But I had to fight 
     with the insurance companies to pay for the radiation 
     treatments. I had 32 radiation sessions and they were over 
     $800 per treatment. To 2002 I paid $218 per month for health 
     insurance. Over the next 3 years my premiums were increased 
     to $550 per month. Today, the insurance company increased 
     premiums to $719 per month.
       We are not poor but we are not rich, but $719 per month for 
     insurance is half of what I receive in a month. I cannot 
     afford to pay that amount. No insurance company wants to take 
     me because of my preexisting breast cancer condition. I don't 
     know what I am going to do. If I cancel the insurance and 
     then I come down with cancer again or another serious 
     illness, we will lose everything we worked so hard for all 
     our lives.
       I paid for my own insurance since 1985 and have never asked 
     for help, but I can't do this. Please can you help me?

  Think about this. This is a woman who was paying $200 per month for 
health insurance. She paid for health insurance for almost 25 years. 
Then she gets sick. Then she had to fight with her insurance to get 
them to even pay for the treatment. Then they more than tripled the 
cost of her health insurance.
  That is not what health insurance should do. That is not what a 
functioning good health care system should do. That is why we need this 
health care reform, to help people such as Debra in Adams County.
  Barbara from Delaware County, an increasingly suburban but somewhat 
rural county straight north of Columbus, central Ohio. Barbara writes:

       I had excellent insurance when employed for many years. 
     Then I was laid off when I turned 63. I went without 
     insurance and tried to find a health insurance policy which I 
     could afford. I was very happy to turn 65 and have Medicare.
       After having worked for 30 years, I am very grateful for 
     both Social Security and for Medicare. At the age of 68, I 
     don't mind paying into the system since I am glad to be part 
     of a system that helps all of us who are in our advanced 
     years. The security of knowing that I would be covered if 
     something unforeseen would occur keeps my stress level down.

  Barbara lost her job at 63, lost her insurance, fortunately had no 
catastrophic illness or disease happen between 63 and 65 until she got 
on Medicare. But when I hear this kind of assessment--when I hear her 
talk about Social Security and Medicare and how it has been for her--
and then last night on this Senate floor I heard one of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle talk about how government cannot do 
anything right, we don't want government involved in health care, this 
is all a conspiracy of big government intrusion into our lives--think 
about Social Security; think about Medicare.
  We know government has run Social Security and Medicare pretty darn 
well. Medicare has an administrative cost of well under 5 percent. 
Private insurance has administrative costs of 15, 20, 25, sometimes 30 
percent. We know this health care system--this is not going to be a 
single-payer system. People will have choices between the public option 
and individual insurance plans. That is the way we are going to rebuild 
this health care system. If you are in health care that you appreciate 
and you are satisfied with, you can keep it. We are going to put some 
consumer protections on it to make it better.
  Barbara speaks so articulately about why Medicare and Social Security 
work.
  The last couple of letters I will read--this is from Cynthia, from 
Mercer County, on the Indiana border in western Ohio.

       My son had a cyst removed in February that cost $8,000 and 
     I had hernia surgery in May that cost $12,000. My insurance 
     company picked up some of the cost but I only make $31,000 a 
     year. We can't even afford my property taxes. My son also has 
     a learning disability and will likely not go to college this 
     fall; therefore, my insurance company sees fit to drop him 
     from coverage in October when he turns 19. Americans who work 
     hard should be at least granted excellent affordable health 
     care without breaking the bank. Let's get the best care 
     possible, not just a Band-Aid.

  Cynthia's son, when he turns 19, gets dropped off the insurance plan. 
Our legislation says if you choose to, you can stay on your parents' 
insurance plan until you turn 26. So it gets people through those tough 
years of school, looking for a job, maybe into the military, coming out 
of the military--all the things that happen in young lives. Our bill 
protects people up to age 26.
  Today, under the status quo, Cynthia is not protected. Cynthia's son 
is not protected. Cynthia cannot afford these huge costs, these huge 
premiums, these huge copays and deductibles. That is why we need a 
change.
  The last letter I will read is from Mike from Ross County. The county 
seat of Ross County is Chillicothe, a couple of counties south of 
Columbus. Mike writes:

       I am a self-employed small businessman. I am unable to 
     obtain insurance for my wife and one of my two daughters. I 
     live that risk every day, praying that my wife and daughter 
     do not need major medical care. This is America, we can and 
     must do better than that.

  One of the things we did in this bill was put together special 
provisions for small business people so if you are self-employed, if 
you run a small business, you can get insurance at a more reasonable 
cost. We know big insurance companies charge small business much more 
per person than they charge larger businesses. This will allow small 
business to go with other small businesses in what we call the 
exchange, and they will get much better rates because the insurance 
costs and the costs of illness and treatment will be spread over 
hundreds of thousands of people instead of only 5 or 6 or 10 people in 
one of these health care plans in a small business.
  This also has tax credits, additional tax credits for small 
businesses. We are going to see a lot of help in this legislation for 
small business.
  I will close again saying our health care bill that was voted out of 
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee protects what 
works in our health care system and fixes what is broken. If you are 
happy with your health care insurance, you can keep it. If you are 
happy with your employer plan, you can keep it. We will build some 
consumer protections around it.
  If you are not happy, you are dissatisfied, or you don't have 
insurance, you will get insurance under this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2276

