[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2321-2355]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 2014--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2642, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany H.R. 2642, a bill to provide 
     for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other 
     programs of the Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 
     2018, and for other purposes.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, as we begin the final debate and 
vote on the farm bill conference report, I thank our majority leader 
for supporting this effort every step of the way. Every time I have 
gone to him and said, Mr. Leader, we need to have time for some 
particular procedural vote or to move it along, he has been there. So I 
thank him very much for moving this conference report so quickly.
  I also thank Senator Cochran and our entire committee. When Senator 
Cochran is here later today, I will speak more about the wonderful 
partnership we have had. The senior Senator from North Dakota will be 
speaking after me. I thank, Senator Hoeven for being an invaluable 
partner through this entire process. It has been a tremendous pleasure 
working with the senior Senator, and he has made a real impact. I am 
very appreciative.
  As my colleagues know, the last farm bill expired 490 days ago. It is 
time to get it done. It is time to pass this tomorrow and to give it to 
the President for his signature.
  This is not your father's farm bill. This farm bill is focused on the 
future, not the past. We worked long and hard to make sure that 
policies worked for every region of the country, for all of the 
different kinds of agricultural production we do in our country--from 
traditional row crops, to specialty crops like fruits and vegetables, 
to livestock, to organics, to local food systems.
  For the past 2\1/2\ years, we have been working in a bipartisan way 
with colleagues in the Senate and in the House, and I appreciate our 
partnership with the chairman and ranking member in the House to craft 
a farm bill that reflects the future in American agriculture and the 
healthy food choices that consumers are asking for in the marketplace.
  As we begin this final debate, I want to focus for a few minutes on 
some of what people might not be focused on in this bill. Later today I 
am going to speak about the bill and each of its parts.
  There are just five things I wanted to highlight as we begin this 
debate.
  First, conservation. The farm bill is actually our country's largest 
investment in land and water conservation on private lands, which are 
the majority of our American lands. That means we are restoring and 
preserving wildlife habitat and open spaces. We help farmers reduce 
runoff to help keep rivers and streams clean and teeming with fish. 
This bill includes a historic new agreement that ties conservation 
compliance to crop insurance.
  This bill helps prevent plowing of native grasses through a provision 
called Sod Saver that will save taxpayers money and preserve sensitive 
habitat for years to come.
  Second, energy jobs. This farm bill has major investments in American 
energy independence. I am very proud to say this conference report 
contains the full $880 million investment we passed in the Senate for 
renewable and clean energy. It includes my Grow it Here, Make it Here 
initiative to support innovative biobase manufacturing that takes crops 
grown on our farms, uses it to replace petroleum and other chemicals, 
and transforms them into consumer products.
  It contains the Rural Energy for America Program, known as REAP, to 
help farmers install on-farm renewable energy and energy efficiency 
systems to lower their energy usage. This bill supports the development 
of the next generation of biofuels, including new technologies using 
food and agricultural waste.
  Third, healthy foods. One of the incentivized programs in this bill, 
among others, is a successful program in Michigan called Double Up Food 
Bucks, which essentially doubles food assistance when a family is 
shopping for produce at a farmers' market.Speaking of which, we have 
quadrupled support for farmers' markets--four times more help than the 
previous farm bill. That means farmers have more choices to find fresh, 
locally grown foods, and it means farmers have more opportunities to 
sell those products and grow our rural economies.
  Fourth, research. Crops and livestock are affected by pests and 
diseases, and if we are going to continue to be the world's leader in 
food production, we need to invest in order to fight back.
  Unfortunately, for years we have had to cut funding for critical 
research, and that has been a great concern of mine and of all of our 
committee. This farm bill includes an innovative solution to that 
problem. It creates a new agricultural research foundation modeled 
after health research foundations to bring private and public dollars 
together to support our scientists all across the country who are 
working to fight pests, find cures for crop diseases, and focus on food 
safety and innovation.
  Finally, reform. This farm bill contains the greatest reforms to 
agricultural programs in decades. We have finally ended direct payment 
subsidies, which are given to farmers in good times and bad. Instead, 
we shift to a responsible, risk management approach that only gives 
farmers assistance when they experience a loss.
  The bill also ends farm payments to millionaires, addresses a 
loophole that allows people who aren't farming to get payments, and 
tightens payment limits with a cap on payments that, for the first 
time, includes all commodity title programs, including limits on 
marketing loans. We looked at every part of the farm bill for reform 
and savings. It is safe to say we are the only area of the Federal 
Government that has voluntarily cut spending in our own area of 
jurisdiction. Counting sequestration cuts, we made a commitment to 
achieve $23 billion in deficit reduction, and we have.
  I have spoken about five reasons to support the farm bill. There are 
many more. This farm bill reflects a major

[[Page 2322]]

step forward in creating a new paradigm for the future and a real 
victory for farmers, families, and all Americans who care about 
protecting our soil and water resources, increasing American energy 
independence, and the quality of life of rural communities across our 
country.
  With that, at this time, so that other colleagues may speak, I yield 
the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently considering the 
conference report to H.R. 2642.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent to proceed on my leader time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Presidential Action

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in his State of the Union speech last 
week, President Obama promised America a year of action. He said he 
wants to use his pen and his phone to make it happen. Here is what I 
say: The President should use that pen and that phone of his today for 
the Keystone XL Pipeline and the jobs that will be created almost 
immediately.
  Here is something both parties can agree on. I see my colleague from 
North Dakota here, and nobody has been more aggressively advocating the 
Keystone Pipeline than he has. This is an important shovel-ready 
project for America. Here is the President's chance to work with 
Republicans on a bipartisan plan to create thousands--literally 
thousands--of private sector jobs almost immediately. Here is his 
chance to show he is not captive to the ideological extremists on the 
left. Here is his chance for action on a policy the American people 
actually want. Here is his chance.
  On Friday, the State Department released yet another report 
concluding what the President and everyone else already knew. The 
Keystone XL would meet the President's stated requirements on the 
environment, and there was basically no good reason not to build it.
  So here is a project that essentially wouldn't cost the taxpayers a 
dime to build, that would have almost no net environmental effect, and 
that would put thousands of Americans to work right away. It is an 
initiative that is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. 
It is supported by unions, by businesses, by Republicans, by 
Independents, and even by prominent Democrats--close to 20 right here 
in the Senate alone. Yet the President has delayed and delayed for more 
than 5 years now, not because the project really needs to be studied 
further but because of pressure from the most doctrinaire fringe of the 
doctrinaire left.
  These are the kinds of folks who care a lot more about ideology than 
what makes sense for the middle class. Yet these are the same folks who 
have a lot of influence in today's Democratic Party. Just look at the 
war on coal--a war that is being waged with scant concern for the lives 
of people who live in States such as Kentucky where people are really 
hurting, and it doesn't seem to matter much to these folks.
  So here is the thing. The President has run out of excuses on 
Keystone. It is way past time to make a decision. Let's be honest: This 
decision shouldn't be a hard one at all because the science, the 
economics, and common sense all basically point in one direction. As 
far as I can tell, ideology is really the only thing that could lead to 
a different decision.
  So is President Obama on the side of the middle class or is he on the 
side of leftwing special interests? He needs to use that pen to show us 
where he stands, and he really ought to do it today.
  While he is at it, he should pick up the phone too because in his 
State of the Union Address the President called on Congress to help 
break down trade barriers that stand in the way of more American jobs. 
He called for legislation that would help prevent foreign countries 
from taking the trade jobs that should be going to America's middle 
class.
  ``China and Europe aren't standing on the sidelines,'' he said, and 
``neither should we,'' he said. Republicans applauded him for that. He 
is absolutely right. But now the President's own party is standing in 
the way of getting anything done. So if there ever was a moment for the 
President to use his phone, this is it because trade should be a 
bipartisan issue. It sure used to be. Just ask President Clinton.
  America's middle class is hurting. The very least Washington can do 
for them is to approve job-creating initiatives such as Keystone and 
enhancing American exports. So we will see soon enough if the President 
meant what he said about his pen and his phone--if his year of action 
will really be just that instead of another tired slogan.
  The answer is pretty simple. The President needs to step up and lead. 
Middle class Americans have taken a back seat to the hard left 
extremists in this town for entirely too long. It is time for the 
President to stand up to these folks and to do the right thing. Pick up 
that phone and that pen and get this done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, it is interesting that I follow our 
minority leader who spoke about the Keystone XL Pipeline issue, as well 
as the chairman of the agriculture committee in the Senate, the 
esteemed Senator from Michigan Ms. Stabenow, who has done such a 
marvelous job of leading the farm bill.
  The role of Congress is to govern. The people of this great country--
more than 300 million people, and the country that leads the world--
send us here to govern. To govern, we have to join together on a 
bipartisan basis to get something done. Solutions, by their nature--
particularly solutions to complex problems--are never perfect. There 
are no perfect solutions. But we are elected to join together, 
Republicans and Democrats, and solve problems; to put together 
solutions, although not perfect, that will meet the challenges this 
great Nation faces.
  Regarding energy, I echo the sentiments of the minority leader. I 
have worked on the Keystone project for more than 5 years now, first as 
a Governor and now as a Senator, and we have tremendous bipartisan 
support on that project and we need to move forward. The minority 
leader is right on point.
  I come today to talk about what I believe we are on the cusp of 
moving forward on, something we have worked on very hard, particularly 
these last 2 years, and that is the farm bill. I wish to begin by 
thanking and commending the Senator from Michigan who is the chairman 
of the Senate agriculture committee, who has worked with unbelievable 
dedication and who has truly shown the spirit of bipartisanship I am 
speaking about.
  So I begin by thanking our chairman Senator Stabenow, who has worked 
with Democrats and Republicans. She has continually reached across the 
aisle not only to her ranking member, the good and senior Senator from 
Mississippi Mr. Cochran, but also to our counterparts in the House, 
including Representative Frank Lucas, who is the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee in the House, and Representative Collin Peterson, 
who is the minority member in the House. One is from Oklahoma and one 
is from Minnesota. So north and south, east and west, across this great 
country, Republicans, Democrats, Senators and House Members, and our 
chairman have worked to fashion a product that truly is a compromise 
but which is a vital solution we need to put in place and we need to 
put it in place now for our farmers and ranchers.
  I will begin with this chart, and I have to say it is the only one I 
brought. It is the same chart I am going to end up with. I am going to 
talk about the farm bill for a few minutes, but here is why a farm bill 
is so important. It is not just that it is so important to our farmers 
and ranchers; it is important to every single American and beyond, for 
these simple reasons: The farmers and ranchers we have in this country 
produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world--the

[[Page 2323]]

highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world.
  That is what we are talking about. When we talk about good farm 
policy, we are talking about something that benefits every single 
American every single day.
  Somebody can say, Oh, well, gee, we don't need a farm bill. Don't 
worry about the farm bill; just let the farmers and ranchers do it the 
way they do and we will see what happens. Really? That is what we 
should do? We should take a chance on not having the kind of sound farm 
program we have now, when we have the highest quality, lowest cost food 
supply in the world, in the history of the world, that benefits every 
single American every single day? We should say, Oh, let's not worry 
about that; let's just let it go and see what happens? I don't think 
that is a very good argument.
  So let's talk about this farm bill that is so important to every 
single American. Sixteen million jobs in this country, either directly 
or indirectly, rely on agriculture. We have a favorable balance of 
trade in agriculture, and we have a net worth of farmers and ranchers 
across this country who do an amazing job every single day.
  I am going to start out by talking about the fact that we actually 
saved money. We saved more than $23 billion. So think about it. Here is 
a mandatory spending program where we strengthen the farm program, we 
improve it, we make it more cost-effective, and we save $23 billion to 
reduce the deficit and the debt. How about we go through every other 
program in government and see how we make it better and reduce 
spending. Because when we do that, then we will have done what we are 
talking about here with the farm bill. It seems like a good idea.
  I see the good Senator from Montana on the floor and the Senator from 
South Dakota as well as the esteemed Senator from Michigan, and they 
will tell us the same. Here we are reforming a mandatory spending 
program and we are reducing the cost while strengthening the program. 
It seems like what we ought to be doing.
  I know some folks will come here today and say, Gee, it could be 
better because of this or that, or we should have done this or that, 
and go right back into the same old gridlock and, I guess, argue for 
having yet another extension on a farm bill that expired over a year 
ago and should have been done a long time ago. We provide a better 
program with savings of more than $23 billion to help reduce the 
deficit and the debt.
  What did we focus on in this bill to make it more cost-effective and 
to make it better? As our chairman on the agriculture committee said, 
we eliminate direct payments. People want to talk about reforms. We 
eliminate direct payments for the first time in a long time--more than 
$50 billion in direct payments--and we replace it with something that 
is much more cost-effective. We replace it with strengthened crop 
insurance so that farmers and ranchers can insure like other small 
businesses across this country to manage risk, even though they operate 
in an environment where they certainly can't control the risks. When we 
talk about weather, whenever we are putting in a crop and then waiting 
to see what the weather will be, that is a very difficult proposition. 
So we worked with them on crop insurance so they can try to insure the 
same way other types of businesses insure. That is much more cost-
effective than the old direct payments. As our chairman said a minute 
ago, those direct payments were going out good years and bad, whether 
farmers and ranchers needed them or not. Now it is insurance, the way 
other businesses work.
  We give them an option. We give them a countercyclical program called 
the price loss coverage that works on a countercyclical basis. So if 
times are tough, if prices are low, if they need help, they get help. 
And if times are good and prices are high and they have a good crop, 
they do not get help. That is cost effective.
  We have tried to design it so we generate real savings--more than $23 
billion--but if it works as we hope, it will generate more savings so 
we will continue to have the highest quality, lowest cost food supply 
in the world, continue to support a growing job base--16 million and 
growing--continue to help us in our balance of trade by creating a 
favorable balance of trade for this country in agriculture, and we hope 
with the reforms made we will continue to help reduce the deficit and 
the debt.
  We also provide strong support for livestock. I think perhaps the 
Senator from South Dakota will tell you about a terrible storm that 
occurred earlier this winter. This has been a tough winter across the 
country. But for livestock producers out in the Midwest--in South 
Dakota, in my home State of North Dakota, and other areas--thousands 
and thousands of cattle were killed in an early blizzard. We provide 
help and support for those cattlemen.
  We continue to provide other programs that will help them market not 
only here in our country but overseas, to continue to build that 
favorable balance of trade for our country.
  In the dairy program--and it was very important to get agreement in 
the House; this is yet another example of how the conferees had to work 
to strike the right balance between what everybody wanted, Republican 
and Democrat, to come up with a program we could get support on--there 
is no supply management in the dairy program. It helps our smaller 
dairy producers with an insurance type product, and the cost of the 
premium increases with higher levels of production by the dairy 
producers. So it is designed the way that I think everybody should feel 
is a fair basis, where, again, when our smaller dairy producers need 
help, it is there, but it is cost effective and it is done without 
supply management.
  The conservation title--again, the Senator from Michigan talked about 
the importance of conservation--is an example where we had 
disagreement. Right. This goes to the heart of what is in this farm 
bill. Here is an example--as I have said, our chairman did a marvelous 
job on the ag committee, working with our ranking member and everyone 
else--on conservation, I have to say, I had some different ideas than 
what is in the final compromise bill. I felt that crop insurance and 
conservation should have remained decoupled. But they are not. They are 
coupled in the final product. But, to make things work, again we sought 
and found compromise. We made changes in the bill that truly make the 
conservation provisions much more farmer friendly.
  What do I mean by that? I mean it is not retroactive. It is forward 
looking. The conservation rules in the bill apply going forward. They 
do not go back retroactively to the start of the last farm bill. That 
is very important. You cannot put people in a situation where they are 
being forced to go out and change their farm or ranch on a retroactive 
basis. That is also very important.
  Another provision we were able to include in the report language is 
mitigation. Farmers and ranchers do a tremendous job on conservation. I 
love to hunt and I love to fish. My wife likes to fish even more. But 
when I am out there hunting, I see what is going on, I see who is 
taking care of the land and making sure the water is there, the cover 
is there, the food is there for wildlife--deer, birds.
  For any conservation program to be truly effective, you have to 
enlist the farmers' and ranchers' support so the conservation community 
and farmers and ranchers are working together in a way that works for 
those individuals, those business people, those families, those farmers 
and ranchers who are out there making their living. Every day they are 
out there. They are not just out there once in a while. They are not 
just out there sometimes, as I am when I go out hunting. They are out 
there all the time making it work. So these provisions have to work for 
them.
  That is why when we talk mitigation, the mitigation rules have to 
work for the people who own the land--the farmers and ranchers. That is 
why we have worked to include language that makes sure USDA is focused 
on an acre-for-acre approach, as long as there is reasonable and 
commensurate value, and we set up a fund to help them do that.

[[Page 2324]]

  I think we achieved a good result. All of the wildlife groups, the 
conservation groups, and the hunting groups are on board. They are 
endorsing this bill. Even the NRA is endorsing this bill. There is 
strong support from conservation groups, from hunting groups, fishing 
groups, wildlife groups.
  But at the same time, I think we have provisions that truly make it 
farmer friendly so that it works for our farmers and our ranchers. I 
know that was something we had to work on very hard to get to but is 
vitally important.
  The bill has a strong energy title. We included and, in fact, 
strengthened the beginning farmer and the beginning rancher provisions.
  I want to end on reform. Clearly, with our debt and deficit, it is 
vitally important we find ways to achieve savings. So as we go through 
all the discretionary spending programs--which is one-third of the 
Federal budget--we have to find savings. We are working to do that.
  Since I have been here, we have reduced discretionary spending from 
$1.35 trillion to roughly $1 trillion. Since the beginning of 2011--
discretionary spending at that time was $1.35 trillion--this year and 
next year, it will be about $1 trillion. So you can see we have reduced 
discretionary spending about 35 percent--and over this 5-year stretch--
and that is without counting inflation.
  But two-thirds of the government is mandatory spending. Two-thirds is 
mandatory spending programs. So we have to find ways to make revisions 
so we protect and preserve the programs that are vital to us, such as 
Medicare and Social Security, but we also have to find ways to take 
these mandatory programs and find savings and reforms as we do here in 
this farm bill.
  So when we talk about eliminating direct payments, when we talk about 
payment limitations that for the first time apply to everything, 
whether you are getting the ARC program--the ag risk coverage--or the 
price loss coverage program, as in your farming operation, whether it 
is the marketing loan program, your total payments cannot exceed 
$125,000.
  That is the first time we have had a cap that applies to everything. 
Right. We have had caps before, but they did not apply to everything. 
That is a real reform. You are going to hear others come down and say: 
Well, gee, it should have been better. It should have been like this. 
But I am telling you, we have not had one that applied to everything 
before where you truly had a cap.
  So when we talk about eliminating direct payments, when we talk about 
a cap that applies to everything, that is a real reform. Furthermore, 
we have an AGI limit--adjusted gross income limit--that also applies to 
everything for the first time, just like the payment limit. Right now, 
if you make $900,000 or more, you do not get any program assistance. 
Before, again, it did not apply across the board. That is real reform.
  I think in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--where we 
knew it would be tough to come up with a compromise--clearly, there 
were differences of opinion on each side of the aisle and between the 
Senate and the House. Here again, I commend the leaders of our 
conference committee--Senator Stabenow, Senator Cochran, Representative 
Lucas, and Representative Peterson--and the members of the conference 
committee. There was a lot of work to do in this conference committee.
  To get an agreement on food stamps, on SNAP, supplemental nutrition 
assistance payments, was no small effort or accomplishment. Again, like 
all compromises, if you look at it, it really is fair to both sides. 
The compromise itself--based on the reforms we made in LIHEAP and 
getting the States to truly make sure we do not have waste, fraud, and 
abuse, but that people who need help get help--we have truly 
strengthened those provisions. The scoring by CBO is about an $8 
billion reduction. But again, we get our economy going. These kinds of 
reforms will generate more savings while still ensuring people who need 
help get help.
  If you look at that number, then it is very close to what the Senate 
said they had to have. So for those who are in that camp, they should 
feel this is a bill they can support. That is a fair compromise. On the 
House side, where clearly there was a desire to have a significantly 
larger number, if you look at this as a two-step process, where you 
take the savings that come out of expiration of the stimulus program--
where there was about $11 billion in savings--and combine it with the 
reforms we made here--the $11 billion and the $8 billion; $19 billion--
that was $20 billion. That was close to the House's original number.
  Like all good compromises, it is fair and it does seek to get the 
kind of reforms that I think the American public wants to make sure 
there is not waste, fraud, or abuse in the Food Stamp Program, but for 
those who need help, they get that help.
  Again, I commend not only the leadership in the ag committee but also 
the leadership in the House and the Senate for recognizing that it is 
time to put a solution in place for the American people. Again, no 
solution is perfect. But we cannot continue to operate with an expired 
policy that not only does not give our farmers and ranchers the 
certainty they need to continue to produce the highest quality, lowest 
cost food supply, which benefits every single American, but where we do 
not achieve the very savings and reforms that we have been sent here by 
the American people to achieve.
  So it is time to vote. We will vote on this farm bill. There was a 
very strong vote in the House--250 to 160--a strong bipartisan support 
on both sides of the aisle. The Senate needs to step up now and put 
this solution in place for the American people.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my 
colleagues to support the farm bill conference report. It has taken a 
long time to get to this point, with several unnecessary roadblocks 
along the way, but we are finally near the finish line, and it is time 
we conclude this process. I commend Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member 
Cochran, Chairman Lucas, and Ranking Member Peterson for their 
leadership in developing this reasonable conference report.
  The Agricultural Act of 2014 will reduce the deficit, restructure our 
ag support programs, continue to feed the hungry, aid livestock 
producers hit by the Atlas blizzard, and enable consumers to know from 
where their food comes.
  This conference report certainly is not perfect. As with any 
legislation that is this important and far-reaching, it is impossible 
to fully satisfy everybody. But this is a reasonable compromise.
  Our ranchers will benefit significantly from this bill. Not only does 
this compromise enable country-of-origin labeling to continue as well 
as maintain USDA's ability to ensure a fair and transparent 
marketplace, but it also contains critical livestock disaster 
assistance programs to help ranchers in my State who are still 
recovering from the 2012 drought and last year's terrible blizzard. My 
ranchers lost tens of thousands of livestock, and they have been left 
hanging because of congressional inaction. With passage, they will 
finally be able to get the aid they need.
  Beyond the important assistance for livestock producers, this bill 
also reforms our farm programs by eliminating direct payments and by 
strengthening the crop insurance program. It also offers key support 
for young and beginning farmers and ranchers, and it contains 
reasonable conservation compliance requirements for farm program and 
crop insurance eligibility.
  This legislation represents more than just assistance to our farmers 
and ranchers. It is also a jobs bill. It contains mandatory funding for 
several energy and rural development programs, and it will help USDA 
deal with the huge backlog of pending rural water and wastewater 
infrastructure applications.
  Hundreds of rural communities across the country, including Aberdeen, 
Watertown, and Brookings in South Dakota will also continue to be 
eligible for rural housing programs as a

[[Page 2325]]

result of a provision I included in the Senate-passed farm bill that is 
maintained in this conference report.
  I would also like to highlight the provisions to address some key 
forestry issues important to the fight against the pine beetle in the 
Black Hills. This bill provides the Forest Service and private forest 
landowners with critically needed tools and flexibility. This includes 
permanently authorizing stewardship contracting to combine timber 
harvests with needed conservation work, building on the Mountain Pine 
Beetle Response Project in the Black Hills by streamlining activities 
to combat insect and disease epidemics, and clarifying the forestry 
exemption to Clean Water Act permitting. These changes provide needed 
certainty for both private and public forest managers.
  While I am overall very pleased with this conference report, there 
are some disappointments. The senior Senator from Iowa and I have 
worked for years for meaningful payment limitations. In fact, we were 
able to include in the Senate bill a hard cap on payments as well as 
new language to define farm program eligibility requirements. The House 
bill includes nearly identical language. However, this conference 
report actually loosens payment caps and it punts the decision of 
defining ``actually engaged'' to the Secretary of Agriculture. This is 
frustrating. However, moving forward, I will urge USDA to follow the 
intent of the Senate and House bills with respect to farm program 
eligibility when it undertakes rulemaking.
  Even though I am not fully pleased with everything in this conference 
report, I think it does represent a compromise. As such, I urge my 
colleagues to join me in passing the bill. If we do not, food prices 
will rise, ranchers in my State will be forced out of business, and we 
will not get the deficit reduction or reforms to our farm programs.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the importance of 
passing this farm bill that is in front of us, but I not only speak as 
a Senator, I also speak as a farmer, someone who is involved in 
production agriculture. When I am not wearing a suit and casting votes 
or traveling around the State finding out what is on the minds of 
Montanans, I am farming. From planting to harvesting, to accessing 
seed, to hauling food to the market, I know firsthand the life in 
production agriculture.
  I know that whether you are a farmer or rancher or forester, it can 
be very tough because there is a lot of uncertainty--uncertainty I 
witnessed firsthand last summer when I visited the fields of Montana's 
Gallatin Valley, a valley that was devastated by a hailstorm literally 
hours before harvest was to begin, or the uncertainty caused by the 
blizzard that cost South Dakota thousands of cattle this last fall.
  Farmers and ranchers understand and accept that uncertainty is a fact 
of life because we deal with weather; they know it is part of what 
comes with being in production agriculture, but what they cannot accept 
and what they should not accept is a Federal Government that takes 6 
years in drafting a 5-year farm bill. We do not need that kind of 
uncertainty. That is why we need to pass the farm bill we have today.
  When I talk to my fellow producers in Montana and around the country, 
they tell me the lack of a long-term farm bill is preventing them from 
making critical business decisions. Without a long-term farm bill, 
farmers do not know what crop insurance is going to look like. They do 
not know what to expect from future farm loans. It is hard to plan 
ahead or expand operations. You cannot even do the simple business 
planning without that farm bill.
  Many of us in the Senate got our start in business and know the 
importance of a predictable business environment. Farming and 
agriculture is no different. You need certainty to grow and to prosper. 
The fact is the lack of a long-term farm bill is hurting economies from 
Montana to Maine. Folks need and are demanding a responsible long-term 
farm bill. I think it is time for the Senate to do the right thing; 
that is, pass the 5-year farm bill.
  But I am not encouraging folks to vote for this bill just for the 
sake of certainty. They should also vote for it because I think it 
strengthens the hands of farmers, ranchers, American families who 
depend on them. Livestock owners will see many benefits from this farm 
bill. This 5-year plan makes livestock disaster assistance programs 
permanent and retroactive, helping those South Dakota ranchers whom I 
spoke of a minute ago to recoup their October losses as well as Montana 
ranchers who lost cattle to drought back in 2012.
  All in all, livestock owners will be better able to manage risks, 
improve production, and meet the new challenges because of this bill. 
When it comes to farmers, this bill removes the term limits on USDA-
guaranteed farm loans so farmers can continue to access credit at banks 
in rural communities.
  It also provides more support for farmers and ranchers just getting 
their start in agriculture. In rural America we need more young 
producers willing to get up and work hard, keep small family farms and 
ranches going. This bill is a positive step for beginning farmers and 
ranchers.
  Conserving land is another critical issue across this country, 
particularly rural America. Farmers and ranchers are the true stewards 
of the land. This bill continues that proud American tradition. By 
improving portions of the Conservation Reserve Program--or Sodbuster--
this farm bill supports our outdoor economy by working with farmers and 
ranchers to preserve more native prairie for wildlife habitat.
  That is good news for the hunters and anglers of this country. 
Montana is no exception. It is good news for folks who sell rifles and 
waders and the guides who show our hunters and anglers where to fish 
and where to hunt. All in all, this great outdoor economy adds up to $6 
billion in the State of Montana alone.
  This bill also includes an extension of PILT payments to rural 
communities that cannot generate enough revenue from lands that are 
controlled by the Federal Government. This is a big deal in rural 
America. It continues strong country-of-origin labeling so consumers 
know where their meat was born, raised, and processed, giving them the 
option to buy U.S.-made meat if they so choose.
  The big multinational meat-packing firms may not like it, but for 
American ranchers it is critically important, as it is for consumers. 
Why? Because Americans know we produce the finest beef in the world. 
This 5-year farm bill takes all of these positive steps while saving 
taxpayers $23 billion by making tough choices in the nutrition 
assistance program and changing how we apply farm subsidies.
  Chairman Stabenow and Ranking Member Cochran have written a 
commonsense bill that is supported across our agricultural community. I 
wish to thank them for that. In an era when too many folks look for 
reasons to vote no instead of yes, it takes strong and determined 
leaders to bring a responsible, bipartisan bill such as this to the 
floor. That is why--because I am in production agriculture especially--
the work that Chairman Stabenow and Ranking Member Cochran did for the 
American farmers and ranchers needs to be commended.
  That commitment is going to keep America's rural economy strong. The 
Senators from Michigan and Mississippi are the reason this bill is 
finally at the finish line. Thanks to them, we are on the verge of 
approving a bipartisan bill that will strengthen production agriculture 
and support families, farmers, and ranchers across this country.
  My wife and I took over our family's farm in north central Montana in 
1978. We had land and we had a strong work ethic, but we had little 
else. So with some hard work and a few good decisions and weather that 
cooperated, our farm is doing pretty well right now. Our story can be 
repeated across rural America. But production agriculture will only be 
strong if it has the certainty that comes with a commonsense, long-term 
farm bill. That is

