[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8272-8282]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2013

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 954, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 954) to reauthorize agriculture programs through 
     2018.

  Pending:

       Stabenow (for Leahy) amendment No. 998, to establish a 
     pilot program for gigabit Internet projects in rural areas.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 5:30 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or 
their designees.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. I see the distinguished Senator from North Dakota on 
the floor. This is Senator Heitkamp's first farm bill we are about 
ready to vote on. She has been an extraordinary voice and really hit 
the ground running. It is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I would first like to thank the 
Senator from the great State of Michigan for her incredible leadership. 
I met her over a year ago and knew she was a force to be reckoned with, 
not only because she has red hair but because she is someone who 
understands that to move something forward, we need to have compromise 
and we need to understand that a farm bill represents the interests of 
the entire country, not just the interests of maybe the Great Plains 
States or the Southern States or even our urban areas that care 
desperately about nutrition. She understands that we need to forge a 
bill that can pass both Chambers and keep our country moving.
  The fact is that agriculture is a shining star in the American 
economy today. When we look at States such as North Dakota and Nebraska 
and Kansas and South Dakota, all agriculture-based States, we see they 
did not have the deep trough of this recession because agriculture did 
pretty well. And why did agriculture do pretty well? Because the last 
farm bill that was crafted provided an appropriate balance of concern 
for our long-term fiscal obligations along with providing our producers 
with a legitimate and appropriate safety net.
  We have a farm bill today that is even better that we are going to be 
voting on. Why is it better? Because it not only provides that 
certainty and that safety net for American producers--the backbone, 
historically, of our economy--but it reduces the deficit $24 billion by 
eliminating a process of direct payments, by cutting some unnecessary 
expenditures, by streamlining conservation, and by taking a look at a 
rational and reasonable approach to some of the issues regarding 
nutrition.
  So I am very proud today to stand before this body about to cast one 
of my first votes--not the first vote but one of my first votes--doing 
what is absolutely essential for the North Dakota economy; that is, 
passing a farm bill.
  I want to give an idea of what North Dakota is all about because we 
like to brag but also because people forget about North Dakota being an 
agricultural State with so much attention having been focused in recent 
months and recent years on our dramatic energy development. So let me 
give a rundown on what we do in North Dakota as far as our production. 
We are No. 1 in barley; No. 1 in beans, dry and

[[Page 8273]]

edible; No. 1 in navy beans and pinto beans; No. 1 in canola, flaxseed, 
and honey; No. 1 in lentils and dry edible peas; No. 1 in all forms of 
sunflower; No. 1 in durum wheat and spring wheat; and we are No. 2 in 
sugar beets and No. 2 in all wheat. So 90 percent of North Dakota's 
land base--90 percent--is engaged in agriculture. It is the backbone of 
what we do.
  As we talk about the importance of public policy not only to protect 
our producers but to give them opportunities for certainty, I would 
like to talk about two unique things of which I am exceptionally proud.
  The first is that this Crop Insurance Program will provide the safety 
net so many of our young farmers in our States need to get engaged in 
the business of farming. Why is that important? Well, 10 years ago when 
I was still in elected office, I would go to farm meetings and look 
around the table, and everybody was in their fifties and sixties and a 
50-year-old farmer would be a young farmer. Now we go to those same 
meetings, and sitting around that table are 20- and 30- and 40-year-old 
farm families saying: We want to engage in the business of agriculture. 
And that is good for the world because we not only need to produce our 
products for America, we need to produce our products for the entire 
world.
  So this is a farm bill that strikes the right balance. It is a farm 
bill that addresses the priorities not only of my State but hopefully 
the priorities of this country. There are 16 million jobs--16 million 
American jobs--depending on this bill.
  The second point I wish to make about this bill--and people remind me 
occasionally that it is a year late because we have already gone to one 
extension since I have been here--is that it is a bill which will send 
a message to the American people that we need to provide certainty once 
and for all. We need to do things in a timely fashion, and I think 
moving this farm bill right now is moving it in a timely fashion.
  This is an excellent piece of legislation, and I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  I thank the chairwoman from Michigan for her excellent and 
exceptional leadership, along with her ranking member Senator Cochran, 
who has been so instrumental in forging the compromises that make today 
possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, at this point I want to take a moment 
before we vote today to recognize folks who have worked so hard to get 
us to this point.
  First of all, I thank my colleagues in advance for coming together 
one more time and leading for rural America--for farmers, for ranchers, 
for the 16 million people who have jobs because of agriculture in this 
country. It has been a long road for the Agriculture Reform, Food, and 
Jobs Act, and I have been blessed and pleased to have a wonderful 
partner and ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. 
He has been a partner every step of the way, and I thank him and look 
forward--as the House hopefully this time will complete their work--to 
having the opportunity to go to conference and crafting an agreement we 
can then present back to the Senate. I can't thank Senator Cochran and 
his staff enough for their wonderful partnership.
  We started this last year. We had 3 weeks that the farm bill was on 
the floor of the Senate. We had 73 votes, adopted 42 amendments, and we 
took that as the basis for the bill this year. Once the House did not 
take up the bill--and, in my judgment, walked away from rural America 
last year--we had to come back and do it again, so we used the work 
product the Senate did last year as the basis of our work, and we had 2 
weeks of debate on the floor of the Senate. We have added 14 more 
amendments to the bill that is in front of us.
  So I thank the majority leader for his hard work and leadership and 
patience. As always, he knows how important agriculture is to our 
economy, how important it is to support rural communities and families 
and consumers around our country. I appreciate that he has not just 
once but twice given us precious time on the Senate floor so that we 
could do our job in standing up for rural America and for consumers 
across this country.
  I am proud we once again voted--or are about to vote today--in a 
bipartisan way to move this bill forward. This bill has been bipartisan 
from start to finish, and I believe that is the reason for our success. 
I am grateful to colleagues who have worked in such a diligent way on 
both sides of the aisle. There are many leaders on both sides of the 
aisle on this bill. We wouldn't be here today without leadership on 
both sides of the aisle, and I am very grateful for that. This is how 
the Senate is designed to work, where people who care very deeply on 
both sides of an issue can sit down--in our case, around a table in the 
Senate agriculture room--look each other in the eye, talk to each 
other, listen, and make the compromises necessary to come together with 
a balanced bill. That is what we did.
  Last year we passed the farm bill, as I said before, in a bipartisan 
way as well. The House Agriculture Committee passed a bipartisan farm 
bill last year, but for whatever reason the full House didn't consider 
the bill. It was allowed to expire. The good news is that this year it 
looks as though it is going to be different. That is good news for 
rural America and the men and women who work hard every day to give us 
the safest, most affordable, most abundant food supply in the world--in 
the world.
  I thank my incredible staff, who have done this now not once but 
twice. Actually, because we engaged and had a work product when the 
supercommittee deficit commission was operating, we have actually done 
this three times. I think they could do farm bills in their sleep. 
Hopefully they have not been sleeping when they have been writing this 
one, but I am very grateful for their leadership.
  I thank Chris Adamo, my terrific staff director for the Agriculture 
Committee, who is living and breathing these issues every minute and 
only takes occasional breaks to go fly fishing in Michigan. We have a 
historic agreement on conservation and crop insurance in this bill 
thanks to his leadership and that of our team.
  Jonathan Coppess, our chief counsel, and Joe Shultz, our economist 
extraordinaire, who understand the ins and outs of agriculture like 
nobody else, have done so much as we have transitioned in this bill 
toward market-based risk management tools for our farmers.
  Jonathan Cordone, our general counsel, crossed every ``t'' and dotted 
every ``i'' in this bill, and frankly, there are a lot of them. He has 
been keeping track of all the amendments and making sure this process 
runs smoothly.
  Karla Theiman, who leads our livestock and dairy issues, has helped 
make the energy title something we could really be proud of. I am very 
grateful for all her leadership and hard work.
  Tina May, who wrote our original conservation title and then decided 
to go have a baby, is amazing. She knows more about conservation than 
anyone I know, and we are very proud that not only the conservation 
title in the Senate but one that is very similar in the House bears the 
mark of her hard work and leadership.
  I do want to note that Jonathan Coppess had a son during the last 
farm bill and Tina had a son during this farm bill. So I am not sure 
what it is about farm bills, but we will see what comes next.
  One thing about Tina's maternity leave is that it allowed us to get 
the T2 team back together. Kevin Norton came back from the USDA to work 
with Catie Lee, as they picked up very excellently the heavy load and 
made it look easy. Thanks to them, our country will have healthy 
wildlife habitats and clean, fishable waters for generations to come.
  Jacqlyn Schneider, who is another of our farm bill veterans, ably led 
our nutrition team and has done such a wonderful job. She has done so 
much for the diversity of American agriculture

