[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8780-8783]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                                Resumed


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. The Senate is considering the motion to proceed to the farm 
bill postcloture.
  At 4:30, the Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the 
nomination of Andrew Hurwitz of Arizona to be a United States Circuit 
Judge for the Ninth Circuit. At 5:30 p.m., there will be a cloture vote 
on the Hurwitz nomination.
  Mr. President, Democrats and Republicans hold a different view on 
many issues. But the bipartisan work by Senators Stabenow and Roberts 
on the agriculture jobs bill demonstrates, despite our differences, we 
can still find common ground. I hope their cooperative spirit guides 
our work on this important legislation this week. American farmers are 
counting on us, and so is the economy.
  Despite the uncertain economic times, America's farms are the most 
productive in the world, exporting $136 billion worth of products last 
year and supporting 16 million private sector jobs. But to keep 
American farms strong, Congress must pass a strong farm bill.
  This legislation creates jobs, cuts subsidies, and reduces the 
deficit. The bill includes important reforms to farm and food stamp 
programs. It saves $23 billion, which will be used to reduce the 
deficit. And it will give farmers the certainty they need to maintain 
the largest trade surplus of any sector of our economy.
  Helping American farmers thrive is an important part of our work to 
get the economy on a firm footing again. I commend Senators Stabenow 
and Roberts for their leadership on this issue. We are working now to 
come up with a list of amendments on this legislation.
  It is a shame we are now wasting 30 hours postcloture on this bill. 
It is a bill that passed by 90 Senators agreeing that we should move 
forward to debate. But it now appears we are in a situation that we 
were in last week and the week before and the week before that, when 
the Republicans have made a decision that they would rather do anything 
they can to stop jobs from being created, hoping it will help them with 
the elections come November.
  Too often in this Congress the Republican strategy has been to kill 
job-creating bills in the hopes of harming the economy and hurting 
President Obama. It forces the Senate to spend weeks passing consensus 
legislation that once was passed in a matter of minutes. They have held 
many important jobs measures hostage to extract votes on unrelated, 
ideological amendments. It appears we are in that same place right here 
on this bill.
  I am disappointed, as I have already said, that they have caused us 
to waste 30 hours on procedural hurdles on this bill. We shouldn't have 
to do that. We shouldn't have to run that clock when 90 Senators agree 
we should move to the bill. That is what happened last week.
  I hope my Republican friends will dispense with these delay tactics. 
This is a bill that creates jobs, cuts subsidies, and protects our 
working farmers.
  We hear the hue and cry from our Republican friends all the time that 
they want to reduce the deficit. How about one bill, in one fell swoop, 
with $23 billion of deficit reduction--a bill that will reduce 
subsidies, get rid of a lot of waste and abuse, and create jobs.
  We are in this position where my friends have said, just as the 
Republican leader has said, that their only goal is to defeat Obama, 
not help our country, and that is too bad.
  Would the Chair announce the business of the day.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHANNS. 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. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the 
farm bill that is now before the Senate. I want to say at the outset 
that this is a reform-minded bill that saves money and continues the 
evolution of farm policy in our Nation.
  I commend the chair and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee 
for working to craft a farm bill that helps equip producers with 
improved risk management tools while being mindful of our very 
challenging budget situation.
  This bipartisan bill will reduce the deficit by $23.6 billion because 
of changes to every title and the elimination of nearly 100 Federal 
programs overall. It shifts farm policy further away from dependence on 
income support and, instead, focuses on risk management.
  But to truly appreciate where we are in farm policy today, it is 
important to spend a minute examining how we got here.
  In the 1930s, depression and disaster ravaged our country's farm 
sector. At

