To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the use of public funds for political party conventions, and to provide for the return of previously distributed funds for deficit reduction.

AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2012

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 3240, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 3240) to reauthorize agriculture programs
through 2017, and for other purposes.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before reading our order of amendments,
I wish, one more time, to say thank you to everyone. We have had two
very productive, hard-working days. I thank my ranking member for his
incredible leadership and all our staffs.
Today, we have an opportunity to show that the Senate can come
together--and we have been doing that--to pass a significant piece of
public policy for Americans. I ask unanimous consent that
notwithstanding the previous order, the amendment votes occur in the
following order and that all other provisions of the previous order
remain in effect: Boxer amendment No. 2456; Johanns No. 2372; Toomey
No. 2247; Sanders No. 2310; Coburn No. 2214; Murray No. 2455; McCain
No. 2162; Rubio No. 2166.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Amendment No. 2456

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2456.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an
amendment numbered 2456.

The amendment is as follows:

On p. 1009, after line 11, add the following:

SEC. 122__. REQUIREMENTS FOR AERIAL OVERFLIGHTS OF
AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS TO PROTECT PUBLIC
HEALTH AND SAFETY.

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
pursuant to her responsibility to protect public health and
safety, shall only conduct aerial overflights to inspect
agricultural operations if the EPA Administrator determines
that aerial overflights are more cost-effective than ground
inspections to the taxpayer and the Agency has notified the
appropriate State officials of such flights.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, on the amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Johanns has an amendment which
would stop the EPA from ever using any kind of airplanes--including
manned small planes, which is all they do use--to check on serious
pollution spills.
I wish to say this is about life and death. I hope the Senate will
support the Boxer amendment and vote no on the Johanns amendment
because the Boxer amendment says the EPA can only use these overflights
if it has to do it to protect the health and safety and if it has been
approved by the State.
This pollution could cause serious illness, and they want to make
sure they can track the plume. We have heard of cryptosporidium, E.
coli, and giardia. That is what we are talking about--terrible bacteria
that sometimes comes from animals.
In 1993, at least 50 people died from the bacteria cryptosporidium in
Milwaukee, and it came from animal waste. The EPA has never used a
drone, and they don't plan to, but don't stop them from using small
aerial oversight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, given the EPA's recent track record with
agriculture--if not downright contempt for it--farmers and ranchers
simply don't trust the EPA. They could have done this program right and
reached out to the congressional delegations in Nebraska and Iowa and
said: Here is what we are doing. Here is the plan. They did not.
I found out about this accidentally. I have requested information--in
fact, our entire delegation has--and the administrator has been
nonresponsive. That is why the amendment is here. It is an amendment
based on a lack of trust for the EPA. This maintains the status quo.
This will change nothing. It will rubberstamp what they are doing.
I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the next
amendment, which I will call up in due time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll. This is a 60-vote threshold.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) are necessarily
absent.

[[Page S4382]]

Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and
the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 158 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--48

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Landrieu
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--5

Johnson (SD)
Kirk
Menendez
Shelby
Toomey
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for passage of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.

amendment no. 2456 to s. 3240 vote explanation

<bullet> Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, I was unavoidably
detained and unable to vote on the Boxer amendment No. 2456 this
morning. If I had been present, I would have voted in favor of this
amendment. It is important that the use of overflights to monitor
compliance with the Clean Water Act be limited to circumstances where
ground inspections of large industrial agriculture operations would not
be as cost effective or sufficiently protective of public health and
safety.<bullet>
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Amendment No. 2372

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2372 and ask for
its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Johanns] proposes an
amendment numbered 2372.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency from conducting aerial surveillance to inspect agricultural
operations or to record images of agricultural operations)

On page 1009, after line 11, add the following:

SEC. 122___. PROHIBITION ON AERIAL SURVEILLANCE OF
AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS.

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
shall not conduct aerial surveillance to inspect agricultural
operations or to record images of agricultural operations.

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, low-altitude surveillance flights over
farmers' and ranchers' private property has caused bipartisan concern,
and it is happening--EPA is flying these flights. Senator Nelson and I
and the entire Nebraska delegation wrote to Administrator Jackson
saying, ``What is going on? What are you doing?'' Their response was
kicked down to the Regional Director. It was incomplete. It was totally
unacceptable.
This is not about drones, this is about flights over feed lots,
trying to determine if there is a violation and then pursuing that
action. What we are asking for is for the public to be advised of what
they are doing. Until that happens, this amendment simply says: Stop.
You can't do this anymore until you let us know how you are using this
information and for what purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. JOHANNS. I ask for support of the amendment, and I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I be recognzied?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognzied.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment is very serious. It is
about life and death. It is true that on occasion EPA will use small
manned aircraft to inspect a bacteria spill.
Let me recall for you: Wisconsin, 1993, at least 50 people lost their
lives from the bacteria cryptosporidium from animal waste. When you are
following a plume, the way to do it is from the air. It is much more
expensive in many cases to do ground inspection. EPA estimates that on-
the-ground inspection may cost $10,000, but it could cost $2,500 to
survey the same area by air.
This is life and death. We are talking about E. coli. We are talking
about giardia and cryptosporidium. We are talking about the health and
safety of the American people that is compromised from these kinds of
animal waste.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 159 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Landrieu
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--43

Akaka
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kirk

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.

Amendment No. 2247

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2247.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), for himself,
Mr. Pryor, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Sessions,
proposes an amendment numbered 2247.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To reduce unnecessary paperwork burdens on community water
systems)

On page 1009, after line 11, add the following:

SEC. 122__. CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS BY COMMUNITY WATER
SYSTEMS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) community water systems play an important role in rural
United States infrastructure; and
(2) since rural water infrastructure projects are routinely
funded under the rural development programs of the Department
of Agriculture, Congress should strive to reduce the
regulatory and paperwork burdens placed on community water
systems.
(b) Method of Delivering Report.--Section 1414(c)(4)(A) of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(4)(A)) is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Administrator,
in consultation'' and inserting the following:

[[Page S4383]]

``(i) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation'';
(2) in clause (i) (as designated by paragraph (1)), in the
first sentence, by striking ``to mail to each customer'' and
inserting ``to provide, in accordance with clause (ii) or
(iii), as applicable, to each customer''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Mailing requirement for violation of maximum
contaminant level.--If a violation of the maximum contaminant
level for any regulated contaminant has occurred during the
year concerned, the regulations under clause (i) shall
require the applicable community water system to mail a copy
of the consumer confidence report to each customer of the
system.
``(iii) Mailing requirement absent any violation of maximum
contaminant level.--

``(I) In general.--If no violation of the maximum
contaminant level for any regulated contaminant has occurred
during the year concerned, the regulations under clause (i)
shall require the applicable community water system to make
the consumer confidence report available by, at the
discretion of the community water system--

``(aa) mailing a copy of the consumer confidence report to
each customer of the system; or
``(bb) subject to subclause (II), making a copy of the
consumer confidence report available on a publicly accessible
Internet site of the community water system and by mail, at
the request of a customer.

``(II) Requirements.--If a community water system elects to
provide consumer confidence reports to consumers under
subclause (I)(bb), the community water system shall provide
to each customer of the community water system, in plain
language and in the same manner (such as in printed or
electronic form) in which the customer has elected to pay the
bill of the customer, notice that--

``(aa) the community water system has remained in
compliance with the maximum contaminant level for each
regulated contaminant during the year concerned; and
``(bb) a consumer confidence report is available on a
publicly accessible Internet site of the community water
system and, on request, by mail.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1414(c)(4) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ``mailing requirement of subparagraph (A)''
and inserting ``mailing requirement of clause (ii) or (iii)
of subparagraph (A)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (D), in the first sentence of the
matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``mailing
requirement of subparagraph (A)'' and inserting ``mailing
requirement of clause (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A)''.
(d) Application; Administrative Actions.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section take
effect on the date that is 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall promulgate any revised regulations
and take any other actions necessary to carry out the
amendments made by this section.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate.
Senator Toomey.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, water systems are currently required to
mail reports every year that detail in great specificity all the minute
trace chemicals that are inevitably in the water supply. This is at a
great cost and it is a problem, particularly for rural water systems.
What my amendment would do is permit the water companies, provided
there are no violations, to inform their customers in each and every
monthly bill that they can obtain this information on the Web site.
There are absolutely no changes whatsoever in water standards, of
course, and every company would still have to mail these detailed
reports if the water failed to comply with the State or Federal
standards. This is a way we can free up tens, even hundreds of
thousands of dollars in unnecessary mailing costs and make that
available for infrastructure investment.
I am happy to yield to my colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. This is very simple. This is the information age. In my
rural State of Oklahoma, sometimes they have to drive 30 miles to a
post office. This will make it a lot easier as an accommodation and
nothing is lost.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for
1 minute.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today our families receive in the mail
just once a year a report about the safety of the water their kids
drink every single day. The Toomey amendment repeals that important
right to know. There are 70 regulated dangerous contaminants in our
water. For example: arsenic, benzene, vinyl chloride, asbestos,
cadmium, mercury, radium, and uranium. Some of these dangerous toxins
are deemed unsafe at any level. Yet under Toomey you would no longer
receive that information.
Senator Toomey says go to the Web site. One thousand water districts
have no Web site. And right now, under the current right-to-know law,
the Governor can say he waives this requirement for the small rural
districts.
Please vote no. Our people have a right to know what their kids are
drinking.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. TOOMEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 160 Leg.]