[[Page 8274]]

through organics, fruits and vegetables, and all the things we call 
specialty crops, as well as Jess Taylor. Jess has done terrific work in 
partnership as well.
  Brandon McBride led our efforts to reorganize the rural development 
title and worked so hard this year to make sure the energy title 
continued to grow the economy in rural America.
  Russ Behnam is our expert on technology issues--biotechnology 
issues--on crop protection and has lent very important expertise to our 
efforts. I am grateful.
  Cory Claussen led our efforts on dairy last year, and his hard work 
led to the major advances we have made in this bill for beginning 
farmers and ranchers as well as for our veterans who want to get into 
agriculture.
  I am very proud that in our bill we have a new agriculture liaison 
for our veterans. So many of our men and women coming home are from 
small communities around America, and they want to have the opportunity 
to go into farming, and we want to help them do that.
  Cory is also leading our CFTC efforts, so Cory's work is just getting 
started. Hanna Abou-El-Seoud, who kept the trains running on time, made 
sure we were all prepared and prepped--no easy job as well. Alexis 
Stanczuk and Kyle Varner, who is the newest member of our team, have 
once again done a great job doing whatever needed to be done in order 
to help us be successful. Jessie Williams, Nicole Hertenstein, Jacob 
Chaney, and our entire great team on the committee have helped us to 
get to this point.
  I also wish to say thank you to my chief of staff Dan Farough, who 
manages our personal office; Matt VanKuiken, my terrific legislative 
director who followed the floor procedure and made sure everything was 
happening as it should; Bill Sweeney, my great deputy chief of staff; 
Cullen Schwarz, my communications director; and Ben Becker, our press 
secretary who made sure we were telling the story of rural America and 
this farm bill and the reforms in it every day. We couldn't have done 
it without them and our entire team, Matt Williams, Will Eberle, and 
Alex Barriger.
  I wish to thank my State team and all of the outreach efforts led by 
the outstanding Teresa Plachetka, Kali Fox, Mary Judnich, Brandon 
Fewins, and Korey Hall, making sure that Michigan is truly represented 
on every page.
  This was a bipartisan effort, and I wish to thank everyone on Senator 
Cochran's team, especially T.A. Hawks and James Gleueck, for their 
leadership. Once again, Doug Elmendorf's CBO farm team came through 
thanks to Jim Langley and everyone on their team.
  I wish to thank Kasey Gillette from Senator Reid's office, who is 
part of our extended family. It is great working with her again. This 
is like a second annual family reunion, always having Kasey with us.
  Nothing could get done around here without our excellent floor staff 
who have been led by Gary Myrick and Tim Mitchell, and thank you to 
everybody on our team for their very long hours as usual.
  Of course, we wouldn't have had anything to pass without the amazing 
expertise of our legislative counsel team, Michelle Johnson-Wieder and 
Gary Endicott, and their invaluable assistance; last, but not least, 
the great team at the USDA and who I believe is an absolutely terrific 
Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, and his General Counsel's 
Office.
  There are so many people to thank. I will stop. There are other 
colleagues who wish to speak. I just want everyone to know that when 
you take basically 12 different chapters or titles--any one of which 
could be its own piece of legislation--and put it together in something 
called a 5-year farm bill, it happens because of a tremendous amount of 
talent and experience and hard work and it happens because, in our 
case, we have what I believe is the most seasoned Agriculture Committee 
former chairs, former Secretary of Agriculture. We have people who know 
agriculture and care about it deeply. With so much talent and 
experience, it has been a real privilege--and continues to be--to chair 
this committee.
  This farm bill is the product of 2 years of hard work by a long list 
of talented people. As we vote today, we support 16 million people who 
depend on agriculture for their jobs. We are providing $24 billion in 
deficit reduction on a bipartisan basis. We are providing policies that 
will conserve our land and our water resources for generations to come; 
that help families who have fallen on hard times keep food on the table 
for their children; a bill that helps our veterans get started in 
agriculture; that supports our small towns all across America; and 
recognizes the diversity of American agriculture and strengthens 
efforts to give families the opportunity to buy fresh local food in 
their supermarkets and have it available in their schools. This farm 
bill creates jobs.
  I am very proud of the work we have done, and I ask all of our 
colleagues to support us in voting yes today on this bill.
  I yield 5 minutes to Senator Klobuchar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise in support of this very 
important bill.
  First, I wish to thank Senator Stabenow for her leadership, as well 
as the Senator from Mississippi. It was a true bipartisan effort. As I 
heard her list all the names of these wonderful staff people who worked 
on this bill, I also wish to mention my staff director Adam Durand.
  The other thing I wish to mention is this wouldn't have happened 
without Senator Stabenow, with her ever optimistic view, never giving 
up on this bill.
  It has been 354 days since the Senate passed its last farm bill--I 
have been counting it down--and this is long overdue. This got done in 
record speed because we had gone through all of these issues, 70-
something amendments, last time, and this time we were able to get the 
farm bill through the Agriculture Committee in record time--in 3 hours. 
Now it is on the floor, and I predict we will have strong bipartisan 
support.
  You ask why. First of all, last year our country experienced the 
worst drought since 1956, costing the country tens of billions of 
dollars. In Minnesota 74 counties were eligible for disaster relief due 
to drought.
  This year the late spring and wet conditions have prevented many 
farmers in my State from even getting their crop into the ground. Dairy 
farmers have been especially hurt because of the alfalfa shortage 
because of the rot because of the water.
  We can't do anything about the weather, but we can make sure our 
country has a steady food supply and that we are not dependent on 
foreign food. How do we do that? By having a smart, fiscally sound farm 
bill.
  I can tell you what we have is a bill that literally saves the 
taxpayers $24 billion in 10 years over the last farm bill. That is why 
it makes no sense for me to play a game of green light-red light and at 
the end of the year we are going to extend the last farm bill that is 
even more expensive, when we have a very smart farm bill here.
  It matters in my State. My State is No. 1 in turkeys, sweet corn, 
green peas, and oats, No. 2 in spring wheat, No. 3 in hogs and 
soybeans, and No. 4 four in corn. But it is more than the crops and the 
sugar beets and the wheat. We don't just raise livestock. We don't just 
produce crops. We also produce the foods--milk at Land O'Lakes, the 
turkey at Jennie-O, the animal feed at Cargill, the Spam at Hormel.
  When we look at this farm bill, we have to understand it involves not 
just our farmers--in fact, that is the smaller percentage of the farm 
bill than, say, the nutrition program--but it also involves our entire 
economy and how that all goes together from energy on down. What I like 
about this farm bill is it does connect these dots and makes sure we 
have a strong economy across the board, starting with our farmers, also 
including strong conservation efforts.
  I see the Senator from North Dakota Ms. Heitkamp. She and I, along 
with