[[Page 2326]]

what is in front of us, a bill that lets farmers and ranchers know how 
to plan ahead, how to make their books balance, a bill that lets the 
distributors allocate resources and make sound business decisions, and 
a bill that takes responsible steps to strengthen programs that are 
working and ending others that are not.
  Let's not leave farmers and ranchers and all Americans who depend on 
them high and dry again. With strong support for production 
agriculture, with strong support for a nutrition program, and with a 
bill that saves taxpayers significant dollars, it is time to vote yes 
and send this farm bill to the President's desk.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before the Senator from Montana leaves 
the floor, I wish to thank him for his wise counsel throughout the 
process of writing the farm bill. It is nice to have a farmer in the 
Senate who can give practical ideas and reactions. This is somebody who 
has been out there fighting for the farmer, small farmers, to be able 
to make sure they have the same shot to be successful as the big 
producers.
  I thank Senator Tester not only for his support, but he has a very 
key voice in supporting farmers and ranchers across the country. I very 
much appreciate his counsel as we bring this effort to conclusion.
  I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls be equally 
divided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The legislative clerk proceeded to 
call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the Agricultural Act of 2014 is the 
culmination of a lot of hard work by our conferees, Representatives 
Mike Rogers and Martha Roby from Alabama, as well as my colleagues in 
the Senate, Senators Stabenow and Cochran and others.
  This important legislation contains a number of commendable measures. 
During my time in the Senate, I have been a strong supporter of 
Alabama's farmers and believe this legislation does make a number of 
positive reforms over the long term that should help in the effort to 
reduce, not grow, the involvement of the Federal Government in 
agriculture.
  For example, the legislation transitions farm subsidies from a system 
of direct payments to a more market-based crop insurance support 
program. Senator Lugar always favored that. I think many other people 
who have thought about agriculture think that is the right path to go. 
I have supported that.
  As a 5-year bill, this legislation should also give our farmers and 
their families some certainty that they need to make prudent planning 
decisions and give them choices to select programs that best meet their 
needs.
  I believe our farmers can move forward and help our Nation remain a 
global leader in the production of food and fiber which is critical to 
our economic well-being and national security.
  The final bill also contains many other essential provisions to 
reduce unnecessary regulations, such as the inclusion of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, forest roads fix, which I have 
strongly supported. It is an excessive intervention into the forest 
industry to have the EPA involved in the issues that they are talking 
about, and I think we have clarified that so that won't be a problem.
  It also contains provisions that are designed to help Alabama catfish 
producers, peanut farmers, cotton farmers, and forest landowners who 
compete in the global economy.
  I am pleased the final bill contains my provision to help farmers in 
States like Alabama that have not significantly used irrigation 
practices in the past. Under the current USDA policy, farmers have been 
excluded from the Federal irrigation program if they don't have a 
history of irrigation, and that makes no sense where we are trying to 
involve more people to smartly use more irrigation. I thank the ranking 
member and the chair of the committee for their work supporting us on 
that. My provision will help ensure that more Alabama farmers are able 
to access these programs. It has been a priority of mine for some time, 
although it is a small part of the overall bill.
  As a whole, the Congressional Budget Office claims that the farm bill 
will reduce the deficit by $16.6 billion over 10 years. This is a step, 
a small step, however, in the right direction. It means that if current 
law were extended without change, we would be spending $16.6 billion 
more than if this bill were passed. So that is positive.
  I wish we could do more, and we can do more. Unfortunately, we 
haven't done more, but this is a positive step. It is fair to say that 
the elimination of countercyclical and direct payments--almost 
entirely--is a historic occasion. Of course, Congress enacted Freedom 
to Farm in 1996, which was intended to slowly phase out these kinds of 
subsidies. But when times became particularly difficult for our farmers 
in the years following the 1996 bill with low prices and drought, these 
programs were, in essence, reinstituted by Congress. The retreat and 
the movement away from Federal intervention was greatly eroded.
  In my view--and that is all I have at bottom, is my view--Congress 
should seek to steadily reduce the role of the Federal Government in 
farming. But millions are dependent upon farming for their livelihoods, 
and a thoughtful, conservative approach to reducing Federal 
intervention would be to continue this reduction steadily over time. It 
surely can't be done smartly all at once without some real dislocation 
in the agricultural marketplace--although I must say I think we could 
have gone a good bit further this year.
  But I remain concerned that the reforms to the SNAP program, the food 
stamp program, are much too modest. I hope our actions today help set 
the table for continued and badly needed reforms that I and others have 
outlined during our debate on the farm bill in 2012, 2013, and this 
year.
  Yet it seems clear to me that the bill before us today regretfully 
does not go nearly as far as it could in addressing the abuses and the 
wastefulness that are contained in those programs.
  For example, the bill spends $956 billion over 10 years. Nearly 80 
percent of that is for the SNAP program, food support programs.
  It is, in reality, as someone has said, a SNAP bill, a food stamp 
bill. Eighty percent of the money goes to that one problem. It asks our 
farmers to contribute a disproportionate share to deficit reduction. 
The bill cuts food stamps by only about $8 billion and it cuts the 
agricultural programs by about $8 billion. That sounds fair, balanced, 
as my colleagues like to use that word, ``balanced.'' But we are 
cutting $8 billion from the 20 percent of the program and the other $8 
billion from the other 80 percent of the program, and that is not 
balanced.
  I want to say to my colleagues that there is no intent or desire of 
any Member of this Senate to have people who are hungry remain hungry 
and people who are in need of food not to have food. What we are saying 
is there are a great number of abuses in the program that have clearly 
been identified and should be fixed and haven't been sufficiently 
fixed.
  Although it repeals direct payments, the bill replaces those payments 
with new programs that seek to help farmers in a more effective way and 
that will cost at least $27 billion. So we reduce some programs and 
increase others. I think most of that is in the agricultural insurance 
policy, which is probably, in general, a better way to help our 
agricultural industry.
  Congress needs to be careful about spending more money, and many 
Senators and independent analysts think these new programs may cost 
even

[[Page 2327]]

more than CBO is currently projecting. It moves money from direct 
support to crop insurance, and I think that could be good. We have 
studied the farm bill conference report and note that the Congressional 
Budget Office has concluded it increases spending in 2014 by $2.1 
billion above the spending limits Democrats and Republicans agreed to 
in December. It is more than what we agreed to in December--$2.1 
billion over the limits we agreed to in a bipartisan way.
  In the Senate this would normally subject the legislation before the 
Senate to two points of order, budget points of order, because it 
violates the budgeted spending limits we just agreed to. Proponents of 
the bill would then be required to either reduce the spending in the 
bill to the agreed-upon level or gather a supermajority of 60 votes to 
waive the point of order and agree to violate the budget.
  However, the Senate majority, our Democratic colleagues have deployed 
a budget gimmick with Republican support that rendered these points of 
order--and consequently limit a minority's right to enforce the 
spending limits--ineffective. This is something I predicted 2 months 
ago when the Ryan-Murray legislation passed. I said on December 18, as 
that deal was being debated:

       With 57 different reserve funds, the Murray-Ryan spending 
     bill that is before us now will allow Senator Reid and 
     Chairwoman Murray to bring to the floor a practically 
     unlimited number of big tax-and-spend bills. It will not be 
     subject to the 60-vote limit. Normally the minority party 
     would be able to raise a point of order under section 302(f) 
     of the Budget Act.

  So the Budget Committee chairman has decided to make an adjustment to 
the budget spending levels, and she can do so because of the Ryan-
Murray spending agreement that passed the House, the Republican House, 
and the Senate. This will allow increased spending in the farm bill 
above the amount we agreed to.
  Though two points of order would lie against the bill, they are 
voided in the Ryan-Murray legislation because of the powers granted to 
the Budget Committee chairman in that legislation.
  Let me explain this power that was granted, yet again. The Ryan-
Murray agreement includes 57 deficit neutral reserve funds. 
Operationally, a reserve fund allows the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee to adjust the allocations of budget authority and outlays to 
a Senate committee or committees; aggregate levels of budget authority, 
outlays, and revenues; and other appropriate levels prior to Senate 
consideration. This allows the proposed legislation to avoid most 
spending and revenue-related budget points of order as long as the 
measure complies with both the subject matter and deficit neutrality 
instructions in the reserve fund.
  In the case of the farm bill, the Ryan-Murray budget numbers refers 
to the Senate-passed budget which garnered bipartisan opposition.
  The Senate budget, S. Con. Res. 8, in section 313 gives the chairman 
of the Budget Committee the power to adjust the budget for any farm 
bill reauthorization: ``Provided that such legislation would not 
increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 
through 2023.''
  Those are complex words I just read. But in other words, the farm 
bill is now in a situation where it can increase spending in the first 
fiscal year and promise that it will recoup the money later on, which 
is exactly what this bill does, and the minority's rights are 
diminished in its ability to stop it because of the Ryan-Murray budget 
agreement. That is what I warned about in December. Some said there 
wasn't anything to it. I warned that there was, and I think we are 
already seeing that there is something to the complaints I made.
  I said on the floor of the Senate that the ``power that Senators had 
to block tax-and-spend legislation that breaks spending limits has been 
eroded significantly'' by Ryan-Murray.
  The danger is that we will certainly have spending increases in the 
short-term, but we have only promises of spending limitations in the 
future.
  There is no point of order that lies against the bill because the 
Ryan-Murray agreement passed by Congress, I acknowledge--I am not sure 
if Members of the House and Senate fully knew what was included in the 
Ryan-Murray agreement after that secret meeting between the two budget 
leaders.
  This legislation is far from perfect, and we will see how we proceed 
with the agriculture bill. I appreciate those who have worked on it. We 
need to do the right thing for agriculture. It is an important part of 
our Nation's economy and our national security. I have invested a lot 
of time and effort in it, as I know most of my colleagues have. I 
appreciate the work of those who have produced this legislation for us.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. We all know the Senate and House agriculture leaders 
unveiled the long-awaited conference report last week for the 2014 farm 
bill. It has been a long trip getting this far. Every conference 
committee, of course, has some controversy, but the 2014 farm bill has 
had more than its fair share of twists and turns--right down to the 
negotiations on the dairy policy in the fleeting hours--before we, as 
conferees, signed this conference report. It sounds like the old days 
of The Perils of Pauline when we had the farm bill tied to the railroad 
tracks or about to head over the dairy cliff.
  Fortunately, we had Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Cochran, and 
their superb staffs. I am also blessed with my own superb staff: 
Adrienne Wojciechowski, Kathryn Toomajian, Rebekah Weber, Kara Leene, 
and Tom Berry, all of whom spent hours away from their families while 
working on this important bill. We ended with a bipartisan, bicameral 
farm bill that addresses the needs of every region in the country. 
Senator Stabenow and I were on the phone or emailing about every hour 
of the day, night, and weekends from Michigan, Vermont, overseas, and 
from the Senate, but it worked. Everybody had a chance, Republicans and 
Democrats alike, to express their views. Now it is time to vote, pass 
the bill, send it to the President, and give sorely needed certainty to 
our farmers, our families, and our rural communities.
  After all, the 2014 farm bill saves taxpayers $23 billion. It 
eliminates duplicative programs. It strengthens the toolbox for 
conserving our natural resources. It gives the farmers some much-
needed, long-overdue certainty as they make planting decisions. They 
don't have the luxury that we seem to give ourselves to wait until the 
very last second to vote on something. They have to plan months in 
advance. It provides relief to struggling families, support for rural 
communities, and investments in a sustainable energy future. Is it a 
perfect bill? Of course not. No farm bill is. But while there are 
provisions I would not have preferred, I do believe it has a lot of 
provisions that will benefit Vermont and the Nation.
  I wish the commonsense dairy policies that were passed twice by the 
full Senate and supported by Republicans and Democrats, by the chair 
and by the ranking member, and also by the House Committee on 
Agriculture had not been ambushed at the last hour. As a result, we 
don't have a market stabilization program--something that was proposed 
by dairy farmers themselves that would have protected taxpayers from 
the exorbitant costs and would have insulated dairy farmers and 
consumers from volatile rollercoastering milk prices.
  Unfortunately, the Speaker of the House and some of the very 
powerful, huge industry figures from out West did not want it.
  We do have, because of the constant work of everybody--and I again 
would praise the chair of our own committee, Senator Stabenow--a 
solution that while not perfect will help our small dairy farmers 
protect themselves from poor economic conditions when milk prices 
plummet or when feed prices skyrocket or, as we have sometimes seen in 
the worst scenario, when both happen at the same time. The final

[[Page 2328]]

farm bill includes changes to lower the cost of the Dairy Producer 
Margin Protection Program for Vermont's small, family dairy farms. It 
will also discourage large dairies from using this program to flood the 
markets through overproduction of milk, something that wipes out small 
family farms.
  But the bill is not just about farmers; it is a food bill that 
supports hungry children and struggling families and it has healthy 
food initiatives. I am disappointed the final bill contains many cuts 
to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but the conferees 
worked together and rejected the deepest cuts to the hunger safety net 
and the most harmful new conditions which were advocated by an extreme 
majority in the House, both of which would have undermined the very 
reasonably offered food assistance. These provisions would have slashed 
nearly $40 billion from nutrition assistance programs, eliminating the 
eligibility for millions of Americans, and making it harder for hungry 
children to receive free school meals.
  Frankly, I am fed up with hearing Members, whether in the House or 
sometimes Members in this body, say: Oh, we can't afford to feed these 
hungry children when they go to school. These are the same Members who 
voted for a blank check to go to an unnecessary war in Iraq, something 
that has cost us $2 trillion, which they did on a credit card. We need 
to feed children in America so they might actually learn while they are 
at school, but some say: Oh, we can't afford that. Come on. Feeding 
those hungry children is an investment in the future of this great 
Nation.
  Some of the demeaning and offensive provisions, such as allowing drug 
testing of beneficiaries and unrealistic work requirements, were left 
out. You're telling me that we can have tax-paying, hard-working 
citizens, who, when factories close, won't be able to feed themselves 
with supplemental nutrition. We are going to demean them after what 
they have done for the country? Of course not.
  The legislation promotes food security in low-income communities and 
encourages healthy eating through increased access to fruits and 
vegetables. That is something we have done in Vermont for years and it 
is also one of the reasons--that and the fact we cover every child from 
birth to 18 years old for health care--that Vermont is always listed as 
either No. 1 or No. 2 of the healthiest States in the Nation.
  This legislation also--and again I wish to compliment the Chair on 
this--continues to share the responsibility to conserve our working 
farmlands and our natural resources. If we lose these natural 
resources, we can't make them again. We are not going to get them back. 
Federally supported crop insurance will ease farmers' exposure when 
natural disasters strike. It will keep working lands in production. 
Meanwhile, enlisting farmers to continue the simple conservation 
practices they are already following will ensure the protection of our 
wetlands and our sensitive lands.
  In a country as diverse as ours, it is no simple task to produce a 
farm bill that addresses the needs of every region or every industry or 
every priority. I am proud this is a bill that offers a targeted 
approach to tackling the needs of each State and agricultural sector, 
rather than doing it the easy way, which is a one-size-fits-all, which 
ends up not fitting anybody.
  The regional equity program guarantees that no State is left out from 
receiving conservation resources under the farm bill. Not only Vermont 
communities but rural America everywhere will be strengthened by a 
broadband development program, energy efficiency initiatives, and water 
treatment and distribution loans. Vermont's very beautiful Northeast 
Kingdom REAP Zone will continue to be a catalyst for growth and 
progress to help build a resilient rural economy. Organic agriculture 
is supported through certification cost sharing, stronger enforcement, 
crop insurance, and funding for organic research. We should promote 
organics because it is the fastest growing sector in agriculture.
  I am also pleased that many of the harmful provisions from the House 
farm bill were removed during the conference negotiations, including 
dangerous secrecy provisions and attacks on critical environmental 
regulations. One that was proposed by an extremely conservative 
Republican would have actually threatened to limit States rights. What 
an amazing turn of events. We got rid of all of these.
  Bottom line, the Senate and the House have produced a farm bill that 
at its core is about keeping America strong. Make no mistake, farming 
is part of our national security. Look at the number of nations in this 
world that would give anything to be able to feed themselves and have 
food left over to export. We are more secure as a nation because we can 
do that.
  This farm bill will boost the economy, will create jobs, will offer 
support for the hungry, conserve our national resources, improve our 
energy security, and stand up for our country's families. I am proud to 
have signed the conference report for another farm bill that will 
support Americans today and into America's future. I look forward to 
one of my few duties I get to perform after this bill passes: I will 
sign the bill as President pro tempore after the Speaker signs it. And 
I know from what he has said to all of us, the President will then sign 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to address a small part of 
this bill but a very important part of the bill, something I have been 
working on through at least two farm bills. Since the chairwoman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is here, Senator 
Stabenow, I thank her for defending my position up until the last day 
or two of the conference. She kept me informed fully about the 
difficulty of the position that both Houses had taken getting that out 
of conference.
  I come to the floor not to discuss just my issue but to use it as an 
example that my colleagues may look forward to in the future; that is, 
that just because something goes through the Senate, even without 
controversy--because as far as I know it wasn't discussed or there was 
no amendment offered to strike what I am talking about that came out of 
committee and it passed in the House of Representatives by a 230-to-194 
vote in the same language--one would assume that something which was 
the same in both Houses would not be changed by the conference. In 
fact, rule XXVIII of the Senate rules says this: ``Conferees shall not 
insert in their report matter not committed to them by either House, 
nor shall they strike from the bill matter agreed to by both Houses.''
  So if Members are interested in the Senate rules being followed by 
conference committees in the future, understand in this particular case 
that was not followed. The provisions were not necessarily struck, but 
they were changed in such a manner that the $387 million the 
Congressional Budget Office said would be saved if my provision stayed 
in, that amount of money will not be saved.
  We are talking about a situation that we are trying to correct, going 
back at least to the 2008 farm bill and maybe previous to that, where 
10 percent of the biggest farmers get 70 percent of the benefits from 
the farm program, so it is subsidizing farmers as opposed to helping 
medium- and small-sized farmers get through conditions such as natural 
disasters, politics, and other aspects beyond the control of farmers 
that the safety net for farmers was intended to help.
  So we could have saved $387 million, and the rules of Senate said 
this should have been in the final package that came back to the 
Senate, but it is not here. It seems to me my colleagues ought to be 
aware of that fact because they may be in a similar situation sometime 
on some other conference committee report, and the question is: Are you 
going to let a small number of people--for most of this conference 
report 4 people negotiating the difference between the House and the 
Senate--speak for the other 531 Members of the Congress? Are you going 
to let a majority of that group of people represent a

[[Page 2329]]

minority of the Senate and a minority of the House? By this being taken 
out or this being changed in such a way so it has no value, that is 
exactly what has happened.
  Making sure we have limits on the amount of money a farmer can get 
and real numbers that work is not something new. President Bush vetoed 
a farm bill in 2008 because he said it continues subsidies for the 
wealthy. In another part of his veto message he said the American 
taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize that group of farmers who 
have adjusted gross incomes up to $1.5 million as the rationale for 
vetoing that bill.
  So what we have is the moral authority of a majority of the Senate, a 
moral authority of the House of Representatives, and their positions 
taken on this language--language that limited a farmer to no more than 
$250,000 and defining a farmer as somebody who is actually engaged in 
the business of farming so nonfarmers don't get help from the farm 
program--has been taken out, regardless of the moral authority that 
said it should be kept in the bill. In other words, conferees are 
taking out something that represented a minority of the House of 
Representatives and a minority of the Senate.
  We are here to vote on a farm bill--cloture today, final passage 
tomorrow. The farm bill is a very important safety net for producers. 
It gives farmers a chance to survive in tough times. As a farmer, I 
understand the risk of farming. My payment limit reforms were adopted--
and I can't say that too many times--in both bodies of Congress. It 
would have saved $387 million.
  People said, when we limited through my amendment that you could have 
one nonfarming manager per farming operation, that was unreasonable.
  There would have been a lot of money saved. But more importantly, as 
is the situation today and will probably be the situation in the 
future, nonfarmers are going to be able to get benefits from a farm 
program when they don't have legitimacy for it. This provision should 
not have been touched, because it was the same in both Houses.
  Unlimited subsidies, when 10 percent of the biggest farmers get 70 
percent of the benefits from the farm program, actually put a new 
generation of young and beginning farmers at a severe disadvantage. 
There is nothing wrong with farmers getting bigger. That is the 
American dream, to use your potential to do the best for yourself. But 
when large farmers who shouldn't get subsidized get big payments from 
the farm program, it is, in my estimation, wrong--particularly when it 
drives up the price of land as it has in the recent 5 to 8 years; 
drives up the price of cash rent as it has recently. It is very 
difficult for people who are just trying to get into the business of 
farming to start. So I think when nonfarmers can qualify for the farm 
program as managers when they might not even be making a phone call to 
the operation and having limits that don't mean much--which is exactly 
what we are doing, subsidizing big farmers to get bigger--it puts young 
and beginning farmers at a severe disadvantage.
  Changing my reforms behind closed doors is wrong. The House and 
Senate had spoken on the issue. With no debate in the Senate here, a 
230-194 vote in support of the Fortenberry amendment in the House of 
Representatives--something under the Senate rules that is the same in 
both bodies should not be messed with by the conferees, but it was 
changed dramatically.
  Some are saying the effort the conferees took to give the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture authority to bring about some of these 
reforms on who is engaged in the business of farming will do the job. 
But they have had that authority for a long time, and I see this as a 
Washington hat trick to say you have done something when you haven't 
done anything.
  I am not going to be able to vote for this bill because it would 
endorse what has happened. Egregious manipulation behind closed doors 
of something that is the same in both Houses should not be tolerated, 
and I hope my colleagues will take that into consideration so it 
doesn't happen to them in the future. How we will fix other entitlement 
programs if we can't cut subsidies to millionaire farmers who don't 
even farm makes it very difficult.
  As I said, my friend from Michigan, Chairwoman Stabenow, has worked 
hard on this bill. I wanted to support this farm bill. I just can't get 
over what happened behind closed doors, once again, here in Washington. 
And as she has told me so many times, she has defended my position and 
I thank her for so doing.
  I yield the floor and 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.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. 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.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, in spite of all the discussion about our 
great energy renaissance and ``all of the above,'' and new 
manufacturing--and, yes, we are going to be a test site for the 
unmanned aircraft--in North Dakota we live and we breathe agriculture. 
In summer, our plains are filled with beautiful sunflowers and canola 
fields and flax. It is the most amazing view, especially when the 
canola is next to the flax.
  Our ranchers take serious pride in their cattle herds that graze 
around much of our State. The wheat, grain, corn, and soybeans farmers 
provide help to feed the world and have the best products produced in 
agriculture today.
  Agriculture also supports 16 million jobs around the country, 
including thousands of manufacturing jobs in North Dakota. This is not 
surprising, given that our State is one of the most productive farm 
States in the country. Those jobs make it possible for our State to 
continue to harvest each year, supporting families across North Dakota 
but also throughout the country.
  I take great pride in the work our farmers and ranchers do. I know 
all North Dakotans do as well. For too long we weren't supporting them 
enough to enable them to do their job. In fact, we held farmers and 
ranchers in limbo because they haven't been sure how to prepare for 
this crop year since the Congress had not done its job and passed a 
farm bill. Finally, that is about to change.
  During my campaign I pledged to work tirelessly to get a long-term 
farm bill passed. Now we are literally at the 1-yard line of finally 
reaching the goal of passing a 5-year bipartisan farm bill. I am 
incredibly proud of the work we have done and what we have almost 
accomplished. And I do have to give a shout-out to our tremendous 
chairwoman, Senator Debbie Stabenow, who, as Senator Hoeven put it, is 
a tough negotiator--tough but fair, and absolutely remarkable, not only 
this year but also in 2013 and 2012, and who never resists an 
opportunity to inform anyone who crosses her path about the importance 
to the economy of this country that a long-term farm bill positions us 
much better to be competitive in the world.
  One subject we talk about a lot is the budget and about long-term 
systemic reforms that can give us what in public policy we need to do, 
such as a safety net for farmers, but also reduce costs to taxpayers. 
This farm bill saves 23 billion in Federal dollars, while still 
providing one of the strongest safety nets for farmers and ranchers 
ever crafted in a long-term farm bill. It makes critical reforms to 
target resources where they are most needed while also giving farmers 
the opportunity to thrive. This farm bill achieves that goal, and puts 
our agricultural system in a strong position to continue its role as a 
world leader.
  This is achieved through effective farm programs for growers; 
livestock disaster coverage for ranchers and livestock producers; 
enhanced crop insurance offerings; expanded research, which is so 
critical to so many of our new crops; increased export production for 
agricultural products; critical investments in biofuels and in energy; 
our renewal of the Sugar Program to prevent excess imports of unfairly 
subsidized foreign sugar; and targeted conservation assistance to 
tackle the