YEAS--58

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kohl
Kyl
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Webb
Wicker

NAYS--41

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kirk

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
Ms. STABENOW. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

Amendment No. 2310

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2310.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself and
Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 2310.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other
edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the
food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically
engineered ingredient)

On page 1009, after line 11, add the following:

SEC. 12207. CONSUMERS RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT GENETICALLY
ENGINEERED FOOD ACT.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Consumers Right to Know About Genetically Engineered Food
Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) surveys of the American public consistently show that
90 percent or more of the people of the United States want
genetically engineered to be labeled as such;
(2) a landmark public health study in Canada found that--
(A) 93 percent of pregnant women had detectable toxins from
genetically engineered foods in their blood; and
(B) 80 percent of the babies of those women had detectable
toxins in their umbilical cords;

[[Page S4384]]

(3) the tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States clearly reserves powers in the system of Federalism to
the States or to the people; and
(4) States have the authority to require the labeling of
foods produced through genetic engineering or derived from
organisms that have been genetically engineered.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Genetic engineering.--
(A) In general.--The term ``genetic engineering'' means a
process that alters an organism at the molecular or cellular
level by means that are not possible under natural conditions
or processes.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``genetic engineering''
includes--
(i) recombinant DNA and RNA techniques;
(ii) cell fusion;
(iii) microencapsulation;
(iv) macroencapsulation;
(v) gene deletion and doubling;
(vi) introduction of a foreign gene; and
(vii) changing the position of genes.
(C) Exclusions.--The term ``genetic engineering'' does not
include any modification to an organism that consists
exclusively of--
(i) breeding;
(ii) conjugation;
(iii) fermentation;
(iv) hybridization;
(v) in vitro fertilization; or
(vi) tissue culture.
(2) Genetically engineered ingredient.--The term
``genetically engineered ingredient'' means any ingredient in
any food, beverage, or other edible product that--
(A) is, or is derived from, an organism that is produced
through the intentional use of genetic engineering; or
(B) is, or is derived from, the progeny of intended sexual
reproduction, asexual reproduction, or both of 1 or more
organisms described in subparagraph (A).
(d) Right To Know.--Notwithstanding any other Federal law
(including regulations), a State may require that any food,
beverage, or other edible product offered for sale in that
State have a label on the container or package of the food,
beverage, or other edible product, indicating that the food,
beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically
engineered ingredient.
(e) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to carry out this section.
(f) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall submit
a report to Congress detailing the percentage of food and
beverages sold in the United States that contain genetically
engineered ingredients.

Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this amendment is cosponsored by
Senators Boxer and Begich and is supported by over 40 pro-consumer
organizations throughout the country, including Public Citizen, U.S.
PIRG, the Center for Food Safety, and many others.
This is a very conservative amendment. It says the American people
should have the right to know what is in the food they and their
children are eating and if that food contains genetically engineered
products.
This amendment grants States the authority to label genetically
engineered food. It is not a mandate. It grants States that right--
something which, by the way, is now taking place in 49 countries
throughout the world. If the people in England, Germany, France, and
dozens and dozens of other countries have labels allowing their people
to know if they are eating food with genetically engineered products,
States in the United States should have that right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SANDERS. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first I want to thank the Senator from
Vermont for his wonderful leadership on so many issues in this bill. I
must, reluctantly, ask for a ``no'' vote.
Consumers certainly need to have available information. We need to
make sure it is accurate, according to the FDA, after they determine
that.
I would make one other point: American farmers are feeding the world,
with 7 billion mouths to feed. This is harder every day. Science and
innovation are very important to that.
Recently, I talked with Bill Gates, with the Gates Foundation, for
example, which is doing incredible work around the globe: with drought-
resistant crops in Africa, with innovative rice in the Philippines and
Bangladesh, and so on.
This is an issue that needs to be thoroughly studied to make sure we
are not hurting those efforts. I know the chairman of the HELP
Committee has asked that we not do this. It is within his jurisdiction.
Madam President, I yield time now to Senator Roberts.
Mr. ROBERTS. Very quickly, we all wear coats and ties in this body.
This amendment would put us in lab coats. Don't wear a lab coat. Vote
``no'' on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 73, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]

YEAS--26

Akaka
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Feinstein
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Manchin
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Reed
Rockefeller
Sanders
Tester
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--73

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Bingaman
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Enzi
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lee
Levin
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Moran
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Kirk

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 2214

Mr. COBURN. I call up amendment No. 2214 on behalf of myself and the
Senator from Colorado, Mr. Udall. I ask unanimous consent that we be
given 3 minutes for each side to be divided between myself and Senator
Udall.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself, Mr.
Udall of Colorado, Mr. Burr, Mr. McCain, Ms. Ayotte, and Mr.
Moran, proposes an amendment numbered 2214.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the
use of public funds for political party conventions, and to provide for
the return of previously distributed funds for deficit reduction)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. PROHIBITING USE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN
FUNDS FOR PARTY CONVENTIONS.

(a) In General.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 95 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking section 9008.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections of chapter
95 of such Code is amended by striking the item relating to
section 9008.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Availability of payments to candidates.--The third
sentence of section 9006(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking ``, section 9008(b)(3),''.
(2) Reports by federal election commission.--Section
9009(a) of such Code is amended--
(A) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(B) by striking the semicolon at the end of paragraph (3)
and inserting a period; and
(C) by striking paragraphs (4), (5), and (6).
(3) Penalties.--Section 9012 of such Code is amended--

[[Page S4385]]

(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking the second sentence;
and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2) and
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(4) Availability of payments from presidential primary
matching payment account.--The second sentence of section
9037(a) of such Code is amended by striking ``and for
payments under section 9008(b)(3)''.
(c) Return of Previously Submitted Money for Deficit
Reduction.--Any amount which is returned by the national
committee of a major party or a minor party to the general
fund of the Treasury from an account established under
section 9008 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 after the
date of the enactment of this Act shall be dedicated to the
sole purpose of deficit reduction.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to elections occurring after
December 31, 2012.

Mr. COBURN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam President, I thank the Senator from
Oklahoma.
I rise in support of this important amendment.
I would also like to note that this provision is included in a larger
bill I introduced this week to reform our Presidential public financing
system. I would welcome support for that broader initiative.
This is a bipartisan short-term step we can take to preserve more
money for publicly funded candidates who are running for President
instead of using that money to fund what we know now as expensive
parties in our conventions. So I would urge a ``yes'' vote. This is a
way to get our fiscal house in order. It is a small step, but it is an
important step.
I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership in this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, 99 percent of the American public has no
idea that when they check the box, we are going to take actual American
taxpayer dollars and subsidize party conventions for candidates who
have already been decided.
If we are going to lead as a body on starting to solve some of our
problems, this is where we should start. This is $34.6 million that
gets doled out that is not spent in the best interests of the American
public but spent in the best interests of the politicians for the
American public. It needs to be changed. It has no effect on security.
It has no effect on the present allocation that was made in January to
each party. If we cannot do this, this little simple thing of leading
by example, then our country is doomed because that means we cannot
solve the very significant problems in front of us either.
I would appreciate your support and vote on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I yield back all time.
Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 4, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]

YEAS--95

Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--4

Boxer
Landrieu
Mikulski
Rockefeller

NOT VOTING--1

Kirk

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 2455, as Modified

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 2455 and ask
that it be modified with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment will be so
modified.
The clerk will report.

The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] proposes an
amendment numbered 2455, as modified.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require the Office of Management and Budget, the President
and the Department of Defense to submit detailed reports to Congress on
effects of defense and nondefense budget sequestration for fiscal year
2013)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. REPORTS ON EFFECTS OF DEFENSE AND NONDEFENSE BUDGET
SEQUESTRATION.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The inability of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit
Reduction to find $1,200,000,000,000 in savings will trigger
automatic funding reductions known as ``sequestration'' to
raise an equivalent level of savings between fiscal years
2013 and 2021.
(2) These savings are in addition to $900,000,000,000 in
deficit reduction resulting from discretionary spending
limits established by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
(b) Reports.--
(1) Report by the director of the office of management and
budget.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall report upon the impact of
sequestration of funds with respect to a sequestration under
paragraphs (7)(A) and (8) of section 251(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C.
901a) for fiscal year 2013 on January 2, 2013, using enacted
levels of appropriations for accounts funded pursuant to an
enacted regular appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013, and
estimates pursuant to a current rate continuing resolution
for accounts not funded through an enacted appropriations
measure for fiscal year 2013 as the levels to which the
sequestration should be applied.
(B) Elements.--The report required by subparagraph (A)
shall include the following:
(i) Each account that would be subject to such a
sequestration.
(ii) Each account that would be subject to such a
sequestration but subject to a special rule under section 255
or 256 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985 (and the citation to such rule).
(iii) Each account that would be exempt from such a
sequestration.
(iv) Any other data or information that would enhance
public understanding of the sequester and its effect on the
defense and nondefense functions of the Federal Government
including the impact on essential public safety
responsibilities such as homeland security, food safety, and
air traffic control activities.
(C) Catagorize and group.--The report required under this
paragraph shall categorize and group the listed accounts by
the appropriations Act covering such accounts
(2) Report by the president.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, or by October 30, 2012 whichever
is earlier, the President shall submit to Congress a detailed
report on the sequestration required by paragraphs (7)(A) and
(8) of section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) for fiscal year
2013 on January 2, 2013.
(B) Elements.--The reports required by subparagraph (A)
shall include--
(i) for discretionary appropriations--

(I) an estimate for each category, of the sequestration
percentages and amounts necessary to achieve the required
reduction; and
(II) an identification of each account to be sequestered
and estimates of the level of sequestrable budgetary
resources and resulting outlays and the amount of budgetary
resources to be sequestered and resulting outlay reductions
at the program, project, and activity level, using enacted
levels of appropriations for accounts funded pursuant to an
enacted regular appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013, and
estimates pursuant to a current rate continuing resolution
for accounts not funded through an enacted appropriations
measure for fiscal year 2013;

[[Page S4386]]

(ii) for non-defense discretionary spending only--

(I) a list of the programs, projects, and activities that
would be reduced or terminated;
(II) an assessment of the jobs lost directly though program
and personnel cuts;
(III) an estimate of the impact program cuts would have on
the long-term competitiveness of the United States and its
ability to maintain its lead on research and development, as
well as the impact on our national goal to graduate the most
students with degrees in in-demand fields;
(IV) an assessment of the impact of program cuts to
education funding across the country, including estimates on
teaching jobs lost, the number of students cut off programs
they depend on, and education resources lost by States and
local educational agencies;
(V) an analysis of the impact of cuts to programs middle
class families and the most vulnerable families depend on,
including estimates of how many families would lose access to
support for children, housing and nutrition assistance, and
skills training to help workers get better jobs;
(VI) an analysis of the impact on small business owners'
ability to access credit and support to expand and create
jobs;
(VII) an assessment of the impact to public safety,
including an estimate of the reduction of police officers,
emergency medical technicians, and firefighters;
(VIII) a review of the health and safety impact of cuts on
communities, including the impact on food safety, national
border security, and environmental cleanup;
(IX) an assessment of the impact of sequestration on
environmental programs that protect the Nation's air and
water, and safeguard children and families;
(X) assessment of the impact of sequestration on the
Nation's infrastructure, including how cuts would harm the
ability of States and communities to invest in roads,
bridges, and waterways.
(XI) an assessment of the impact on ongoing government
operations and the safety of Federal Government personnel;
(XII) a detailed estimate of the reduction in force of
civilian personnel as a result of sequestration, including
the estimated timing of such reduction in force actions and
the timing of reduction in force notifications thereof; and
(XIII) an estimate of the number and value of all contracts
that will be terminated, restructured, or revised in scope as
a result of sequestration, including an estimate of potential
termination costs and of increased contract costs due to
renegotiation and reinstatement of contracts;

(iii) for direct spending--

(I) an estimate for the defense and nondefense functions
based on current law of the sequestration percentages and
amount necessary to achieve the required reduction;
(II) a specific identification of the reductions required
for each nonexempt direct spending account at the program,
project, and activity level; and
(III) a specific identification of exempt direct spending
accounts at the program, project, and activity level; and

(iv) any other data or information that would enhance
public understanding of the sequester and its effect on the
defense and nondefense functions of the Federal Government
including the impact on essential public safety
responsibilities such as--

(I) homeland security, food safety, and air traffic control
activities;
(II) an assessment of the impact of cuts to programs that
the Nation's farmers rely on to help them through difficult
economic times; and
(III) an assessment of the impact of Medicare cuts to the
ability for seniors to access care.