[[Page 8275]]

Senator Hoeven, worked very hard to make sure there were strong 
provisions in this bill for the conservation efforts, which include our 
retention of water with floodings in the Fargo-Moorhead area, also 
making sure we had strong efforts for agriculture research, something 
everyone in our country cares about as we move forward.
  We streamlined the conservation program from 23 to 13 programs. The 
bill funds the energy title programs, which this last extension did not 
do, and it also does a lot with ag research. I also had some of my 
amendments included which help beginning farmers and ranchers; that 
includes reducing the cost of crop insurance for beginning farmers by 
10 percent. The second amendment helps beginning farmers access land 
for grazing.
  These are just a few of the things in this bill. We are excited about 
this bill.
  I would just end by saying, as Senator Stabenow did, that this is a 
call for action. The Senate has gotten its act together. We were able 
to work out a bipartisan compromise in the committee. We are able to 
get a strong vote on the floor. Now it is time for Speaker Boehner to 
call up the House bill so then we can work out the differences--as we 
should--in regular order, in conference committee.
  Our farmers deserve nothing less, the kids who depend on these school 
nutrition programs deserve nothing less, and the conservation efforts 
in our country, those who hunt, those who fish, those who enjoy the 
outdoors, deserve nothing less.
  It is time to get this bill done. We will vote on it tonight and then 
it goes over to the House. I would like to get this bill out of the 
House by the time we are ready to head into August, where we talk to a 
lot of our farmers and they have a few words to say every time we speak 
to them. I think the House would like to hear good things for a change.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am pleased to join the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan in urging approval of this bill by the Senate. It 
has been a pleasure working with her and other members of the 
Agriculture Committee to produce a farm bill that meets the needs of 
those involved in agriculture production and the consumers of the crops 
produced by American farmers and ranchers.
  This farm bil1 will also encourage and reward protection of water, 
soil and forestry resources.
  The bill also authorizes and improves Federal nutrition programs 
administered by the Department of Agriculture. It contains reforms to 
the nutrition title to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.
  This bill deserves the support of the Senate.
  The Senate debate on the farm bill has included votes on a number of 
amendments over the last 2 weeks. American agricultural producers 
deserve the certainty that comes with a strong 5 year farm bill. I am 
pleased that we have come up with a bill that will meet that need.
  This legislation will provide farmers in all regions of the country 
with a robust and workable safety net, while also reducing by $24 
billion the cost of the programs authorized by current law.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I yield time now to the Senator from 
Florida for a colloquy with myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                                Greening

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I am grateful to the chairman of the 
committee to engage in a colloquy with me about a devastating disease 
of bacteria called greening, which is devastating the citrus industry. 
We know of no cure. The bacteria kills the citrus tree in 5 years, and 
we are not going to have a citrus crop or industry unless we can find a 
cure for this bacteria.
  The bacteria is transported by an insect called a psyllid, and once 
the psyllid bores its snout into the bark of the tree and the bacteria 
is injected into the foam or sap of the tree, it will kill the tree. 
They found various methods of spraying to try to prolong the life of 
the tree, but in essence the tree will die in about 5 years. It is in 
every grove in Florida. It is now in the citrus industry in California 
and Arizona and they have found the psyllid likewise in other gulf 
coast States--Alabama, Louisiana--and greening is also in the State of 
Georgia.
  So what we are trying to do is set up a trust fund, which is 
authorized in the bill, and to get it funded in order to find a cure 
for this disease so an industry that has become so important to the 
entire country can be saved.
  I have talked at length with the chairman of the Finance Committee 
Senator Baucus, who has been very supportive. As a matter of fact, we 
passed a similar bill out of the Finance Committee in the last 
Congress. I plan to work with Senator Baucus and Senator Stabenow to 
make sure this trust fund becomes a reality as we move forward with 
this farm bill.
  Ms. STABENOW. I would just indicate to my colleague who has been such 
a strong advocate for his State, for his growers, his people--I am very 
grateful for that.
  He has made his case very strongly. I understand that once a tree is 
exposed to the disease, there is no cure. The tree will die within 5 
years. It must be entirely replaced. In fact, as the Senator indicated, 
this is something that affects many States--not only Florida but Texas, 
California, Louisiana, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia as well. So I know 
this is a serious issue for our citrus growers, and I am committed to 
working with Senator Baucus to make sure the trust funds for citrus, as 
well as cotton and wool, are included in the final conference 
committee.
  I know these are concerns shared by a number of our colleagues, and I 
look forward to working with the Senator from Florida as well as other 
colleagues. This is a very important issue.
  Mr. NELSON. I thank Senator Stabenow for her commitment to helping 
fund a cure for citrus greening, and it is just that; it is an 
emergency situation.
  Because of the devastating nature of this citrus greening disease, 
the citrus research trust fund must have guaranteed funding in the farm 
bill. We simply can't wait any longer. Graciously, Senators Stabenow 
and Baucus have both been so encouraging and have agreed with me 
personally to restore the funding mechanisms of the trust fund when the 
Senate and the House go to conference on the farm bill. When this farm 
bill makes its way to the President's desk, the citrus trust fund needs 
to be a fully functional and a funded component.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, let me just say in conclusion that I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure there is a 
guaranteed source of funding for the citrus trust fund. I understand 
the devastation to an entire industry that he is speaking about and 
look forward to working with him.
  Mr. NELSON. I would just conclude by saying that I not only speak of 
this for my State of Florida, of which citrus is one of its primary 
industries and now the product of which is a staple on every American 
breakfast table, but I speak also of our sister States, Arizona, 
California--and, by the way, to the Presiding Officer I can say that 
the psyllid and the bacteria are in the State of Hawaii as well--
Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama. I am very grateful for this 
commitment.


                     USDA Biobased Markets Program

  Mr. KING. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to talk with 
the Chairman today to get clarity about the products that will be 
included in the USDA Biobased Markets Program. The Senator's hard work 
and vision on the issue of innovation in natural resources industries 
has provided the essential leadership to support growth in this 
critical economic sector.
  I greatly appreciate the work that she and Senator Cochran did to 
expand the program's application in this farm bill, including the 
explicit definition of forest products and the expanded definition of 
innovation as it applies to the program.
  The Senator and I both represent States that have strong forest 
products industries in fact in Maine there are over 16,700 people who 
are employed by

[[Page 8276]]