[[Page 8781]]

the time a quarter of this country's population lived and worked on 
farms and ranches, and most of what they produced was consumed 
relatively close to where it was grown.
  When prices collapsed and dust storms swept the Plains, many were 
forced off their land to look for work in the cities. But oftentimes no 
work was to be found.
  In response to this situation, Congress passed the first farm bill. 
It was called the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. The act placed 
the Federal Government in the driver's seat in making farm production 
decisions. A structure to eliminate crop and livestock surpluses was 
established--the thought being, if that was done, it would drive up 
prices. Literally, crops were plowed under and livestock was 
slaughtered to reduce supply and then, hopefully, to increase farm 
prices, according to the thinking at the time.
  The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 made federally funded price 
supports mandatory for several crops. That would include corn, cotton, 
and wheat.
  Then another law was passed in 1949. It mandated extensive government 
intervention to maintain parity with prices prior to World War I.
  I am not going to start an argument today about whether all of this 
was the right farm policy during the 1930s and 1940s. I will leave that 
for another time. But I can say, with no hesitation whatsoever, it is 
absolutely the wrong approach for the farm economy today and virtually 
no one disagrees with that.
  Over the past several decades, farm bills have improved from those 
early laws, and U.S. farm policy has slowly but surely become a more 
market-oriented policy. For a long time the main goal was to support 
prices for a list of crops. We set high prices in law which distorted 
markets and discouraged cultivation of crops that did not benefit from 
price supports.
  In 1996, Congress began to shift away from the distorting farm 
policies of the past, and direct payments were introduced to 
temporarily support farmers as they transitioned away from an 
agricultural economy that was very reliant upon government 
intervention.
  Removing the government from price and supply controls created new 
risks to farmers, and it created uncertainty from Mother Nature. 
Congress then responded with ad hoc disaster spending to help farmers 
and ranchers address losses due to weather and other disasters. In 
fact, since 1996, USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that $43 
billion has been spent on these ad hoc and emergency programs.
  To help manage these risks in a more fiscally responsible way, a crop 
insurance program has emerged. This highly effective public-private 
partnership helps farmers customize protection for their individual 
operations. Over time, crop insurance has become the risk management 
tool for farmers.
  These are policies sold by private companies for over 100 different 
crops, and roughly 85 percent of acreage for major crops is now covered 
by crop insurance.
  Last year, in spite of the drought in much of the southern plains and 
flooding in States such as Nebraska and many other States, farmers and 
ranchers did not call for emergency relief. In fact, I have heard 
clearly from farmers in Nebraska that crop insurance is working well.
  Today's farmers are certainly some of the most sophisticated and 
talented businesspeople in our Nation. The fruits of their labor 
produce an abundance of healthy low-cost food for Americans and, for 
that matter, people around the world. In fact, trade currently accounts 
for more than 25 percent of all U.S. farm receipts, and 1 out of every 
3 crop acres--1 out of 3--is now exported.
  In 2011 agricultural exports reached $136 billion. Our efficient 
export system, including handling, processing, and distribution of our 
food and agricultural products, creates millions of U.S. jobs. Given 
the projected global population growth of an additional 2.5 billion 
people by 2050, U.S. agriculture is positioned to experience 
significant growth in just a few years.
  This farm bill ensures that USDA is focused on maintaining current 
export markets and gaining access to new emerging markets for U.S. farm 
and food products. This is the first farm bill in recent history that 
does not pay farmers a specific payment just because they are farmers. 
You see, farmers have come to realize that risk management is best 
handled with crop insurance. In fact, in many listening sessions I have 
had around the State, virtually no one asked for the continuation of 
direct payments.
  The bill actually saves $15 billion from commodity crop support by 
eliminating four programs, including direct payments; countercyclical 
payments; the Average Crop Revenue Election Program, called ACRE; and 
the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program, called SURE.
  It does not raise loan rates, the price levels that have 
traditionally triggered the making of payments. It focuses the farm 
program on revenue, not price--something I proposed as the U.S. 
Secretary of Agriculture when I served in the Cabinet.
  I remind my colleagues that our job in writing a farm bill is not to 
protect the interests of specific commodity groups. Instead, the farm 
bill should be about preserving the health of our agricultural economy. 
This farm bill continues a history of steps in that direction.
  It seeks to minimize distortions and allows farmers to respond to 
market incentives--not determined by artificial prices set in a Federal 
statute.
  I am also glad to see a step forward on payment limits and changes to 
ensure that those who receive government payments are actively engaged 
in farming.
  I am especially pleased with the efforts to streamline and simplify 
the conservation programs. That is an issue I have heard a lot about. 
This bill actually consolidates 23 conservation programs into 13. In 
fact, I proposed similar changes as Agriculture Secretary during the 
last farm bill process. The improvements reduce costs as well as make 
the programs more farmer friendly.
  This bill also provides for the basic research at USDA, universities, 
and elsewhere that is needed to meet the demand for our farmers to 
produce more food, and on less land, and it does so in a way that 
includes new avenues to ensure that important work continues in these 
times of very tight Federal budgets.
  Finally, I am pleased this bill builds on efforts to encourage 
beginning farmers and ranchers, veterans, and others looking for 
careers in agriculture.
  It is important to me that we keep this farm bill as simple and 
streamlined as possible. I think we can agree that a bill that 
eliminates nearly 100 Federal programs does just that.
  Given our Nation's daunting budget situation, it is appropriate that 
this bill saves $23.6 billion, taking yet another step in the right 
direction to reforming farm policy for the 21st century.
  I hope we can keep this bill moving to help ensure certainty for 
farmers, ranchers, and others in rural communities where livelihoods 
are impacted by these policies. But make no mistake, good farm policy 
does not end with a good farm bill. Our farmers and ranchers also 
deserve a more constructive regulatory environment and a fairer tax 
system. So while I support the bill, I hope we can get some amendments 
pending to make a good bill a better bill.
  This is so important that I led a letter with 43 other Senators 
asking for an open amendment process. I look forward to the debate and 
to passing a very reform-minded farm bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley and Mr. Kyl are printed in today's 
Record under ``Executive Session.'')