(3) Report by the secretary of defense.--
(A) In general.--Not later than August 15, 2012, the
Secretary of Defense shall report on the impact on national
defense accounts as defined by paragraphs (7)(A) and (8) of
section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901a) using enacted levels of
appropriations for accounts funded pursuant to an enacted
regular appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013, and
estimates pursuant to a current rate continuing resolution
for accounts not funded through an enacted appropriations
measure for fiscal year 2013 as the levels to which the
sequestration should be applied.
(B) Elements of the defense reports.--The report required
by subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
(i) An assessment of the impact on ongoing operations and
the safety of United States military and civilian personnel.
(ii) An assessment of the impact on the readiness of the
Armed Forces, including impacts to steaming hours, flying
hours, and full spectrum training miles, and an estimate of
the increase or decrease in readiness (as defined in the C
status C-1 through C-5).
(iii) A detailed estimate of the reduction in force of
civilian personnel, including the estimated timing of such
reduction in force actions and timing of reduction in force
notifications thereof.
(iv) A list of the programs, projects, and activities of
the Department of Defense that would be reduced or terminated
and the expected savings for each program, project and
activity.
(v) An estimate of the number and value of all contracts
that will be terminated, restructured, or revised in scope,
including an estimate of potential termination costs and of
increased contract costs due to renegotiation and
reinstatement of contracts.
(vi) An assessment of the impact on the ability of the
Department of Defense to carry out the National Military
Strategy of the United States, and any changes to the most
recent Risk Assessment of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff under section 153(b) of title 10, United States Code,
arising from sequestration.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 60-
affirmative threshold be waived, since it is my understanding that we
will adopt this by voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the amendment we are going to vote on
is bipartisan, fair, and it will make sure Congress gets a report on
the impact of all aspects of the scheduled automatic cuts. We all agree
the bipartisan sequestration agreed to in the Budget Control Act is a
terrible way to cut spending. It was included as a trigger in order to
bring both sides to the table ready to compromise.
I am hopeful we can get together and get the bipartisan deal required
to replace these automatic cuts responsibly and fairly. But as we work
toward that we all should know exactly how the administration would
enact sequestration if we don't get a deal.
I was very proud to work with Senators McCain, Levin, and Thune to
come together on a bipartisan compromise to make sure Congress has the
information we all need on sequestration from the painful cuts to the
Defense Department, border security, food safety, education, and
programs for middle-class families, on which the most vulnerable
Americans depend.
So I thank all my colleagues for working with me on this bipartisan
compromise, and I thank the families and advocates who called and wrote
letters urging us to examine all aspects of sequestration.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if sequestration comes to pass at the end
of this year, many of us believe it could derail the economic recovery
and do immense damage to important programs throughout the government,
making our Nation less safe and our government less responsive to the
needs of the people we serve.
But at this point, while our concern is deep and widespread, it is
not specific. We know only in the most general terms what impact
sequestration might have. And while that is enough to encourage many of
us to seek the compromises needed to avoid sequestration, the Congress
and the American people deserve a more complete picture of what we
face.
That is why I am a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senators
Murray and McCain, which would help give us and all Americans that more
complete picture.
I thank Senator McCain and Senator Murray for the leadership and hard
work, on a bipartisan basis, that produced this amendment. It deserves
broad bipartisan support, and not only because it will provide valuable
information to us and our constituents. We must find ways to work
across party lines more often and compromise for the common good. I
hope this amendment can serve as one step toward the larger and more
difficult compromises we must accomplish to avert the deep and lasting
damage of sequestration.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, it is my understanding that Senator
McCain will not speak at this time, so I urge a ``yes'' vote on this
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2455) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, given the work that has been done, I
wish to thank Senators Murray and McCain for their efforts. Senator
McCain will not be offering his amendment, just for the information of
the Senate. So we will move on now to the Rubio amendment, when Senator
Rubio is prepared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an amendment I
have introduced--with a dozen cosponsors to require the Secretary of
Defense to provide to Congress a detailed

[[Page S4387]]

report by August 15, 2012, on the impacts on national security of the
automatic budget cuts, also known as sequestration. These cuts will be
imposed upon the Defense Department 6 months from now unless Congress
acts.
My amendment makes no changes to the Budget Control Act and should be
non-controversial. It simply requires the Secretary of Defense to
detail for us the implications of these cuts so that we may consider
legislative options. My colleagues are well aware of how budget
sequestration became the law of the land, of the failure of the Joint
Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, and of the enforcement mechanism
of automatic cuts. But none of us fully understand the specific
consequences of the across-the-board spending reductions should they be
triggered on January 2, 2013.
We know from statements and testimony from the Secretary of Defense
and high-ranking DOD and military officials that the impact of
sequestration on the Department of Defense would be disastrous. I need
not remind my colleagues that one of government's foundational
responsibilities is to defend the Nation. Our constituents entrust us
to do so. Allowing budget sequestration to occur in the Department of
Defense would dramatically increase risk to our national security and
undermine our ability to protect our interests at home and abroad.
I agree that our current fiscal climate demands that we reduce annual
deficits and pay down the massive Federal debt. I also recognize that
the demands placed on our Armed Forces are beginning to diminish at
least insofar as current operations in Afghanistan are concerned. The
administration and the Congress have acknowledged as much, reducing war
funding by almost half since 2011. The President's withdrawal plan for
Afghanistan will reduce that funding need even further. In addition,
the President has already put in place a plan to cut the defense budget
by $487 billion over the next 9 years.
I have reluctantly supported these planned cuts in the interest of
deficit reduction, and we have scrutinized their impact on the Armed
Forces. Many of my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee
joined me in expressing concerns to the Secretary of Defense about
significant troop reductions in the Army and Marine Corps, major
program curtailments, and proposed base closures.
Army Chief of Staff GEN Odierno told us that his service could
perform its mission with 80,000 fewer troops. Commandant of the Marine
Corps General Amos echoed those sentiments when describing his plan to
reduce by 20,000 marines. My point is that the Department of Defense
has already undertaken major budget reductions which will impact our
forces for a decade or longer. While I do not agree with every
reduction proposed by the administration, I acknowledge that we all
need to tighten our belts and that the Defense Department is not
sacrosanct.
It is in the context of the nearly $\1/2\ trillion of reductions that
have already been levied against the Defense Department that we should
consider the impact of additional automatic budget cuts. Budget
sequestration would cancel an additional $\1/2\ trillion from the
defense budget and would do so in a thoroughly arbitrary and
destructive way. It is one thing for the Department to make planned
reductions to troops, equipment, training, and operations, and to keep
these reductions synchronized; it is quite another to apply an across-
the-board percentage reduction to every defense program. The law does
not provide flexibility; it dictates that budget sequestration must be
applied in equal percentages to each ``program, project, and
activity.'' That means equal percentage cuts in every research project,
weapons program, and military construction project. Assuming military
personnel accounts are exempted, we understand that cut to be about 14
percent. A 14-percent cut in a military construction project would
render it unexecutable. How can you buy 86 percent of a building or 86
percent of an aircraft carrier? This is the danger of sequestration.
The law mandates that cuts be taken equally across every budget line.
It is absolutely senseless and will have enormous primary and secondary
effects.
As an example, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of contracts for services
and equipment will have to be renegotiated. Contracts with specific
delivery quantities will have to be rewritten to reduce the quantities,
which will increase the cost per unit to the government. More likely,
management decisions will be taken out of the hands of managers and put
into the hands of lawyers, as companies sue the government for breach
of contract and termination costs. Legal proceedings could stretch out
over years, at enormous expense to the taxpayer. ``Savings'' from
budget sequestration would be consumed by the cost of implementing it.
Maybe we should think of sequester as an earmark for lawyers.
Beyond the cost of implementing a dysfunctional system for budget
cutting, the impact of sequestration on the capability of the Armed
Forces would needlessly increase risk to national security. I am very
concerned about the recent decision by the administration to apply
sequestration to accounts supporting our military operations in
Afghanistan. In November 2011, I was assured by the Secretary of
Defense that this account would not directly be affected. Now, the
Department is conceding that funds we are using to defeat our enemies
and to build a secure and self-sufficient Afghanistan will be subject
to immediate reductions. Despite this potentially grave risk to our
military forces engaged in combat, the Department cannot tell me with
any assurance to what extent our deployed forces will be affected. We
must have a detailed assessment of the impact of these mandatory cuts
to the support of our forces engaged in hostilities on behalf of our
Nation.

We know that the President has decided to exempt veterans programs
from budget sequestration but to include war funding under sequester.
This demonstrates that the administration is actively deliberating the
implementation of the Budget Control Act, which makes it all the more
surprising that the President is reluctant to provide even a
preliminary estimate of the impact of sequestration. If the President
is making decisions regarding sequestration, why not reveal the impacts
to Congress and the public?
The leaders of the Department of Defense have consistently stated
that threats to the national security of the United States have
increased, not decreased. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said that
these automatic reductions would ``inflict severe damage to our
national defense for generations.''
General Odierno testified that sequestration would force the Army to
cut an additional 100,000 troops, half of which would come from the
Guard and Reserve on top of the 80,000 soldiers already planned to be
separated from service. General Odierno stated that the damaging
effects of sequestration would force the Army to ``fundamentally re-
look [at] how we do national security.''
The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greenert, testified that the
Navy fleet would shrink from 285 ships to 230 to 235 ships, well below
the 313 ships the Navy has said it requires. The Navy will be forced to
absorb a cut equivalent to the entire annual shipbuilding budget.
According to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, ``The force that comes
out of sequestration is not the force that can support the current
[defense] strategy.''
Chief of Staff of the Air Force GEN Schwartz testified that
sequestration ``would slash all of our investment accounts, including
our top priority modernization program such as the KC-46 tanker, the F-
35 Joint Strike Fighter, the MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft, and the
future long-range strike bomber.''
We would be left with a much more expensive, much less capable
national defense program.
The irony in all this is that defense spending is not the reason we
are in a fiscal mess. The United States spends about 20 percent of its
annual budget on national defense. Since one of the principal
responsibilities of government is to protect the Nation, I consider
this amount to be quite modest. The real driver of our national debt is
mandatory spending, which consumes 58 percent of the annual budget and
is projected by the Office of Management and Budget to be over 62
percent by 2017--growth of almost a percentage point per year. However,
under budget sequestration, half of the total amount of cuts would be
levied from defense and the other half from all other government
programs. Let me repeat that.