the forestry, logging, wood products, and pulp and paper industries. 
This industry also helps ensure that Maine's 233,000 family woodland 
owners have income to conserve and sustain their working forests. Both 
of our States' forest-based economies have been hit hard by the 
downturn in the housing market as well as increased pressure overseas 
so it is important that we do not further hinder them in any way.
  I have learned recently of the USDA Biobased Markets Program and the 
fact that in some cases, this program favors foreign products and other 
biobased products over forest products, which are some of the most 
biobased products in existence.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator for raising this important issue. 
In Michigan the same industries employ over 24,600 people and I agree 
that these jobs are vital to the economy. I was pleased to be able to 
lay out a clearer path forward in this farm bill for the inclusion of 
forest products in USDA's Biobased Markets Program.
  Mr. KING. I would like to clarify that it is not the Committee's or 
the Senator's intent to exclude forest products from this program. And 
I would also like to clarify the meaning of the new provisions around 
innovation in the program.
  Ms. STABENOW. Yes, it is our intent to include forest products that 
apply an innovative approach to growing, harvesting, sourcing, 
procuring, processing, manufacturing, or application of biobased 
products. Products should be included regardless of the date of entry 
of the product into the marketplace.
  Mr. KING. Let me give the Senator an example of a forest products 
manufacturer in my home state that I believe is incredibly innovative 
in how they grow and source their materials for their products.
  Verso Paper Company has 1600 employees at their two mills in 
Bucksport and Jay. They make coated commercial printing papers that 
utilize manufacturing technologies that deliver increasingly improved 
print quality through new coating formulations that incorporate newly 
developed chemicals and materials. These products are some of the most 
biobased products in the marketplace and should be eligible for the 
program.
  In addition to these changes in their product, Verso has also in the 
last few years, significantly increased innovation in the sourcing of 
their products, by increasing the amount of certified, sustainable 
fiber that feeds their mills.
  An improvement in this year's bill is the addition of language that 
allows for innovation in the sourcing and application of biobased 
products. In regards to innovation in sourcing of biobased products 
does the Senator agree that innovations like forest certification 
systems would qualify products for the program?
  Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate the Senator mentioning Verso, since they 
also have a mill in Quinnesec, MI and recently made a significant 
investment in upgrading its energy system. It is our intention that 
products that are sourced with innovative sourcing strategies like 
forest certification systems and products that have improved their 
manufacturing are included in the program.
  Mr. KING. I thank the Senator. And what about companies like Robbins 
Lumber in Maine that produces solid wood products, like 2x4s or 
flooring? While the product may be the same product that has been on 
the market for decades, the company producing it now generates all the 
heating for the mill and offices as well as the energy for drying 
lumber from their own biomass waste, as compared with using energy from 
the grid. Further, they have worked with several organizations to 
permanently conserve thousands of acres of land for wildlife habitat 
and recreation.
  Ms. STABENOW. That truly is what we are trying to inspire with this 
innovation provision we are trying to help companies think outside the 
box in how they can improve their processes. Their efforts in both 
energy generation from waste and land conservation are both excellent 
examples that they are doing so.
  Mr. KING. I thank the Senator. Again I truly appreciate the attention 
to this issue and look forward to working with you and USDA in the 
implementation of this legislation to support the important forest 
products industry which has been an integral part of the economy of 
this country for centuries.
 Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to make a few 
remarks about the farm bill that's before the Senate this week.
  As my colleagues know, this is our second attempt in 2 years to pass 
a new 5-year farm bill. The Senate passed its version last Congress, 
which is essentially the same bill we are debating today. Last year, 
the House refused to consider the Senate bill with good reason. This 
bill is loaded with costly farm subsidies and hidden pet-projects. I 
believe most Americans would be angered to know how we are wasting 
their hard-earned tax dollars.
  Congress already plunged our Nation into $16 trillion worth of debt 
partially through farm bills like this. On average, Congress spends 
about $1 trillion more annually than the Federal budget allows. 
According to the Congressional Budget office, the budget deficit for 
fiscal year 2014 will be about $624 billion. This bill alone--all one-
thousand pages--will cost nearly $1 trillion. That's almost $1 billion 
per page. We must reduce the size of the Federal Government and the 
farm bill is certainly ripe for cuts.
  I will concede that my colleagues on the Senate Agriculture Committee 
did make some effort to eliminate our more outdated farm subsidy 
programs like the Direct Payments Program, which spends about $5 
billion a year to pay farmers of staple crops like corn whether or not 
they grow anything. Direct payments have held on for decades until now. 
Perhaps that gives the American public a sense of the shelf-life of the 
new farm subsidies we are debating today.
  Unfortunately, the savings generated by eliminating direct payments 
are plugged back into the farm bill to finance new, more expensive 
subsidies like those that are part of the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program. While I agree that our farmers need some form of safety net, 
farm bill crop insurance isn't ``insurance'' as most people know it. 
Crop insurance is just a roundabout way to influence the free market, 
subsidize overproduction and ultimately fleece consumers. Taxpayers 
spend $14 billion a year subsidizing about 60 percent of insurance 
premiums for everything from oysters to almonds. Even non-food products 
like tobacco get $33 million a year in crop insurance handouts. Worse 
yet, crop insurance isn't about protecting farmers against crop losses 
due to weather or infestation; it protects farmers against revenue 
loss. I am hard pressed to think of any other industry in America that 
can take out an insurance policy at the taxpayer's expense to ensure 
their profits. This is clearly egregious when one realizes that 
commodity prices are at record-highs.
  This is all part of farm bill politics. In order to pass a farm bill, 
Congress must find a way to appease every special interest and every 
commodity association. Here are some other examples of hand-outs that 
special interests win in this year's farm bill: $150 million to 
establish a ``Citrus Research Trust Fund'' as well as a ``Wool Apparel 
Manufacture Trust Fund''; $25 million to study the health benefits of 
lima beans and peas; $1.4 million to study commercial mushroom growing; 
$1.3 million to study the DNA sequencing of Christmas trees; $25 
million to teach school children how to grow food in backyard gardens; 
$10 million for eliminating ``feral swine''; $200 million for the 
Market Access Program, which subsidizes overseas advertising campaigns 
for large corporations, like handing out samples of Tennessee whiskey 
in India or subsidizing a sampling tour of mint candies in the U.K.
  This is how we pass behemoth farm bills the Capitol Hill-rule of 
``dispersed costs and concentrated benefits.''
  Take for example the protectionist provision concerning catfish 
inspections that was added in conference to the 2008 Farm Bill. It 
forces USDA to create a special catfish inspection office that will 
cost taxpayers $15 million

[[Page 8277]]