[[Page 2330]]

unique problems in this country, particularly in my State with Devils 
Lake and the Red River Valley.
  In North Dakota we grow more than 20 different crops each year, and 
we lead the Nation in the production of 13 different commodities, 
including spring wheat, durum wheat, barley, edible beans, peas, 
lentils, canola, sunflowers, and flaxseed. So while we talk about this 
expansion and explosion of both corn and soybeans, North Dakota is 
leading the way in diversification, which I think is the future for 
agriculture.
  North Dakota is also a leading livestock State, with thousands of 
cow-calf operators raising livestock in the West, and a leading 
producer of sugar beets from growers in the Red River Valley.
  Approximately 25 percent of my State's economic base and employment 
is derived from work done on the farm. I talk about this quite a bit, 
because I think when we think about economics and what generates 
economic activity, at the very beginning, we have to have new wealth 
creation, and in this country new wealth creation comes from what we 
extract from the earth, how we use our resources, and it comes from 
exportation of our goods and services. That is new wealth, and farming 
is such a critical component. When we think about it, we realize our 
farmers and ranchers help grow the economy and reduce our Nation's 
trade deficit. North Dakota alone exported more than $4.1 billion in 
commodities this year, contributing to farm cash receipts of over $7.6 
billion.
  But to simply put in a crop, an average grower in North Dakota spends 
upward to $1 million in import costs with the hope of earning a modest 
profit, a modest return on that investment at the end of the year.
  What is more, each year North Dakota faces challenges completely out 
of their control, such as floods, droughts, price collapse, and the 
introduction of new pests and pathogens. Each year North Dakota growers 
face an incredible risk--within the last 2 years--the uncertainty of 
not having a farm bill. They are able to take the risk because the rest 
of the country takes a little bit of risk with them for that food 
security and national security that American agriculture provides.
  For too long this body has debated farm and rural policies in place 
in our country without providing the needed certainty to America. 
Soon--in just a few hours--we will have the opportunity to prevail by 
putting rural America on a strong ground by passing a comprehensive 
long-term farm bill that stands for our ranchers and our producers and 
stands for the people who consume agricultural products in this 
country.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this bill. It is good for 
my State, it is good for the country, and it is good for the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have 20 to 30 minutes. I would 
appreciate it if the Presiding Officer would notify me when I have 
consumed 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. COBURN. I have been in the Congress for a lot of farm bills. I 
saw ``Freedom to Farm.'' I saw the last farm bill, the one before that, 
and now I am looking at this one. It reminds me of the auto 
commercial--something's up. Well, it sure is.
  Only in Washington can we claim a bill saves $24 billion when it 
increases the spending 43 percent over the next 10 years. How does that 
fit? Is that just the language of Washington? In fact, we are going to 
spend almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years on what should be 
called a food security bill rather than a farm bill because this is not 
a farm bill. This is a food security bill.
  The language we hear from our colleagues is totally parochial or 
product based. We hear all the claims that we are thinking about the 
best interests of the Nation. What we are truly thinking about is the 
best interests of the parochial values for our own States. That is how 
we get this conflagration of people coming together to pass a bill 
that, I admit, has some limited reforms in it.
  I just heard the Senator from North Dakota talk about how we create 
wealth. I could not disagree more. We create wealth by making sure the 
risk of capital investment is responsive to market forces. This farm 
bill is anything but that. There is no response to market forces 
because there is no place else in this country where someone can go 
into a business or an enterprise and be guaranteed that their revenue 
is going to be secure. We even added a new supplemental low-cost Crop 
Insurance Program that all of us who are not farmers in America are 
going to pay the deductible on. Plus, we are going to subsidize 62 to 
63 percent of all the crop insurance in the country.
  When we subsidize crop insurance, what we are doing is taking the 
capital risk and modifying the risk; therefore, markets are not going 
to work.
  We talk about sugar prices. Americans are losing candy manufacturers 
like crazy. Why is that? Because Americans pay twice as much as the 
rest of the world for sugar because we are protecting cane sugar and 
beet sugar farmers rather than letting market forces work.
  I am very disturbed at the process of this bill as well. Senator 
Durbin and I tried to put some income limitations on the benefits to 
the wealthiest in this country when it comes to crop insurance. It 
passed this Senate with 64 or 65 votes. It was in the bill when it left 
here. The House passed the same thing by a voice vote and the conferees 
took it out.
  What is the farm bill about? It is about protecting the well-heeled 
and well-connected in the agricultural community.
  I know a little bit about agriculture. My dad ran a ranch with 5,000 
mother cows. I worked on it in the summer and after school. Back then--
in the 1970s--there were no benefits for a cattle rancher. That has 
come into the farm program since the 1970s. It guarantees them that now 
they will make decisions that are against market forces but will farm 
the government.
  So I say again, only in Washington when we are going to spend $350 
billion more on a program over the next 10 years will somebody claim we 
are cutting spending $14 to $20 billion. Only in Washington will that 
happen. It is unique Washington accounting.
  We have heard all the proponents say what a great job they did. Let 
me talk a little bit about some of the details of this farm bill.
  One of the things the President talked about--he just put Joe Biden 
in charge of the job training programs. He is supposed to look at all 
of them to see if they have metrics. The GAO has studied that. I have 
looked at every job training program--State and Federal--in my State.
  They have 10 job training pilot programs in this bill. We don't need 
any more job programs. What we need to do is make sure the ones we have 
work and have metrics on them. We need to make sure that when we spend 
American taxpayers' dollars that we are actually giving somebody a life 
skill rather than filling the coffers of the companies that contract to 
do all the job training programs or allowing the small bureaucracies 
that suck up the grants. Oklahoma's Federal programs are highly 
ineffective--especially when we compare them to the State-run programs, 
which are highly effective.
  So in this farm bill we are creating more job-training programs. It 
sounds good. It is a good sound bite on the floor, and it is a good 
sound bite in the press back home. But something is up, and what is up 
is we continue to make the same mistakes as a legislative body. That 
mistake is that we want to please constituents at home more than we 
want to fix the real problems in front of this Nation.
  Let me talk about SNAP for a minute. There is not anybody in this 
country I want to go hungry. When this country was first founded, we 
used some very good principles that the Senate and the House have 
totally disregarded in terms of how to help people.
  I reference the historical blueprint from a book written by a man by 
the name of Marvin Olasky. The title of that book was called ``The 
Tragedy of American Compassion.'' It talks about how we used to help 
people versus how we are helping them now; how did we

[[Page 2331]]

build up people as we helped them versus now; how are we tearing down 
people as we help them. It talks about creating dependency versus 
creating responsibility.
  He outlines several factors this country has used in the past that we 
ought to be reembracing. Let me list a couple of them. One is we should 
give relief to people only after one-on-one personal investigation of 
their need. Let me say that again. We ought to know they need it. 
Contrast where the money is coming from. The money is not coming from 
today's taxpayer when we are running a $640 billion deficit. The money 
is coming from our kids and our grandkids.
  Do we not have an obligation to know that when we give somebody a 
SNAP card they truly need it versus the fact that the SNAP cards and 
PIN numbers get sold? The SNAP card is then used by somebody else. That 
is going on throughout this country. That is not to say that most of 
the people who are getting this benefit don't need it. Because there is 
no personal investigation into it and there is no accountability on the 
part of the receiver or the giver, we are creating a situation in our 
country where we are undermining self-reliance.
  The second point he made was to give necessary articles and only what 
is immediately necessary. That means you have to investigate it in 
order to give what is least susceptible to abuse; to give only in small 
quantities and in proportion to immediate needs and less than might be 
procured by labor except in cases of sickness. That is a great 
principle. Let's help people, but let's help people help themselves. 
Let's don't create a situation of temptation to do the wrong thing; to 
give assistance at the right moment, not prolong it beyond duration of 
the necessity which calls for it. We don't do that at all in any of our 
programs; to require each beneficiary absence from intoxicating liquors 
and drugs; to discontinue relieving all who manifest a purpose to 
depend on alms rather than their own exertion for support. I don't have 
one problem paying my taxes to make sure people don't go hungry and 
have food on the table for their kids.
  I just watched a documentary my daughter referred to me. I have to 
say, as a physician, I understand the scientific tests and the great 
research that went into this. It is called ``Forks Over Knives.'' It 
makes the case that most of our health care cost is based on our diet. 
It is very accurate and well done--except we have no limitations.
  Senator Harkin and I have tried for years to get limitations on how 
food stamps and SNAP cards are used. We can't budge anybody to say we 
ought to limit it to healthy foods, because for every $1 we spend on 
food, we are creating $1 in health care costs down the road.
  I recommend that my colleagues watch that study. It is unbelievable 
in terms of heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension. No medicine, 
just a change in diet, and all of a sudden those things go away. They 
go away because we take Big Agribusiness's push to use what is 
profitable out of the food chain and then start supplying foods that 
are actually good for us.
  It seems to me Congress looks backward instead of forward when it 
comes to the farm bill. One of the things we ought to do is look at the 
world and what the population is. I also wish to say that some of the 
hardest working people in this country are the people who are in 
agriculture. I don't say these things to demean them, but markets do 
work.
  We hurt our farmers when we take them away from market forces because 
that will cause them to make decisions that are false choices when it 
comes to capital investment, and those are false choices for our 
country because that means capital is going into something that is 
subsidized by the government rather than going into something that is 
not subsidized that will create a greater good and more wealth for our 
country.
  This bill does exactly that. You realize in this bill you are 
guaranteed 86 percent of your revenue. Let me think about that. Do you 
know anywhere else where you can get your revenue on your crops 
guaranteed at 86 percent and the Federal taxpayer is paying most of the 
cost of the insurance for that?
  Individuals in Oklahoma, Maine, and Virginia are paying higher tax 
dollars so we can create a system where we are investing in crops that 
are not necessarily good for us and causes us to pay a higher price for 
a domestically produced crop versus world markets; whereas, we could 
direct the same inputs into a product that is much better for us and we 
would be much more competitive.
  One of the points I wish to make is that in 2013, net farm income was 
$131 billion. That is 16.5 percent over what it was the year before, in 
an economy that is only growing less than 2 percent. Yet we are going 
to spend almost $100 billion a year in the future, of which only 18 
percent of that will be for agricultural programs, outside of the Food 
Stamp Program. We are going to spend $18 billion to misdirect capital 
in a way that, in the long run, we won't see that kind of growth.
  I will finish with other commentary. It is necessary that we have a 
farm program, but there is one little trick in this farm bill that 
everybody ought to be aware of. It is the pressure for the next farm 
bill that is put in this farm bill, and my colleagues know what it is. 
They didn't eliminate any of the permanent law that is on the books; 
they just let it stay there, and then we created the farm bill for 5 
years. What is the purpose of that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 15 minutes.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
  The purpose is so that in 10 years, and in 5 years when we come to 
another farm bill, the default position will fall back to 1940s-era 
agricultural law, which will create pressure to do a farm bill again. 
If we do the same next time, it is going to cost $1.5 trillion over the 
following 10 years.
  My best friend is a feed corn, soybean, and wheat farmer. The farm is 
in excess of 2,000 acres in Oklahoma. On breaks, when they are 
harvesting, I go down there and drive a grain buggy. I have only bent 
the auger on it once. I hear it from a farmer's perspective. Do my 
colleagues know what he tells me? He tells me we don't need this 
anymore. We don't need it. We need decisions on capital investment to 
be made on risks and markets. No one can tell me, when we have $131 
billion in net farm income this year, that we need to be subsidizing 86 
percent of everybody's product, guaranteeing them, no matter what 
happens in yield or price, they are going to get 86 percent.
  The cost of this bill isn't just the $1 trillion we are talking 
about; it is going to be much higher. We have had historically high 
commodity prices. They have moderated somewhat, but if they go back 
anywhere close to historical prices, this bill is going to cost at 
least another $100 billion, just in one program alone. CBO's assumption 
is that we are not going to do that. But most of the leading 
agricultural economists in this country think corn is going to be under 
$4, it is going to be $3.75, and wheat will decline and soybeans will 
decline. So the score we have on this bill is nonsense because it 
doesn't reflect the reality of what is happening out there.
  I appreciate the hard work people did on the farm bill. I am highly 
critical of adding new job programs. I think we have missed it 
completely. We don't even know what the real problem is in terms of job 
training in this program, and the 10 pilot programs aren't going to 
make a difference anywhere. What we ought to have is real programs that 
are WTO-compliant, that reconnect capital investment with the real 
world forces of market prices and markets.
  We spend $200 million a year just on one program--assisting farmers 
selling their products overseas. Do we know what sells products 
overseas? Price, quality. But we have a little $200 million program 
that everybody in organized agriculture gets to take advantage of. They 
get a couple of trips a year on the Federal taxpayer. It ought not be 
so. If we want to promote products, we ought to be out promoting them. 
We shouldn't be promoting private brands with Federal Government

[[Page 2332]]

money. We ought to create the opportunity to promote it, but we 
shouldn't be doing it.
  Needless to say, I will not be voting for cloture. I will reemphasize 
that Senator Durbin and I had a great amendment. Those who signed the 
conference report and took that out can't stand up and say anything 
about anybody who is wealthy in this country or the tax rates or 
anything else, because they just gutted one of the things that would 
have put back equality in terms of the farm program for the very 
wealthy in this country. We are continuing to pay hundreds of millions, 
if not billions, of dollars monthly to the most well-connected, well-
financed, wealthiest people in this country because they are farming 
the farm program. By taking that out, those who did lost all moral 
authority to ever say anything again about income inequality in this 
country, because those who signed the conference report chose to take 
that out.
  We understand how politics works. I understand how politics works. 
But credibility is important in our country and we are losing it. We 
are losing it here. Look at the polls. We have lost it in the Nation's 
Capital as far as the American people are concerned. We haven't just 
lost credibility; we are losing legitimacy, because we wink and nod to 
do the parochial vote, even though in the best long-term interests of 
our country we are doing the wrong thing. But it sure sells well at 
home.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on two matters. 
The first is the farm bill and the second is the U.S. attorney 
situation in my State of Minnesota.
  Being a Senator from a State that is a leader in agricultural 
products and now the sixth biggest State in terms of agricultural 
exports, I can tell my colleagues that the agricultural sector of this 
country is strong and it has, in fact, been a jewel in this economy 
when we look over the last few years and we look at the industries that 
were hit so hard during the downturn. Our food supply remains strong. 
Part of why it remains strong is because we have believed in investing 
in agriculture and agricultural research and in the next wave of 
machinery and all kinds of things, and it has helped our country, it 
has been a positive for our country.
  We have 80,000 farms in Minnesota. We are an exporting State, and it 
is one of the major reasons our unemployment rate is down to 4.6. 
Because it is not just about the small farmers all over our State, it 
is also about the businesses and the employees, and it is also about 
the fact that we are a country that makes its own food and is not 
dependent on foreign food the way we are dependent on foreign oil.
  I fought hard to get on the agriculture committee when I came to the 
Senate. I was honored to serve on the farm bill conference committee 
under Senator Stabenow's leadership. We worked together, as the 
Presiding Officer knows, on a bipartisan basis to put together a farm 
bill that strengthens the safety net for our Nation's family farms, 
preserves critical food and nutrition programs, and brings down the 
deficit compared to the last farm bill to the tune of over $20 billion, 
which is one of the reasons we wanted to put this new farm bill in 
place. The bulk of the savings comes from the transition from those 
direct agricultural subsidies to a more risk-based management system of 
crop insurance.
  We also worked hard in the conservation area, which is very important 
in my State where hunting and fishing are a way of life. The 
conservation provisions are streamlined from 23 to 10 and we have the 
support of hundreds of environmental and conservation groups, including 
Pheasants Forever, which is based in Minnesota, as well as Ducks, 
Unlimited.
  We also worked hard in the energy area to finally fund that title, to 
acknowledge that we need many sources of energy in this country, 
including biofuels, wind, and solar. That is a big part of this bill as 
well.
  We kept the nutrition programs strong just by the fact that we were 
up against suggested cuts of $40 billion from the House of 
Representatives, and we found a way to make some changes that might not 
have been our top priority, but they were ways we were able to move on 
the farm bill and work with some of these States that were leveraging 
their heating assistance for food stamps. Most States were not 
affected. My State was not affected.
  We also provided permanent disaster relief for our Nation's livestock 
producers, something that is very important when we look at all the 
dead cows in South Dakota and everything that happened there.
  I believe the strength of this bill is a testament to the work and 
leadership of Chairman Stabenow and her tireless efforts. I thank 
Senator Cochran as well as Chairman Lucas, and Ranking Member Peterson 
from my State, and then also Congressman Tim Walz who served on the 
conference committee as well.
  This bill is important to the farmlands of our country, but it also 
is good for rural economies. I believe we do right by ourselves when we 
do right by our rural communities.
  I was listening to my colleague from Oklahoma, and I too have been on 
combines with farmers. I will say I wasn't driving that combine, which 
wouldn't have been good for the farm or the neighboring farms. I was a 
passenger. I heard a different story from my farmers in terms of the 
concern about bouncing from year to year and not knowing what the 
policies are, and how good it has been to have a 5-year policy in place 
for farm policy, how far we have come from those freedom-to-farm days 
when we were foreclosing on farms all over our State, and how we want 
to be able to continue to produce food in our State and to encourage 
young farmers and ranchers. That is why that amendment was part of my 
major focus, which was to give them some breaks on crop insurance and 
grazing their cattle on CRP land.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.


                      U.S. Attorney for Minnesota

  Now I wish to turn to a very different topic, which is Minnesota's 
U.S. attorney. This is an appalling situation, as the Presiding Officer 
will hear by the numbers. For 887 days, Minnesota has not had a full-
time, permanent U.S. attorney--887 days. During that time, from August 
2011 to August 2013, Todd Jones was responsible for doing two jobs. He 
was responsible for being the U.S. attorney in Minnesota as well as 
being the Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, 
and Explosives. As my colleagues can imagine, with the mess after Fast 
and Furious, he had a lot of work to do at the ATF and that was his 
major focus. Meanwhile, we kept going with some fine prosecutors, but 
we didn't have a full-time leader.
  Over the summer, thanks to my colleague from the State of Arizona, 
Senator McCain, we were able to finally confirm Todd Jones to that job. 
The ATF had been without a permanent director for 7 years. We got that 
done. Of course, then it officially left the Minnesota U.S. attorney's 
position open, even though it had already really been open for 2 years.
  Even before that decision was made by the Senate to confirm Todd 
Jones, Senator Franken and I had gathered together a bipartisan group, 
including the former U.S. attorney under President Bush, to advise us 
on a replacement for Mr. Jones--even before the time we confirmed Mr. 
Jones because of our concern over the problems in the office, many of 
which were on the front page of our newspaper. We were able to get a 
recommendation from our committee for a replacement, Mr. Andy Luger. He 
is a respected litigator, a former assistant U.S. attorney.
  It has now been 196 days since we made that recommendation to the 
President. It has been 187 days since Director Jones was confirmed with 
no full-time U.S. attorney again in the office. While the office has 
continued to provide the United States with the high-quality legal 
representation it deserves, Minnesota needs a full-time U.S. attorney.
  Mr. Luger sailed through the Judiciary Committee with no objections. 
He

[[Page 2333]]

has passed all the tests necessary, including the FBI test. He has the 
support of law enforcement with whom I have spoken. He has the support 
of one of our Republican Congressmen in the area. I want to thank 
Senator Grassley, who also supports him and has raised issues with the 
Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office because of the fact that we have not 
had a full-time attorney for 888 days, and he has been supportive of 
our efforts to quickly move Mr. Luger's nomination, not just through 
the committee but to the floor.
  Senator Grassley is in a similar situation because his U.S. attorney 
for the Northern District of Iowa was nominated on the same day and is 
also awaiting confirmation on the floor. Again, they have both come 
through the Judiciary Committee without any objection.
  So why is this important? Well, I ran a prosecutor's office with 
about 400 people for 8 years. We worked directly with the U.S. 
attorney's office. We were there during 9/11 when the U.S. Attorney's 
Office in Minnesota was dealing with the Moussaoui case. As you 
remember, he was caught in Minnesota. They were dealing with terrorism 
issues. We worked hand in hand. We took a number of their white-collar 
cases.
  I have been able to witness firsthand how day in and day out you need 
a U.S. attorney to make very difficult decisions as to what cases to go 
forward on, and especially without a full-time U.S. attorney it is very 
difficult to decide where to put limited resources in terms of 
strategic decisions. We have not had that person in place for 888 days.
  Protecting our Nation from terrorists is a top concern for all of us. 
When you hear of the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office, you might not 
think: terrorism. But in fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota 
is renowned for its counterterrorism efforts and terrorism 
prosecutions, especially investigating the terrorist organization al-
Shabaab. For years, authorities have been on alert for al-Shabaab in 
Minnesota.
  In Operation Rhino, the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuted 
Omer Abdi Mohamed, who recruited young Somali Americans to fight for 
terrorists in Somalia. Mohamed was indicted in November 2009 in 
Minnesota and pled guilty in July 2011 to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, 
and maim abroad.
  This operation is part of an ongoing terrorism investigation. As you 
know, there have been suicide bombings in Somalia--sadly, recruiting 
people out of our Somali community in Minnesota. We are proud of that 
community. They are an incredible part of our State. But this did 
happen. It has led to charges against 18 people for aiding al-Shabaab--
8 of whom have been convicted, some receiving sentences of up to 20 
years in prison.
  So I ask you, why would you pick an office like this not to have a 
leader for 888 days? But through a variety of circumstances--the fact 
that the ATF job was held up in terms of an appointment, and then the 
fact that this is being held up right now--we still do not have a 
leader.
  In addition to terrorism cases, the U.S. attorney's office is also 
responsible for prosecuting major drug crimes. Recently, the office won 
a major conviction and played a key role in shutting down a big 
synthetic drugstore in Duluth. And 2 weeks ago, the Minneapolis Star 
Tribune had a major news story about a growing and deadly heroin 
epidemic in Minnesota. As we have seen from the death this weekend of 
someone who was a celebrity, I think we all know there have also been 
heroin deaths all over this country, so Minnesota is not alone. But we 
are alone in that we have not had a chief leader in our U.S. attorney's 
office to come up with a strategy to deal with this case for 888 days.
  In the first half of 2013, 69 people died of opiate-related overdoses 
in Hennepin County, MN. That would be 69 people died. Some of these 
deaths were young kids. This is a situation that demands attention 
immediately, and Mr. Luger is eager to work with law enforcement on a 
strategy.
  Federal and State law enforcement also partnered to combat identity 
theft and white-collar crime. Minnesota had the second biggest white-
collar conviction in terms of money--next to Madoff--in the country. 
Yet this is an office that we have chosen not to put a leader in for 
888 days. The U.S. attorney's office won a conviction in a $3.65 
billion-dollar Ponzi scheme case--as I mentioned, the second biggest 
Ponzi scheme in U.S. history.
  Currently, Minnesota's U.S. Attorney's Office is headed by an acting 
director. But an acting director simply cannot provide the same kind of 
leadership as a full-time U.S. attorney.
  I know that the local heads of the DEA, FBI, and other Federal and 
State law enforcement agencies are very anxious to get a U.S. attorney 
in full time.
  I would also note that we also do not have an administrative officer 
because we are awaiting putting in a U.S. attorney so that Mr. Luger 
can hire an administrative officer. This is not a small office. There 
are more than 100 people working there, including 54 lawyers. Again, 
they are without a full-time boss and a leader. I think these hard-
working prosecutors and the people they work with deserve a leader in 
the office.
  When Minnesota was first made a State, President Zachary Taylor 
filled the position of U.S. attorney in 2 days for our young new State. 
Back then, they deserved a U.S. attorney. If they could get it done in 
2 days, I think we should be able to get it done in 888 days.
  I urge my colleagues to support his swift confirmation and give this 
office and its hard-working prosecutors the full-time prosecutor they 
deserve.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to make remarks about the 
farm bill conference agreement that is before us.
  Of course, across the Nation Americans are demanding that Washington 
restore their faith in government. Last year we saw a Congress crippled 
by government shutdowns and debt-ceiling standoffs. We nearly failed to 
pass a Defense authorization bill.
  While many of my colleagues have high hopes this year for returning 
to the practice of moving legislation through the regular order and 
perhaps working under a more open amendment process, I am profoundly 
disappointed that one of the first pieces of legislation we will send 
to the President this year is a $1.5 trillion farm bill. It is a mind-
boggling sum of money that is spent on farm subsidies, duplicative 
nutrition and development assistance programs, and special-interest pet 
projects.
  Taxpayer groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste blasted 
this farm bill as a ``Dung Deal.'' Last week, the Wall Street Journal 
called it ``A Bipartisan Taxpayer Raid,'' writing:

       It's no accident that Congress dropped this porker under 
     the cover of the State of the Union hoopla. Handouts to 
     agribusiness and millionaires, continued trade protectionism 
     for the sugar industry--it's all still there.