[[Page S4388]]

Defense is 20 percent of the budget but will take 50 percent of the
cuts. It simply doesn't make sense.
In addition, these cuts will impact jobs in the defense industry as
well as countless counties and towns around the country at a time when
millions of Americans are still seeking employment. I appreciate the
work of my friend Senator Ayotte to bring this issue of industrial and
economic impact to the forefront.
We must receive a clear assessment from the Department on the extent
of the risk to our military operations in Afghanistan, to our military
programs, and to readiness here at home if the automatic cuts are
allowed to occur. Only when we have a clear picture of the impact of
current law will we be able to consider alternatives to sequestration
that reduce the deficit but do not imperil our Nation's security.
Some have suggested that the Congress wait until after the election
to address possible alternatives to sequestration. Mr. President, we
all know that nothing good happens in a lameduck session. We cannot
wait for an election to muster the courage to make difficult budget
decisions. This amendment to the farm bill is meant to inform the
debate about the perils we face if we do not take action.
I thank my colleague from Washington, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, there is nothing pending now on the Senate
floor other than the farm bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. We are in between votes; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.

Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 1940

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that upon
disposition of S. 3240, which is the farm bill, the Senate proceed to
the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 250, S. 1940,
which is the flood insurance bill; further, if cloture is invoked on
the motion to proceed, notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, it
be in order for the majority leader to lay before the body the House
message with respect to S. 3187.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, if I might indicate to colleagues, we
have one final amendment, the Rubio amendment, and Senator Rubio will
be coming to the floor shortly. Following his amendment, we will then
be going to final passage.
I do want to take a moment to thank the leader. In the midst of an
extremely demanding schedule, with things that need to get done in the
Senate, he has given us this opportunity to complete this work. We will
talk more about who has been involved in it later, but with all the
demands of the Senate--whether it be flood insurance or addressing the
concerns of student loan interest rates, the issues of small business
and jobs and a whole range of issues that are very important for us to
get done--our leader, with the support of the Republican leader, has
been willing to allow us to move through 73 amendments. Now, I would
note that we started with the possibility of 300, so 73 is certainly
better than 300, but we know it was a major piece of work, and we very
much appreciate our colleagues coming together to get this done.
Let me remind everyone that 16 million people work in jobs related to
agriculture and our food systems, and they are watching us to see if we
do the right thing and to see us work together to get this done and to
create economic certainty for them and food security for our Nation. So
I just would like to thank our leaders for their patience and
willingness to stand with us.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have come to the floor to speak in favor
of Senator Rubio's amendment No. 2166, the Rewarding Achievement and
Incentivizing Successful Employees Act, known as the RAISE Act. It is a
catchy title, and sometimes here in Congress catchy bill titles can be
very misleading. Sometimes the bill title means the exact opposite of
what the bill would do, such as the Employee Free Choice Act, which
actually would have taken away the right to make a free choice through
a secret ballot. But in this case, I congratulate my colleague Senator
Rubio for a title that conveys precisely what the amendment aims to do.
The RAISE Act would allow employers to give employees raises,
bonuses, incentive payments, and other monetary rewards whenever they
are earned, whether the union boss approves or not. As all of us know,
we are in extremely difficult economic times. Unemployment has been
above 8 percent for over 40 months, now and a striking number of
individuals are dropping out of the workforce altogether. When we do
recover, as I know we will, we are likely to face a skills gap that
will further hamper hiring and growth. One of the keys to our economic
recovery is the health of small businesses.
For small businesses to reach their full potential, and grow into
job-creating machines, they need the flexibility to maintain and
attract the key employees who will get them there. Any small
businessperson will tell you that their employees are their most
important asset. They literally make the difference in whether the
business succeeds or fails.
Once your company is unionized, you learn one way or another that it
is now an ``unfair labor practice'' under section 8(a)(5) of the
National Labor Relations Act to give an employee a raise or a bonus or
an incentive or even a gift card for a job well done without the
approval of the union boss. All compensation issues must be negotiated
with the union, which allows the union to take credit for securing the
raise. We have come across scores of cases where employers wanted to
thank employees for good customer service, impressive sales growth, or
attract employees to fill a critical manpower shortage, and the
National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, penalized the employer for it. In
a time of global competition, the last thing we need is a Federal
agency punishing companies for trying to perform better by rewarding
employees.
Believe it or not, there is opposition to this amendment. At least
four of our largest labor unions AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, and the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters--have opposed allowing employers
to give raises.
Critics of this bill have said that if employers want to be able to
reward employees beyond the union-approved wage floor, they can
negotiate that provision into their contract. This is true. An employer
can make the ability to incentivize employees one of their ``asks'' in
negotiations, and they probably have to give up something else in order
for the union to agree to that. But it is also true that getting such a
provision in the bargaining agreement is not enough to protect
employers from a charge of unfair labor practice from the union and
penalty from the NLRB. In my research on this issue, I came across
several cases where employers had negotiated a raise clause, but since
the collective bargaining agreement expired and was in renegotiation,
the NLRB ruled that the provision did not apply.
Let me cite an example from just a few years ago. A Montana water and
mineral drilling company had negotiated a contract clause with their
union to ensure that union-negotiated wages were only a floor and
superior wages could be given with or without the consent of the union.
When the company's orders increased, the company wanted to share the
profits and decided to give employees unilateral raises, increase the
per diem for meals, and raise the clothing and safety allowance
reimbursement by 167 percent. But the union objected, and the NLRB
agreed and stopped the raises. Why? Because although the company had
negotiated the right to give raises, they were currently in the process
of renegotiating their collective bargaining agreement and there had
been no explicit extension of the clause allowing for superior wages
and benefits. O'Keefe Drilling, Case 19-CA-29222(2005)
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. NLRB has repeatedly
punished employers in similar situations.

An Oregon newspaper publisher had historically offered
commission for sales of certain long-term advertisements. As
it was adapting to having an online edition, it decided to
qualify internet ad sales for commissions, as well, and added
signing bonuses for new advertising clients. Although the
newspaper had specifically negotiated for a

[[Page S4389]]

contract provision allowing it to pay wages in excess of the
established wage, the bargaining agreement was in
renegotiation. The NLRB sided with the union. Register-Guard,
339 NLRB 353 (2003)

The fact that raise provisions are negotiated into union contracts
negates another criticism I have heard about this proposal. Some say
that it would allow an employer to favor employees based on gender or
race. This is entirely false--all race, sex, national origin and
religion Federal discrimination statutes are and would remain in full
effect.
I would like to share a few more examples of why this legislation
will not just benefit American workers but everyone who relies on the
services they provide. For example, there is a great deal of concern
about the quality and availability of health care services in this
country. You would think that any Federal agency would congratulate
hospitals that strive to improve the service they provide.
Unfortunately, that was not the case in these two examples.

During the nationwide nursing shortage we experienced in
the last decade, a nonprofit New Mexico hospital was
desperate for nurses. It was concerned about the ability to
provide care and comply with mandatory staffing levels, so
the hospital decided to offer $8000 signing bonuses and $2000
relocation bonuses. These generous bonuses were available for
new applicants as well as current nurses--union members--who
transferred to fill critical needs. But the union objected
and the hospital was ordered to stop offering bonuses. St.
Vincent Hospital, Case 28-CA-19039(2004)
In another case, a Brooklyn hospital was concerned about
poor reviews of their nursing staff from patient satisfaction
surveys, which had been an ongoing problem. The hospital
decided to reward its best nurses, so it honored high-
performing nurses with a breakfast, a pin, and gave them $100
gift cards since it was the winter holiday season.
Unfortunately, the union objected to this honoring of
exceptional nurses and filed charges with the National Labor
Relations Board. Although these nurses earned $67,000 to
$150,000 a year, the NLRB found that the gift card was not a
one-time, de minimis gift but, rather, should be considered
compensation and should have been a subject of negotiation
with the union. The hospital was banned from giving such
bonuses again. Brooklyn Hospital Center, Case No. 29-CA-
29323(2009)

Clearly something has gone very wrong here, and I want to thank
Senator Rubio for offering us the ability to make it right. The ability
to reward and incentivize employees is critical to the success of any
enterprise. Instead of fixating on who gets credit for anything
beneficial, our national labor-management policy should be to
strengthen unionized and nonunionized businesses and encourage job
creation. This will be good for all Americans, no matter what their
union membership status.
I urge the Senate to support the Rubio amendment and adopt this
commonsense change to allow American companies and their employees to
thrive.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I see Senator Rubio is on the floor,
and I will now defer to him to offer his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 2166

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 2166.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio] proposes an amendment
numbered 2166.

Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers
to pay higher wages to their employees)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES.

Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.
159(a)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization's exclusive
representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and
conditions of any collective bargaining contract or agreement
then in effect, nothing in either--
``(A) section 8(a)(1) or section 8(a)(5), or
``(B) a collective bargaining contract or agreement renewed
or entered into after the date of enactment of the RAISE Act,
shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the
unit greater wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by
reason of, his or her services as an employee of such
employer, than provided for in such contract or agreement.''.

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, this amendment would amend the National
Labor Relations Act to allow employers to give merit-based compensation
increases to individual employees, even if those increases are not part
of the collective bargaining agreement. Essentially, this will make the
union contract wage a minimum, while giving employers the flexibility
to reward diligent employees for their hard work. The bottom line is
that today, if you work at one of these firms and the employer wants to
give you a raise, they can't do it because it goes against the
collective bargaining amount. So this amendment would allow them to do
that.
That is a brief explanation of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, this amendment is a solution in search
of a problem. I don't know--have any of my colleagues here had
unionized businesses come to them complaining that they can't give a
raise? Have any of my colleagues ever heard of that--they have
complained they can't give a raise?
The fact is collective bargaining agreements already provide--many of
them--for merit-based performance increases. That is part and parcel of
a lot of the agreements today. So what this amendment basically does is
it undercuts the National Labor Relations Act. That is exactly what it
does. If you think we should do away with the National Labor Relations
Act and all the benefits and all the protections it has both for
businesses and for workers, this is your amendment right here. Quite
frankly, I can't think of anything that would be more disruptive of a
workplace than this amendment. When a business and workers have agreed
on a collective bargaining agreement, this would destroy that kind of
comity in the workplace.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I disagree. And I know we are now going
to vote on this matter, so I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--54

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Kirk

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
Under the previous order, the question is on the engrossment and
third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.