a year. GAO has said it is duplicative and wasteful of FDA seafood 
inspection services. But it helps prop up domestic catfish farmers in 
southern States from having to compete with Asian catfish imports. I 
had an amendment to repeal this office but was denied the courtesy of a 
vote despite it having 15 cosponsors and overwhelming support in the 
Senate. My statement on this matter is in the Record of last week when 
I attempted to call up my amendment and make it pending.
  I also sought a vote on another amendment that I introduced with 
Senator Toomey concerning the repeal of something known as ``permanent 
farm law.'' Because of permanent farm law, it's not an option for my 
colleagues or I who want to put our feet down and say enough is enough 
to reckless farm bills. Permanent farm law is essentially old farm 
bills from 1938 and 1949 that are still on the books that automatically 
kick-in if we fail to renew the farm bill or pass a temporary 
extension.
  Reverting to permanent farm law requires USDA to implement economic 
Soviet-style ``command and control'' policies that require farmers to 
achieve ``parity prices'' rooted in 1914 which bear no resemblance to 
today's market. Nobody wants permanent farm law because it would 
severely disrupt planting decisions for farmers and, according to USDA, 
will cost taxpayers up to $50 billion in subsidies and increase food 
prices by $20 billion. Yet these Depression-era farm bills work as a 
``deadman's switch'' to pressure Congress into passing modern farm 
bills. This almost happened last year when the Senate passed a farm 
bill and the House did not. Americans may remember we faced a ``dairy 
cliff'' in December when milk would double to $7 per gallon of milk. 
Within one week of the pressure from national media coverage over the 
``dairy cliff,'' Congress rushed through a business-as-usual extension 
of the 2008 farm bill that was absent of any reform.
  There's no reason to keep a 1938 farm law on the books except to 
force Congress into passing farm bills by holding consumers hostage. My 
amendment would have repealed this permanent farm law to prevent this 
budgetary gamesmanship from repeating. But again, the Senate's farm 
bill managers refused to allow us a vote on this amendment as well.
  At the end of the day, this farm bill will be hailed by its 
supporters as reform-minded. But let me assure the American public, it 
is anything but. It was managed under a closed-amendment process and 
will prove to be just as wasteful and costly as any farm bill we have 
seen to date.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
bill.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I rise today to speak on amendment No. 
1169, a bipartisan amendment that Senator Carper and I offered to the 
farm bill to fix bureaucratic hurdles that impact farmers' access to 
seeds. Like so many of the amendments that were offered to this farm 
bill, our amendment unfortunately was not considered despite broad, 
bipartisan support and a strong need for the legislation.
  Legislation is needed to ensure that American farmers continue to 
have sufficient quantities of seeds each planting season. Every year, 
seed is produced in South America in the winter and is delivered just-
in-time for spring planting in the United States. Due to the historic 
drought in 2012, it is estimated that 20 percent of U.S. corn seed will 
be brought in from South America for planting in 2013.
  All seeds are regulated by the Department of Agriculture, USDA. All 
imported seed must be accompanied by the appropriate forms required by 
Customs and Border Protection, CBP and USDA, allowing the U.S. 
Government to electronically track the shipments. In addition to 
providing information on the seed and the U.S. destination, if seed is 
still in a research and development phase, it is imported under a 
strict permitting program administered by USDA's Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service, APHIS. As part of its oversight role, USDA 
also frequently samples and tests incoming seed shipments.
  The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA requires a Notice of 
Arrival, NOA for all pesticides that enter the United States. Recently 
and without warning, EPA began requiring the same NOA form used for 
imported chemical pesticides on seed import shipments. These 
duplicative and unnecessary paperwork requirements imposed by EPA 
threaten to disrupt vital seed shipments.
  The NOA is designed for imports of commercial pesticides not seeds, 
and EPA procedures are antiquated. The form cannot be processed 
electronically. It must be physically presented to and signed by EPA 
and then returned to the importer who then gives it to CBP so the 
shipment can enter. Some 2,000 to 3,000 shipments of counter-
seasonally-produced commercial seed arrive 24 hours a day, 7 days a 
week during the critical period from January to April, but EPA only 
operates during regular business hours. This volume can quickly 
overwhelm the NOA process. A delay of even a day can result in delayed 
deliveries, delayed plantings, and reduced yield for farmers.
  EPA has never issued any rule or guidance suggesting that seeds 
containing a pesticide require an NOA to enter the country. However, 
EPA officials have been enforcing this requirement for commercial seeds 
containing a pesticide. No seeds should be subjected to these 
additional paperwork requirements.
  Our amendment to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act, FIFRA would clarify the roles of EPA and USDA and ensure that 
unnecessary paperwork does not disrupt an adequate supply of seeds. 
This language would clarify that the NOA required for the importation 
of conventional pesticides is not required for imports of treated seed. 
All seeds would continue to be regulated by USDA under existing 
statutes and would remain subject to all applicable USDA and CBP entry 
requirements. EPA's authority to regulate the pesticides themselves 
would not be affected.
  This bipartisan legislation was adopted by voice vote as an amendment 
to the House Agriculture Committee farm bill and is supported by the 
American Farm Bureau Federation, American Seed Trade Association, 
National Farmers Union, Agricultural Retailers Association, National 
Corn Growers Association, and National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
  Senator Carper and I worked with Senator Boxer to make changes to our 
amendment to address concerns about the scope of the amendment. We are 
hopeful that when the farm bill is considered in conference, our 
amendment is adopted.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Senate 
farm bill, S. 954, which would make significant reforms to federal 
agriculture programs and important investments in nutrition, 
conservation, and rural development. In addition to providing a safe 
and healthful food supply, America's farmers sustain our rural 
communities, protect the environment, and preserve the open space that 
is a vital part of our heritage.
  This 5-year reauthorization bill demonstrates much-needed fiscal 
responsibility by eliminating wasteful direct payments, which over the 
years have provided financial benefits to hundreds of wealthy 
individuals not involved in farming. Overall, the bill would cut 
spending by $24 billion, which is a step in the right direction.
  The farm bill contains some significant help for family farms in 
Maine and throughout the country. It contains a provision I authored 
with Senator Gillibrand that would reform the way the USDA sets dairy 
prices, reforms that are supported by Maine's dairy farmers. The 
provision would require the USDA to begin the hearing process to 
restructure the milk pricing system and would direct the Secretary of 
Agriculture to release the Department's recommendations to Congress.
  S. 954 would maintain fruit and vegetable research programs, which 
are critical for Maine's potato and wild blueberry growers. In 
addition, the bill includes several local and organic food initiatives 
that would benefit Maine's agriculture community.

[[Page 8278]]