  How are we supposed to restore the confidence of the American people 
with this monstrosity? A few weeks ago we crammed down their throats a 
$1.1 trillion Omnibus appropriations bill loaded with wasteful 
spending. Tomorrow we will wash the omnibus down with another trillion 
dollars. The only policy that gets bipartisan traction in Congress is 
Washington's desire to hand out taxpayer money like it is candy.
  We have heard about some of the ``savings'' generated by this farm 
bill. It is true there are noteworthy cuts to several outdated 
Depression-era farm subsidies such as the Direct Payments Program and 
the Countercyclical Program. We also close loopholes in our Food Stamp 
Programs and conservation programs, which generated about $16 billion 
in savings, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and I applaud 
the conferees for their efforts.
  But, unfortunately, just about every subsidy eliminated under the 
farm bill is simply reinvented into a new and many times more expensive 
program. For example, we have a new thing called Agriculture Risk 
Coverage Program, which locks in today's record-high crop prices and 
guarantees farmers up to an 86-percent return on their

[[Page 2334]]

crop. Depending on market conditions, ARC--agriculture risk coverage--
could cost taxpayers between $3 billion to $14 billion each year--far 
more expensive than the $5 billion saved by the elimination of the 
Direct Payments Program. The bill also maintains the $95 billion 
federally backed crop insurance program which subsidizes crop insurance 
premiums. We then pile on a new $20 billion program called Supplemental 
Coverage Option that subsidizes crop insurance deductibles.
  The bill also strips out an amendment offered by my colleagues 
Senator Durbin and Senator Coburn which would have prevented crop 
insurance subsidies from going to individuals with a gross income 
greater than $750,000 a year. That amendment was adopted by 59 votes in 
the Senate's farm bill earlier last year. And guess what. Surprise. It 
is absent from the conference agreement. Millionaire farmers can 
rejoice that their crop insurance subsidies are safe. That is 
millionaire farmers, farmers with a gross income greater than $750,000 
a year. So the next time I hear the managers of this bill talk about 
the small farmer, I guess they are talking about millionaires as well.
  But it is all part of farm bill politics. In order to pass a farm 
bill, Congress must find a way to appease every special interest of 
every commodity association from asparagus farmers to wheat growers. If 
you cut somebody's subsidy, you give them a grant. If you kill their 
grant, then you subsidize their crop insurance. Let's look at several 
handouts that special interests have reaped in this year's farm bill.
  The bill provides $7 million in grants for the marketing of sheep. 
Now some who may be viewing this at home will maybe think I am making 
it up that we are spending $7 million of their tax dollars for the 
marketing of sheep.
  It also adds a thing called--and I am not sure I pronounce it right--
``japonica rice.'' Japonica rice is a sushi ingredient grown primarily 
in California, and it is added to the list of products that can receive 
farm subsidies.
  The bill provides $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry. I 
repeat: $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry. It says 
American tax dollars will go to--and I quote from the bill--``promote 
research and education for maple syrup production . . . promoting 
sustainability in the maple syrup industry . . . and market promotion 
for maple syrup.''
  So, my fellow citizens, the next time you see an advertisement for 
maple syrup, you may want to watch it because it is your tax dollars 
that paid for it.
  It places a 15-cent fee on harvesting Christmas trees. Not even 
Christmas is left out of this one--a 15-cent fee on harvesting 
Christmas trees. That money then is earmarked for promoting the orchard 
industry.
  There is $12 million for a ``wool research and promotion'' program. 
There are a lot of needy areas of America today, but I had no idea that 
wool research and promotion was worthy of $12 million of our tax 
dollars.
  I think this next one is probably my favorite--or unfavorite: $5 
million for a study to--again, I am quoting from the bill--``evaluate 
the impact of allowing schools to offer dried fruits and vegetables to 
children.''
  I know that is a tough decision for schools to make, as to whether 
they should offer dried fruits and vegetables to children. Do we need 
$5 million to help them evaluate that?
  There is $25 million for a new grant program to ``teach children 
about gardening, nutrition, cooking''--and get this--``and where food 
comes from.'' I am sure all over America children are asking: Where 
does food come from? This may sound like a well-intentioned initiative, 
but this grant program is a lot like 18 other food and nutrition 
programs that the Government Accountability Office declared duplicative 
in a report issued 2 years ago.
  The Federal Government's duplication of nutrition programs has cost 
$62.5 million annually in previous years. So here is a new grant 
program under the label of ``nutrition education.''
  The energy title of this bill doles out about $881 million in energy 
programs. Most Americans do not realize that the farm bill has become 
as much about energy subsidies as about farm subsidies. There is 
funding for ethanol research, biorefinery installations, and a sugar-
to-ethanol program where the Federal Government purchases surplus sugar 
and sells it at a loss to ethanol producers.
  American taxpayers will spend $5 million on the Biodiesel Fuel 
Education Program. Now, if there is anything that is needed in America, 
it is a good, vigorous biodiesel fuel education program. We are going 
to spend $5 million on it. It is to spread the gospel on the benefits 
of biodiesel. I have no objection to the use of biodiesel. In fact, I 
think I prefer it much more as an alternative compared to corn ethanol. 
But here we have $5 million to educate consumers on the benefits of 
biodiesel.
  Hidden in this bill is a tax on heating oil. Just yesterday, the 
Washington Times talked about the farm bill's National Oilheat Research 
Alliance Program in an article entitled ``Congress seeks to jack up 
fees on home heating oil in midst of frigid winter.'' The article 
reads:

       Congress' mammoth farm bill restores the imposition of an 
     extra fee on home heating oil, hitting consumers in the cold-
     weather states just as utility costs are spiking. The fee--
     two-tenths of a cent on every gallon sold--was tacked onto 
     the end of the 959-page bill, which is winding its way 
     through Capitol Hill. The fee would last for nearly 20 years 
     and would siphon the money to develop equipment that is 
     cheaper, more efficient and safer, and to encourage consumers 
     to update their equipment. The heating oil fee was backed by 
     Northeast lawmakers who said it would fund important research 
     to benefit consumers.
       The bill prohibits oil companies from passing the fees on 
     to consumers, but taxpayer advocates said that's a sham and 
     that the money has to come from consumers. To say they can't 
     pass on the cost, said Diane Katz, research fellow in 
     regulatory policy at the Heritage Foundation, ``It's kind of 
     silly because of course the costs are going to get passed on. 
     Money is fungible.''

  So here we have a special oil tax on consumers where the revenue is 
earmarked back to the heating oil industry, about $15 million a year 
according to the GAO. Why is the Federal Government in the business of 
collecting funds for heating oil research on behalf of the heating oil 
industry?
  The bill reauthorizes USDA loan subsidies for peanut growers and 
allows them to use their peanuts as collateral. If a peanut grower 
forfeits on their USDA loan, the Federal Government takes ownership of 
the peanuts and taxpayers bear the cost of storing the peanuts.
  The infamous sugar program is housed in this farm bill. This is 
probably the most ongoing scandal in the history of all of the farm 
bills and of all of the egregious aspects of it. Like the peanut 
program, USDA gives sugar growers, primarily in Florida, Louisiana, and 
Michigan, hundreds of millions of dollars in loans each year.
  If a sugar grower misses their profit margins, they get to keep the 
loan and transfer their excess sugar to the Federal Government as 
collateral. Over the past year, sugar subsidies and forfeitures have 
cost the taxpayers $258 million, while over 640,000 tons of sugar was 
handed over to the USDA.
  You know something. If you really look at it, there are a few 
families that control the sugar industry in Florida. Those families, 
God bless them, have given generous contributions to both Democratic 
and Republican parties. So the taxpayers have paid $258 million and 
over 640,000 tons of sugar was handed over to the USDA. Combined with 
import tariffs and marketing controls, the USDA Sugar Program costs 
consumers over $3 billion every year, one of the most obscene Federal 
farm subsidies ever conceived. This farm bill, advertised as full of 
reforms, does nothing.
  Another bizarre handout in this farm bill that I have been involved 
in now for many years is the creation of a catfish office. Again, I 
assure my colleagues, I am not making this up--a catfish office inside 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture at a cost of $15 million a year.
  The USDA will hire inspectors to visually inspect catfish in seafood 
facilities--only catfish and not shrimp, not a cod, not a tilapia, but 
only a catfish. We are going to have a special office

[[Page 2335]]

called--appropriately--the catfish office, to inspect visually catfish 
in seafood facilities--and only catfish.
  Senator Shaheen and I and 11 other Senators have sponsored 
legislation to kill this catfish program. I have been opposing it for 
years. In 2012, our legislation was adopted in the Senate by voice 
vote. I assure the distinguished manager of the bill that is the last 
time that on this issue I will accept a voice vote. The distinguished 
chairperson assured me that with a voice vote this amendment of ours 
would remain in the legislation, and obviously that has not been the 
case.
  So next time the distinguished manager, if it ever comes up again, 
assures me that an amendment of mine will be adopted in the final 
legislation, I will have to have better authentication than just taking 
her word.
  Last year, the House Agriculture Committee passed a bipartisan 
amendment to repeal it in the farm bill. Despite all this opposition, 
the unpopular catfish office resiliently survived conference. We do not 
need a new USDA catfish inspection program. The Food and Drug 
Administration already tests catfish, along with all other seafood.
  But certain farm bill conferees are insisting on creating a catfish 
office because catfish farmers in Southern States do not want to 
compete against foreign catfish importers, particularly those from 
Vietnam. Its true purpose is trade protectionism at the taxpayer's 
expense. Under this farm bill, there will be a virtual ban on catfish 
imports for several years while foreign inspectors switch from FDA's 
inspection procedures to USDA's catfish procedures.
  The Government Accountability Office investigated the proposed 
catfish office. In four different reports--four different reports--they 
called it ``duplicative'' and ``wasteful'' and warned that it fragments 
our food safety system by splitting FDA's ability to inspect seafood.
  In fact, one GAO report was simply titled, ``Responsibility for 
Inspecting Catfish Should Not Be Assigned to USDA.'' It called on 
Congress to eliminate the catfish office. Both the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture and the FDA have questioned the scientific value of the 
proposed catfish office. Several years ago, USDA studied the idea and 
concluded that there is substantial uncertainty regarding the actual 
effectiveness of a USDA catfish inspection program. Even the 
President's budget proposed to zero it out.
  American consumers should also be concerned about the trade 
implications of this program. Some nations, including Vietnam, have 
threatened WTO retaliation against American agricultural exports, like 
beef and soybeans.
  Trade experts warn that this catfish gimmick is the kind of 
protectionism that harms our efforts to win concessions under trade 
agreement negotiations like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which could 
reduce the tariffs on American products sold to Asian trading partners.
  Again, Senator Shaheen and I tried to eliminate the catfish office in 
the Senate's farm bill, but the managers blocked the vote on our 
amendment. The House Agriculture Committee did the right thing and 
passed the farm bill amendment to eliminate it. Unfortunately, when 
this bill went to conference, several Senate conferees blocked the vote 
in conference to repeal it--actually blocked a vote in conference and 
actually rewrote the law to increase it.
  It seems that catfish is one bottom feeder with friends in high 
places. At the end of the day, this farm bill will be hailed by its 
supporters as reform-minded. Let me assure the American public that 
this is hardly reform. It was managed under a closed amendment process 
and will prove to be more wasteful and costly than any farm bill we 
have ever seen.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
bill. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wall 
Street Journal Editorial appropriately entitled, ``A Bipartisan 
Taxpayer Raid.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 28, 2014]

                       A Bipartisan Taxpayer Raid

                              (Editorial)

       President Obama delivered his State of the Union address 
     Tuesday night to the usual bipartisan cheers for proposals 
     that don't have a chance of becoming law and that half the 
     Members despise. If you want to know what they were really 
     cheering about, take a gander at the gaudy spectacle of the 
     2014 farm bill, which gives bipartisanship a bad name.
       Congressional negotiators on Monday unveiled this hulking 
     949-page special-interest bonanza, which will cost nearly $1 
     trillion over 10 years--or more than President Obama's 
     stimulus. House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, said to be 
     a Republican, and Senate counterpart Debbie Stabenow (D., 
     Mich.) are advertising the bill's token savings and reforms. 
     The real headline is how complete a victory this is for the 
     entitlement and farm-subsidy status quo.
       Start with the fact that the subsidy programs are still 
     linked to food stamps. House conservatives last summer 
     revolted to force the chamber to separate the two, in an 
     attempt to end to the unholy alliance of urban Democrats and 
     rural Republicans that sustains the growth of both. The 
     conferees negotiated a remarriage.
       Republicans also caved on a House provision to limit the 
     food-stamp reauthorization to three years, which would have 
     required a debate on a separate timetable from farm subsidies 
     in the future. The final bill reauthorizes everything for 
     five years, setting the stage for a logrolling repeat.
       As for food stamps, the House bill had reduced future 10-
     year spending by $39 billion--a mere 5%--in a program that 
     has doubled in cost since 2008 and is now about $80 billion a 
     year. The ``compromise'' settles for a cut of $8 billion over 
     10 years (1%), which is barely larger than Senate Democrats' 
     opening bid of $4 billion.
       The elated conferees are bragging that they closed a food-
     stamp ``loophole,'' but that's a rosy interpretation. ``Heat 
     and eat'' is a classic liberal spending tactic by which 
     states direct small home-heating assistance checks to 
     households solely to make those households eligible for food 
     stamps.
       The reform requires that households receive all of $20 in 
     annual federal heating assistance (rather than today's $1) to 
     trigger benefits. They must be laughing at that one in the 
     grocery lobby. Meanwhile, Republicans abandoned reforms that 
     would have tightened the program, such as making food-stamp 
     eligibility contingent upon asset tests (as used to be the 
     case) or work requirements (as under welfare reform).
       The farm crew is also boasting they eliminated the ``direct 
     payment'' program--handouts that go to growers whether they 
     produce a crop or not. Yet the $5 billion in savings is 
     rolled back into the government-subsidized (and uncapped) 
     crop-insurance program as well as a new ``shallow-loss'' 
     program that guarantees farmers' revenues and could balloon 
     to $14 billion a year.
       Speaker John Boehner is getting credit for winning his 
     showdown with Collin Peterson over the Minnesota Democrat's 
     demand for a new Soviet-style program to manage U.S. milk 
     supply. The conferees stripped that stinker, but they salved 
     Mr. Peterson's feelings by fiddling with a separate insurance 
     program as an alternate means to give government control over 
     milk production.
       Handouts to agribusiness and millionaires? Continued trade 
     protectionism for the sugar industry? It's all still there. 
     Heritage Foundation research fellow Daren Bakst notes that 
     the GOP even rolled over for President Obama's Christmas tree 
     tax, which demands a 15-cent assessment on every fresh-cut 
     Christmas tree, to fund an industry promotional program.
       Republicans get credit for keeping the bill free of 
     earmarks, and for bucking Democratic demands that the bill's 
     savings go to more spending, rather than deficit reduction. 
     But with the Congressional Budget Office reporting on Tuesday 
     that the bill saves a pathetic $16.5 billion over 10 years 
     (rather than the $23 billion negotiators claimed), these are 
     linings without much silver.
       The apparent GOP political calculation is that it needs an 
     election-year farm bill to solidify its rural-voter support 
     and to ward off President Obama's attacks that they are mean 
     to poor people. Talk about premature surrender. Unlike the 
     autumn government shutdown, the farm bill did give them real 
     political leverage. Democrats and Mr. Obama want food stamps 
     and a farm bill. Republicans could have held out at least for 
     some reform progress. The main achievement of this bill will 
     be to re-elect Mr. Peterson, the Democrat, and give more GOP 
     voters reason to wonder why they elected these guys.
       Oh, and it's no accident that Congress dropped this porker 
     under the cover of State of the Union hoopla. GOP leaders are 
     eager to leave town for their annual retreat and to avoid a 
     conservative revolt. So they are planning a vote Wednesday 
     morning, fewer than 48 hours after it was unveiled.
       So much for Mr. Boehner's promise to run a more transparent 
     Congress and allow 72 hours for Members to read what they are 
     voting on. The American people elected a GOP House not merely 
     to oppose the Obama agenda, but to stand for real reform. 
     They deserve a lot better than this.

  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

[[Page 2336]]


  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the conference report for the 2014 farm 
bill represents a true compromise in the longstanding tradition of the 
Agriculture Committees. The proposal continues numerous reforms and 
progressive policies that we created, expanded, or strengthened in 
previous farm bills when I served as chairman of the Senate Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  This agreement is not perfect, and each side had to give. For 
example, we were very far apart and had to negotiate on how we were 
going to support the food assistance programs we have. But, in this 
bill we have preserved SNAP and rejected the draconian House provisions 
that would have meant the end of food assistance for nearly 4 million 
people. I take solace in knowing that no one who needs this assistance 
will be kicked off the program.
  As a conferee and as a longtime supporter of SNAP, what we used to 
call food stamps, I am proud of what we have done in this bill to 
improve SNAP--the Nation's most effective nutrition program. It has 
been a crucial support to needy families around the country, 
particularly during the recent economic downturn.
  First, we took a number of steps to improve overall program 
administration and program integrity. While SNAP is extremely efficient 
and effective with low rates of fraud, we can always strive to do 
better. This bill equips States and USDA with a number of new tools to 
continue their strong track record on program administration.
  In this bill we have provided USDA with additional resources to 
improve integrity. USDA has a strong and commendable commitment to 
rooting out fraud in the program. But the number of stores accepting 
SNAP has increased significantly, which means that USDA must continue 
to improve its efforts to monitor retailers. This bill provides USDA 
with additional resources to boost its use of technology, for example, 
by taking advantage of innovations like data mining, which can show 
patterns of redemption among retailers and help pinpoint outlets that 
may be abusing the program. We expect USDA to use data analysis and 
other smart tools to uphold the program's high compliance standards.
  The bill also provides funding for pilot projects for State and 
Federal partners to address retailer fraud. States selected for the 
pilot must demonstrate a commitment of resources to recipient 
trafficking and they must prove that they have accurately determined 
fraud. The States that have successfully found and fought fraud should 
receive priority in partnering with USDA on the retailer fraud pilot 
projects. But success is not defined as a State that has used threats 
to persuade recipients to accept disqualification. Subsequent audits 
must confirm that the State disqualified participants who truly were 
guilty of fraud and not confused about their rights or scared about the 
possibility of being prosecuted under criminal law, as it is 
understandable that some innocent people may be.
  One of the thorny issues we wanted to tackle was the issue of how to 
handle when clients request to have their EBT card replaced multiple 
times. The concern was that some households were repeatedly reporting 
their cards stolen or lost. USDA thought that some households 
requesting that their cards be replaced 10 or more times per year were 
selling those cards. We wanted to empower the agency to address that 
issue. In the case when a household requests an excessive amount of 
card replacements, the household must provide an explanation about why 
they need another card. We know from experience that some households 
request multiple cards because they are confused about program rules. 
We heard one report about an elderly woman who requested a card 
replacement each month because she thought she was supposed to throw 
away the card after she used the benefits. By asking households to 
provide an explanation, States will be able to accommodate individuals 
who need more help to access their benefits. Of course, making a 
household wait to receive a new card until it provides an explanation 
is a burden for the household. Increasingly, States aren't answering 
their phones in a timely way. So this requirement should not be imposed 
on households unless we have a reason to believe there is a problem--
either with their ability to use the card or with program integrity. We 
expect that USDA will not impose this new requirement on households 
that lose their cards a few times. We understood that they would set 
the trigger for the explanation at least at 4 times a year.
  It is also important that households be able to provide their 
explanation through any number of options, such as over the phone to 
their EBT customer service center, via e-mail or mail. Most important, 
we don't want SNAP agencies requiring households to provide their 
explanation in person. That is too burdensome a requirement, 
particularly when many offices may be far away from a given recipient 
and have long lines and delays to see someone. And, no matter what the 
reason a household provides, States cannot withhold their card or use 
withholding the card as leverage to compel some other action. 
Obviously, if the State believes the household has committed fraud or 
doesn't believe their explanation, the State should investigate. If 
they discover illegal activity, they can pursue a fraud violation 
through regular program rules. Those are steps that come after the 
State reissues the food card. I am particularly concerned about how 
this provision is implemented with respect to vulnerable groups such as 
the homeless, people with disabilities, or seniors. We don't want these 
individuals or any struggling household to lose access to their food 
benefits because their lives are chaotic and messy. We do not want 
vulnerable people to feel that their food benefits are conditioned upon 
giving the right answer about why they lost their card. We cautioned 
USDA to make sure that this provision was not used to delay benefits in 
any way. We can balance program integrity needs with compassion for our 
most vulnerable citizens.
  The farm bill also tightens SNAP eligibility in response to some rare 
cases.
  One of the provisions that got a lot of attention was the provision 
that reiterates that felons who have been convicted of certain crimes 
such as murder and who violate their parole or probation cannot be 
eligible for SNAP. SNAP has long banned fleeing felons from the 
program. My good friend former Senator Lugar championed that rule. But 
Members felt that it was important to reiterate this rule with respect 
to ex-offenders who served time for particularly heinous crimes. As has 
been the case for many years now, those who serve their sentence and 
are in compliance with the terms of their parole or probation and who 
are otherwise eligible for SNAP may apply for and receive assistance 
through the program. This provision does not change anything with 
respect to program eligibility or program operations. States already 
have the processes in place to implement this provision.
  Second, over the last several years, there have been highly 
publicized instances where SNAP participants who won big at the lottery 
continued to receive SNAP. My understanding is that both of these 
winners lived in Michigan. Of course, people who win millions of 
dollars from the Powerball do not need the help of SNAP, and for the 
most part program rules would already exclude them. But we wanted to be 
sure that this type of thing never happens again. We included a 
provision to prohibit households where someone won a substantial amount 
of money from a lottery or gambling from participating in SNAP. We are 
leaving it to USDA to define ``substantial''. Our expectation is that 
they will not include nominal winnings that don't permanently change 
the household's economic circumstances or their ability to purchase 
food.
  We also expect USDA to work with States to ensure that this provision 
is implemented behind the scenes without asking questions of clients. 
While we had two lottery winners, the nearly 47 million people who 
participate in this program are struggling. We don't

[[Page 2337]]

want them to be asked if they had won the lottery when they are going 
through the process of applying for benefits. State lotteries and 
gaming commissions must report winners that exceed the threshold to 
state SNAP agencies. That way, State agencies can remove individuals 
with substantial lottery or gambling income without requiring reports 
from every participant or adding questions to current SNAP forms.
  While I am focused on using back-end data matching to implement this 
provision, I would like to discuss the bill's provisions that have to 
do with what we call data matches. Data matching helps SNAP to preserve 
its record of strong program integrity and also cuts States' and 
applicants' paperwork requirements.
  First, the bill makes it possible for SNAP to more easily exchange 
data with other programs by adding Federal standards for such data 
sharing. This sensible provision means that our systems can ``talk'' 
with each other across the various State and Federal programs. It is a 
welcome and timely change. We expect the administration to protect 
individuals' personal private information and prevent it from being 
misused.
  We also are requiring States to use HHS's National Directory of New 
Hires when certifying a household for SNAP to help the State determine 
eligibility and what level of benefits the household should receive. 
Right now States' use of the database is optional. We think the Federal 
database could be helpful to States to find important information about 
the employment of noncustodial parents who live or work in other 
States.
  Finally, the bill puts in statute the existing State practice of 
using the Federal Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program, 
or SAVE, to verify immigration status. States can use this to 
efficiently determine eligibility without requiring a household to fill 
out unnecessary forms or find paperwork. This does not change anything 
with respect to immigrant eligibility rules or households' 
responsibilities. This requirement is another example of a behind-the-
scenes administrative efficiency in the bill. The use of the Income 
Eligibility Verification System, or IEVS, will remain optional, though. 
It is sensible for the administration to set standards for how to 
verify immigration status through a national immigration data set. 
Given low rates of error and fraud in SNAP, we did not want to dictate 
how and when States use IEVS.
  On the topic of data matches, I want to make clear that we want 
States to use available data sources containing up-to-date, accurate 
information that helps determine SNAP eligibility and benefit levels as 
States are making their decisions. Matches can help us to verify what 
clients tell us and reduce burdens on them. Matches can also identify 
information that clients failed to reveal. However, data matches are 
sometimes wrong and they can require a lot of staff work to correct, as 
well as place undue burdens on clients. This bill should not be 
interpreted to force States to seek or to use unhelpful data matches or 
where they determine the data match is not cost-effective. We expect 
the Secretary will help States determine the best ways to use the data 
sources. It is not sensible to pay for matches for all individuals or 
to do the matches every month or quarter, rather than as the State is 
making an eligibility decision or if the State has uncertain 
information about a SNAP recipient. States need the flexibility to 
determine that an individual living a 2-hour drive from the State 
border with a verified long-term job in the community does not need to 
be checked in the new hire data base to determine if he is working out 
of State. We expect USDA to work with HHS to find ways to hold the 
costs of the match to State agencies and the Federal Government in 
check, while maximizing payment accuracy. As always, States must ensure 
that SNAP applicants and recipients always have a chance to prove that 
data matches are inaccurate.
  As useful as data matching can be, we need to remember to ensure some 
balance on program integrity efforts. It is an inefficient use of 
resources to have eligibility workers looking for information about 
clients every minute of the day. Asking States to follow up on matches 
that may not yield any changes in eligibility or benefit levels isn't a 
good use of States' time and resources. In the last two farm bills, we 
took steps to establish certification rules such that States would 
carefully assess eligibility at certification and recertification. In 
the interim, unless States had information to suggest that clients were 
income ineligible or participating in two households, households were 
to continue to receive benefits without disruption or inquiries about 
their circumstances. Those changes worked. Overall program 
participation is up among eligible households, suggesting that we were 
right to make it easier for households to maintain benefits. States 
need to focus on adjudicating eligibility at application and renewal. 
This framework informed our approach to the use of datasets. We want 
States to use third-party data to make eligibility renewals as 
efficient as possible. But, this information is not meant to be used in 
fruitless fishing expeditions to prove households ineligible or to find 
data that requires needless back-and-forth between the client and the 
agency during their certification period.
  I would like to turn now to talk about one of the more exciting 
aspects of the nutrition title. The final bill includes several reforms 
of SNAP's employment and training program, including new investments in 
identifying innovative job training opportunities for this population.
  Most SNAP participants who can work, do work. As we know, however, 
millions of Americans are out of work. So we want to find more ways to 
help those who are able to work but have been unable to secure a job. 
We also want to find ways to build and grow the skills of workers so 
that they may find better jobs with better pay.
  SNAP work programs will receive better, and more, funding in this 
bill. It gives $200 million to pilot and evaluate new state employment 
and training programs. States can draw these pilots from SNAP E&T 
components, but the programs can also include work supports, like child 
care or transportation assistance, that those with low-paying jobs 
often cannot afford. We want to help States build pioneering volunteer 
programs, which if focused on skills building or education programs, 
might boost an individual's employability. It was imperative in this 
effort that States be creative and try different approaches to 
addressing the barriers that could be keeping individuals from working, 
such as stable housing or childcare.
  We recognize that it is far better for the long term for people to 
secure and keep unsubsidized jobs in the private sector. So we have 
allowed those types of arrangements to be considered part of the 
pilots. But because States will have much less control over information 
about what private employers are doing, we needed to include 
significant safeguards. We fully expect that these pilots will operate 
under longstanding protections from the SNAP law and other laws against 
the displacement of other workers, as well as workplace protection laws 
such as those for health and safety, wage and hour standards, family 
leave, workers' compensation, and the like.
  The initial House proposal in this area was surprising in its 
harshness. The House essentially gave States incentives to throw off of 
SNAP people who could not find jobs. Furthermore, the proposal allowed 
States to then spend on whatever they wanted the savings obtained from 
throwing people out of the SNAP program. I thank the leadership of the 
conference committee, especially Chairwoman Stabenow, for holding firm 
to the principle in designing these work pilot projects that we should 
not give States any new authority to take away people's SNAP benefits 
when they cannot find jobs. The rules under the pilot project for 
sanctioning people will be the same as under current law in terms of 
when sanctions can be applied and for how long.
  When it comes to sanctioning individuals for refusing to cooperate in 
employment and training programs, we