[[Page S4390]]

2501 Program

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Madam President, I have filed an amendment
relating to the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program
that I would like to bring to Senator Stabenow's attention.
As the Senator knows, the Outreach and Assistance to Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program, also known as the ``2501
Program,'' helps our Nation's historically underserved producers gain
access to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's credit, commodity,
conservation, and other programs and services.
The program provides competitive grants to educational institutions,
agriculture extension offices, and community-based organizations to
assist African-American, Native American, Asian-American, and Latino
farmers and ranchers in owning and operating farms and participating in
USDA programs. The Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged
Farmers and Ranchers Program has served more than 100,000 rural
constituents in over 400 counties and more than 35 States.
In my State many farmers and ranchers have benefited from projects
funded through the 2501 Program.
I will just mention a few.
The New Mexico Acequia Association uses a 2501 grant to improve the
sustainability and economic viability of small-scale agriculture among
the farmers and ranchers who are part of the historic acequias and
community ditches in New Mexico. With this funding the association
supports centuries-old irrigation systems and agricultural traditions.
The Northern New Mexico Outreach Project, run by the New Mexico State
University Cooperative Extension Service, is also working in my State
to develop an education network system between northern New Mexico
Hispanic and American Indian farmers and ranchers.
And with the help of 2501 funding, the Taos County Economic
Development Corporation is revitalizing ranching and farming traditions
that support the cultures of the area, utilizing new technologies and
marketing opportunities.
Thanks to the efforts of the committee, the Socially Disadvantaged
Farmers and Ranchers Program can now also extend benefits to veterans.
My amendment would have provided additional funds to support the
traditional and new constituencies of the program by increasing direct
funding for the program to $150 million over 5 years.
It would continue assistance to disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
And ensure that veterans are fully able to benefit from the program.
The committee mark of the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of
2012 includes $5 million in annual mandatory funds for the Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program and $20 million in annual
discretionary funds for the program.
I hope that the Senator and her committee will work with me and with
the Appropriations Committee to ensure adequate funding is allocated to
the 2501 Program through the Appropriations process in the coming
years.
Ms. STABENOW. I want to begin by thanking the Senator from New Mexico
for his thoughtful work on this issue. This is an important program,
and I commend the Senator for offering his amendment. As we move
forward, I am happy to work with the Senator to engage the
Appropriations Committee to provide adequate annual funding for the
program in the coming years.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the Senator. I am certain she is
aware that the USDA's Office of Inspector General released a
preliminary audit report in May finding a level of mismanagement of the
2501 Program within the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, or OAO. The
report found that OAO officials had not adhered to the agency's draft
policies and procedures and did not carry out proper documentation
during the selection of 2012 grant recipients.
The OAO has had an immediate and deliberate response to the report.
The previous manager of the Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers
Outreach Program has been replaced, the office is putting in a more
long-term staff, and the 2012 applicants and grant recipients are being
reevaluated.
As the Senator knows, the 2501 Program is vital to ensuring that
historically underserved farmers and ranchers have access to USDA
programs. And, with the new mission to also serve veteran farmers and
ranchers, it is more important than ever that the outreach program be
properly administered.
I look forward to working with the Chairwoman and the committee in
its oversight role to ensure that the Outreach and Assistance to
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program is properly and
effectively administered.
Ms. STABENOW. I, too, am concerned by the recent administration of
the program, and I thank the Senator for addressing some of those
issues in his amendment. I am hopeful that the positive steps already
taken by the Office of Advocacy and Outreach will ensure the 2501
Program's continued success. I know that the Senator will continue to
monitor this situation closely, and I look forward to working with him
to ensure that the office fully complies with the recommendations of
the OIG report and that the most qualified applicants are awarded
grants.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I thank the Senator. In closing, I would
like to thank the Senator, the members of the Senate Agriculture
Committee, and dedicated staff for all of the efforts to negotiate a
good farm bill, one that provides significant savings and eliminates
antiquated subsidies but seeks to ensure a sound future for agriculture
and access to healthy food for families across the Nation.
Madam President, I rise today to discuss the farm bill. First, I wish
to thank Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts for their efforts in
crafting a bill that will strengthen our agricultural and rural economy
as well as one which reflects fiscal realities. Chairwoman Stabenow and
Ranking Member Roberts reached across the aisle. They relied on common
sense and they found common ground, with compromise and with a focus on
results. They, and the members of the Agriculture Committee, worked
together and created this bipartisan legislation.
We all know how important this bill is for the 16 million Americans
whose jobs are in agriculture and for the consumers who depend on safe,
affordable food. It is also important for the families who need
nutritional assistance and for the prudent stewardship of our lands.
The importance of this legislation cannot be understated.
Like so many New Mexicans, farming and ranching are in my blood. My
grandmother drove cattle through New Mexico in the late 1800s. Ranching
and farming is a part of my heritage, and of New Mexico's. And it is
vital to our economy. More than 20,000 farms are in New Mexico.
The people in my State know that ranching and farming is hard work.
The only thing one can count on is uncertainty. It is a uniquely risky
business, vulnerable to calamities of weather, subject to global
fluctuations in prices and unfair competition. But, American
agriculture is the world's leader. It is second to none. It is crucial
to our economy and to our national security.
This legislation is truly a reform bill. It is the most significant
reform of our agriculture policy in decades. For years, Congress has
reauthorized confusing and inequitable farm subsidies, and the public
looked on in wonder. The subsidies have in some part helped to keep
sectors of US Agriculture vibrant, but, there have been blatant
inefficiencies and waste. The rules surrounding direct payments is one
example. Such rules do not even require that the recipient grow the
covered commodity to receive their payment. The result is an
inequitable flow of Federal funds. This hinders new producers and short
changes producers who were not lucky enough to own ``base acres'' when
they were identified in the 1980s.
For decades, farm bills have come and gone without the subsidy
reforms Americans have been calling for. But Chairman Stabenow and
Ranking Member Roberts have taken that unprecedented bold step. Their
bill ends direct payments and other major subsidies once and for all.
The 2012 Senate farm bill offers a more equitable insurance that
producers buy into. It is not mandatory, but it is a sound safety net
that will support American producers.
Chairman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts also set new precedent
in turning more attention to

[[Page S4391]]

crops historically left on the sidelines. Their bill boldly supports
fruits, vegetables, nuts and other products so important to creating
healthy living. The bill promotes access to nutritious food through
farmers markets and locally grown produce. And it strengthens specialty
crop provisions. My State is justly famous for its green chile. This
bill will help chile and other specialty crops find export markets. And
it provides for more research to keep these crops vibrant and
competitive.
This legislation will create a more even playing field for dairy
farmers, providing a safety net that has no regional or size bias. The
bill also continues essential support for livestock producers. In my
State, ranchers face grave threats from severe drought and fires and
from the continued loss of grazing lands.
This farm bill streamlines and consolidates programs and it reduces
the deficit by over $23 billion. Let me repeat: $23 billion in deficit
reduction. That is twice the amount recommended by the Simpson-Bowles
commission.
This is a strong bill overall. It is not perfect. It consolidates and
simplifies conservation programs. But, unfortunately, there are
significant cuts in funding. There are cuts in programs that protect
watersheds, grasslands, soil, and habitats. These are programs that
producers depend on. There are cuts in programs to restore forage,
ensure compliance with environmental laws, and maintain healthy soil.
It is truly unfortunate to lose such vital funding.
The farm bill covers a very large canvas and addresses many diverse
needs. There will be, and should be, healthy debate.
I want to speak today about three specific amendments that I believe
will improve this bill.
First, I have filed an amendment to restore mandatory funds for the
Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers
Program. Thanks to the efforts of the committee, this program can now
extend benefits to veterans. My amendment would ensure that the
necessary funds are there. This program has helped our Nation's
historically underserved producers for over 20 years by providing
better access to Department of Agriculture credit, commodity, and
conservation services and by providing technical assistance. It has
worked and it deserves continued support.
The Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers Program has served more than 100,000 rural constituents in
over 400 counties and more than 35 States. With adequate funding, it
can also provide critical support for veteran farmers and ranchers.
Specifically, my amendment would restore direct funding to $150
million over 5 years.
It would continue assistance to disadvantaged farmers and ranchers
and ensure that veterans are fully able to benefit from the program.
Second, I have proposed an amendment for rural development funding
for frontier communities. Across our Nation, including in my home
State, there are many very small, very rural communities with a
population density of less than 20 people per square mile. These are
great communities, proud communities, with rich histories. But, they
have a hard time competing for rural development loans and grants.
Often, they don't have the personnel. They don't have the resources.
But, their need is just as great as that of larger communities.
My amendment would create a setaside for frontier communities
allowing them to access USDA funds targeted for these very small, very
rural communities. It would allow the USDA to reach our Nation's most
rural and underserved communities. The setaside would be a minimum of
percent of rural development programs and it would allow frontier
communities to qualify for up to 100 percent grant funding, with no
minimum grant or loan requirement.
My amendment would also create a grant program for technical
assistance and planning for frontier communities, making sure that
funding goes as far as possible. Financing for this program would be
from overall rural development funding of no more than 5 percent.
And, third, I have filed an amendment for a rural development
setaside for community land grants. These land grant Mercedes are part
of a unique and important history in the southwest dating back to the
treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. These were grants of land made by the
governments of Spain or Mexico to entire communities.
These community land grants have a history of loss of land, a history
of manipulation and unkept commitments, and a recognized need for
increased economic opportunities. My amendment proposes to respond to
this unfortunate history. Rural development assistance is crucial to
these unique communities.
I wish to again commend my colleagues for this bipartisan
legislation. It will continue building our economy by providing jobs
and by providing the certainty that producers need for innovation and
growth and by providing for the safest, healthiest, and most abundant
food supply in the world.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise to support and encourage passage of
this farm bill.
Farm bills are difficult measures to shepherd through this chamber.
There has never been--and never will--be a `perfect' one in the eyes of
every Member of this body. But American agriculture needs a new farm
bill and this one deserves our support for a variety of reasons.
For starters, it delivers over $23 billion dollars in savings at time
when our Nation's balance sheet needs it most.
It improves nutrition programs by curbing fraud and improving program
integrity. Hungry Americans--many of whom are children--need a food
safety net when times are tough. These changes support that safety net
and deliver more accountability to taxpayers.
This bill also responds to concerns articulated by dairy farmers who
are hugely important to me and to Wisconsin. Long-time farm policy
observers know of my enduring interest in dairy policy. The MILC
program, which I co-authored with several of my colleagues in this
chamber, was the first comprehensive safety net for American dairy
producers. It provided payments in time of low prices and cost the
government nothing when we had robust dairy prices. Dairy farmers today
face new and different challenges. In recent years they have seen
situations where, despite robust milk prices, their input prices
dramatically escalated and their margins evaporated. The dairy policy
embodied in this bill recognizes that challenge and establishes margin
protection insurance. Participants will be given the option to choose
the level of margin protection that makes the most sense for their
dairy operations.
I supported a number of amendments to this farm bill. Among them were
modifications to enhance rural development and programs for beginning
farmers. Farm bills touch our Nation in many different ways, and these
are two areas that merit more attention and continued diligence. I also
opposed a number of amendments because I feared they would undermine
agriculture exports, our ability to innovate, and our organic
agriculture sector.
Finally, I want to congratulate the chair and ranking member of the
Senate Agriculture Committee for their diligent work. It takes an
enormous amount of effort to move a farm bill. They worked hard to find
consensus and deserve our thanks. I also want to acknowledge with
thanks their staff, including Cory Claussen and Jonathan Coppess of the
majority and Eric Steiner from the Republican staff. They worked very
hard on a variety of topics, including the dairy provisions.
I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I support passage of the 2012 farm bill,
S. 3240, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012.
I have made it a priority to keep Pennsylvania's agricultural
industry and our rural economies strong to support Pennsylvanian
families.
Agriculture is the Commonwealth's largest industry. Pennsylvania's
farm gate value that is cash receipts to growers, in 2010, was $5.7
billion. Agribusiness in Pennsylvania is a $46.4 billion industry, and
17.5 percent of Pennsylvanians are employed in the food and fiber
system. What does this mean?
It means that the Senate MUST pass this farm bill, that the House
must pass a farm bill, and that the President