  The bill would also continue vital programs to address hunger and 
nutrition promotion while strengthening the integrity and 
accountability of federal nutrition programs. I was pleased to see the 
adoption of commonsense reforms and the rejection of an amendment that 
would have made harmful changes to the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program safety net.
  Given the significant budget pressures, the bill would appropriately 
improve the effectiveness of conservation and rural energy initiatives. 
S. 954 demonstrates a continuing commitment to voluntary working lands 
programs that help improve stewardship practices with technical 
assistance and cost-share programs for working agricultural and private 
forest lands, including in Maine.
  There are, however, some disappointments. In an arbitrary decision by 
the USDA, the fresh white potato is the only fresh vegetable or fruit 
to be specifically excluded from the Special Supplemental Nutrition 
Program for Women, Infants and Children, or WIC. I filed an amendment 
that would allow for the purchase of nutritious and affordable fresh 
white potatoes in WIC, which is cosponsored by a group of bipartisan 
colleagues, including Senators Mark Udall, Risch, King, Crapo, Bennet, 
Johanns, Schumer, Cantwell, and Baldwin. The modification I proposed is 
strongly endorsed by Maine's potato industry and supported by sound 
nutritional science, and I am disappointed I was denied a vote on it. I 
will continue to press for this reform as the Senate and House 
negotiate a final farm bill.
  An amendment I cosponsored with Senator Leahy that would eliminate a 
payment limit for organic farmers under the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program, also did not receive a vote. It is also regrettable 
that the amendment to reform the sugar program by Senator Shaheen, 
which I cosponsored and which was endorsed by a broad coalition of 
consumer, business, and environmental groups, failed to pass. According 
to CBO, these reforms would save $82 million over the next 10 years.
  The leadership of the Senate Agriculture Committee deserves credit 
for putting together a bipartisan farm bill during this time of 
partisanship. This bill is a welcome change from the previous 
reauthorization, which was loaded with wasteful spending and subsidies. 
I continue, however, to have concerns that the cost of this farm bill 
remains too high and that more should be done to reform agribusiness 
programs to help address our skyrocketing deficit. This is an area I 
hope Congress will continue to work on moving forward.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, despite its name, farm bill policies 
touch the lives of all Americans, not just those who work in the 
agricultural sector. In addition to reauthorizing farm programs, this 
legislation deals with domestic and international food aid, 
conservation and the environment, trade, rural development, renewable 
energy, forestry, and financial markets, among other issues. This 
year's reauthorization presented an opportunity to enact significant 
reforms in these critical areas. While some progress was made, I 
believe the bill falls short of its potential and, ultimately, I cannot 
support it.
  The farm bill took an important step toward reform by ending the 
longstanding practice of giving direct payments to farmers of certain 
commodity crops, regardless of whether a farmer experienced losses or 
even planted a crop. It also places caps on the amount of farm payments 
an individual can receive, expands crop insurance opportunities for 
specialty and organic crops, establishes conservation compliance as a 
requirement for receiving premium insurance subsidies, and invests in 
rural broadband.
  In spite of these successes, however, the farm bill does not do 
enough for Rhode Island families.
  Of greatest concern to me, it includes a $4.5 billion cut over 10 
years to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP also 
known as food stamps. These cuts could lead to a reduction in food 
stamp benefits for an estimated 500,000 households across the country, 
including possibly 20,000 households in Rhode Island. SNAP is our 
Nation's most important anti-hunger program. In this challenging 
economic climate, which has affected low-income individuals more 
harshly than anyone, and from which Rhode Island is recovering very 
slowly, it is wrong to cut critical food-assistance funding.
  I am also discouraged that this legislation provides no funds for 
fisheries disasters, including those declared in 2012. Like our 
farmers, fishermen feed this nation. Americans enjoyed an average of 15 
pounds of fish and shellfish per person in 2011, making us second in 
total seafood consumption in the world. Accordingly, fishing is also a 
major economic cornerstone of our coastal communities. In 2011, 
fisheries supported over 1.2 million jobs in the United States.
  Despite adhering to strict catch limits, many fishermen and historic 
fishing communities are suffering dramatic declines in stocks. In 2012, 
Commerce Secretary Bryson and Acting Secretary Blank issued fisheries 
disaster declarations ranging from Alaska to Samoa, and from 
Mississippi up to my home State of Rhode Island. Despite being included 
in the Senate version, emergency funding for many of these fisheries 
was left out of final version of the Sandy disaster relief bill 
ultimately signed into law.
  Farm bill programs provide billions of dollars in subsidies and 
technical assistance to farmers every year. In comparison, fishermen 
have little access to similar kinds of federal subsidies. Several 
amendments have been filed that attempt to correct this inequity, 
including the creation of a pilot program for Farm Service Agency 
operating loans and crop insurance for shellfish growers. We are a long 
way, however, from adequately supporting and protecting the role of 
fisheries in our food supply chain. Fishermen remain second-class 
citizens when it comes to federal support.
  Finally, American agriculture springs from the richness of our land 
and natural resources, and the farm bill has long supported programs to 
conserve and protect those resources. As the harmful effects of climate 
change become more prevalent, our agricultural policy should reflect 
the threat posed to farming and food production by these changes. In 
this farm bill, ``climate change'' and ``extreme weather'' are hardly 
even mentioned. Congress can start by opening the Regional Conservation 
Partnership Program to climate change adaptation and mitigation 
projects.
  The farm bill is important and wide-ranging legislation. 
Unfortunately, the bill before the Senate leaves out essential 
protections for low-income Americans, hard-hit fisheries, and precious 
natural resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to 
amendment No. 991, filed by my colleague, the junior Senator from South 
Dakota.
  This amendment would eliminate $2 billion from SNAP by limiting the 
funds available for cost-effective nutrition education programs.
  While I appreciate and share my colleague's deep commitment to 
deficit reduction, this amendment would do so at the expense of those 
who can least afford it.
  It is a shortsighted amendment penny wise and pound foolish.
  A $2 billion cut to this program would chip away at vital programs 
that combat obesity, a growing epidemic that weighs on our health care 
system and our economy. Estimates of the medical cost of adult obesity 
in the United States range from $147 billion to nearly $210 billion per 
year, according to the Trust for America's Health.
  Cutting this program may save money in the short term, but it would 
cripple ongoing efforts to deliver innovative and effective nutrition 
education to the most vulnerable populations in our country.
  And these education programs are working, Madam President.
  According to a study published in the Journal of Nutrition Education 
and Behavior, USDA's SNAP nutrition education programs contributed to a 
17 percent increase in the number of California adults who ate at least 
five servings of fruits and vegetables each day.

[[Page 8279]]

  The study showed that the greatest improvements in daily fruit and 
vegetable consumption were seen in populations with the greatest need.
  There was a 91 percent increase among the poorest segment of the 
population, those with less than $15,000 in annual income, who consumed 
five or more serving of fruits and vegetables per day; a 77 percent 
improvement in the African American population, and a 43 percent 
improvement in the Latino population.
  The staggering cost of obesity will continue to increase until we 
take significant action to improve our health and diet.
  That's not to say that there's no room for reform; there certainly 
is.
  That is why Congress passed the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act 3 years 
ago, a bill that made significant reforms to SNAP nutrition education 
programs.
  Most notably, the law changed how the program is funded to make it 
more equitable. The formula now reflects the actual number of SNAP 
beneficiaries in each State.
  Some would have us believe that the amendment, which mandates an 
across-the-board $5 cap per recipient, is fiscally responsible. I don't 
think that is the case. I believe this is simply an attempt to 
redistribute SNAP funding to States that have shown no interest in 
reducing obesity among SNAP beneficiaries.
  Under the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010, funding for the SNAP 
Education Program is allotted based on two factors: a State's 
historical contributions to healthy eating and lifestyle programs, and 
the number of SNAP participants in the State.
  The amendment offered by my colleague from South Dakota undoes that 
formula, instead allocating funds solely on a per-recipient basis.
  The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act formula was the product of a 
compromise.
  The old formula, which allowed the Federal Government to match all 
State contributions to programs that encourage healthy eating and 
lifestyles for SNAP recipients, was not affordable.
  By eliminating the unlimited match provision and replacing it with a 
block grant, the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act was able to save 
taxpayers more than $1 billion over 10 years.
  In exchange for this reduction, a new formula was created. Under the 
new provision, States that committed hundreds of millions of their own 
dollars to reduce obesity, like California and Michigan, received 
marginally higher obesity education funding from USDA.
  And States that had not dedicated their own resources to combating 
obesity received a relatively smaller share of the funding.
  Allowing the changes from 2010, which are just now being implemented, 
to take effect is the best way to effectively reform this program.
  This amendment would devastate a program that helps SNAP-eligible 
children and families learn to stretch their food budgets, reduce 
hunger, make improvements to their diets and reduce obesity.
  I urge my colleagues to let USDA implement the thoughtful 
comprehensive reforms from 2010.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs 
Act of 2013 contains many important provisions for my State of Michigan 
and for our Nation's farmers and that is why I am voting in support. 
The Senate passed a farm bill in 2012, but the House took no action. 
This was unfortunate, as that farm bill as well as the one before us 
now contain important reforms to agricultural programs. Reforms that 
will better help farmers manage their risk and better protect the 
environment.
  CBO estimates that the Senate introduced bill would reduce direct 
spending by $18 billion over a 10-year period. The bulk of these 
savings come from the elimination of direct payments to growers and 
restructuring of conservation programs. While achieving this budgetary 
savings, the bill provides important funding for agricultural 
producers. I am pleased that this farm bill provides funding for 
specialty crops. My home State is second only to California in the 
number of crops grown and is second to none in production of 18 
different commodities including tart cherries, cucumbers, blueberries, 
dry black and red beans and cranberries. The bill before us provides 
mandatory funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, continues 
funding for specialty crop block grants and consolidates efforts to 
fight invasive pests.
  The bill also includes important conservation provisions to reduce 
erosion, improve wildlife habitat, and protect water quality, including 
that of the Great Lakes. Compliance with conservation measures is 
required for lands receiving Federal assistance. Every year, about 600 
million tons of topsoil erode from agricultural lands in the Great 
Lakes region. This soil erosion also includes fertilizer and other 
chemicals, polluting waterways and contributing to harmful algal 
blooms, a growing problem in the Great Lakes. The conservation 
requirements in the bill would help prevent this from occurring, as 
well as protecting the soil quality and productivity of the farmland.
  I am also pleased the bill includes the Regional Conservation 
Partnership Program, which would support locally-led conservation 
projects in priority watersheds such as the Great Lakes. The program 
would allow a broad range of issues to be addressed including sediment 
reduction, water quality improvements, and habitat conservation. 
Because the Great Lakes region already has a regional plan in place, 
our region should be able to effectively compete for the $110 million 
in annual funding that would be provided for this program. We have made 
some solid progress in cleaning up our Great Lakes and other waters in 
Michigan, but there is still much to be done. The conservation funding 
provided in the farm bill would help to protect and restore the Great 
Lakes as well as Michigan's inland waterways.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, sometimes Congress passes legislation 
that directly creates jobs. More often, we approach job creation 
indirectly, with legislation that lays the groundwork for a more 
productive and dynamic private sector. An excellent example of this is 
this new farm bill.
  The chairwoman, Senator Stabenow, and the ranking member, Senator 
Cochran, deserve congratulations and our sincere gratitude for all of 
their efforts and their success in bringing this bill through the 
Agriculture Committee and to the Senate floor. And because this bill 
reflects so much of the work done in the last Congress, I also want to 
recognize the many contributions of Senator Roberts.
  As a senior member and former chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, this is the eighth farm bill I 
have worked on since coming to Congress in 1975. I chaired the 
committee during passage of the 2002 and 2008 bills. From that 
experience, I can tell my colleagues the new farm bill--the Agriculture 
Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013--is good for Iowa and our entire 
Nation.
  It is a difficult enough process to craft a farm bill without the 
extra hardship of having to take spending reductions out of the budget 
baseline. These budget cuts are very difficult because there are 
compelling needs respecting food, agriculture, and rural America. This 
measure embodies genuine sacrifices and serious deficit reduction. It 
exceeds the farm bill deficit reduction in the budget resolution we 
passed here in the Senate.
  This bill reflects a bipartisan balance among numerous competing 
demands. It was broadly supported in the committee and I hope it will 
be broadly supported by the full Senate. Again, I commend the 
leadership of our committee for striking that balance and building 
support for this legislation.
  Overall net farm income has been strong in our Nation in recent 
years, and that has given a boost to rural economies. But this strong 
income has not been enjoyed by all producers of all commodities, or in 
all regions of the country. For example, many farmers and ranchers are 
still struggling to survive the devastating impact of drought and other 
natural disasters.
  This bill wisely continues programs that offer some income protection 
and