[[Page 2338]]

already have in place protections to ensure that if there are good 
cause reasons for noncompliance that individuals cannot be sanctioned. 
Similarly, for how these are extended to employment activities under 
the pilots, the agreement ensures that unless clear evidence shows that 
an individual wilfully refused to take actions that she or he could 
safely and properly take, participants in employment activities in the 
work pilots may not be subject to sanctions. For instance, no sanction 
will apply if the employer gives the individual fewer hours than 
expected or if the individual's mental or physical disability prevents 
the individual from succeeding at the work or if childcare or 
transportation is not available at the time when he or she has been 
asked to work. Willful refusal to cooperate is different from failing 
to perform adequately at work. Some low-skilled workers will fall short 
at the workplace as a result of taking jobs that may be at the outer 
limits of their ability. This is a difficult determination, and a State 
may have a hard time telling with a private sector employer whether an 
individual wilfully refused to comply or whether the employer made 
demands that the employee could not, for whatever reason, comply with. 
In such instances, it is inappropriate for States to take away SNAP 
benefits.
  In designing the pilots, we did not intend in any way to take away 
from States' existing authority to treat jobs that SNAP applicants and 
recipients have found for themselves as allowable work activities and 
support such work with support services like childcare and 
transportation.
  Figuring out which services and activities work the best for 
different types of people is a hard nut to crack in the job training 
world, but it is one of the main goals of these pilots, and so we have 
required a careful evaluation. With the low-wage labor market the way 
it is and such a high percentage of SNAP recipients working already, we 
must ask how we will know whether the State's program and services made 
a difference. So we have required that only projects where the State 
can guarantee they will participate fully in the evaluation should be 
included in the pilot. We especially want to know more about how States 
can most effectively assess SNAP participants' needs early and match 
those needs to the right education and training programs and other 
supportive services that will positively affect that individual's job 
prospects.
  Even though we have invested heavily in these handful of pilots, we 
also want to learn more broadly what is working and not working so well 
across the country in getting SNAP participants the skills and training 
they need to get and keep a well-paying job. So under the bill States 
must report more on the results of the services that they provide to 
SNAP participants. Using this information, USDA will work with the 
other experts in job training to improve assessment of whether SNAP 
employment and training can attain more longlasting results and will 
push States to focus on proven activities. We will rely upon this 
information when we reauthorize the program five years from now. We 
understand that SNAP participants are often poorer and have lower 
education and skills than people who participate in other job training 
programs, and as such, we made clear we must have appropriate 
expectations of these services' outcomes and take those differences 
into account. In this slow-growing economy, everyone will not find work 
immediately. Sometimes we have to invest now in building skills to see 
a better outcome for people in the future, and when designing measures, 
we expect USDA to take a long-term view. As I mentioned above, upfront 
assessment is key, and so, while individual assessments already are a 
requirement for SNAP work registrants, we expect the USDA to have a 
focus on assessment as part of the state measures.
  Now, let's turn to how this farm bill modernizes SNAP through a 
number of improvements for retailers.
  The way we buy our food is evolving rapidly, and this bill helps SNAP 
remain in step. This bill gives the Secretary authority to test mobile 
technology use in SNAP, such as applications for smartphones that have 
become increasingly common and hold special promise to simplify SNAP 
transactions at farmers markets and vegetable stands. But we don't want 
recipients to see higher prices and we don't want program integrity to 
lapse as we seek additional ways to accept benefits. As a result, we 
start in this bill with a pilot project to test the idea. We expect 
USDA to pay special attention to testing fraud-prevention measures, so 
that these new technologies do not open the program up to new schemes 
for criminal activity. Some things will be tricky in a mobile 
environment. USDA currently relies on inspections of retailers' stores 
as a way of keeping out unscrupulous retailers, and so will need to 
find ways to reliably distinguish between eligible and ineligible or 
disqualified retailers in a comparable fashion as it implements this 
provision.
  Pilot projects testing purchasing food online with SNAP benefits also 
are allowed under the bill, reflecting a trend in the food industry 
towards online transactions. The delivery of groceries could 
potentially help elderly or disabled recipients to access food more 
easily. Of course, we worked here too, to ensure that the same strong 
program integrity standards apply to this potential new way of 
redeeming benefits and we require, in the bill, that the agency stop 
the expansion of online transactions if the Department determines the 
fraud risk is too great. We were clear that SNAP benefits cannot pay 
for any delivery fees associated with online purchases, but we also 
expect USDA to also set standards for the fees to ensure that they are 
not so high that, on balance, this provision results in more hunger. 
After all, SNAP recipients rely on the program because they cannot 
purchase enough food--high fees would make hunger worse. USDA should 
ensure that fees are capped at very low levels and are clear to the 
recipients so that they are not surprised at the time the food is 
delivered.
  On the topic of modernizing SNAP benefits, I am troubled by the 
recent reports of States seeking to include photo identification or 
fingerprinting as a way of supposedly ensuring program integrity. That 
is not a direction I think the program should go. One of the main 
advantages of moving to SNAP benefit cards, away from the paper 
coupons, was that the transaction looks the same and so there is less 
stigma. USDA should not approve State attempts to require photos on 
SNAP cards unless there is an airtight way of making sure every 
household member can use the card, as well as any other person who is 
authorized to shop for the SNAP recipient. There is no need for SNAP to 
pursue such measures when other card issuers, like credit card 
companies, have not insisted on such measures to maintain security even 
though those cards are issued to individuals.
  One final point I want to make about EBT cards. Last fall, because of 
a glitch with the computers at an EBT contractor, Iowa and about 15 
other States had their EBT systems go out of commission for hours, 
wreaking havoc in grocery store aisles and leaving thousands without 
food. In this bill we have taken another step to ``modernize'' by 
restricting the ability of States to routinely issue manual vouchers, 
but we have created an important exception for disasters or system 
outages. We expect USDA to create a simple, fast way for States to 
declare that they need to invoke this back-up plan.
  In addition to these changes for how retailers take SNAP benefits, 
the bill also raises the bar for retailers in an effort to increase the 
availability of healthy foods. Stores that want to participate in SNAP 
have an obligation to participate as full partners in making healthy 
food available to low-income Americans.
  Some retailers have sought to spread SNAP issuances out over longer 
periods during the month for the purposes of evening out their 
business. This is allowed now through staggered issuance, and some 
language in the statement of the bill managers encourages USDA to allow 
benefits to be staggered throughout the month.

[[Page 2339]]

  I am sympathetic to the need for retailers to not have spikes and 
troughs in their business, but I am deeply concerned about a practice 
in some States I have heard of where, as part of a State's staggered 
issuance plan, households may receive no benefits for as long as 10 
days during a month. Apparently this is in the ``transition'' to 
staggering benefits, but this kind of hardship in the name of smoothing 
retailers business is very troubling. SNAP benefits already are low and 
run out for many households before the end of the month. To add on 
another 10 days before the household receives the next month's benefits 
could be a devastating hardship and means more children, senior 
citizens, and people with disabilities going to bed hungry or facing 
heart-wrenching decisions.
  The SNAP law regarding staggered issuance actually does provide a 
requirement to protect households from stretches without food during 
the transition. We revisited this provision in the last farm bill and 
again reaffirmed that households may not experience a cut as a result 
of staggering benefits over the month. Nonetheless, I understand that 
the Department has not fully enforced this rule. One solution would be 
for the Department to allow States to protect households during the 
transition with a one-time increase in the month prior to cover the 
transition period.
  In this debate over the last several years I heard repeated concerns, 
particularly from some House Members, that SNAP was somehow out there 
recruiting people who don't need food assistance to sign up. This is a 
ridiculous claim. Quite the opposite is true. Some people need help 
learning about the program, and there are many groups around the 
country who are working day in and day out to ensure that people who 
need some assistance have the information they need to sign up, have 
misperceptions cleared up, and can get some help navigating what is a 
very complicated and burdensome process.
  At the insistence of the House, we included some narrow provisions to 
prevent some perceived, uncommon abuses. We ended the USDA's 
collaboration with the Mexican consulate and we prohibit groups who 
help sign up eligible households from being paid on a ``bounty'' basis 
for each successful application, a practice I don't believe occurs very 
often, if at all.
  But we have been assured that we have done nothing in this bill to 
undermine the great work that goes on around the country by dedicated 
individuals and community groups to help educate and assist our low-
income neighbors. We still hear that the main reasons eligible 
households don't sign up are that they are not aware of the program, 
they don't understand how it works, or they don't understand the 
program rules and can't get through the process. In this bill, we have 
done nothing to change the education and application assistance 
activities that states and community groups can engage in. We have long 
prohibited ``recruitment,'' which is trying to talk someone into 
applying if that person has made an educated choice to not apply. In 
this bill we codify that definition. But we fully expect that it will 
continue to be allowable for USDA, States, and other partners to share 
information about the program, the advantages of participation, how the 
rules work, and to assist people in applying for benefits. Such 
activities may change someone's mind about applying, but it is 
acceptable to change your mind because you learned new, accurate 
information or because you understand what you have to do to apply. 
That is not persuasion, but rather, is education, and is still 
completely appropriate under this bill.
  So to be clear, we have severed the relationship with the Mexican 
Government related to SNAP. And while it is inappropriate for anybody 
to receive their pay as a ``bounty'' per application, it is fine to be 
tracking how many people a group assists in applying and the outcome of 
the application process. That is just a common, responsible practice 
for assessing whether the group successfully is achieving its goals. 
Section 16(a) already prohibits tying anyone's pay to the number of 
people disqualified from SNAP and we have extended that principle to 
application assistance.
  I do want to address the one significant cut in SNAP benefits that 
the nutrition title includes. I am disappointed that as a result of 
this bill 850,000 very low-income households are going to lose food 
assistance. There are certainly many ways we could have reinvested 
these funds into SNAP to improve the program and reduce hardship, but I 
have to agree with my colleagues that the practice of issuing a 
household just $1 in energy assistance so that they can deduct more 
income than we had intended goes too far and it is sensible to address 
this issue.
  In this bill we have limited this practice. It is a painful loss for 
families who benefit from this policy, but the change repairs the 
unintended oversight. What happens is that States can give SNAP 
households without heating or cooling expenses a token LIHEAP payment 
of $1 or less, which enables them to qualify for a utility deduction 
and in turn increases their SNAP benefits.
  But we do not want this provision to affect any households in the 
States that have not engaged in this practice or to cut benefits for 
households that do pay for utility expenses in the States that engaged 
in the practice. I know LIHEAP is a critical program in helping low-
income families meet their energy needs, especially in cold weather 
places and in winters like the one we're having this year. When the 
State has already determined that a household needs help paying for 
utilities, it is wholly appropriate for SNAP to piggy-back on that 
information. We expect the Secretary to work with States to ensure that 
where a legitimate LIHEAP payment is made--that is, when LIHEAP has 
determined the household pays heating or cooling costs that such 
information still can be used to authorize a utility allowance in SNAP 
and that nothing should change in how the State makes this 
determination. All we wanted to do was shut down the inappropriate 
practice of very small LIHEAP payments to households without utility 
expenses from triggering a full SUA.
  In addition, we also expect USDA and States will work to ensure that 
households that do not receive LIHEAP but that do incur utility 
expenses will continue to be able to receive the appropriate allowance. 
Many households do pay separately for utilities and need the SUA to 
receive adequate benefits. In cases where the cost of gas for heating 
is included in rent but the household pays for air conditioning or 
where the landlord has a surcharge to rent for utilities, the tenant 
should be able to claim the higher standard utility allowance.
  We understand and regret that some of the effective dates in this 
legislation will result in considerable time pressure for the 
Department and States as a result of the slow process by which the 
final bill came together. We hope they make their best effort to meet 
these deadlines. But agencies should not establish any claims against 
households for benefits that would have been proper under prior rules 
because new rules have not yet been implemented. None of this is the 
fault of any household, and they should not have to experience the 
hardship of recoupment or tax intercept because the policymaking 
process moved slowly.
  Several other provisions in the bill's nutrition title deserve a 
mention.
  In Puerto Rico the Nutrition Assistance Program block grant plays a 
unique role in the safety net because the island does not receive 
significant funds from other programs that are available in States, 
such as TANF and SSI. Despite this, Puerto Rico remains shortchanged on 
nutrition assistance too--if NAP operated as SNAP does in the States, 
participation would be 15 percent higher and the program would cost 
more than 22 percent more in Federal dollars. Because of these 
inequities, Puerto Rico can currently issue 25 percent of its SNAP 
benefits to households as cash, rather than in a form that can only be 
spent on food. As a result, some of the benefits likely are spent on 
other essential household items. Although I have no objections to 
current law, responding as it does to

[[Page 2340]]

the unique circumstances of Puerto Rico, on the Agriculture Committee 
we have been under pressure to end this cash allotment. However, I fear 
that such a change could be very problematic for some participants who 
really need access to certain nonfood items and lack any other means of 
obtaining them. This bill requires a study on how eliminating the cash 
portion of the nutrition grant would affect Puerto Ricans. Assuming the 
study shows that it's feasible to make such a change, the cash 
allotment will be gradually phased out. But we wanted to be sure to 
protect poor Puerto Ricans, and so under the bill, if the Secretary 
determines that eliminating the cash portion would cause hardship, he 
or she can exempt categories of participants. The exemption could apply 
to the entire NAP caseload if the study shows that changing the policy 
would significantly and adversely affect all participants.
  The bill also requires USDA to test changes to food assistance in the 
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. USDA will explore whether 
CNMI's food aid can be configured more like the national SNAP structure 
and then a pilot is authorized subsequently to test this new approach. 
We understand that many of SNAP's administrative requirements may not 
be appropriate for CNMI, so we don't expect an identical program, just 
one that moves in that direction. If the Secretary finds that it is not 
feasible to run such a pilot, the funds available in this bill can be 
used for any of the things that the existing CNMI block grant currently 
allows for.
  The bill also provides for a pilot program to test the provision of 
canned, dried, and frozen fruits and vegetables in the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Program. The program, as the name suggests, currently allows 
for only fresh fruits and vegetables. The pilot in the conference 
report was included at the suggestion of some in Congress who believe 
that providing other forms of fruits and vegetables will be beneficial 
for the health of children.
  I myself am skeptical of the need to make changes to current law with 
respect to the program. As we know from a recent, rigorous evaluation 
of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, the program is currently 
effectively improving child health and increasing consumption of fruits 
and vegetables. In addition, the program is extremely popular with both 
children and with schools, with far more schools desiring to be 
included in the program than are able to do so because of limited 
funding. This doesn't sound to me like a program that is not working.
  But the pilot program will settle the question of the health impact 
of canned, frozen, and dried fruits and vegetables, allowing us to know 
from a sound scientific study whether allowing canned, frozen, and 
dried fruits increases consumption at a level consistent with a fresh-
only program. Luckily, we have a sound benchmark for purposes of 
comparison that can be found in the evaluation of the fresh-only 
program. And it will be interesting to learn whether other forms of 
fruits and vegetables improve kids diets in the same way the current 
program does. In carrying out this pilot, we expect USDA to put 
together the soundest methodology possible so that we can compare the 
performance of the fresh-only program with one that also provides 
canned, dried, or frozen fruits and vegetables.
  In addition, the bill makes a couple of changes to the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
program, known as WIC.
  WIC provides healthy foods, nutrition education, and health care 
referrals to nearly 9 million pregnant and postpartem women, infants, 
and very young children, and has a strong track record of improving 
birth outcomes as well as the diets and health of participants. One 
reason that WIC has been so effective is that the foods the program 
provides were selected through a rigorous, science-based process to 
fill gaps in the diets of the low-income women and very young children 
who participate. There have been many efforts over the years to get 
Congress to intervene in the specific foods offered by WIC, the most 
recent of which has been an attempt to require WIC to offer white 
potatoes. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to exclude 
white potatoes was based on the recommendation of the Institute of 
Medicine, which found that Americans already consume plenty of white 
potatoes and providing them through WIC would crowd out purchases of 
other vegetables, like leafy greens, that are truly lacking in 
participants' diets. The absence of such a requirement in this 
legislation reflects a firm commitment by Congress to protecting the 
integrity of the WIC Program by keeping the process of selecting which 
food to offer science-based.
  Another one of WIC's hallmarks is that it is very cost-efficient. 
Each year Federal WIC spending is reduced by $1.5 billion to $2 billion 
as a result of a competitive bidding process for infant formula, which 
results in sole-source contracts between State WIC programs and infant 
formula manufacturers. In light of the tremendous savings associated 
with these sole-source contracts and the valuable health improvements 
that WIC participation brings, Congress has remained strongly committed 
to WIC's competitive bidding process for infant formula. This 
legislation calls upon USDA to study the implications of sole-source 
contracting across all nutrition programs, as well as upon retailers 
and consumers, including the important role that sole-source contracts 
play in WIC. Our consideration of the WIC Program when it is next 
reauthorized will benefit from a comprehensive assessment of the 
implications of WIC's infant formula bidding process for participants, 
retails, and other consumers, as well the implications for federal 
cost-containment efforts and the ability of the WIC program to serve 
all eligible applicants.
  As I said at the start, this agreement is not perfect. Each side had 
to give a little, but I am proud that we have rejected provisions that 
would have kicked worthy SNAP recipients off the program and this 
proposal is a sound, balanced, bipartisan bill. It contains significant 
reforms, and extends and funds progressive elements that I was proud to 
include in previous farm bills. Coming to agreement wasn't easy, but 
this farm bill takes an important step forward in dealing with the 
Nation's most important food and agricultural issues. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first of all, I thank our majority 
leader again, as I did earlier today, for his help in bringing this 
conference report to the Senate as quickly as possible and for his 
willingness every step of the way to work with us. I thank my partner 
in the Senate, Senator Cochran from Mississippi, for his wonderful 
leadership.
  At this point in time I will turn to him and allow him to make his 
statement before proceeding with mine. I want to say to Senator Cochran 
and to all of those in Mississippi who are lucky to have him as their 
Senator fighting for them what a pleasure it has been to partner with 
him and his really excellent staff, and to have the opportunity to come 
here today with a strong bipartisan product that represents the 
agricultural and food interests of all parts of our country.
  I yield to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am honored to be invited by the 
distinguished chairman to proceed in describing our work product, the 
farm bill conference report. It has been a true pleasure working with 
her and the members of her staff, it seems like over a long period of 
time with her coming to my State of Mississippi and traveling to other 
regions of the country to get a first-hand impression and a lot of 
knowledge about the challenges being faced by the agricultural sector 
in our country. She has brought to this effort a lot of enthusiasm and 
commonsense intelligence and pure old hard work. Also, there are the 
personal courtesies that abound to all of us who serve on the 
agriculture committee in the Senate, during hearings preparing for the

[[Page 2341]]

mark-up of an agriculture bill and during conference with our 
colleagues in the House to produce a conference report.
  I am pleased that this conference report represents a 5-year farm 
bill. It is very important to production agriculture and to all 
Americans, as a matter of fact. The leadership that we have had from 
other Senators on the committee is reflected here too. We have had an 
active committee participating in hearings as well as our mark-up 
sessions. It has been a pleasure to work with Senator Stabenow and with 
all of our fellow colleagues on the committee.
  We are recommending reforms in this legislation that are designed to 
assure producers that we understand the value of a safety net that will 
support them when they are struck by disasters or other things that are 
out of their control. Marketing disasters are just as severe as 
weather-related disasters. The risk management policies in the bill 
recognize the regional differences in priorities of agricultural 
production throughout the country. The commodity and crop insurance 
titles of the conference report reflect how Congress can work 
effectively to support American agriculture and at the same time be 
responsible to taxpayers.
  The conference agreement consolidates and improves programs to 
encourage farmers and ranchers to use healthy land and forest 
management practices to conserve land, water, and wildlife resources. 
Programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, which will 
become a part of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the 
Wetlands Reserve Program, are very important elements of a new emphasis 
on conservation.
  We also achieve savings that are significant from reforms in the 
nutrition title of the program. The expected costs of nutrition 
programs are reduced by $8 billion. The conference report includes 
programs to combat waste, fraud, and abuse.
  I am particularly proud of our work to address the needs of our 
Nation's food banks because whether it is in Jackson, MS, or in 
Indianapolis, IN, many people turn to these facilities when other 
options are not available.
  Other titles of this legislation, such as the research title, have 
proven that keeping the United States' lead in agricultural research is 
essential to our maintaining an edge in global competition. Our land-
grant universities, such as Mississippi State University and Alcorn 
State University in my State, have seen their university-based research 
commercialized to improve American agricultural production.
  In addition to agricultural production reforms, this conference 
agreement contributes to the goal of deficit reduction. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will save taxpayers 
nearly $17 billion. The farm bill baseline was trimmed by $6 billion 
from sequestration, resulting in an overall savings of $23 billion.
  Failure to enact this farm bill would leave farmers and related 
businesses with uncertainties that have been hanging over the 
agricultural sector for the past 2 years. This bill achieves 
significant savings and addresses a variety of agriculture needs across 
the country.
  I urge the Senate to support passage of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Again, I wish to say what a pleasure it has been to 
work with the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and also with the 
chairman in the House, Congressman Lucas, and the ranking member, 
Congressman Peterson.
  This really has been an example of the House and the Senate working 
in a bipartisan way. We are about to take the final steps now in 
passing the 2014 farm bill. We have actually passed this twice in the 
Senate. Each time we have gotten large bipartisan majorities because of 
the fact that we have worked together.
  The final conference report that we have before us is one of which I 
believe we can all be proud. I hope my colleagues will support it and 
send it to the President for his signature.
  We all know this has been a long time in coming--in fact, frankly, 
way too long. Our farmers and ranchers have waited way too long.
  This bill has seen a long and winding road, but in the process we 
have worked together. We have not quit. We have worked across the 
aisle. The final bill has the support of over 370 different groups, and 
they represent those from all over the country and all over the 
ideological spectrum. That is because we wrote this bill when we were 
working hard to find common ground. We listened to each other, we 
respected each other, and we developed a bill that works for every kind 
of agricultural production in every region of our country, for 
families, and for consumers across the country.
  We have 16 million people who work in America because of 
agriculture--16 million people. Many of them work in Michigan. Many of 
them work in Mississippi, California, New England, Virginia, North 
Dakota, and in every other State in this great country. They grow 
different crops in different climates, and they have different needs. 
That certainly is one of the challenges, always, for a farm bill, 
particularly when we are talking about a farm bill that reforms 
programs. Those 16 million people were on our minds every single minute 
as we wrote this bill, and that is why we have such a strong coalition 
supporting this farm bill.
  This is a farm bill for the future with a whole new focus on 
responsible risk management, healthy, locally-grown foods, strong 
conservation practices, clean energy, and research. In fact, it is a 
bit of a misnomer to call it a farm bill. It is 12 different bills, all 
of them impressive and worthy of colleagues' votes, and they all are 
put together in what we call the farm bill.
  I want to take a moment to talk about these different pieces and all 
of the great policies that we have been working on for 2\1/2\ years.
  The first title, the commodity title, if we were going to split off 
the commodity title of the farm bill and give it a name of its own, we 
would probably call it the farm bill. That pretty well describes the 
commodity title. Maybe that is why--even though the commodity title of 
the farm bill is, in fact, smaller in terms of spending this year than 
it has been before--the farm bill has held onto its name all of these 
years.
  Once upon a time the commodity title was the be-all and end-all. The 
first farm bill was written during the Great Depression, when the 
entire agricultural system in the country broke down. Farmers left food 
to rot in the fields because crop prices were so low. It would bankrupt 
them to spend the money to harvest and to ship their products to 
market.
  At the same time, people were so desperate for food that some of the 
most iconic images of the Great Depression are long, crowded bread 
lines that stretched for blocks and blocks. We have come a long way 
since the Great Depression, and our agricultural farm policies are very 
different than they once were. That is why this farm bill focuses on 
the future of agriculture in this country. This is not your father's 
farm bill.
  In 1996 Congress passed a law called Freedom to Farm that eliminated 
the last vestiges of those production controls. To give farmers time to 
get used to the new system, that bill created a system of direct 
payment subsidies, which were supposed to be temporary.
  But it didn't quite work out that way. Those payments continued, farm 
bill after farm bill, even when it was quite clear they were no longer 
defensible. The checks kept coming in good years and in bad. In some 
cases the checks went to people who weren't even farming.
  In the budget climate of today, we just cannot afford those business-
as-usual policies of the past. It was one of my top goals, as we wrote 
this bill, to end direct payments once and for all, and that is exactly 
what we have done together in this farm bill.
  We also went through this bill page-by-page and made major reforms. 
We streamlined programs. We have cut red tape. We have eliminated 
waste. The first thing in this bill, on page 1, line 1, is repealing 
direct payments.
  This is not your father's farm bill. This is a critical step in 
changing the