[[Page S4392]]

must sign a farm bill into law before it expires at the end of
September.
The farm bill creates economic opportunities in our rural areas and
sustains the consumers and businesses that rely on our rural economy.
When the cows need to be milked, dairy farmers go out to the barn and
do their jobs. We should follow their example and reauthorize the farm
bill in a responsible way that helps contribute to deficit reduction.
If passed into law, this farm bill would reduce the deficit by
approximately $23 billion through the elimination of some subsidies,
the consolidation of programs, and producing greater efficiencies in
program delivery.
Dairy is the Commonwealth's No. 1 agricultural sector. The dairy
industry annually generates more than $1.6 billion in on-farm cash
receipts, which represent about 42 percent of Pennsylvania's total
agricultural receipts.
I introduced two dairy bills this Congress: the Federal Milk
Marketing Improvement Act, S. 1640, and the Dairy Advancement Act, S.
1682. These bills are aimed to ensure that farmers receive a fair price
for their milk to increase price transparency, to protect against price
volatility, and to encourage processor innovation.
I am concerned that while the proposed dairy program to manage the
Nation's milk supply will reduce the volatility of dairy farming, that
program will discourage innovation and exports, as well as send the
wrong signals to our trading partners.
I secured language which requires USDA to thoroughly examine if the
dairy market stabilization program is working, and if it is not
working, make recommendations on how to fix it. This bill also contains
my amendment to codify the frequency of dairy product reporting that is
important for the dairy industry to make business decisions. It would
also require USDA to examine whether it would be practical to move to a
two-class system for milk that could help to simplify the Federal milk
marketing orders.
Dairy farmers deserve the best dairy program possible. The Senate
bill contains many improvements that I support.
Making risk management and crop insurance products work better for
Pennsylvanians, especially small farmers, specialty crop farmers, and
organic farmers is very important.
This bill contains language similar to an amendment that I offered
during the Agriculture Committee's markup that would help to improve
crop insurance for organic farmers.
Providing funding through risk management, conservation, and
agricultural marketing agencies to underserved States, the Agricultural
Management Assistance, AMA, Program helps to make the farm bill more
equitable among regions.
I sincerely appreciate the chairwoman's and ranking member's work to
enhance the Agricultural Management Assistance Program, including
support for organic transition assistance.
The improvements in this bill to crop insurance delivery are
critical.
We have worked to address the unique concerns of specialty crop
farmers and beginning farmers--and we have done so in a bipartisan way.
Specialty crops are very important to Pennsylvanian agriculture.
After working with the chairwoman and ranking member, I was able to
ensure improvements in promotion programs within the farm bill and
direct USDA to assess the feasibility of allowing organic producers to
participate in an organic foods promotion program.
The Specialty Crops Research Initiative, SCRI, Specialty Crops Block
Grant Program, and Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program all advance
the specialty crops industry, playing a key role in ensuring that this
important agricultural sector receives continued acknowledgement in the
farm bill. These programs remain strong under this bill.
In addition, the Nation's organic industry has grown exponentially
from $3.6 billion in 1997 to $29 billion in 2010, with an annual growth
rate of 19 percent from 1997 to 2008. In 2008, Pennsylvania was ranked
sixth in number of organic farms with 586 and third in sales at $212.7
million.
Through research, we develop more efficient and effective farming
methods. Research also helps producers maintain a competitive edge in
the global market by fighting threatening diseases and pests.
I am pleased that the farm bill invests in relevant and targeted
research and maintains the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
programs that work to eradicate the invasive species that threaten our
Nation's forests and farms.
The U.S. Forest Service's State and private forestry programs are
essential for assisting forest landowners in managing threats and
enhancing stewardship. I am pleased that the farm bill continues the
Forest Stewardship Program, FSP, so that forest owners can create long-
term management plans with the technical assistance of State forestry
agency partners.
I am also grateful to the chairwoman and ranking member for working
with me to fix USDA's Biopreferred Program to even the playing field
for Pennsylvanian forestry products. Revenues from Pennsylvania's
forest products industry exceed $5.5 billion annually. Over 10 percent
of the State's manufacturing workforce is involved in the forest
products industry.
I am appreciative to the committee for the inclusion of my provision
directing USDA to work with the Food and Drug Administration toward the
development of a standard of identity for honey, a tool which will
promote honesty and fair dealing and serve the interest of consumers
and Pennsylvania's honey industry. The majority of our honey is
imported, but because there is no standard, contaminated, low-quality
honey continues to pass through customs and undercut our domestic
product. Pennsylvania is a major player in the honey industry. Honey
bee pollination can be directly attributed to the production of about
$60 million of agricultural produce in Pennsylvania annually.
I am committed to keeping Pennsylvania's rural communities strong and
support rural development programs that provide access to capital for
rural businesses to provide economic opportunities and create jobs. A
rural community's viability in attracting and keeping businesses is
often directly related to the condition of its infrastructure and
facilities. USDA's rural development programs empower rural
communities, transform local economies, and preserve the quality of
life in small towns across the Commonwealth. A rural economic
development program that saves and creates jobs in rural economies and
improves rural life is extremely important for Pennsylvanian families.
I introduced the Growing Opportunities for Agriculture and Responding
to Markets, GO FARM, Act, which will help to enhance local food systems
and encourage production of food for local communities. The GO FARM Act
would provide loans to third parties to lend to producers growing
products for local markets. In addition to the GO FARM Act, I support
increasing the availability of healthy foods, addressing the issue of
food deserts and developing and improving local food systems.
Farmers are the original stewards of the land and continue to lead
the charge in protecting our natural resources. I believe the voluntary
conservation programs in the farm bill provide important tools to help
farmers comply with Federal and State regulations while keeping farmers
in business. I am committed to making conservation programs more
efficient, effective, and relevant to farmers.
Conservation programs are an extremely important resource for many
Pennsylvanian farmers. I worked with my Senate colleagues to support
enhancements to conservation programs through this process in an effort
to ensure that these remodeled programs would better serve the needs of
Pennsylvanians.
Pennsylvania's watersheds contribute more than half of the fresh
water flowing to the Chesapeake Bay. While Pennsylvania does not border
the bay, activities in the Commonwealth profoundly affect the bay's
health. The bay, the largest estuarine ecosystem in the U.S., and its
tributaries, such as Susquehanna and Potomac Rivers, are important to
the region's economy, culture, and outdoor recreation.
Under the 2008 farm bill, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative,
CBWI, provided essential support to farmers facing Federal and state
regulations

[[Page S4393]]