[[Page 8280]]

stability in the face of the inevitable natural disasters and swings in 
farm production levels and commodity prices. At the same time, this 
bill continues and builds upon important reforms in recent farm bills, 
for example, by strengthening and tightening payment limitations.
  A landmark reform in this bill is eliminating what are called the 
direct commodity payments. From their inception, I did not believe the 
direct payments were sound or responsible policy. They were inadequate 
when farm prices and incomes fell. Yet when prices and incomes rose, 
the payments continued anyway, which was unjustified, and even 
embarrassing.
  And so I support replacing the direct payments with the revenue 
protection program in this bill focused on protecting farmers against 
losses of revenue, taking into account both prices and yields. The new 
revenue program is an evolution of the Average Crop Revenue Election--
ACRE--program that I was pleased we included in the 2008 farm bill. 
This bill also continues a strong crop insurance program, and in fact 
it makes it even more beneficial to farmers. That is certainly of 
substantial economic value to Iowa farmers.
  In the conservation title, I commend Senator Stabenow, Senator 
Cochran, and Senator Roberts for important improvements in the 
programs, and for continuing the Conservation Stewardship Program and 
other critical initiatives with substantial funding levels. I do very 
much regret that conservation funding is cut from the budget baseline 
levels, but I commend and thank the leaders of our committee for 
limiting those conservation budget cuts.
  I especially want to express my strong congratulations for the 
momentous agreement that was reached between the farm community and the 
conservation community to reinstate minimum conservation requirements 
in order for a farmer to receive Federal crop insurance subsidies. This 
is a very important policy reform. I very strongly urge my colleagues 
to support this agreement on making basic conservation an integral part 
of crop insurance.
  I am pleased this bill continues to provide fresh fruits and 
vegetables to school children across the country. That is an initiative 
I started and expanded as chairman. I regret, however, that this 
legislation reduces funding for nutrition assistance to low-income 
Americans. I commend the chairwoman and ranking member for limiting 
these reductions. I intend to try to mitigate cuts to antihunger 
programs as the legislative process moves forward.
  In the several farm and rural energy programs in the bill, I am very 
pleased with the substantial level of mandatory funding dedicated to 
continue these effective and beneficial initiatives.
  So, again, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for their 
good work and pledge my support to them in moving this bill through the 
Senate and to conference with the House--once the House passes its 
bill, we hope--and then to the President.
  This new farm bill is vitally important to our Nation and especially 
to productivity, vitality and jobs in our Nation's food and agriculture 
sector. It is far too important to be delayed any longer.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today I will vote to pass a bipartisan 
measure to reauthorize the many important programs and reforms included 
in this year's farm bill. Chairman Stabenow and Senator Cochran are to 
be commended for the good work they and other Agriculture Committee 
members put into developing this legislation.
  This bill is the most sweeping reform of agriculture programs in 
recent memory. Gone are outdated direct payments that are made 
regardless of profitability of the farm. Instead, we strengthen the 
crop insurance program, a vital safety net for our producers, while 
making commonsense reforms. The amendment I offered with Senator Coburn 
reducing premium support for the wealthiest farmers is a part of these 
reforms. So is the move to require conservation compliance from farmers 
who benefit from subsidized crop insurance. I hope these will be 
retained in a final conference version of the bill.
  The energy title includes mandatory funding for programs to expand 
bio-based manufacturing, advanced biofuels, and renewable energy. These 
programs help companies in Illinois like Archer Daniels Midland and 
Patriot Renewable Fuels process and manufacture products in rural 
America. There are many examples in Illinois of new markets being 
developed and new jobs being created in rural areas because of the 
growth in bio-based industries.
  The bill also includes mandatory spending, reauthorizes, and expands 
several programs in the research title. A new Foundation for Food and 
Agriculture Research will leverage public dollars to generate private 
investment in ag research. These investments are important to Illinois 
producers and major research institutions like the University of 
Illinois, Southern Illinois University, the Peoria Agriculture Lab, and 
several other universities and labs across Illinois.
  Finally, the bill ensures that programs are in place to help our 
rural communities grow and thrive and it reauthorizes food assistance 
programs for those most in need, at home and abroad. And it does all 
this while saving roughly $24 billion compared to pre-sequestration 
budget levels.
  As the Senate and House work through conference, I urge my colleagues 
to protect access to SNAP for the over 23 million households that 
depend on the program. It is my great hope that when a final version of 
the 2013 farm bill is considered in the Senate, I will be able to fully 
support a bill that protects this important nutrition program.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, across Vermont's food system, businesses 
are starting, expanding, and creating good jobs. Ever more local food 
is available in stores, restaurants, and institutions throughout the 
State and in greater supply, for more months of the year. Important 
programs are reaching more food insecure Vermonters with fresh, healthy 
food. Thanks to the Senate farm bill we will continue to see these 
improvements in Vermont and across the country.
  Nationwide agriculture supports 16 million jobs. In Vermont our farms 
and private forestlands play a large role in our economy and our 
State's cultural and historical identity. Iconic images of Vermont's 
farms and forests bring millions of visitors to the State each year, 
supporting our local communities.
  The 2013 farm bill that the Senate passed today will continue to 
support our farmers and rural communities, while also reforming 
agricultural programs to save taxpayers billions of dollars. I am 
encouraged that the Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie 
Stabenow and our ranking member Thad Cochran have been able to bring 
the Senate together to pass a bipartisan farm bill. A farm bill that 
saves more than $23 billion. A bill that includes many compromises. 
This bill provides an important framework to help farmers and ranchers 
in all regions of the country manage their risks more effectively, 
especially our country's dairy farmers, who strongly support the dairy 
provisions in the Senate-passed farm bill.
  I must also thank the chairwoman for her assistance with my gigabit 
broadband pilot amendment. This small pilot effort is an important 
addition to the bill and the broadband program and will help to ensure 
that the taxpayer dollars we are investing in networks will not become 
obsolete within the next few years. Gigabit Internet is spreading to 
cities across the country, and this pilot will allow USDA to test out 
investment in gigabit networks in rural areas on a pilot basis. The 
next generation gigabit networks will transform everything from the 
reliability of the electrical grid, to education and healthcare in 
rural America. We cannot leave rural America behind in the dust while 
the rest of the country moves into this next stage of the digital era.
  I urge the U.S. House of Representatives to follow suit by bringing a 
farm bill up for debate as soon as possible. Time already is running 
short for us to bring Senate and House bills to a conference committee 
to work out the