[[Page 8782]]




                              The Economy

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to comment on something the President 
recently said that is very much in the news.
  Last Friday, the President of the United States said, ``The private 
sector is doing just fine.''
  This is not taken out of context. He was talking about economically. 
His office leader explained what he was really talking about is the 
comparison between the public sector and the private sector, and I take 
him at his word there.
  The President said:

       Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do 
     with state and local government--oftentimes cuts initiated by 
     governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that 
     they have in the past from the federal government and who 
     don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal 
     government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.

  I think that is generally true. But here are the two key points I 
would make in response: First, everyone--not just government 
employees--is suffering. They are struggling in the Obama economy.
  Yes, the number of government jobs has decreased during the last 40 
months since President Obama took office, but overall employment in 
government has increased on the whole in recent years, even with the 
reductions that have occurred in the last couple of years.
  For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total 
government employees added up to 21,847,000--rounded off--in January 
2006. That is just a little over 6 years ago--21,847,000. By 
comparison, last month the total amount of government employees added 
up to 21,969,000. So there are a few more government employees today--
State, Federal, and local--than there were just 6 years ago. I would 
just ask, how on Earth did we get by in this country with only 
21,847,000 government workers in 2006? I think we were doing just fine.
  The reality is, when a private firm faces financial difficulty, 
usually the first area the firm looks to in terms of saving money is 
its workforce. It is too bad, but frequently firms have to lay off 
workers because they simply can't afford to continue to pay that many 
workers.
  I will just give the experience of a friend of mine in Arizona who 
said: This recession was probably the best thing that happened to us 
because it forced us to look at our workforce, how we did business, and 
whether we could make savings. He said: Today, we are making more money 
than we ever have, even with a lower workforce, because we found that 
we could make do and make the improvements that made us more efficient.
  We are asking that to be done in government. Government doesn't have 
a right to continue to grow and grow. Government should be as efficient 
as the private sector, including with respect to the number of people 
it hires to do the work that has to be done. After all, the private 
sector has to take care of paying both the employees in the private 
sector and the employees in the government sector. Who pays government 
employees? All of our constituents, the people in the private sector.
  So we in the government have an obligation to run the governments--
Federal, State, and local--as efficiently and leanly as we possibly 
can. If we find we can run the government with just a few more 
employees today than we had, for example, 6 years ago, then all the 
better for our economy and all the better for the taxpayers who have to 
pay their salaries.
  So there isn't some right of the Federal Government to continue to 
grow its workforce at a rate higher than the private sector. Rather, we 
should be trying to run the government on as few a number of employees 
as necessary to do the work the American people want us to do. But here 
is the larger point: As the Wall Street Journal points out, the reason 
the government workforce has shrunk since January 2009 is not due to 
smaller budgets or dwindling aid, as the President suggested. As the 
Wall Street Journal notes, revenues to State and local governments have 
increased during the last 2 years, according to census data. The main 
problem is rising health care and pension costs for government workers, 
and we have seen the experience in a State such as Wisconsin in having 
to deal with that to make some reductions, which caused a lot of 
political turmoil in the State. But at the end, the voters of the State 
said: We agree. We need to cut government cost as it relates to the 
health care and pension commitments we have made to our government 
employees.
  While government has experienced some job losses, it is important to 
remember that benefits enjoyed by government workers are far superior 