concerning water quality and helped to meet demand for conservation
programs. In advance of the Agriculture Committee's consideration of
the 2012 farm bill, I introduced the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Fairness
Act, which among other things reauthorized the CBWI, because I know
Pennsylvania farmers used this program very well.
I am grateful that the 2012 farm bill contains portions of this
legislation which are aimed at equipping farmers with the tools
necessary to better meet water quality goals. However, in this bill,
CBWI is not continued. Due to the committee's desire to reduce the
number of conservation programs, the farm bill consolidates four
different programs into one that will provide competitive funds to
regional partnerships and will also provide conservation funding
directly to producers. CBWI was one of the programs that got folded
into this new program.
I worked very closely with other Senators from the watershed to
strengthen the conservation title to better benefit our region.
Together we secured significant policy improvements. The current bill
focuses on the most critical conservation areas and will help farmers
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed participate in conservation programs so
that they can help the region meet water quality standards.
Pennsylvania's agricultural producers and forestland owners use the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, to implement
conservation practices, which might otherwise be cost prohibitive, to
protect valuable natural resources.
Further, the Farmland Protection Program, FPP, protects prime
farmland from development. FPP should remain a permanent easement
program to keep working lands preserved as farm land; should keep
State, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations as
partners; and should certify successful entities like the Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Farmland Protection to improve
the efficiency of this program. We worked very hard to make
improvements to FPP during the last farm bill and those developments
continue.
While I do not mention all of the farm bill conservation programs, I
do believe that each serves an important purpose.
Ending hunger remains one of my top priorities, as it cuts across all
of the major challenges we face as a country. There is no better
opportunity to strengthen nutrition policy and programs than through a
well-crafted farm bill.
The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, SNAP, is the Federal
Government's primary response to the food insecurity experienced by so
many people. SNAP is an integral part of the overall safety net, which
enables people to get back on their feet.
Similarly, The Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP, enables food
banks, shelters, and other providers to deliver necessary food packages
and meals to people with emergency food needs. The Senior Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
also provide vital food resources to low-income seniors who are often
not helped by other food assistance programs. I support these programs
as they assist the most vulnerable of our society--children, seniors,
and families experiencing food insecurity.
As Congress works to authorize the 2012 farm bill, I will continue to
fight to protect the needs of Pennsylvanians.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this farm bill.
Mr. REED. Madam President, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act
of 2012, also known as the farm bill, makes some strides in reforming
agriculture policy and subsidies. However, in my view, these reforms
are not sufficient. Moreover, the bill contains cuts to nutrition and
conservation programs and changes to eligibility for rural communities
that when taken together make it worse than current law. As such, I
will oppose the bill, although I do so reluctantly.
Indeed, despite my conclusions, I commend Chairwoman Stabenow for
crafting a bill that delivers $23.6 billion in taxpayer savings over 10
years, cracks down on abuse, and eliminates egregious payments to
nonfarmers, millionaire farmers, and farmers for crops they aren't
growing.
The bill also makes several positive changes to programs important to
my home State of Rhode Island that help small farms, farmers markets,
and local food production. Rhode Island is a model example of the small
and local farm movement. Since 2002, the number of farms has increased
from 858 to 1,220 farms, whereas the average farm size in the State has
actually decreased from 71 to 56 acres. That is why I am pleased that
the bill includes many measures from Senator Sherrod Brown's Local
Farms, Food and Jobs Act that I cosponsored and increased funding for
specialty crop block grants to support research and promotion of
fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops.
The bill also initiates new hunger-free communities incentive grants
by providing funding of $100 million over 5 years for a national pilot
to incentivize the purchase of fruits and vegetables at farmers markets
by SNAP participants. A similar privately funded program has already
been successfully implemented in Rhode Island where every $5 in SNAP
benefits spent at a farmers market allows low-income individuals to
receive an additional $2 in fruits and vegetables. It is good to see
the ingenuity of our States replicated at the national level in ways to
help low-income families have access to nutritious local foods.
Another positive measure is the enhancement of the Farmers Market and
Local Food Promotion Program to aid direct producer-to-consumer
marketing channels and local food sales to retailers and institutions.
The bill also doubles mandatory funding for this program.
However, as a recent Washington Post editorial stated, ``The current
bill achieves some reform. There is still much more to be done.''
While the current bill cuts direct payments by $44.6 billion, it
restores $28.5 billion of those cuts by creating a new market-based
program called Agriculture Risk Coverage and adds an additional $5
billion for crop insurance.
Indeed, many of the reform measures in the bill do not go as far as
those in the Lugar-Lautenberg Fresh Act of 2007, which I cosponsored
during the last farm bill debate.
At the time, that measure would have increased funding by $2.5
billion for nutrition programs, SNAP, and specialty crops, and $1
billion more for conservation programs. In contrast, the Senate bill we
are currently debating cuts SNAP by $4.5 billion and conservation
programs by $6.4 billion.
The nutrition cuts are particularly challenging for Rhode Island,
where roughly 1 in 6 people receives SNAP benefits and the unemployment
rate remains at a too-high rate of 11 percent, the second highest in
the country.
SNAP usage is unfortunately very high right now as Americans are
struggling along with the economy to get back on track. No one wants to
see such a high need, but at the same time SNAP assistance is the
lifeline for these families to be able to put food on the table. My
colleagues on the other side of the aisle shouldn't be trying to cut
these funds; they should be working with us instead of thwarting our
efforts to pass meaningful jobs bills that could help many of these
SNAP beneficiaries find work and lessen their need for assistance.
That is why I cosponsored and voted in favor of Senator Gillibrand's
amendment that would have restored the nutrition cuts, which the
Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates would result in an average
benefit cut of $90 per month for 500,000 households nationwide.
According to RI Department of Human Services, approximately 20,000
households could see an average SNAP cut of $95 per month if the cuts
were implemented.
The Gillibrand amendment was paid for by reducing the subsidies that
the Federal Government pays the crop insurance companies for
administration and operating expenses and lowering their guaranteed
rate of return from their current level of 14 percent to 12 percent.
That is certainly a reasonable rate of return in this economy.
I was very disappointed that this amendment was not agreed to as this
proposed cut of $4.5 billion starts us down the wrong path in future
farm bill negotiations with the House, which is expected to have even
deeper SNAP cuts in their bill.

[[Page S4394]]

Another provision I am concerned could negatively impact Rhode Island
is the change in the definition of rural that could decrease the
eligibility for Rhode Island communities to be able to apply for loans
and grants under Rural Development programs. I appreciate Chairman
Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts working with Members from affected
States to include in the managers' package a 3-year grandfathering of
existing communities and an important stipulation that thereafter
communities shall remain eligible unless ruled otherwise by the
Secretary of Agriculture. However, the change in the definition does
not completely remove the uncertainty for Rhode Island rural
communities to be eligible in the future as they look to make needed
improvements to their water and waste disposal systems or community
facilities.
We need to help out the small farmers and businesses in this country,
not continue to help the large, wealthy farmers. And we certainly
should not pay for expansive farm programs by placing additional
burdens on those who are struggling to make ends meet.
It is for these reasons that I am unable to support this bill in its
current form. While I fear the bill will only get worse as negotiations
begin with the House, I certainly hope the matters that I have raised
can be addressed during that process.
Mr. LEVIN. I am pleased to vote for passage of the Agriculture
Reform, Food and Jobs Act. The bill before us makes important reforms
to farm programs by helping agricultural producers manage their risk,
invests funding to protect our natural resources, and provides food
assistance to families in need.
America's agricultural economy is responsible for 16 million jobs.
There are over 2 million farms in this country that contribute nearly
$80 billion to the Nation's economy. Americans and people all over the
world depend on America's farms to feed their families. So passage of a
farm bill that protects the food supply, gives farmers the support they
need, and combats hunger is of high importance.
I want to congratulate Senator Stabenow, the chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee and my Michigan colleague, for managing this
important legislation so skillfully.
This bill marks important change in how we assist our Nation's
farmers. Instead of making direct and countercyclical payments to
farmers, sometimes for crops they haven't even grown, this bill ends
those practices and instead focuses on working with farmers to manage
risks.
My home State of Michigan is second only to California in the number
of crops grown and second to none in tart cherry production. Unusually
warm weather in March resulted in an early bloom for many of our fruit
crops, including tart cherries. These crops were then heavily damaged
by a series of freezes during April and May.
I visited a cherry orchard in northern Michigan last month and viewed
the damage. The damage from these freezes is severe; many trees and
entire orchards will bear no fruit at all. Growers still need to
maintain their orchards, spraying for bugs and disease, but can expect
no payment for their crop. I am particularly concerned about tart
cherry growers as they cannot currently purchase crop insurance.
The bill we are voting on today directs the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation Board to develop new crop insurance policies for
underserved crops, including specialty crops like cherries. The bill
also increases funding to help develop these policies. These new
policies are sorely needed in Michigan.
The bill also includes $58 billion over a 10-year period for
conservation programs that protect our Nation's waters, soil quality
and wildlife habitats, prevent erosion, and help alleviate other
natural resource problems. These programs have benefitted Michigan by
protecting sensitive lands and waters and preventing polluted runoff
and sediments from getting into our precious Great Lakes, where they
can create problems such as harmful algae blooms. Preventing runoff and
controlling erosion can also lower costs for water treatment and
dredging of Great Lakes harbors. To create a more efficient system for
accessing and implementing these conservation programs, the bill
consolidates more than 20 existing programs into 10 programs.
One new program in the bill, the Regional Conservation Partnership
Program, in particular could benefit the Great Lakes. This program
would provide funding through a competitive process for conservation
projects that improve soil quality, water quality or quantity, or
wildlife habitats on a regional or watershed scale. Because the Great
Lakes region already has a regional plan in place, our region should be
able to effectively compete for the $250 million in annual funding that
would be provided for this program. We have made some solid progress in
cleaning up our Great Lakes and other waters in Michigan, but there is
still much more to be done. The conservation funding provided in the
farm bill would help with the efforts to protect and restore the Great
Lakes, as well as protect sensitive lands and wildlife, conserve open
space and forests, and provide economic benefits.
Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as is evident from the amount of debate
and attention devoted to it, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act
of 2012 is an enormously important piece of legislation for our Nation,
as it certainly is for my State of Iowa. Although the measure is
commonly referred to as the farm bill, that name captures just a
fraction of what it contains to benefit all Americans and millions of
others around the world.
Despite the severe economic challenges over the past half decade,
agriculture and agriculture-related jobs and economic activity have
been a real source of hope, opportunity, and recovery. That is
especially so in my State, where agriculture generates about one of
every five Iowa jobs and about a fourth of our State's economic output.
Iowa is well known, of course, for its distinctive farm state and
smalltown character and for producing corn, soybeans, hogs, cattle,
eggs, and other commodities. We have enjoyed tremendous benefits from
greater diversification in agriculture and the rural economy. Take for
example the boom in biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel and in wind
power.
It is critical for us to enact this bill in order to continue and
enhance the contributions of agriculture and agriculture-related
industries to our Nation's economy, to jobs, and to meeting ever-
growing global demands for food, fiber, and energy.
I commend Chairwoman Stabenow and Senator Roberts, the ranking
Republican member, for all of their hard, conscientious, and successful
work on this bill. I also thank them for their efforts to take into
account and reflect in this bill the circumstances, views, and needs of
both rural and urban America as well as the various regions and types
of agriculture across our Nation. I certainly appreciate their task.
This is the eighth farm bill I have worked to enact, starting as a
member of the House Agriculture Committee. Since 1985 I have served on
the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee and am proud
to have been the chairman of that committee during the writing and
enactment of the most recent two farm bills.
This legislation, approved by our committee in April, is a sound,
balanced, and bipartisan bill crafted under budget conditions that have
necessitated difficult decisions, judgments, and compromises. According
to scoring by the Congressional Budget Office, this measure will reduce
spending over the next 10 fiscal years by more than $23 billion from
budget baseline levels.
The spending reductions in programs encompassed in this bill thus
appear to be several billion dollars larger than the automatic spending
cuts slated to begin in January of next year under the sequestration
mechanism in the Budget Control Act of 2011. Hence, this farm bill is a
serious, good-faith effort going significantly beyond the minimum to
reduce our budget deficits and curtail our Nation's debt. Again, these
spending reductions will have very real impacts, and frankly I regret
them and their consequences. We are not as a Nation investing too much
in the future of our Nation's agriculture and food system, in fighting
hunger and malnutrition, in conserving our Nation's soil, water, and
other resources for future generations, in securing our future with
renewable energy and biobased materials, or in strengthening and
growing jobs in our Nation's small towns and rural communities.
Unquestionably, because of our Federal budget