[[Page 2342]]

paradigm of agricultural policy. Instead of direct payment subsidies, 
we are shifting the focus of the farm bill to responsible risk 
management. Farming is a risky business. In fact, I can't think of a 
more risky business than farming in this country. We saw this in South 
Dakota last fall when a freak blizzard wiped out tens of thousands of 
cattle and devastated ranchers. We saw this the year before when 
record-setting droughts wiped out crops across America's heartland. We 
saw it in Michigan where the combination of an early thaw and a late 
freeze almost destroyed our entire cherry crop and our apple crop.
  No other industry is as dependent on the whims of Mother Nature or on 
the wild swings of the market as agriculture. That is why we have a 
farm bill. We have a stake, and we should be proud we have the safest, 
most affordable food supply in the world because we partner with 
farmers. That is why risk management is our No. 1 goal in this bill.
  In fact, it is what farmers have been asking for. They want the 
ability and, more importantly, the responsibility of managing their own 
risk. Of course, in a country as big and diverse as ours, the risks 
faced by farmers in Michigan are very different from the risks faced by 
farmers in Mississippi or Oklahoma or Minnesota. That is the key 
principle that guided us when we wrote the bill to make sure it worked 
for all different kinds of crops throughout the country.
  As farmers are managing their risk, we are giving them the choice to 
participate in an Agricultural Risk Coverage Program--that we are 
calling ARC--which will help them cover losses they incur at the 
individual farm level or county level or they can participate in a 
Price Loss Coverage Program which will trigger if prices drop below a 
reference price.
  Both of these programs will use historically-based acres decoupled 
from production to minimize any influence from the program on farmers' 
decisions on what or where to plant. We don't want them planting to the 
government program.
  In addition, in order to qualify for either of these programs, 
farmers must agree to comply with conservation and wetlands 
requirements. They are so important.
  We are reforming the system to stop subsidy payments to millionaires, 
and we have imposed a new, overall cap--a first-time overall cap--of 
$125,000, for the first time covering both crop support and marketing 
loans, all parts of the commodity title.
  This is the overall commodity title cap passed by the Senate, even 
though underneath the cap there were differences. We are requesting the 
USDA to close what is called the management loophole by updating its 
definition of ``management'' and giving the Secretary, for the first 
time, the authority to put limits on the numbers of managers on a farm 
that can qualify for payments.
  By ending direct payments once and for all--by asking farmers to take 
responsibility for managing their own risk, and by partnering with them 
so that they can do it, and by capping farm payments and stopping 
payments to millionaires--we are putting in place the most significant 
reforms in agricultural policy in decades. This is a bill our 
colleagues can be proud to vote for.
  In hearing some of the opposition, people are debating the old farm 
bills and not understanding what we have done.
  Every farmer we have talked to in writing this bill said that crop 
insurance was their top priority. So we strengthened crop insurance and 
gave more crops access to this kind of insurance.
  With this bill, we are taking significant steps to change the 
paradigm of farmer programs. With crop insurance, farmers don't get a 
check, they get a bill. They may pay tens of thousands of dollars in 
premiums and never get a check in a year because it is a good year and 
there is no disaster, just like any other kind of insurance.
  This bill also includes a very important permanent livestock disaster 
assistance program for ranchers who lose livestock due to severe 
weather, disease or other acts of nature. In the past, Congress had to 
pass ad hoc disaster assistance for livestock producers, adding to the 
cost and the complexity of the program. These have been some very tough 
years for ranchers. In fact, livestock herds are down to their lowest 
level since 1951--imagine that--because of what we have seen.
  That is why this bill, for the first time, has a permanent, funding 
baseline, and a system that will ensure our ranchers don't go bankrupt 
because of a freak blizzard in October or a scorching drought that 
wipes out a rancher's feed supply. This disaster assistance is applied 
retroactively to October 1, 2011, and makes the program permanent.
  One of the worst agricultural disasters happened in 2009 to our 
American dairy farmers. That is why we worked very hard in this bill to 
strengthen the dairy safety net by replacing the existing dairy 
supports with two new programs. The dairy margin insurance program, 
another insurance program, protects producer margins equal to the 
difference between the all-milk price and a national feed cost. We are 
taking special care to make sure that these insurance premiums are 
affordable for small and medium-sized dairy farms, making sure, 
especially, that we focus on any farm with fewer than 200 cows.
  The Dairy Product Purchase Program, which is new and is a part of 
this, gives the Department of Agriculture the flexibility to purchase 
dairy products, milk, and other products when margins fall below $4. 
Those dairy products will be donated for the first time to families in 
need, through public and private organizations, including food banks, 
homeless shelters, and soup kitchens. This was a hard-fought compromise 
on dairy. I have to say my preference would have been what we passed 
twice in the Senate as a strong dairy policy. But given the resistance 
of the Speaker and the leadership in the House and the need to be able 
to find something we could move forward on and pass that would work for 
dairy farmers, we worked very hard to find a way to move forward to get 
the votes and support and make sure we were helping farm operations in 
every region of the country. We know the pressures on the New England 
area farmers are very different from the pressures on our own producers 
in Michigan or in the Midwest or on the west coast, and we have worked 
hard to find something that works.
  While title I of the farm bill reforms programs so farmers are taking 
responsibility for their own risk, title II of the farm bill is about 
risk management for the whole country. This is the conservation bill in 
this farm bill. In all the discussions in the farm bill, it too often 
gets overlooked. In fact, it is our Nation's largest and most enduring 
investment in conservation on private lands, which are the majority of 
our lands in America.
  This farm bill includes a historic agreement between supporters of 
traditional commodities and environmental and conservation groups to 
link conservation compliance to crop insurance--critically important as 
we eliminate direct payments and ask farmers to manage their risk 
through crop insurance. We do not want to create unintended 
consequences of risk for our lands and our water resources.
  At the start of this farm bill process, commodity groups and 
conservation groups were on very different sides on this issue, but 
they sat down together, they listened, and they found common ground. It 
turned out their differences weren't as great as they thought they 
were. In fact, no one has a bigger stake in protecting our land and our 
water than our farmers. With a little compromise and a lot of hard 
work, which is the story of this entire bill, they brought us a plan 
that conserves soil and water resources for generations to come and 
protects the safety net for farmers to rely on.
  This has been called the greatest advancement in conservation in 
three decades. I wish to underscore for my colleagues that this is an 
important and historic agreement, and I thank everyone who has been 
involved in the hard work of putting it together.
  We have also created a new sodsaver provision to prevent farmers from

[[Page 2343]]

plowing up native prairie lands, saving money for taxpayers and saving 
absolutely critical wildlife habitat. We need to manage land to prevent 
erosion. That is how we avoid having another dust bowl during droughts. 
It is equally important to continue preserving wetlands that help 
prevent flooding and create important wildlife habitats for ducks and 
birds and other waterfowl.
  What else does the conservation title do? It directly preserves 
millions of acres of wildlife habitat, which in turn has helped to 
rebuild populations of duck, quail, and pheasants, among others. That 
is why the bill has the strong support of the National Wildlife 
Federation, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, Quail Forever, 
Pheasants Forever, the Audubon Society, and the World Wildlife Fund, 
which are only a handful of the more than 250 conservation groups that 
have endorsed this bill.
  To strengthen conservation, we went through every program and focused 
on making it more flexible, easier to use, and we were able to take 23 
different programs, cut it down to 13, and put it into 4 different 
areas with a lot of flexibility that also allowed us to save dollars in 
this bill.
  The first is working lands, giving farmers the tools they need to be 
the best stewards of their natural resources. The centerpiece of this 
function is called EQIP--the Environmental Quality Incentives Program--
one of the most important conservation programs out there for farmers. 
EQIP gives technical and financial assistance to farmers, ranchers, and 
private forest owners to help them conserve soil and water.
  Working lands conservation also includes the Conservation Stewardship 
Program, which encourages higher levels of conservation and the 
adoption of new conservation technologies. We continued the 
conservation innovation grants and the Voluntary Public Access and 
Habitat Incentive Program, which allows landowners to get value-added 
benefits from their land by opening them to hunting and fishing and 
bird watching. We made these programs even more flexible and added a 
focus on wildlife habitat, making them easier for farmers to use.
  The second area, the Conservation Reserve Program, recovers highly 
erodible land from production to benefit soil and water quality as well 
as wildlife habitat. Despite record droughts over the last few years--
droughts that in many ways were worse than during the Dust Bowl--the 
soil stayed on the ground. We haven't had a Dust Bowl. The soil has 
stayed on the ground. CRP was a big part of that, protecting not only 
the soil but air quality as well.
  We also continued an important incentive program to help older 
farmers transition their land to beginning farmers.
  One of the parts of the conservation title that I am most proud of is 
a new focus on regional partnerships. This will have a big impact on my 
own Great Lakes--that we in the Great Lakes area love so much--as well 
as the Chesapeake Bay and other critical areas where there are large-
scale regional conservation challenges. We consolidated several 
programs into one, which will offer competitive, merit-braced grants to 
regional partnerships made up of conservation groups, universities, 
farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners to support improved 
soil health, water quality and quantity and habitat for wildlife.
  The final area includes conservation easements, which lets landowners 
voluntarily enter into agreements to preserve wetlands and farmlands 
and protect them against development and sprawl. We consolidated and 
streamlined existing easement programs to protect important land for 
generations to come.
  The farm bill is also an export bill. In fact, agriculture is one of 
the few areas where our Nation maintains a healthy trade surplus. That 
is why this farm bill continues efforts to expand opportunities for 
American exports, including the Market Access Program, to promote U.S. 
agricultural products in overseas markets and develop programs to open 
new markets for American agricultural products.
  The farm bill is also a humanitarian bill that speaks to the best 
about us and our American values. Around the world millions of people 
get their only meals as a result of the generosity of the American 
people through the Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole program.
  I saw this last year firsthand in Haiti, where schools would open 
bags stamped with the American flag and provide a modest meal to 
students every day--very likely their only meal that day. I met one 
little boy who saved part of his lunch to take it home in his bag to 
his parents so they could have something to eat that night.
  In fact, in the life of this program, more than 3 billion--billion--
people in over 150 countries have gotten a meal thanks to the 
generosity of the American people and the American farmer.
  The farm bill makes major reforms to our food aid program, speeding 
up emergency food aid response and giving flexibility to organizations 
on the ground to supply local food to people in need. These reforms 
mean that because of this farm bill we will feed another 500,000 people 
around the world. That is why this bill has earned the endorsement of 
many humanitarian and religious groups, including Feed the Children, 
the ONE Campaign, CARE USA, Church World Service, Catholic Relief 
Services, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), World Food Program USA, the 
United Methodist Church, and the American Jewish World Service among 
many others.
  Of course, we know hunger and poverty strike families all around the 
globe, including right here at home. I believe in the richest country 
in the world it is a disgrace for any child to go to bed hungry at 
night or go to school hungry in the morning. Crop insurance is disaster 
assistance for farmers who have been hit by a natural disaster. The 
nutrition title of the farm bill is disaster assistance for families 
who have been hit by an economic disaster. Most families who need food 
assistance only need it for a few months, and the vast majority of 
people receiving food help are children, the elderly, and the disabled, 
including our disabled veterans.
  When the House of Representatives passed their nutrition bill, they 
included many provisions that would have seriously hurt Americans, such 
as many in Michigan who have paid taxes all their lives, lost their 
jobs through no fault of their own, and are mortified they need help to 
put food on the table for their families while they are getting back on 
their feet. This conference report rejects every single one of those 
harmful provisions. Instead, this final conference report before us 
strengthens the integrity and accountability of the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program--or SNAP--ensuring every dollar is spent 
responsibly so those who need help can get it.
  The bill stops lottery winners from being able to get SNAP benefits 
and stops the use of SNAP funds at liquor stores. It also includes an 
important provision that addresses what the Washington Post called ``a 
black eye on the program.'' We have streamlined eligibility 
requirements to cut down on wasteful duplication, but a number of 
States discovered a way to use that streamlining to give some families 
additional SNAP benefits by counting utility bills they do not have. By 
sending out as little as $1 in home heating assistance, States have 
been able to qualify families for a utility deduction, even if they do 
not pay any utility bills.
  I salute those who want to help people get additional funds. I would 
have very much supported adding additional help in this bill, but this 
cannot be justified--what is being done here. We addressed this 
loophole and protected the entire program for 47 million people.
  Here is what we have done and here is what it means to someone on 
SNAP. If you receive $20 or more a year in low-income heating 
assistance--if you receive $20 a year in low-income heating 
assistance--nothing changes for you. If you receive less than $20 a 
year, you will need to go back to the old system of producing an actual 
utility bill in order to receive credit for a utility bill.

[[Page 2344]]

  That is the sum total of where we have received and garnered the 
savings in this bill as it relates to closing loopholes. This is about 
strengthening the integrity of this program to ensure that food 
assistance is there for families who have fallen on hard times.
  The farm bill also includes a number of pilot programs to help people 
find work or receive job training so they do not need food assistance. 
The Secretary of Agriculture can approve these pilots, which include 
funding for child care and transportation to make sure individuals are 
able to succeed.
  The bill increases funding for food banks, continues an important 
effort that provides supplemental food for seniors as well as the 
senior farmers market program.
  I am pleased this bill has the support of the AARP and others who 
understand the importance of senior nutrition.
  The farm bill continues efforts to serve fresh fruit and vegetable 
snacks in schools, and includes a new national pilot based on something 
we do in Michigan called double Up Food Bucks. It essentially doubles 
the SNAP benefits for families when they shop for fresh produce at 
farmers markets.
  I also wish to mention the healthy food financing initiative, which 
addresses the very serious problem of lack of access to grocery stores 
in low-income neighborhoods. There are many places in Michigan where 
this is a very serious issue. This financing initiative will help 
families put healthy food on the table while creating jobs in 
neighborhoods across the country.
  It is also important to stress that the Congressional Budget Office 
projects that this farm bill, in addition to addressing fraud and 
abuse, will spend $11.5 billion less on food assistance the right way--
by the economy improving and people going back to work. So when we look 
at the fact that the numbers are going down, it is because of the 
economy improving. Frankly, this is where we need to be focusing our 
efforts, on supporting businesses to create jobs, and part of the way 
to do that is by passing this jobs bill called the farm bill.
  The farm bill is also a credit bill, increasing access to resources 
which help farmers, especially the beginning and veteran farmers, own 
and operate farms. This results in jobs. This title will make more 
qualified farmers, of all sizes, eligible for USDA farm loans and gives 
more flexibility to the USDA so they can better reach new types of 
farming, including local and regional producers.
  With 16 million people working in agriculture across the country, the 
farm bill is a jobs bill--and nowhere is that more evident than in 
America's rural communities. The rural development title of the farm 
bill authorizes programs which are absolutely essential to small towns 
and rural communities and those who work in those communities.
  We are continuing the important work of rural economic development 
and rural broadband. Just as rural electrification brought 
opportunities to families across the country in the last century, rural 
broadband opens doors for increased commerce and interconnectedness for 
the 21st century.
  Ninety percent of community water systems serve 10,000 people or 
less. We provide mandatory funding to address the backlog of rural 
water applications at USDA so rural communities have a safe supply of 
drinking water.
  For the first time we prioritize and reserve funding for rural 
development applications submitted by communities working together on 
long-term, sustainable community and economic development plans because 
these regional strategies will be more effective at the local level, 
and we want to provide as much flexibility as possible. The farm bill's 
rural development title is about entrepreneurship and the lasting 
strength of small towns across America in which it invests.
  As I mentioned earlier today, we are creating an innovative new 
Foundation for Food and Agricultural Research in this bill--modeled 
after what we do with medical research--to tackle the difficult fight 
against pests and diseases, and it increases opportunities through 
innovation to create jobs. For too many years, agricultural research 
has suffered because of budget cuts over and over. This new research 
foundation will bring together public and private funds to maintain a 
steady stream of funding for this important research. We provide $200 
million in seed money, and it can be matched by $200 million from the 
private sector in an ongoing commitment.
  In addition to the new research foundation, we have a major new focus 
on food and agricultural research throughout this bill. We have a major 
focus on the specialty crops research initiative to find solutions to 
pests and diseases that affect fruit and vegetable crops, and we have 
efforts in this title to support beginning farmers and ranchers as 
well. We are also continuing successful research and extension efforts, 
including work done by our premier land grant universities--such as my 
alma mater, Michigan State University.
  As to the forestry title, healthy forests mean clean air, fresh 
water, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. Coupled with 
the tools we have in the conservation title, the forestry title of the 
farm bill helps foresters maintain the health of our private forest 
lands.
  We are strengthening our efforts to fight invasive pests that have 
destroyed many thousands of trees, particularly in the West. We worked 
hard to ensure that private landowners can continue to effectively 
manage their operations.
  As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, the farm bill is an energy 
bill. I am extremely pleased that during negotiations with the House we 
kept the full funding from the Senate's energy title.
  Our rural communities have been at the forefront of the effort to 
achieve American energy independence. We are strengthening these 
efforts through the highly successful Rural Energy for America Program, 
which helps farmers and rural small business owners generate their own 
power or improve energy efficiency to lower their utility bills. 
Thousands of farms across the country have lowered their input costs 
thanks to the REAP program.
  We are continuing our commitment to the development of the next 
generation of advanced biofuels. Scientific advancements are allowing 
us to develop ethanol with food and agricultural waste products. With 
this farm bill, we will see even more biorefineries come online, 
producing homegrown fuels which bring competition and lower prices for 
consumers at the pump.
  This farm bill also supports our growing biobased economy with my new 
grow it here, make it here initiative. Biobased products are 
manufactured items made from all kinds of plant materials that replace 
petroleum and other chemicals. These products are everywhere, from the 
cups in the Senate cafeteria--which are made by a Michigan company, by 
the way--to cleaning products, industrial lubricants, and even the foam 
in the seats of cars which, if it is a new American-made car, will be 
based on soy oil foam rather than petroleum oil. Biobased manufacturing 
creates jobs, strengthens our economy, and reduces our use of fossil 
fuels.
  As I have said before, this is a farm bill focused on the future, and 
nowhere is that more evident than in the specialty crops title. This is 
essentially the produce aisle of the farm bill. Specialty crops include 
fruits, vegetables, nuts, and nursery crops. We are strengthening the 
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, expanding specialty crop research, 
expanding crop insurance to include specialty crops, and continuing the 
highly successful fresh fruits and vegetables SNAP program in our 
schools.
  We don't want to just grow more fruits and vegetables, we need to be 
able to get them to consumers. That is why this farm bill more than 
quadruples support for farmers markets. We are also strengthening local 
food hubs, which bring farmers together with local supermarkets, 
restaurants, and schools to supply locally grown healthy foods.
  The farm bill also recognizes an incredibly fast-growing segment of 
agriculture--organics. We continue our efforts to support farmers to 
get certified

[[Page 2345]]

as organic, expand crop insurance options to organic farmers, and 
provide funding for continued organic research.
  This bill truly reflects the diversity of crops we grow in America, 
and nowhere is that more evident than in the specialty crops and 
organics title.
  In every part of this farm bill we worked on streamlining and 
consolidating programs. In fact, we ended over 100 different programs 
and authorizations in this process. I said to my staff at the very 
beginning: Don't think about programs. Think about principles--what 
should we be doing in agriculture and food policy, not what programs do 
we want to protect. That is how we have moved forward throughout this 
entire process.
  There is one thing we did add and I am very pleased with; that is, a 
new veterans agriculture liaison at USDA to work with our men and women 
in uniform who are coming home and want to get involved in agriculture. 
We know the majority of our men and women are coming home to small 
towns, such as where I grew up in northern Michigan, and rural 
communities, and we want to support them so they can be successful if 
they choose to go into agriculture.
  This is a new kind of farm bill, designed to meet new challenges of a 
changing world. We are also making major reforms, eliminating 
unnecessary, unjustified programs to cut government spending and to 
increase the integrity of farm programs.
  This farm bill reflects critical steps in changing the paradigm, 
where we are ending subsidies and giving farmers the tools they need to 
manage their own risks. We support them, but in doing that, as we know, 
when we have insurance products--and that is what we are looking at 
throughout this bill, whether it is a new insurance-type approach for 
cotton or dairy or for our traditional commodities. With any other kind 
of insurance, you pay the premium, pay the premium, and pay the premium 
but don't get any help unless there is a loss, a disaster. This is a 
fundamental shift in this farm bill, helping our farmers to manage risk 
in a fiscally responsible way.
  I think my distinguished ranking member would admit it was a lot of 
work. After all of this work, to my knowledge, we offer the Senate the 
only effort where a group of people within their jurisdiction of 
authority have voluntarily cut spending to reduce the deficit. If we 
couple the sequestration cuts of approximately $6 billion and the cuts 
in this bill to agriculture, we are coming to the Senate and offering a 
bill of reform, cutting programs, cutting duplication, cutting spending 
that actually creates $23 billion in deficit reduction. I am proud of 
that. This truly is not your father's farm bill.
  We are about to vote to bring debate on this conference report to a 
close. But before we do, I once again thank my ranking member, the 
senior Senator from Mississippi, who has been a friend and a partner 
throughout this entire process. I have enjoyed very much having the 
opportunity to work with Senator Cochran and his very competent staff. 
I learned along the way that we have a great love of music in piano 
playing and the blues--which sometimes we were singing during this 
process. But it has been my great honor to work with him and our House 
colleagues as we have worked to bring this forward.
  My ranking member had a different perspective than I had, and we have 
written this bill together. I have learned a lot about the perspective 
of Mississippi and the South, and I hope I have shared the perspective 
of Michigan and the North--and the East and the West--as we have 
listened to our colleagues. I urge our colleagues to support this 
conference report.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

  We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to 
a close debate on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2642, the 
Federal Agricultural Reform and Risk Management Act.
          Harry Reid, Debbie Stabenow, Robert Menendez, Bill 
           Nelson, Tom Harkin, Tammy Baldwin, Jon Tester, Michael 
           F. Bennet, Patrick J. Leahy, Max Baucus, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly, Richard J. Durbin, Mark 
           Udall, Martin Heinrich, Sherrod Brown.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2642, an act to provide for the 
reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs of the 
Department of Agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other 
purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the 
Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from West Virginia 
(Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the Senator from Louisiana 
(Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 72, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 20 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coons
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Ayotte
     Blumenthal
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Flake
     Grassley
     Heller
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Markey
     McCain
     Paul
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Warren

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Begich
     Landrieu
     Rockefeller
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 72, the nays are 
22. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The Senator from New Jersey.


                    Extending Unemployment Insurance

  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, it is an honor to speak for my first time 
in the Senate. As I speak today on the urgent need to extend 
unemployment insurance, I feel a sense of profound gratitude that I 
first want to note. First, I feel this gratitude to the people of the 
State of New Jersey. It is remarkable, the privilege they have given me 
to walk into this hall, to stand right in the area where the great 
Senator Frank Lautenberg stood, to work here in this hall which is 
filled with such history, to have the privilege of sitting there at the 
desk where the Presiding Officer is sitting and touch things that seem 
like they should belong in a museum, like a gavel from hundreds of 
years ago, to walk in here and see over our heads words like 
``courage'' and ``wisdom'' and ``patriotism.'' Most importantly, it is 
a privilege to walk here among my colleagues, all 99 of them, every 
single one senior to me in months and years served, in wisdom, and in 
experience. It is my prayer, first and foremost, that I prove worthy of 
this incredible honor.

[[Page 2346]]

  With all of that said, I also realize that I joined this body at a 
time when Congress is not really thought that well of by the American 
public. In fact, this institution's approval ratings are at an all-time 
low. I find that not surprising. Even when I was running for this 
office, I encountered so much frustration. In the days before I came 
down here, people who you would think would love Congress would look at 
me and say: Go down there and give them hell. I think that is because 
so many people in America understand what we have endured for the last 
6 years, which is the worst economy of my lifetime. While we are seeing 
some progress in our national recovery, it has come slowly and 
unevenly. Many families are still hurting. Americans believe Congress 
is not doing all it can to address the urgent problems they face. They 
believe that we have, in some cases, made problems worse. Some people, 
I understand, have surrendered to cynicism about government, cynicism 
about America's future, cynicism about the ability for people 
themselves to shape their own lives and their destiny. But we cannot 
allow the pain of so many Americans to overshadow that long history we 
all share. There is a reason why American history does not look kindly 
upon cynics and naysayers, for even with all of its wrenching pain and 
savage problems, our collective past offers a resounding testimony to 
overcoming impossible challenges, to righting terrible wrongs and 
advancing deeper and deeper meaning to those very American words 
``liberty and justice for all.''
  That is what our Nation is, the oldest constitutional democracy, a 
country founded not so that its people get special treatment because of 
divine rights of Kings and Queens but because everyone is valued. We 
did not get there right away. Even in our founding documents, where 
Native Americans are referred to as savages, African American as 
fractions of human beings, and women not at all, we have made progress.
  I know I am here in this Chamber because of what this Nation has done 
by coming together. Like all of my colleagues, all 99 of them, we are 
not here because of some royal lineage or entitled ancestor. I 
personally stand here like others because of the grit, work, sacrifice, 
and discipline of my ancestors but also because they had the blessing 
to labor in a Nation that for generation after generation advanced to 
greater and greater inclusion, greater and greater opportunity, spread 
among more and more people.
  Our Nation has an enduring belief that when we struggle together for 
a common cause America is better and we are all better. It is the 
understanding that we are a Nation with a profound and sacred 
Declaration of Independence. Also, our country has a historical chorus 
that profoundly proclaimed a declaration of interdependence.
  We began and have endured because our ancestors understood the common 
cause that is America. This cause was heralded by our greatest leaders 
in every single generation, the people whose words and speeches and 
examples inspired me to be here today. George Washington, an original 
Founding Father, reminded us of this principle and American ideal in 
his farewell address where he wrote:

       The name American belongs to us. We have in common cause 
     fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty 
     we possess are the work of joint counsel and joint effort, of 
     common dangers, common suffering and common successes.

  So standing here I am grateful that I have never forgotten what my 
mom has told me time and time again: ``Boy, don't forget where you come 
from.'' Well, I know from whence I come. I now from whence all of my 
colleagues come. I am proud that we, all 100 of us, descendents of 
slaves, of immigrants, labor factory workers, domestics, of farmers who 
through toil brought from the earth hope, of business people, who with 
impossible mountains before them climbed high and commanded forth new 
opportunity--all of us, despite our political differences, share a 
commonheritage, and we share a common desire to solve problems, to 
address the challenges that plague this Nation, that hurt families, to 
serve our country so that we may give truth to the words like 
``courage'' and ``patriotism'' and ``wisdom,'' so that they never 
become simply empty words etched above our heads but they constantly 
fuel the passion and desire of our hearts.
  That is why 3 months in, almost to the day, I am inspired by the work 
of this body. I have not surrendered to the cynicism about it. I am 
inspired by the remarkable people who sit around me right now. This is 
a great institution. I now have an even more fervent, relentless belief 
that together we can address our common cause and the common challenges 
afflicting our national strength.
  Principal among these challenges facing the United States is the 
persistent economic hardship and insecurity facing too many Americans. 
Our economy, though improving, is nonetheless failing too many people. 
Economic trends and challenges, not of any individual's making, and 
particularly not of the making of those who felt the pain of this great 
recession the most, are forcing too many families out of the middle 
class and into poverty.
  This is not a threat to just some. It is a threat to us all. A 
shrinking middle class and intractable poverty is a threat to America. 
It is a challenge to the very idea of who we profess to be as a Nation; 
that each generation should do better than the one before; that we are 
a land of growing prosperity shared by a widening population; that the 
idea that anyone born in any station, through hard work, self 
discipline, and sacrifice can make it in America.
  But over the last few decades this has become less and less the case. 
You see, wages are stagnant and by some measures have declined for the 
middle class. Social mobility in America, almost embarrassingly, lags 
behind many of our competitor nations. More and more families are 
beginning to question that idea that in America every generation does 
better than the one before.
  More and more people now are getting stuck and feeling stuck through 
no fault of their own in a dismal hope-subduing economic condition. I 
watched, when I was Mayor of New Jersey's largest city, how company 
after company shed workers during the recession, how retirement savings 
collapsed, how the ratio of people looking for jobs to jobs available 
jaggedly cut against the American worker, still standing now at roughly 
3 Americans looking for a job for every job that is available.
  Amidst this jarring recession, other economic trends continue to 
deepen our national economic wounds. Companies are now outsourcing jobs 
and investment. New technologies bring incredible societal benefit, but 
they are also driving many jobs into obsolescence. The worker in 
America is facing a weakening in negotiating position.
  So as a new Senator, I am inspired by my colleagues, many of them, 
and especially their incredible staff, the unsung giants of our Federal 
Government who are working hard to meet the challenges. I profess that 
I hear from Members on both sides of the aisle a true understanding of 
our common cause and our collective responsibility here in the Senate.
  Senator after Senator to whom I talked in my first 3 months is 
driving an agenda that gives my very hope sustenance. I am proud to 
roll up my sleeves and work with them regardless of party. While we may 
have differences in approach and disagreements on strategy, the common 
call to improve our economy has Senators nobly pushing what I believe 
are critical important legislative measures, measures that range from 
efforts to address our national skills gap, to expand educational 
opportunities, to boost our manufacturing sector, to lift small 
businesses, to promote research, development and investment in 
infrastructure, and efforts to stop the perverse incentive that drives 
jobs and investment overseas, and so much more.
  But these critical and worthy efforts may take months or longer to 
move through Congress and even more time to have an effect to expand 
our economy at the necessary rate. Thus they

[[Page 2347]]

do not relieve us from the urgency to do more right now to help those 
families caught amidst these treacherous economic trends.
  These are families who so desperately want to work, who spend their 
days searching for jobs, sending out resume after resume after resume, 
going online and filling out application after application after 
application. There are tens of thousands of New Jersey families who are 
visiting food pantries for food or depleting their savings accounts or 
are cashing out their IRAs and who are racking up credit cards just to 
pay for necessities, who are skipping prescriptions, who are missing 
rent payments, and who are falling behind on their mortgages, letting 
car insurance lapse, having their utilities canceled, and having their 
children miss out--sitting out of field trips or afterschool activities 
just because their parents can't afford the costs.
  This is why unemployment insurance is critical. It is America 
answering the call to help people in a crisis not of their own making.
  I am proud, God, I am so proud, that for the past 50 years America 
has answered that call time and time again to help others in crisis. We 
are America. We have been America. This is our tradition. When times 
are tough, as the great New Jersey poet sings: ``We Take Care of Our 
Own.'' In fact, we are a nation that takes care of its own and reaches 
beyond. If there is a crisis, America is there. If there is a crisis, 
be it a typhoon in the Philippines, an earthquake in Haiti, America 
responds; be it an act of terror in New York or Washington, an oilspill 
in the gulf, flooding in Colorado or a hurricane barreling up the 
northeastern coast, America responds.
  Our tradition is clear. When the vicious vicissitudes of the market 
create economic crises for our people at levels as high as they are 
now, America responds. Extending unemployment insurance has always been 
viewed in this light.
  When Senator Robert Wagner rose in the Senate in the mid-1930s amidst 
a depression that cast millions of families--my family--into economic 
peril, he called the Social Security Act and its unemployment provision 
a compound in which blended elements of economic wisdom and social 
justice exist.
  George Bush, who extended unemployment benefits five times, at a time 
when unemployment was lower than it is now, said in very plain English:

       Americans rely on their unemployment benefits to pay for 
     the mortgage or rent, food and other critical bills. They 
     need our assistance in these difficult times, and we cannot 
     let them down.