to those enjoyed by those employed in the private sector. For example, 
according to an article in the National Review magazine, on an hourly 
basis private sector employees' benefits cost their companies $2.15 an 
hour. State and local government workers cost taxpayers $4.72 an hour--
219 percent more.
  For retirement benefit costs, the private sector figure works out to 
$1.02 per hour. The State and local workers sum, $3.37 an hour--a 330-
percent premium.
  This is where the extra costs are for government workers. You can't 
blame State and local governments for trying to provide more efficiency 
for their operations by conforming their practices for health care and 
pension benefits more to those in the private sector.
  Why do government employees deserve more? I guess that is the 
question. As is a matter of fairness--and especially when compared to 
people who are paying their salaries--I don't think anyone can argue 
that government employees should have twice as much or three times as 
much of a benefit as somebody in the private sector.
  The second point I would make is this: At 4.2 percent, according to 
the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment 
rate among government workers is also far below that of the private 
sector. We know the average in the country is 8.2 percent, and that is 
only the people who are still looking for work. If we took all the 
people who are out of work, it would be about 11.1 or 11.2 percent. But 
among government workers, the unemployment rate is 4.2 percent.
  Compare that with unemployment in some other sectors. In agriculture, 
it is 9.5 percent; 8.1 percent in the wholesale and retail trade; 9.7 
percent in leisure and hospitality, to name just a few industries. In 
each of these I named--I think each of them would be thrilled to have 
unemployment at 4.2 percent. When the President says the real problem 
is with government employment, the private sector is doing just fine, 
the facts simply belie that. The President was wrong; he was incorrect.
  Finally, let me address his theory of how an economy grows. 
Unemployment, as I said, is 8.2 percent nationwide. Labor force 
participation is at historic lows--the number of people actually 
working or looking for work. GDP growth in the first quarter of 2012 
was a very anemic 1.9 percent. This is not enough for this country to 
grow and prosper and the President wants to borrow or raise taxes from 
that segment of our society so taxpayers can finance more government 
workers? That does not make sense.
  I think not only is the President wrong on the facts about the 
private sector doing just fine, he has it wrong as to what the solution 
would be. The solution to help government workers is to have the 
private sector do better so it can afford to help--to hire more 
government workers and to pay them better benefits. Government stimulus 
spending and aid to States has not grown the economy so far and it is 
obviously not going to do so in the future.
  Rather than divide the country into public versus private sector 
workers, Federal versus State and local workers, rich versus poor, men 
versus women, as the President is wont to do, I hope we work hard to 
represent all Americans. No one benefits in the long run from an 
enormous government with an appetite to grow more and more, crushing 
economic growth and crowding out the private sector, a government that 
drives up costs for job creators and forces companies to lay off 
private sector workers. None of us benefits from that. Yet that is what 
we are seeing

[[Page 8783]]

playing out right now. The total number of unemployed and underemployed 
is over 23 million people in the United States. Think of that. That is 
the number of people who are looking for work who have stopped looking 
for work or who do not have the kind of work they could be doing. 
Economic growth last quarter, as I said, was only 1.9 percent; only 
69,000 new jobs added. We need more than twice that many jobs added 
each month in order to keep pace with the new workers coming into the 
economy, so we are losing ground in terms of jobs created. I don't 
think the President's solution of more spending on government employees 
is the answer. I think that is a recipe of another 40 months of 8 
percent-plus unemployment. At that rate we are not going to get out of 
the economic difficulties we are in right now. Let's do things that 
support the private sector, things that help the private sector. The 
healthier the economy is, the more growth we have, the more we are able 
to do for the public sector as well. That is the ultimate answer.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________