[[Page 8281]]

vast differences and arrive at a compromise farm bill that can be 
signed into law prior to the Sept. 30 expiration of the current bill. 
Farmers face enough uncertainty in their work and do not need Congress 
to compound the variables with which they must contend by once again 
delaying final action on a farm bill. Our farmers and the American 
people deserve a new farm bill and a balanced bill like the one we have 
passed in the Senate today, a bill which supports our nutrition, 
conservation, rural development, and farm programs. Our farmers cannot 
afford to be kept in limbo any longer by congressional gridlock.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
is expired. The question occurs on amendment No. 998, offered by the 
Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this amendment is very simple. It sets up 
a pilot program for real ultra-high-speed Internet in rural areas. We 
are going to have this in urban areas. All we are saying is let rural 
areas--and every single Senator represents a rural area somewhere in 
their State--allow rural areas to compete with urban areas for jobs, 
for education, for medical care.
  The ultra-high-speed Internet service pilot is narrow in scope, 
carefully drafted. I know it is supported by the distinguished chair 
and distinguished ranking member. It has the potential of bringing, as 
I said earlier, the innovation of Silicon Valley to the Upper Valley in 
Vermont and rural areas across the country.
  It is almost what we had to argue about rural electricity back before 
I was born--whether rural areas would be the same as urban areas. This 
makes it possible.
  I urge its passage.
  Ms. STABENOW. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Leahy amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Leahy 
amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Blumenthal), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the Senator from 
Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the 
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from 
Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the 
Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Louisiana 
(Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Scott) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--38

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Moran
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Begich
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Chambliss
     Graham
     Manchin
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Sanders
     Scott
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 998) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. We have one more vote tonight on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the third 
time.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, 
under the previous order the question is, Shall it pass?
  Mr. COATS. Madam 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin), the Senator from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warren
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Flake
     Hatch
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Begich
     Manchin
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Udall (CO)
     Warner
  The bill (S. 954), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)


                           Vote Explanations

 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was not able to vote on final 
passage of the farm bill today due to an urgent personal matter, but I 
want the record to reflect my strong support for the Agriculture 
Reform, Food and Jobs Act. Last year I voted in favor of the farm bill 
and would have once again supported this bipartisan legislation. S. 954 
gives Virginia's farmers the certainty they need, supports the 
economies of our rural communities and also improves current farm 
programs. I am proud that the bill contains two of my priorities: 
ensuring farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed get a fair share of 
conservation funding and reforming broadband financing programs

[[Page 8282]]

to provide greater accountability and transparency. I would like to 
thank the chairwoman and ranking member for their tireless efforts, and 
wish I could have been there to cast my vote for this important, 
bipartisan legislation.
 Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I was unable to return 
to Washington, DC, prior to the votes this evening due to unavoidable 
travels delays that were beyond my control and was therefore unable to 
cast a vote for rollcall votes No. 144 and 145, Leahy amendment No. 998 
and final passage of the farm bill, S. 954. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea'' on each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
5 minutes. Following my remarks, Senator Sessions will have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             THE FARM BILL

  Mr. BROWN. Under the leadership of Chairman Stabenow and Ranking 
Member Cochran, the Senate has again passed a bipartisan deficit-
reducing bill that will help our farms, our families, our economy, and 
our environment.
  The Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013 is a good start to 
cultivating a new era of prosperity in our country and reinvesting in 
rural America. That is because this bill benefits all Americans, 
especially in my home State of Ohio.
  One in seven jobs in Ohio, in places such as Custar and Defiance, is 
related to food and agriculture. To keep our economy growing, the farm 
bill must remain a priority here in Congress. We have shown the Senate 
can do its part.
  To people who are uncertain about our ability to work across the 
aisle, I say look at this farm bill. To people who are concerned about 
spending in Washington, I say look at this farm bill. To people who are 
disheartened about our ability to help low-income families make ends 
meet, I say look at this farm bill.
  This bill saves more than $24 billion, and it maintains important 
investments in conservation, nutrition, renewable energy, and rural 
development. Farmers across Ohio and across the country tell us they 
want a leaner, more efficient, and market-oriented farm safety net. 
Taxpayers deserve that too.
  By eliminating direct payments, linking crop insurance to 
conservation compliance, and by further reforming our risk management 
programs, the Senate has taken that first step.
  Every farmer knows the importance of building on last season's work. 
Last year, Senators Thune, Durbin, Lugar--the predecessor--the 
Presiding Officer, and I proposed the Aggregate Risk and Revenue 
Management Program, streamlining the farmer safety net, making it more 
market-oriented. The Agricultural Risk Coverage Program included in 
this bill gives farmers the tools they need to mitigate risks, ensuring 
that payments happen only when farmers need them most. The program 
relies on current data and, as a result, is more responsive to farmers' 
needs and more responsive to taxpayers.
  It also includes a provision to help Ohio farmers and producers sell 
their products directly to consumers. It will make a world of 
difference to families and schools that want to eat locally grown food. 
I appreciate the efforts, interest, and support of Senator Cochran in 
those efforts.
  However, this bill does not include my food and agriculture market 
development amendment, cosponsored by 14 of my colleagues, to provide 
needed funding to several important programs that support the 
development of a stronger, more sustainable food system. We will work 
on that in the House.
  By aligning our agricultural, health, and economic policies in ways 
that ensure farmers get a fair price for their product, all Americans 
can have access to affordable, healthy food, while contributing to 
strong communities and thriving local economies.
  The farm bill affects every American every day. It is a deficit 
reduction bill. It is a jobs bill, conservation bill, rural development 
bill, and it is bipartisan.
  I commend again Senator Stabenow and Senator Cochran for their work 
in crafting this bill, and their joint effort to work across party 
lines is to be commended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senate for passing 
this very important farm bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs 
Act of 2013.
  I especially thank my colleagues Debbie Stabenow and Pat Roberts and 
their staff members for the hard work they devoted to this effort. 
Their bill, when it was begun, passed the Senate last year. Their 
legislation became the starting point for our work this year on the 
bill.
  The chairwoman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow, and 
her staff director, Chris Adamo, have been outstanding leaders in this 
effort. I would at this opportunity thank them and all of the members 
of their staff for their hard work in developing a strategy and 
developing language of a bill that could enjoy such broad support.
  Members of our committee staff and my personal office staff have 
worked very hard too in this effort. I would like to thank them for 
their contributions. I appreciate their hard work. They include my 
staff director, T. A. Hawks, Nona McCoy, Kevin Batteh, Darrell Dixon, 
Adam Telle, Daniel Ulmer, Ben Mosely, Taylor Nicholas, Julian Baer, 
Andrew Vlasaty, Chris Gallegos, Steven Wall, Keith Coble, Anne Hazlett, 
James Glueck, and Sarah Margaret Hewes. The staff members have done an 
outstanding job, and I am very pleased they have been members of our 
team. For all of them and especially for the Senators and the support 
we have received today, we appreciate the support very much.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________