  Our inaction in the Senate in not renewing emergency unemployment 
benefits at the end of December, with national unemployment as high as 
it is now, has let millions of Americans, adults and their children 
down--down into an avoidable economic misery.
  In New Jersey, I found it was particularly stinging to our residents, 
even confusing to them, that when times were not as bad as they are 
now, we acted with bipartisan, no-strings-attached conviction for our 
fellow Americans. Not only did we act when the unemployment rate was 
lower than it is now, but we acted to extend unemployment insurance 
time after time when long-term unemployment was about half of what it 
is today.
  President after President, Congress after Congress responded--but not 
now.
  When times were better, we responded--but not now.
  When fewer people were struggling, we responded--but not now.
  When foreign competition was not as fierce, we responded--but not 
now.
  When banks were irresponsibly overleveraged and when insurance 
companies were dangerously undercapitalized, when rating agencies rated 
trash as treasure and when mortgage companies used reprehensible 
practices that harmed family after family, all together threatening to 
create cataclysmic crisis, we responded--but not now.
  For millions of Americans suffering in these horrible economic 
conditions not of their own making, who play by the rules, who are 
looking for work, who are struggling, who are suffering, we have more 
than 50 years of history of responding and extending unemployment 
insurance--but not now.
  I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment just to extend and single 
out my gratitude for the leadership of my colleague Jack Reed. For his 
efforts, he has been incredible in trying to extend these benefits. He, 
along with other of my colleagues, refused to give up. He has worked 
quietly and relentlessly to find a bipartisan solution. He has offered 
compromise, offered pay-fors, and has offered a way forward that would 
bring hope. But so far that solution has proved to be elusive.
  If we are to honor our collective legacy and tradition, we cannot 
surrender in this moment to the partisanship of today. So many people 
are depending on this body to come together and find a way not left or 
right but forward for America, because every week that we delay, 70,000 
Americans lose their benefits. For thousands, every week, that means 
losing a house, an eviction from an apartment, and depletion of 
savings. Because 40 percent of those who received benefits have 
children, it means depriving our children of things we would all 
consider the basics. Nearly 3 weeks ago I stood with Senator Reed and 
pledged to go back to New Jersey and return with stories of the people 
I met who needed our collective action and needed us to come together. 
Twelve events later, after stops all across New Jersey, my heart has 
broken time and time again.
  It is broken by the former A&P manager in River Edge, working every 
day to find a job and has burned through his entire life's savings; by 
the Hunterdon woman whose home of decades has gone into foreclosure. 
She is working every day to find a job but is in crisis; by the soon-
to-be father in Paterson, working hard every day to find a job but is 
wracked with worry about providing for his new baby; by the father of 
five in Bridgetowne who now struggles every day to find a job but also 
to afford life's basic necessities. He was talking to me about keeping 
the heat on, about how they can keep gas in the car and food on the 
table. He told me about the strain and the stress it is creating in his 
oldest, a 10-year-old son.
  These stories from cities to suburbs, from Barbara and Robert's 
kitchen table in Old Bridge, NJ, to the County Griddle Lounge in 
Clinton, NJ, to the One Stop Center in Plainfield, NJ, were eerily 
similar and, most of all, they were all avoidable with action from 
Congress.
  Eileen from Bernardsville told me she had been looking for work for 1 
year. Federal benefits allowed her to stay afloat and afford the things 
necessary to find a job, money for gas, dry cleaning, a cell phone. 
Even in front of other job seekers, she couldn't disguise her anger and 
disappointment with Washington. Her anger was about feeling that she 
and others were being ignored. She told me she felt ashamed of a 
country that would turn its back on its own people. She is mad about a 
Congress that she feels doesn't hear her, but she is mostly mad that 
anyone, especially a Member of Congress, would say she is lazy.
  She is right to be mad, especially about the absurd notion that 
unemployment benefits provide a disincentive to work. That allegation 
frankly burns me. It is something I have heard too often; that somehow 
people are lazy or that unemployment insurance and payments, as meager 
as they are, provide a disincentive to work. This, to me, is 
intellectually dishonest and, according to most studies, factually not 
true.
  This is one of those corrosive political strains that burns the 
collective gut of our national truth, pitting, actually, American 
against American and violates that American wisdom--my mom always told 
me--that we should not look down on another person unless we are 
extending a hand of help. We are not calling them lazy.
  When I was mayor of Newark, I saw my share of lines of good people 
doing that well, offering a hand of help. These lines, I will tell you 
as mayor, motivated me even harder to double down because they were 
lines at soup kitchens where Americans were helping Americans. They 
were lines at the

[[Page 2348]]

one-stop job center where Americans were helping Americans.
  But the longest lines I saw as mayor were when we had successes, when 
a new business, supermarket or company would come to town and say they 
were hiring. The lines would go on for blocks or wrap around buildings 
with people desperate to work, even for minimum-wage jobs.
  I can vividly remember scenes just like that when Newark opened a 
Home Depot or then-Continental Airlines held a job fair. It was 
Americans in line with pride in their hearts, resumes in their hands, 
and hunger to find a job, any job, to get to work.
  I heard that the last 2 weeks all over my State from former managers 
applying for entry-level jobs to no avail and people with years of 
experience so desperate they were applying for minimum-wage jobs with 
no success.
  The people who really blew me away, who just set me aback because I 
honestly should have expected it--but I didn't expect to hear it--were 
people who told me in order to keep their pride and to keep their 
feelings of self-worth, on top of all of their stress and strain of 
unemployment, they found ways to volunteer at their local libraries, at 
their schools, at their churches. These were folks such as Mary, whom I 
met in Hunterdon County. Mary told me she was helping women look for 
work as she herself was. She was helping them develop skills from her 
experience while she was trying to find her own job.
  This is the America I know. From our cities to our wealthier suburbs, 
people want to work. They want to give back. They want to contribute. 
They want to represent the truth of who we are as a country. Time and 
time again I heard people say, ``We don't want unemployment insurance, 
we want a job.''
  Even folks who had jobs, though, told me of the pain of congressional 
inaction.
  I stopped to meet with folks in Woodbury. I went to a restaurant, 
Marlene Mangia Bene--Senator Menendez can probably pronounce that 
better. I spoke with the owners: Christopher, Maria, Frank, and other 
business leaders. The community of businesspeople told me how high the 
prevalence of unemployed people was and how many people were losing 
their benefits, and they came to the simple conclusion, as they watched 
how it hurt businesses in that town--less money coming to people in 
their time of need, less money spent, and that meant less revenue for 
businesses, which meant that some businesses might not be able to hold 
on to as many employees, and then those laid-off employees would then 
need unemployment insurance and more social services.
  The cycle feeds itself.
  If we fail to extend unemployment benefits, economists say it is 
going to cost the country almost one-quarter of a million jobs this 
year alone. This is another government self-inflicted wound we can 
avoid. Reinstating benefits will save 19,000 jobs in New Jersey alone.
  But it is bigger than that. Every single job is a family-added 
distress. While all families are important, there are some who should 
weigh especially heavy on the conscience of our country.
  Take New Jersey State Assemblyman Bob Andrzejzak, an Iraq war vet who 
lost his leg in service to our country. He pulled together a group of 
veterans, young and old, for me to talk with at a Rio Grande diner in 
Middle Township in Cape May County.
  I challenge any Member of Congress who hasn't done so already to sit 
with veterans who are receiving unemployment benefits or who, because 
of our inaction, just lost them. It is not hard to find them.
  Unfortunately, nearly 21,000 veterans lost their benefits earlier 
than anticipated when we failed to extend benefits in December, and 
about 3,000 or more will join them each month unless we right this 
wrong.
  Listen to the testimony of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who 
have come back into this economy after fighting on the frontlines, 
after facing peril and danger most of us can't imagine, and then here 
in America they have to face the harsh realities of, despite their best 
efforts, being unemployed and even facing the potential horrors of 
homelessness.
  These men and women who fought for our country, who stood for our 
Nation, are not lazy. There is no disincentive to work in these 
benefits. These are people who signed up to go to war. The assemblyman 
told me how hard it was for his friends and even him to find a job. He 
told me what it does to their spirits and what it is like to give all 
for your country and then have your country fail to do what it has 
consistently done for others during times of crisis over the last 50 
years--to extend unemployment benefits.
  This man, Bob Andrzejzak, is shorter than me but he stands taller 
than I will ever stand--and on a prosthetic leg. He works a job as an 
assemblyman in New Jersey, with honor, battling to give more hope to 
his constituents in counties with high unemployment, such as Cape May 
County, with an over 12-percent unemployment rate.
  He has good days, he has bad days, fighting it out on the front lines 
of our economic struggle. This Iraq war veteran is still fighting to 
protect his country, to advance it, and make real his country for the 
lives of thousands of people. His cause is our common cause. This 
burden should not be his to bear alone. We too, U.S. Senators, like 
him, have jobs, elected by the people. We swore an oath to be there for 
our countrymen. We too pledged our sacred honor to serve America, to 
return to the words of General Washington. The name ``America'' belongs 
to all of us. We must be there for everyone, especially in this time of 
trial.
  It is my hope this body, in this generation of America, finds our 
measure of commonality and comes together to find a way so we can 
better tend to those in crisis, so that we too may add our humble 
measure to the greatness of that enduring American ideal.
  Let us extend unemployment insurance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, if I could praise my colleague for his 
eloquence and for his passion and say how right he is. I thank my 
colleague Senator Menendez for allowing me to speak, but I wanted to 
commend Senator Booker for his brilliance and for his dedication.
  I want to applaud the Senator for New Jersey for his maiden speech 
and for using this opportunity to focus on the urgent need to renew 
unemployment insurance for over 1.7 million Americans. The expiration 
has drained an estimated $2.2 billion from State economies according to 
estimates based on data from the Department of Labor and the Ways and 
Means Committee.
  Our constituents, who lost their job through no fault of their own 
and are searching for work in this extremely challenging economy, are 
looking to Congress to renew this commonsense and very modest support. 
They've worked hard and are searching for work with just as much 
fervor. But on December 28 the rug was pulled out from under them 
because some of my colleagues on the other side had decided they would 
rather let emergency unemployment insurance expire. And yet we have 
traditionally extended aid when the long-term unemployment rate remains 
as high as it still unfortunately is.
  Democrats have been pushing to extend this vital lifeline since 
before its expiration. And on December 17, Senator Heller and I 
introduced a bipartisan path forward--and I thank the Senator from New 
Jersey for his support for that measure. This emergency extension for 
unemployment insurance for 3 months would give us more time to work on 
a year-long extension and address the concerns raised by some of my 
colleagues. This way folks in Rhode Island, New Jersey, Tennessee, and 
Kentucky--jobseekers all over the Nation--would not lose unemployment 
insurance as we work through these complex issues. Unfortunately, that 
immediate aid was filibustered despite our efforts.
  That did not deter us. We have kept on working through those issues 
raised

[[Page 2349]]

by some of my Republican colleagues and we have addressed them. We are 
now proposing a 3-month fully paid extension--which is way out of line 
with past extensions. Indeed, 17 of the 20 times that emergency aid was 
extended no strings were attached.
  President Reagan extended emergency aid three times and President 
George W. Bush did it five times.
  We are still working to secure enough votes to break a potential 
filibuster. We are not there yet, but I remain hopeful. Yet the clock 
is ticking. I hope some of my Republican colleagues understand that 
jobseekers deserve a solution now and not procedural delays or 
obstruction. So I look forward to continue working with Senator Booker 
on doing everything we can to extend this vital aid to our constituents 
immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleague from New 
Jersey for an eloquent and soaring speech that speaks to the collective 
aspirations we should have in this body on behalf of the collective 
Nation we represent. I am not at all surprised at Senator Booker's 
ability to relate to this body the lives of people from New Jersey and 
across the country who depend upon us to respond to them in their times 
of need and to remind us of the greater nature of what we should stand 
for as an institution and on behalf of this country. He did it with 
such aplomb and such passion and intensity, yet at the same time with 
such sincerity that I think it is an excellent beginning to what will 
be a very long series of remarks in the Senate on critical issues that 
will both inform us and at the same time remind us of the high calling 
for which we are all brought to the Senate.
  I want to take one moment to add to what Senator Booker said, 
specifically on the topic he ultimately drove home, and that is this 
question of unemployment. I want to relate one story--I see the Senator 
from Utah is up, so I will relate only one story--but it speaks to the 
very heart of what Senator Booker was conveying here.
  I get thousands of letters from people who depend on their meager 
unemployment benefits to avert economic disaster while they desperately 
look for work. As Senator Booker said, these people are not lazy; they 
are not looking for a handout. They just want a job, any job. I want to 
talk about one constituent in particular--Noelle from Atlantic County, 
who described herself as ``a middle-aged unemployed single mother 
trying to raise two sons to be successful contributing members of our 
society.'' She relates what happened after her marriage ended:

       I didn't shrug my shoulders and give up, even though the 
     ``system'' said I didn't qualify for assistance . . . I took 
     care of children in my home to pay the bills and avoid child 
     care costs. In 2000, when my children were school age, I 
     found a minimum wage seasonal job and worked hard to become a 
     permanent employee . . . I worked even harder to rise up in 
     the organization and become a respected manager. When that 
     company went bankrupt in 2009, I found another job within two 
     weeks taking a large pay cut and making far less than I would 
     have made on unemployment. I stayed with that company for 4 
     years until I was laid off in July of 2013. Once again, I 
     didn't shrug my shoulders and give up. For the following 26 
     weeks I sought employment. I have joined every employment 
     website I could find and I applied for any job remotely 
     within my limited job skills. Unfortunately, the responses I 
     have gotten have not been encouraging. Thirteen years of 
     retail experience, including nine years of management 
     experience, translates into few opportunities. No one will 
     consider me for any entry level positions based on my 
     previous experience.

  She closes by saying:

       No, I do not think unemployment should be a way of life. 
     No, I do not think you can be unemployed and disabled. No, I 
     do not think 3 million unemployed Americans are going to find 
     jobs in 26 weeks.

  She is so right, and these are the type of Americans Senator Booker 
was talking about, and this is why the Senate should act.
  I don't believe that is too much to ask, and I am pleased Senator 
Booker has come to this floor to lend his voice to the debate and to 
stand for people such as her. Again, I congratulate my colleague from 
New Jersey on an eloquent speech on such an important issue.
  I am pleased that he chose to speak about unemployment insurance, an 
issue critical to so many families in New Jersey and across this Nation 
so they can make ends meet while they're looking for work.
  Senator Booker has always been a voice for the voiceless, given hope 
to the vulnerable, and a helping hand to those who need it. It is why 
he chose public service. It is who he is and what he has always stood 
for.
  He spoke eloquently and I commend him for his remarks. He rightfully 
pointed out that the issue of unemployment insurance isn't just about 
the poor. It is about all those people who need help while they 
continue to look for work.
  We have seen the recession chip away at the middle class, pulling 
more and more families to the edge.
  In this job market, they need more time to find work, and extending 
unemployment benefits will give them that time. It will allow them to 
step back from the edge.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we are better than this. This farm bill is a 
monument to every dysfunction Washington indulges in to defend our 
policies and twist our economy to benefit itself at the expense of the 
American people.
  The top-line talking point among defenders of this bill is 
``compromise.'' The farm bill, we are told, may be imperfect, but it is 
a compromise we can all live with. They said negotiators from both 
Houses and both political parties came together and hammered out a 
deal. They said: This is just how you have to act to get things done in 
Washington.
  There is, of course, some truth to this, but it is more of a half 
truth. There absolutely is compromise in this thousand-page $1 trillion 
mess. But it is not a compromise between House Republicans and Senate 
Democrats. No, it is collusion between both parties against the 
American people. It benefits special interests at the expense of 
national interest.
  This bill does not demonstrate how to do things in Washington but 
instead demonstrates how to do things for Washington. The final product 
before us is not just a legislative vehicle, it is a legislative 
getaway car.
  And what did they get away with? Well, the farm bill is really two 
bills--one that spends about $200 billion to subsidize the agricultural 
industry and another that spends $750 billion on the public assistance 
program previously known as food stamps. The farm bill is, thus, a 
beltway marriage of convenience between welfare and corporate welfare, 
ensuring the passage of both while preventing reform in either. 
Instead, Congress broke out the neck bolts and sutures and put 
Frankenstein's monster back together.
  This was the year the farm bill was supposed to be different. This 
was supposed to be the year when we would finally split the bill into 
its logical component pieces and would subject them both to overdue 
scrutiny and reform. This was the year we might have strengthened the 
Food Stamp Program with work and other requirements for able-bodied 
adults, to help transition beneficiaries into full-time jobs. This was 
the year we might have added an asset test, to make sure wealthy 
Americans with large personal bank accounts were no longer eligible for 
food stamps. But those reforms aren't there. Those reforms aren't 
here--not in this bill.
  Under this legislation, the Food Stamp Program is not really 
reformed, it is just expanded. Once again, the give and take of 
compromise in Congress boils down to the American people give and 
Washington takes. Yet, if anything, the other side of this bill is even 
worse. Not only did the conference committee fail to reform programs 
subsidizing agricultural businesses, the conference committee removed 
many of the few improvements the House and Senate tried to include in 
the first place.
  For instance, the original Senate bill, for all its faults, included 
a novel provision to limit farm subsidies to actual farms, actual 
farmers. The Senate

[[Page 2350]]

bill was also going to phase out crop insurance subsidies for wealthy 
Americans with an annual income of more than $750,000; farmers who made 
three-quarters of a million dollars a year, after all, should not need 
taxpayer assistance to keep their farms afloat.
  The House bill included a transparency reform requiring Members of 
Congress to disclose any subsidies they personally receive under the 
crop insurance programs. Yet all of the above reforms mysteriously 
disappeared from the final legislation now before us.
  It is not as though the farm bill was a paragon of accountability and 
fairness to begin with. Agricultural policy follows a troubling trend 
in Washington, using raw political power to twist public policy against 
the American people to profit political and corporate insiders.
  For instance, under this legislation, the Federal Government will 
continue to force taxpayers to subsidize sugar companies, both in the 
law and in the grocery store. The bill maintains the so-called ``dairy 
cliff,'' keeping dairy policy temporary. This will create an artificial 
crisis the next time we take up the farm bill, which will once again 
undermine thoughtful debate and reform.
  Perhaps of all the shiny ornaments hung on this special-interest 
Christmas tree, the shiniest may be the actual croniest handout to the 
Christmas tree industry itself. Under this farm bill, small independent 
Christmas tree farmers will now be required to pay a special tax to a 
government-created organization controlled by larger corporate 
producers, like some medieval tribute to feudal lords. These costs 
will, of course, be passed on to working families. So every December, 
Washington will, in effect, rob the Cratchits to pay Mr. Scrooge and 
his lobbyists in Washington.
  Yet, even all this is squeaky-clean legislating compared to this farm 
bill's most offensive feature--its bullying, disenfranchising shakedown 
of the American West. Most Americans who live east of the Mississippi 
have no idea that most of the land west of the great river is owned by 
the Federal Government. I don't mean national parks, protected 
wilderness, national monuments, and the like. We have a lot of those 
and we love them. But that is a fraction of a fraction of the land I am 
talking about. I am just talking about garden-variety land--the kind 
that is privately owned in every neighborhood and community across the 
country. More than 50 percent of all of the land west of the 
Mississippi River is controlled by a Federal bureaucracy and it cannot 
be developed: no homes, no businesses, no communities or community 
centers, no farms or farmers markets, no hospitals or colleges or 
schools, no Little League fields, no playgrounds, nothing.
  In my own State, it is 63 percent of the land. In Daggett County, it 
is 81 percent. In Wayne County, it is 85 percent. In Garfield County, 
it is 90 percent. Ninety percent of the land in Garfield County isn't 
theirs. In communities such as these, financing local government is a 
huge challenge. There, as in the East, local government is funded 
primarily by property taxes. But in counties and towns where the 
Federal Government owns 70, 80, or even 90 percent of the land, there 
simply isn't enough private property to tax to fund basic local 
services: another sheriff's deputy to police their streets, another 
truck or ambulance to save their lives and protect their property from 
fires, another teacher to educate their children.
  To compensate local governments for the tax revenue Washington 
unfairly denies them, Congress created--as only Congress could--the 
PILT program. PILT stands for Payment in Lieu of Taxes.
  Under PILT, Congress sends a few cents on the dollar out West every 
year to make up for lost property taxes. There is no guaranteed amount. 
Washington just sends what Washington feels like sending.
  Local governments across the Western United States, and especially in 
counties such as Garfield, Daggett, and Wayne County, UT, completely 
depend on Congress making good on this promise. Given this situation, 
there are three possible courses of congressional action:
  First, Congress could do the right thing and transfer the land to the 
States that want it.
  Second, Congress could compromise and fully compensate western 
communities for the growth and opportunity current law denies them.
  But in this bill it is neither. Congress instead chooses option 
three: lording its power over western communities to extort political 
concessions from them, like some two-bit protection racket. ``That's a 
nice fire department you got there,'' Congress effectively says to many 
western communities. ``Nice school your kids have. It would be a shame 
if anything should happen to it.''
  These States and communities are looking for nothing more than 
certainty and equality under the law. Yet Congress treats these not as 
rights to be protected but as vulnerabilities to be shamelessly 
exploited.
  For weeks I have been on the phone with county commissioners who feel 
they have no choice but to support a policy they know doesn't work. 
This bill takes away their ability to plan and budget with certainty 
and forces them to come back to Congress, hat in hand, every year. 
County commissioners know this is no way to run a community.
  I share their frustration, and I applaud their commitment to their 
neighbors and their communities. I am convinced that in the long run, 
the best way to protect these communities is to find a real permanent 
solution--one that gives them the certainty and the equality under the 
law they deserve.
  My vote against the farm bill will be a vote to rescue Utahns from 
second-class citizenship and local communities in my State from 
permanent dependence on the whims of faraway politicians and 
bureaucrats in Washington, DC.
  For all the talk we hear in this Chamber about inequality, we 
nonetheless seem oblivious to its causes. This bill--and thousands of 
other bills, laws, and regulations like it--are themselves the root 
cause of our shortage of opportunity in America today. The end result 
of this legislation will be to disenfranchise and extort the American 
people to benefit special interests, to enrich the well-connected at 
the expense of the disconnected.
  The true cost of that transaction--just another forced deposit and 
withdrawal from Washington's dysfunctional favored bank--is a lot more 
than $956 billion. The true cost of this kind of unequal cronyist 
policymaking is the trust of the American people in the legitimacy of 
our political institutions, in the fairness of our economy, and in the 
good faith of their countrymen.
  Our constitutional republic, our free enterprise economy, and our 
voluntary civil society depend absolutely on the equality of all 
Americans under the law, the equality of all citizen opportunity to 
pursue happiness in their own communities, according to their own 
values, each on a level playing field with everyone else. This 
legislation dangerously subverts that principle and mocks any patriot 
who still holds it dear.
  All Americans may be equal but--as George Orwell might put it if he 
were here today--under the farm bill some Americans are simply more 
equal than others.
  I will not be a part of it, and I encourage my colleagues to 
recognize that there is another way, there is a better way, a new 
approach that remembers what--and whom--we are supposed to really stand 
for.
  What we are supposed to stand for is deliberation--open debate and 
transparent amendments on this floor, in this Chamber. These programs 
should not be coupled to shield them from scrutiny and protect them 
from reform. If we need food stamps to fight poverty and farm subsidies 
to maintain our food supply, let those programs stand on their own 
merits or not at all.
  Furthermore, the land out West is not going anywhere. This should be 
an opportunity for us to bring our people together, not turn our 
regions against each other and turn the right to local government into 
a dangerous political football.