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I thank the Senator and applaud his 
strong efforts in fighting for health care for all Americans. I want to 
take a few minutes right now to touch on an issue that in fact has not 
gotten a lot of discussion here in Congress and that is that family-
based dairy agriculture

[[Page 20637]]

is on the verge of collapse. This is not a regional issue, this is a 
national issue. From the east coast to the west coast, what we are 
seeing is prices plummeting for dairy farmers way below the cost of 
production. If Congress does not act, all over America rural 
communities are going to be suffering economically. People are going to 
be losing their jobs. The American people increasingly will not be able 
to obtain fresh locally produced food.
  As we talk about stimulus, as we talk about trying to revive this 
economy, let's remember rural America and let's remember the dairy 
farmers throughout this country who are producing an important part of 
the food we consume. At this moment, dairy farmers across the country 
are suffering from the lowest milk prices in four decades. Let me 
repeat that. Dairy farmers across the country are suffering from the 
lowest milk prices in four decades.
  In the last year, the price farmers receive for their milk has 
plummeted 41 percent, to $11.30 per hundredweight. To understand how 
low $11.30 per hundredweight is, you must understand it takes $17 or 
$18 to produce a hundredweight of milk. In other words, for every cow 
that is milked, the farmer is losing a substantial amount of money.
  As a result of these low prices, many family farms have gone out of 
business and, if we do not act immediately, you are going to see many 
more, from one end of this country to the other, close up. I can tell 
you in the State of Vermont there was a lot of publicity surrounding a 
farm in the southern part of our State that had been in one family 
since the Revolutionary War--since the Revolutionary War. But because 
of these horrendously low milk prices, that farm has gone up for sale.
  This is not just an issue for dairy farmers. This is not just an 
issue for rural communities. This is an issue for every American who 
wants to gain access to good quality, locally produced food.
  All over this country people are saying no, I don't want my food 
coming in from China, I don't want my food coming in from places all 
over the world. I want to see the quality food that is produced in my 
area, in my State, in my region. If we do not act to protect family-
based dairy agriculture, we are going to increasingly lose that 
opportunity.
  Let me underline this. I know the people familiar with dairy always 
say these are great regional fights, the Northeast is fighting the 
Midwest is fighting the Southeast is fighting the west coast, and every 
region has its own set of priorities.
  This is not a regional issue, this is a national issue. Let me talk a 
little bit about what is happening, briefly, in various regions around 
the country. California Farmers Union President Joaquin Contente spoke 
about the situation in his State of California. He testified:

       In my lifelong history as a dairy farmer, I have never seen 
     prices this far below our cost for this long and I have never 
     seen so many dairy producers so desperate for relief. In my 
     county alone--

  This is in California, not Vermont.

       In my county alone, 25 dairies have either filed or are in 
     the process of filing for bankruptcy and many more are closer 
     to bankruptcy each day.

  Joaquin Contente, California Farmers Union president.
  Let me talk about Texas, the Southwest. The executive director of the 
Texas Association of Dairymen spoke about the situation in his State of 
Texas. He said:

       This is the worst situation I have seen since 1970. Some 
     say it is the worst since the depression.

  That is the State of Texas. Let me talk about the Midwest, Wisconsin. 
A Stanley, WI dairy farmer stated:

       In my area, farmers are burning up their equity accumulated 
     over their lifetimes. One farmer in my area had to cash out 
     his wife's IRA just to get crops planted this spring. My 
     parish priest in my small town has had to counsel one or more 
     dairy farmers a week to prevent their suicides. And we know 
     of reports across the country of farm suicides that have 
     already occurred.

  These are just a few examples from California and Texas. I can go on 
and on about what is going on in California and the Northeast.
  Last week, after Congress's strong urging, Secretary Vilsack 
announced that the government would spend $243 million to raise price 
supports for dairy farmers, and we very much appreciate the Secretary 
and the Obama administration's quick response to our needs. That 
support is important. It is likely to raise milk price supports by 
about $1.25 per hundredweight, but that is nowhere near enough of what 
we need when in fact cost of production is $17 or $18 per 
hundredweight.
  This afternoon I will be offering legislation cosponsored by you, 
Senator Gillibrand, cosponsored by Senator Schumer, Senator Tom Udall, 
Senator Specter, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen, among others. This 
amendment will go a long way to help farmers over the short-term 
crisis.
  Long term, obviously we need to do some fundamental rethinking about 
dairy agriculture, how you bring long-term stability to the dairy 
industry and end that volatility that has been rampant in that industry 
for so many years. There are so many ideas out there about how we bring 
long-term stability for dairy farmers in this country. This is short-
term relief to make sure farmers all over this country do not go out of 
business. What this amendment would do is provide the Secretary of 
Agriculture with $350 million in additional funding for milk price 
supports. That would, again, bring the price up about another $1.50 per 
hundredweight. This short-term help could mean the difference between 
economic viability or financial disaster for dairy farmers from one end 
of this country to the other.
  Once again, all of us are focused on how we get out of this deep 
recession. All of us are focused on how we create decent-paying jobs. I 
urge my colleagues, do not forget about rural America. Rural America, 
whether it is Vermont, Wisconsin, California, Colorado--rural America 
is hurting. They need help as well.
  Later on this afternoon I will be bringing forth this very important 
amendment to provide some economic support for rural America and hope 
to have the support of all my colleagues.

                          ____________________