[[Page 2351]]

  It is time to have a serious debate about a permanent solution to 
federally-owned lands which can improve economic opportunity and 
mobility while reducing the national debt and deficit. All the evidence 
in this farm bill to the contrary, I believe we are capable of finding 
such a solution.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Senator Booker for 
his maiden speech. It is great to have him with us, and I thank Senator 
Booker also for calling upon the better angels in all of us to do what 
is right. Opportunity and fairness for all are not just empty words. 
They are words to live by and words to live up to.
  Today I rise to add my support for extending unemployment benefits to 
those among us who need and deserve this lifeline.
  In December over 2,000 Hawaii workers lost their unemployment 
benefits. Since then about 250 more Hawaii workers are losing their 
benefits every week.
  In 2008 our country was plunged into the deepest economic crisis 
since the Great Depression. Many lost their jobs through no fault of 
their own. Many are still unemployed. Since 2008 unemployment benefits 
have kept over 11 million people out of poverty. Unemployed workers 
spend their benefits immediately on food and other necessities. 
Unemployment benefits go immediately into the local economy. Every 
dollar of spending on unemployment benefits generates almost $1.60 in 
local economic activity.
  But this isn't just about numbers. For people struggling to find 
work, emergency unemployment insurance is a vital safety net. It can 
mean the difference between being able to get back on your feet or 
falling into poverty. These programs provide real hope and real 
opportunity for people. I know this because I have lived it.
  My mother raised three children by herself as a single parent. Most 
of us have relied upon or know families who have used the earned 
unemployment assistance they paid for. When my mother lost her job 
through no fault of her own, her unemployment checks went for rent and 
putting food on the table for her three children while she searched for 
work. So I know the anxiety when the family breadwinner loses her job, 
when every dime makes a difference.
  Those who say people on unemployment are lazy or don't want to work 
are insulting and injuring millions of Americans, about whom nothing 
could be further from the truth.
  High unemployment particularly hurts women. Among female heads of 
households, the U.S. unemployment rate was 8.7 percent in December. 
That is two points higher than the 6.7 percent unemployment rate for 
the Nation as a whole. Neither one of these statistics takes into 
account workers who have given up looking for work. We should support a 
short-term extension of unemployment benefits while Congress works on a 
needed longer-term bill.
  Last Friday President Obama announced a new effort to support the 
long-term unemployed. He gathered over 300 companies who have signed 
onto a set of best practices for recruiting and hiring unemployed--
especially those long-term unemployed--to prevent discrimination 
against these Americans.
  The Federal Government will lead by example in a new Presidential 
memorandum to improve its own recruiting and hiring of long-term 
unemployed people. Congress can do its part by updating and 
strengthening job-training programs, such as through the Workforce 
Investment Act which we will take up later this year. For right now, 
millions of families are counting on us to extend a vital life line to 
them. I urge my colleagues to support extending unemployment benefits.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise this evening to discuss the 
Agricultural Act of 2014--the farm bill conference report.
  This legislation has been delayed over 2\1/2\ years, weighing the 
entire time on the minds of farmers and ranchers all across the 
country.
  Last Tuesday I came to the floor to explain why I was the only 
Senator on the farm bill conference not to sign the conference report 
and why I cannot in good conscience support this legislation. I am here 
today to go beyond my philosophical concerns with the direction of the 
legislation, and I will instead focus on how the farm bill will 
negatively impact agriculture in my home State of Kansas, as well as 
other States.
  The farm bill is not a simple reauthorization or continuation of our 
Nation's farm and food programs. We have already done that once with 
the 1-year extension of the 2008 bill. Instead, the legislation before 
us should be a wholesale rewrite of the programs and policies at the 
Department of Agriculture.
  When this bill is signed into law by the President and fully 
implemented, our producers will have to make choices among new safety 
net programs, new regulations, and new rules. Some of these choices 
will happen only once and will be irrevocable. They cannot be changed 
for the next 5 years. This is a 5-year bill. We owe it to these 
farmers, ranchers, small business owners, as well as to the next 
generation of producers to get this legislation right. Unfortunately, I 
believe the Congress has missed the mark in that the conference report 
goes backwards toward protectionist subsidy programs instead of forward 
with innovative and responsible solutions.
  I am not alone in that assessment. As reported by the Kansas City 
Star last Friday, January 31, all four Kansas House members voted 
``no'' on what is arguably the single most important piece of Federal 
legislation in Kansas. Now, that should grab everybody in America's 
attention. The entire House delegation from the wheat State was united 
in opposing this version of the farm bill.
  It is not that we do not appreciate agriculture or the producers and 
their families in our State. It is entirely the opposite. We care so 
much that after 3 years of work, we will not settle for supporting 
backwards legislation just to get something done. I call it a look in 
the rearview mirror.
  I understand compromises were made. But I cannot support a bill which 
marches backwards toward producers making bad decisions based off of 
government subsidies, retaliation against our livestock producers, and, 
once again, agriculture taking a disproportionate cut in spending 
compared--yes--to Federal nutrition programs.
  When Chairperson Stabenow and I started the process of rewriting the 
farm bill, Kansas producers, regardless of what they planted, over and 
over again said their number one priority and concern was the 
availability of crop insurance which protects in case of disaster. They 
were also fully aware that direct payments would no longer be available 
to them, and most were OK with that direction. Kansas producers did not 
ask for a continuation of a target-priced subsidy program and they 
certainly did not want Congress to raise the target prices of all 
commodities.
  Two years ago, in 2012, the Senate Agriculture Committee and the full 
Senate passed a farm bill that ended the countercyclical and commodity 
subsidy programs. If signed into law, the 2012 Senate farm bill would 
have taken the Federal Government and the Department of Agriculture out 
of the business of sending signals to producers, essentially telling 
them what crops to plant. Unfortunately, that reform was never fully 
realized.
  We have something called the new Price Loss Coverage Program that is 
contained in this conference report. It sets high fixed target prices 
and subsidies for all commodities and regions of the country.
  Last week, after the final details of the bill were released, I 
talked with a young producer near Dodge City, my hometown, who is a 
member of my volunteer agriculture advisory council. I fondly refer to 
them as my ``ag posse.''
  With the current cash price for wheat at the Dodge City grain 
elevator

[[Page 2352]]

around $6 and a target price guaranteed for wheat set at $5.50 a bushel 
for the next 5 years, I asked this young, successful, and informed 
producer: What are you going to plant? What he told me should not 
surprise anyone in this body--or anyone. He said: Pat, I am going to 
plant wheat for the government subsidy.
  His answer only reinforces one of my biggest concerns with this 
conference report. When the Federal Government guarantees producers a 
subsidy triggered off a target price, reference price, a countercylical 
price--whatever you want to call it--it always has and always will lead 
to planting and marketing distortions.
  Today many producers have a college or advanced degree, often in 
business. They are going to evaluate the programs at the Department of 
Agriculture and make decisions that benefit their business's bottom 
line.
  Instead of planting grain sorghum or corn or soybeans, my friend in 
western Kansas already knows he is going to plant the crop he is 
guaranteed to receive the highest subsidy payment from the government, 
not from the market. In this case, he plans to plant wheat at $5.50 per 
bushel over corn which has a target price of $3.70 a bushel.
  I have yet to hear one explanation for why Congress is not only 
including target prices for corn, wheat, sorghum, soybeans, rice, 
peanuts, and barley but raising and fixing their prices regardless of 
movements in the market.
  Kansas is the breadbasket of the world. So you might think Kansas 
producers planting more wheat would be a good thing; however, simple 
economics and history demonstrate why this is such a dangerous road for 
the Federal Government to take.
  When all producers in Kansas and the rest of America have the same 
price guarantees and signals to plant wheat--no matter where you are--
and the majority makes the business decision to follow subsidy signals 
instead of the market, over time there will undoubtedly be more 
production than global demand or otherwise.
  We will have a surplus of wheat leading to lower wheat prices. That 
could normally be corrected by market signals, but with the fixed 
target price, farmers will continue to plant wheat for the subsidy--
that subsidy guarantee--leading to further overproduction and even 
lower crop prices. We have been there before, and that is why we tried 
to reform the program several farm bills back.
  This cycle of overproduction, low grain prices, and expensive support 
payments could eventually lead back to the days of mandatory quotas and 
acreage allotments--it has happened before--known as set-asides, paying 
farmers not to grow anything. We don't need to go back to those days. 
Our producers in Kansas want none of that from their Federal 
Government.
  Besides having high fixed target prices, the new Price Loss Coverage 
Program sets the price guarantees so high that some are at or above the 
producer's cost of production. This would mean the government is 
essentially subsidizing a producer so much that they are guaranteed to 
make a profit if they have a normal or average year.
  It gets worse. The early analysis I have seen shows that the target 
prices are high enough that rice, peanuts, and barley growers will 
receive a subsidy payment at least 75 percent of any given year, likely 
triggering a payment 4 out of the next 5 years.
  Other commodities are not treated as favorably. Wheat prices are 
likely to trigger a payment, on average, only 35 percent of the time 
and soybeans less than 15 percent.
  What that tells me is that the new target price guarantees are set 
high enough for a few commodities to trigger subsidy payments with a 
high frequency.
  Folks, this is no longer a risk-management tool or part of a 
responsible safety net. Make no mistake, the Price Loss Coverage 
Program is nothing more than a profit protection program from some of 
our commodity growers.
  The lone commodity that has moved out of the price supports entirely 
was forced to after learning the lesson the hard way.
  In 2002, the World Trade Organization ruled against the United States 
for cotton programs, including a decoupled target price subsidy. In a 
settlement with Brazil, we have been paying their producers $147 
million a year for damages. We are still paying them.
  As much as I disagree with the backward direction of the commodity 
title, Kansas livestock producers may have more beef with this 
conference report. Kansas is in the heart of cattle country. After 3 
years of drought, livestock producers in my home State are waiting for 
disaster assistance that has been unnecessarily delayed for over 3 
years.
  Yet when taking the full conference report under consideration, both 
the Kansas Livestock Association and the Kansas Pork Association 
strongly oppose this bill. Why?
  In a letter sent to me by Jeff Sternberger, president of the Kansas 
Livestock Association, he says:

       We are deeply disappointed the report does not address our 
     two priority issues, mandatory country-of-origin labeling 
     (COOL) and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
     Administration, GIPSA, rule on cattle marketing.

  Mandatory country-of-origin labeling, or COOL, is a marketing 
program; however, our closest trading partners have found the practice 
anything but cool. Canada and Mexico are two of our biggest and 
historically strong markets for U.S. beef, pork, and chicken exports. 
In 2012 alone, Canada imported over $1 billion worth of U.S. beef and 
Mexico imported over $800 million.
  If we do not come into compliance, as required by the World Trade 
Organization, Canada and Mexico will retaliate against the United 
States.
  Without these markets, Kansas livestock producers will lose value on 
their products, negatively impacting one of the biggest drivers of our 
State's economy. Unfortunately, our efforts to fix COOL in the farm 
bill conference committee fell short--to the displeasure of our 
livestock producers and trading partners.
  The GIPSA rule on livestock marketing should have been addressed in 
the final farm bill conference report as well. The House version of the 
farm bill had strong provisions that would have let our livestock 
producers make their own marketing decisions instead of GIPSA. Yet the 
provisions were left entirely out of the conference report with no 
explanation or transparency--behind closed doors.
  Finally, I have to address a major inequality in the final conference 
report; that is, nutrition spending. When the Congressional Budget 
Office released their official estimate of the budgetary effects of 
this agriculture act, I was more than disappointed.
  According to their letter:

       CBO estimates that direct spending stemming from the 
     programs authorized by the conference agreement would total 
     $956 billion over the 2014 to 2023 period, of which $756 
     billion would be for nutrition programs.

  That is almost $800 billion. By the way, that lower figure is a bet 
on the economy improving and people getting off the SNAP program, which 
would certainly be good but is not certain.
  When you do the math, that means 79 percent--almost 80 percent--of 
the total spending in the farm bill will go to nutrition programs, 
including SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
  The final compromise includes $8 billion in food stamp savings mainly 
from tightening the Low-Income Heating and Assistance Program, the 
infamous LIHEAP loophole, and that is a good thing. States were gaming 
the system. I am all for that, but that amounts to a 1-percent 
reduction to the nutrition spending out of a $750 billion program if 
you believe the projections. I think it is probably more toward $800 
billion.
  The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry recently 
released a statement with the headline ``Deficit Reduction: The 2014 
Farm Bill,'' showcasing the savings in this legislation. The release 
highlights the inequality between farm and food programs:

       Farm subsidy programs were cut far more significantly than 
     any other area of the budget under the Agriculture 
     Committee's jurisdiction. By comparison, farm subsidy

[[Page 2353]]

     programs were cut by 31 percent, while nutrition programs 
     were reduced 1 percent.

  You heard that right. Farmers, ranchers, farm broadcasters listening 
in, you heard that right. The farm bill once again prioritizes spending 
for food stamps over all other Department of Agriculture programs, 
including important conservation programs, research programs, and rural 
development programs.
  I am fine with reducing farm subsidies such as the target price 
program, but we should have included additional reforms to the 
nutritional programs, which we tried to do--in several votes--in a 
reasonable and responsible manner. We were not touching anybody's 
benefits; we were just looking at the eligibility requirements. But the 
conference principals decided on the final compromise--again behind 
closed doors.
  While we all want to provide much needed certainty to producers--
goodness knows it is been a long time since we had a farm bill in 
place--the conference missed an opportunity for greater and necessary 
reforms to our Nation's farm programs, burdensome regulations on 
livestock producers, and Federal nutrition programs.
  After over 3 years of deliberation and disputes over the farm bill, 
our producers, consumers, taxpayers, and global trading partners expect 
and deserve more than what is found in this conference report.
  As a conferee, I did not sign the conference report last week. That 
didn't give me any pleasure. As a Kansan and a Senator from a large 
agriculture State, I am going to vote against this rearview mirror 
legislation for all the reasons I have itemized.
  Having said that, I do wish to take a moment to personally thank 
Chairperson Stabenow and Chairman Lucas, over in the House, for their 
unwavering drive and perseverance to finalize a farm bill. It is one 
thing for me to stand and criticize it and find in my heart and my mind 
and on behalf of my Kansas producers to vote no because I think that is 
the right vote, but I also know they have endeavored--Chairman Stabenow 
and Chairman Lucas--to at least get a bill. It is a tall task to get a 
majority of the Members of Congress to understand that the farm bill is 
not simply a bill that you pay off.
  I can remember when I was chairman of the committee over in the House 
and I asked a colleague to help me on the farm bill. He said: Why don't 
you just pay it? That indicated his broad knowledge of the farm bill at 
that particular time.
  The farm bill is not simply a bill you just pay off. It instead 
represents important legislation for both urban, rural States and 
districts and the stability of the world, if you will, knowing we have 
to feed 9 billion people in the next several decades. At last, the 
Chairs have beaten all the odds and are on the verge of completing a 
very complicated and time-consuming undertaking, to say the least.
  I must also thank my colleagues and friends on the House and Senate 
agriculture committees for their knowledge, their expertise, and their 
diverse perspectives on agriculture. It is going to be really hard to 
imagine that many of the faces in the Senate agriculture committee room 
will not be there in person for the next farm bill 5 years down the 
road--Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Saxby Chambliss, both of whom will be 
sorely missed as they have both led the committee in their respective 
caucuses through previous farms bills. However, they will literally 
``watch over'' the committee for years to come, because their portraits 
are on the wall, hanging just above us. I think their eyes move when we 
consider amendments.
  Senator Max Baucus will continue his service to the country as the 
next Ambassador to China, but we will miss his advice and counsel in 
the committee.
  Finally, it is hard to describe the void that will be created with 
the departure of Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska. As the Secretary of 
the Department of Agriculture, he has seen both sides of the farm bill, 
implementing one and writing another. Even though Nebraska left the Big 
12 for the Big 10, this K-State fan can admit we will all miss having 
this champion from the Cornhusker State around.
  So although I will not vote for the farm bill conference report, I 
promise to all of Kansas agriculture that I fully appreciate the need 
for a farm bill, especially one that has been delayed for years. But 
while we need a farm bill, we do not need this farm bill.
  I truly respect the farmers and ranchers and everybody connected with 
agriculture for what they do as a profession for our economy and for 
global stability in a troubled and angry world. I just wish the rest of 
this Senate would do the same thing. I will continue to work and to 
advocate and to champion agriculture on their behalf every single day.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                         Unemployment Insurance

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I wish to commend the junior Senator from 
New Jersey on his first speech on the Senate floor. He brings a strong 
voice to the U.S. Senate. Today he raises that voice for our friends 
and neighbors who need it, and I am proud to stand alongside him.
  Just 5 years ago middle-class families got hammered by the worst 
economic crisis since the Great Depression. These families didn't cause 
the crisis. They worked hard and played by the rules. But they ended up 
paying the price for Wall Street's wild risk-taking and Washington's 
failed oversight. People lost jobs, lost savings, lost homes. Far too 
many of them are still struggling.
  For these families every dollar counts. An extra couple of hundred 
dollars a week can keep food on the table or the heat on during cold 
winter months. It can mean the difference between making the rent or 
mortgage payment or being out on the street.
  That is what emergency unemployment insurance is for--to give folks 
the little bit of help they need to keep their heads above water while 
they search for a job. Unemployment insurance represents our commitment 
as a country that we will pitch in when our friends and neighbors have 
fallen on rough times, knowing they would do the same for us.
  So far, Republicans seem determined to break that commitment. Because 
of Republican filibusters, 1.6 million Americans and counting have lost 
access to unemployment insurance since the end of last year, including 
more than 60,000 people in Massachusetts. Their obstruction means we 
cannot fulfill our commitment to the families who need it most.
  My Republican colleagues should be looking for a way to say yes--yes 
to helping middle-class American families and their 2.3 million 
children who rely on unemployment insurance. But, once again, they just 
want a way to say no.
  Extending unemployment insurance should be a simple matter. It 
happened five times during the Bush administration and not once--not 
once--did Republicans demand that the costs be offset by cuts or 
revenue increases elsewhere. But the Republicans have insisted on a 
different standard this time, filibustering because the extension of 
benefits wasn't offset. Democrats thought this was wrong, but we 
compromised and we agreed to offset the cost. So did we have a deal? 
No. The Republicans refused to take yes for an answer and filibustered 
again.
  Why would Republicans block the extension of unemployment benefits? 
Some seem to believe unemployment insurance is actually bad for 
struggling families. One Republican Senator recently said emergency 
unemployment insurance does a ``disservice'' to people because it 
causes them to ``become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our 
economy.'' Last year's Republican Vice Presidential nominee, 
Congressman Ryan, said that Federal safety net programs such as 
unemployment insurance are like ``a hammock, which lulls able-bodied 
people into lives of complacency and dependency.''
  This is an insult to hard-working people across this country--people 
who are doing their best and can't find a job.
  This is an insult to people such as Terri, a 41-year-old resident of 
Gardner, MA, who lost her job last year.

[[Page 2354]]

Here is what she wrote to me after Congress let the unemployment 
insurance program expire:

       [M]y employer suddenly let me go and I found myself 
     unemployed for the first time since my very first part-time 
     job at 15. I have been diligently looking for work, applying 
     everywhere, but I haven't had any job offers . . .

  She writes that unemployment insurance:

       . . . is all we have. I'm already on the brink of losing my 
     home, we are struggling to hang on to what very little we 
     have. . . . I know I'm one of 1.3 million faces, but I'm a 
     face from near your home. I'm a face that never thought I'd 
     be in this situation. I'm a face that needs the help of my 
     government's services that I have paid into for many, many 
     years. I'm a face that has done everything I'm supposed to--
     but I feel like I've fallen aside and no one sees me.
       I'm not an abuser of the system. I'm someone who really 
     needs my government to be there for me now. Please see me.

  Terri isn't looking for a life of complacency and dependency. And she 
is not the exception. A person can't get unemployment benefits unless 
they prove they lost their job through no fault of their own, and they 
prove they are actively looking for work. Unemployment insurance is a 
critical lifeline for people who are trying their hardest and need a 
little help--a recognition that Wall Street and Washington caused the 
financial crisis but Main Street is still paying the price.
  And there is the rub. Republicans line up to protect billions in tax 
breaks and subsidies for big corporations with armies of lobbyists, but 
they can't find a way to help struggling families get back on their 
feet.
  People such as Terri are hurting. They worked hard their whole lives 
and paid into the system, and after the worst economic crisis in 
generations, they are searching for jobs and scrambling to stay in the 
middle class. They are not looking for a handout; they are looking for 
a chance to rebuild their lives. They would be there for us; we should 
be there for them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am reminded even at this late hour, 
when most of the world has moved on to other pursuits, what a great 
privilege it is to be with two magnificent voices and advocates for 
fairness and economic opportunity: Senator Warren of Massachusetts, and 
my very good friend, Senator Booker of New Jersey, on his first 
occasion here on the floor. I feel very blessed and fortunate and 
privileged to be here with them. I feel that way at any moment on this 
floor in this body but particularly as we face this great challenge 
ahead: how to preserve and enhance our middle class in America; how to 
make sure America fulfills its great promise Senator Booker evoked so 
eloquently, going back to the days of George Washington; and now, with 
great leaders facing many of the same kinds of basic questions about 
whether we can provide that opportunity going forward, whether we are 
equal to the task in an increasingly complex society.
  Just today, in the New York Times, there was a very profound and 
telling story about markets losing middle-class consumers. Only the 
high-end and the low-end retailers are being able to find markets for 
their products because our middle class is dwindling, squeezed by the 
vise of an increasingly desperate situation. How desperate it is for 
people who are depending now on unemployment insurance, as they see the 
deadlines for them approaching and they know they will lose roofs over 
their heads, meals on their table, for families they are struggling to 
keep together. As Senator Booker and Senator Warren said so well, the 
unfairness of the economic crisis caused by Wall Street and Washington 
but visited upon Main Street America, middle-class America, mainstream 
America, still struggling to recover.
  We know the unemployment we face today is deeper and more intractable 
than at any other time in our history. Long-term unemployment is larger 
percentagewise than it has been in previous recessions. That is a 
tragedy for those families but also for our economy, because those 
consumers are lost to the retailers and to the mainstream small- and 
middle-sized businesses that depend on them to grow and hire more 
people.
  In Connecticut, as of last month, almost half of all of the 
individuals who have suffered a job loss--43.6 percent--were unable to 
find work for 6 months or more. That is more than 60,000 people. Those 
numbers don't tell the stories. They are not the voices and faces I 
have seen who are depending on a meager $300 a week and who have lost 
even that amount.
  Rosa Dicker, who has a deep knowledge of health care reform from her 
previous work, has received only three call-back interviews out of 500 
jobs she has sought, and her job search lasted almost a year. Michael 
Kubica, who went back to get his MBA after years of experience in 
insurance and publishing, and, again, has been repeatedly turned away 
for employment. Alicia Nesbitt, proud to have been employed 
continuously from the age of 16--decades ago--recently found herself 
applying for food stamps. Then, of course, there is Katherine Hacket of 
Moodus, CT, who joined the President recently to speak out about the 
need for extending these benefits. Katherine's family has sacrificed 
greatly for this Nation, because she has not one but two children 
serving in our military. Yet, because of Congress's inaction, Katherine 
is struggling to pay for food and heating bills during her job search.
  There are good guys out there helping people to find jobs. Capital 
Workforce Partners has done tremendous work. I have met with them and 
other job creators, as well as job seekers around Connecticut, and 
sometimes those job searches actually succeed, because people are able 
to sustain their lives and continue to search for work.
  Erin Londen, one of the constituents whom I met as I have gone around 
the State, has found work after 10 months of unemployment. She writes:

       I could not be happier! I just love my new job, it is 
     everything I was looking for.

  She is not a person who wanted to be without work. She is not a 
person who sought to be unemployed for 10 months. None of these 
people--none of the people on long-term unemployment insurance--want to 
be without work. She wrote to me:

       It can take up to three months to get an interview. Then if 
     you have follow-up, it could be another month. So I do not 
     think it is reasonable to only offer six months of 
     unemployment benefits.

  That pretty much says it.
  I want to emphasize one aspect of this problem that I think is 
absolutely unconscionable for this Nation to tolerate, and that is the 
high unemployment rate among our veterans.
  This situation for post-9/11 veterans is beyond comprehension and 
beyond accepting. The male post-9/11 veterans in particular face rates 
of 8.6 percent, almost 2 points above the national average. Many of 
these veterans have been out of work for more than 6 months.
  Long-term unemployment among our veterans is a scourge that this 
Congress has an obligation to address. Many of them left good-paying 
jobs. They came back to a nation that said it was grateful, and now 
they find no jobs and no unemployment insurance to keep a roof over 
their head and food on their table.
  That is why I have introduced the VOW to Hire Heroes Act that would 
extend a key tax credit to incentivize companies to hire veterans. This 
credit expired last year, but veteran unemployment remains a serious 
problem, and I urge the Congress again to pass it. I have been joined 
by Senator Begich and Senator Udall of New Mexico in writing to the 
Finance Committee to urge it to approve this measure so we can bring it 
to the floor.
  I want to thank AMVETS as well for its support on a measure that is, 
unfortunately, increasingly important; that is, to ban discrimination 
against veterans in both employment and housing. Believe it or not, 
this phenomenon occurs. Most would find it incredible. Yet a measure is 
necessary to ban discrimination against men and women who served in 
uniform, who served and sacrificed, who have given to this Nation.
  Discrimination, unfortunately, is also a fact of life against the 
long-term

[[Page 2355]]

unemployed. I have proposed again and reintroduced the Fair Employment 
Opportunity Act, which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of 
employment status.
  Discrimination has been established by various studies--researchers 
at Northeastern University. Similar studies involving academics at 
Yale, the University of Chicago, and the University of Toronto have 
found that the long-term unemployed--the longer they have been 
unemployed--are much more likely to be victims of discrimination. I 
want to thank seven cosponsors on this bill: Senators Markey, 
Gillibrand, Sanders, Shaheen, Murphy, Menendez, and Brown. I urge other 
colleagues to support it as well.
  Finally, I want to thank again Senator Booker. He honors not only his 
own long history of public service but also the memory of our late 
colleague, our extraordinary and esteemed colleague, and my wonderful 
mentor and friend, Frank Lautenberg. He joins the ranks of others in 
the Senate who are fighting for the needs of the economically 
disadvantaged--people, as he said so eloquently, who play by the rules. 
They believe in this country, its ideals, its goals, and they want to 
serve it and give back and contribute.
  This Nation depends on a covenant. It is the covenant that each of 
our generations leaves the country better for the one that follows--not 
only that the country is better for the next generation, but that each 
of our generations, on our watch, pledges to do better.
  That is the reason we need to extend unemployment insurance. Without 
it, we will be a lesser nation, not just economically but in fairness 
and morality as well. I thank Senator Booker for reminding us of that 
fundamental fact about our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I would like to briefly say thank you to 
my fellow Senators who took time to come and listen to my maiden speech 
but especially those who also spoke on the issue as well. They spoke 
with eloquence. They spoke poignantly about people in their State. And 
I pray they spoke persuasively.
  I thank Senator Hirono, Senator Menendez, my senior Senator, 
especially. I thank Senator Warren and Senator Blumenthal, who are 
still here. I thank, also, Senator Jack Reed and Senate Majority Leader 
Reid, as well, for their working on this issue.
  I finally want to say that I have already gotten word from people who 
actually saw some of the speeches from myself and my colleagues that 
even the words alone made a difference to them. At least they felt 
someone heard them, is understanding what they are going through. But 
that urgency persists, and my hope is that we, working together, can 
find a way to extend these benefits.
  Thank you very much.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________