[[Page S4395]]

situation and choices that have been made in dealing with it, there is
less money to respond to national needs and priorities in the Federal
policies and programs covered in this bill.
Given the budgetary hand dealt it, the Agriculture Committee, with
the bipartisan leadership of our Chairwoman and Ranking Member,
reported a bill combining budget savings with genuine reforms
throughout its various titles. The most significant reform--in fact,
pivotal reform--lies in the substantial changes in the commodity and
farm income protection programs.
To help farm families and rural communities survive and manage the
inevitable vagaries of weather and markets, the new farm bill continues
a strong system ensuring a degree of stability and protecting against
significant losses in farm income. The legislation contains major
reform in terminating the existing direct and countercyclical Payments
Program and replacing it with the Agriculture Risk Coverage, or ARC,
program. ARC is designed to compensate for a portion of farm revenue
losses and to supplement the revenue insurance policies that farmers
typically rely upon to manage risk.
Because farm income protection based on revenue accounts for the fact
that farm income is the product of crop yield times its price in the
market, ARC is an improvement over the direct and countercyclical
payments program in current law. Direct payments are made in fixed
amounts according to each farm's base acreage and program payment
yields, which in general were established decades ago. Consequently,
the direct payments do not accurately reflect or respond to existing
economic circumstances in agriculture because they are made without
regard to a farm's current planted acres of crops or to whether crop
prices and yields are high or low. The existing countercyclical payment
program compensates for a portion of losses when the national average
price of a covered commodity falls below a statutory target price. But
the countercyclical program's target prices are well below current
market prices and costs of production for commodities, and of course, a
price-based system does not account for yield losses.
Agricultural producers have been divided over the direct payments
since they were adopted in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 as a replacement for the then-existing target price
income protection system. Supporters of direct payments note that they
are considered not to be production or trade distorting and that they
provide income assistance to farmers who may not benefit much from
other commodity programs or crop insurance.
From their beginning, I believed that the direct payments were not
sound policy. Within a few years, after they were enacted during a
period of strong commodity prices, the direct payments proved
inadequate to protect farm income in the face of a sharp falloff in
commodity prices, and so we had to resort to enacting ad hoc emergency
legislation to make up for the shortcomings of the direct payments.
To restore better protection against farm income losses, I introduced
legislation in November 2001 to create a new countercyclical target
revenue program. As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I was
pleased that we then reinstated a countercyclical income protection
program in the 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act. In 2007 and
2008, with the leadership of Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Sherrod
Brown, I was pleased that we included the Average Crop Revenue
Election, or ACRE Program, in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008. ACRE is, of course, the forerunner of the ARC program in the
pending new farm bill.
The reform and evolution reflected in this new farm bill is very
greatly facilitated by the significant improvement and strengthening of
the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Crop insurance, particularly the
revenue policies, are now vitally important to agricultural producers,
their lenders and creditors, and to the rural economy. So it is an
important feature of this bill that it further strengthens and improves
the Crop Insurance Program, building upon the Agriculture Risk
Protection Act of 2000 and additional improvements in the past two farm
bills.
The pending bill also continues a strong conservation title with
highly effective programs and funding for them, along with extensive
reforms, streamlining, and updating of their structure and functioning.
The Department of Agriculture's conservation programs have an
outstanding record of success in helping America's farmers and ranchers
produce an abundant supply of food, fiber, and fuel, while conserving
and protecting our Nation's soil, water, wildlife, and other natural
resources. Again, I very much regret that budget circumstances have
imposed spending reductions in the conservation title of this bill.
There is far more conservation work to be done and demand for USDA
conservation assistance than can be met with existing levels of
funding. But, as I have noted, these funding reductions are the reality
for the crafting of this bill.
In the past two farm bills, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture
Committee, I made a very strong push for strengthening the full range
of USDA conservation programs and for increasing funding to respond to
the need and demand for conservation assistance to farmers and ranchers
across our Nation. In the 2002 and 2008 farm bills, we very
substantially increased our Federal investment in agricultural
conservation, building upon successes in preceding farm bills,
especially owing to the leadership of the former chairmen of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, Senator Leahy and Senator Lugar.
For many years, I have emphasized the necessity of promoting and
assisting sound conservation practices on land in agricultural
production, often referred to as ``working lands''. Agricultural
producers are striving to produce much more food in the coming decades
to nourish billions more inhabitants of the the Earth. If we hope to
produce more and more food in the coming years, it is critical to
conserve the underlying resources that support agricultural production.
My objective has been to enact and invest in programs that compensate
and assist agricultural producers for their costs, foregone income, and
environmental benefits associated with adopting and maintaining
practices that protect and sustain soil, water, wildlife, and other
resources. In the 1990 farm bill, the Food, Agriculture, Conservation,
and Trade Act, we included the Agricultural Water Quality Incentives
Program, which I had authored, to provide incentive and cost share
payments for practices addressing water quality issues in agricultural
production.
In the 1996, 2002, and 2008 farm bills, we substantially expanded and
improved conservation programs covering land in agricultural
production. I am especially proud of the Conservation Stewardship
Program, CSP, which I authored and worked successfully to include in
the 2002 farm bill, where it was then named the Conservation Security
Program. CSP now has enrolled nearly 50 million acres of agricultural
land across our Nation, including crop land, pasture land, range land,
and forest land.
CSP and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, both
focus on promoting and supporting conservation on land that is in
agricultural production. They are not land-idling programs.
Agricultural producers voluntarily enroll in CSP and EQIP because they
are committed to good stewardship and these programs help them fulfill
that commitment. CSP and EQIP also help farmers and ranchers to take
voluntary action to solve environmental and conservation challenges and
thereby avoid regulations. Participants in both programs contribute
their own money, time, and effort, so the Federal funds leverage a
significant amount of added private money. The level of interest in and
demand for both EQIP and CSP greatly exceeds the funding now available
and that which is provided in this bill.
To be clear, America's farmers and ranchers have done a tremendous
amount of excellent conservation work. Even so, they know that a good
deal more conservation work is needed, and they are dedicated to
carrying it out. Providing them assistance through the several USDA
conservation programs included in this farm bill is a tremendously
important investment in conserving and protecting our Nation's vital
natural resources for future generations.

[[Page S4396]]

This agriculture and food legislation also continues, with reforms
and spending reductions, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,
SNAP, and related programs that help low-income families put food on
their tables. No title of this bill is more critical to those who rely
upon its benefits, nor is any title more important to our Nation in
meeting our responsibilities to our fellow citizens. We hear criticisms
of Federal nutrition assistance, but let us not forget that the vast
majority of Americans who receive this help are children, seniors,
people with disabilities, or working families. Indeed, recent years
have shown how vitally important SNAP and related nutrition assistance
are to enabling working families and especially the children in these
families avoid hunger and malnutrition.
The reforms in this bill reduce Federal spending by limiting
eligibility and benefits. I regret that our budget circumstances have
led to this outcome, but again I give credit to Senator Stabenow and
Senator Roberts for holding these cuts to nutrition to much lower
levels than other proposals that have been made, including the budget
resolution adopted in the House of Representatives. It is also
gratifying that this body has in recent days rejected several
amendments that would have drastically reduced food assistance for the
most vulnerable Americans.
Because the nutrition title in this bill is responsibly and carefully
crafted, it continues important reforms and improvements that I am
proud we were able to enact in the most recent two farm bills. In the
2002 legislation we restored certain benefits for legal immigrants,
restored a portion of benefits that had been cut in previous
legislation, increased incentives for work, simplified and increased
integrity in nutrition assistance, increased emergency food assistance,
dedicated mandatory funding to the Farmers Market Nutrition Program,
and adopted a pilot program I authored to provide free fresh fruits and
vegetables to children in schools. In the 2008 bill we likewise
included key improvements to nutrition assistance, such as further
restoring previously cut benefits, encouraging savings by recipients,
adopting a pilot program of incentives for healthier eating through
SNAP, improved benefits for families with high childcare costs,
expanded the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to a national program,
dedicated mandatory funding for community food projects, increased
mandatory funding for the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program,
allowed a preference for purchasing locally produced food for child
nutrition programs, and dedicated mandatory funds to the Farmers Market
Promotion Program.
To promote energy efficiency on farms and in rural businesses and the
production and use of renewable energy and biobased products, this
legislation extends, improves, and strengthens programs in the energy
title in the 2002 and 2008 farm bill. I am proud to have included the
first farm bill energy title in the 2002 legislation, to strengthen and
expand the energy title in the 2008 bill, and to continue the energy
title as a prominent part of this bill. And thanks to the cooperation
of Senators Stabenow, Roberts, Lugar, and Conrad, we were able to
dedicate about $800 million in new funding to these critical energy
initiatives in the bill reported from the Agriculture Committee.
In March of this year, I introduced S. 2270, the Rural Energy
Investment Act of 2012, in order to extend the programs in the energy
titles of the 2002 and 2008 farm bills and to provide mandatory funding
for the energy title of this new farm bill. So I am very pleased that
it includes a strong energy title and dedicates mandatory funding to
it.
The bill continues the requirement I authored and we enacted in the
2002 farm bill for Federal departments and agencies to purchase
biobased products and to create a ``BioPreferred'' labeling program to
encourage private markets for biobased products. Also included in this
bill are grants to assist pilot-scale biorefineries and loan guarantees
for commercial biorefineries.
This bill appropriately continues the Biomass Research and
Development Program, which is a joint initiative of USDA and the
Department of Energy that awards grants for research on the full
spectrum of bioenergy supply chains, from biomass feedstock development
and production, to harvesting and handling, to biomass processing and
fuels or products manufacturing.
The Rural Energy for America Program, REAP, the most popular program
in the energy title because it provides direct financial support to
many farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses for rural energy
systems or energy efficiency projects, is also continued. And this bill
extends the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, BCAP, that supports
establishment of biomass crops for bioenergy use and provides cost-
share payments for harvest and delivery of biomass to user facilities
in the initial years.
I am also very pleased that the bill continues, improves, and
strengthens a number of initiatives that we included in previous farm
bills to assist and promote opportunities for farmers and good
nutrition for consumers through farmers markets and increased local
production and marketing of food.
In this bill, the Farmers Market Promotion Program is renamed as the
Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program, and it provides
competitively awarded USDA grants to improve and expand farmers
markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture marketing,
and other direct producer-to-consumer marketing, including funding for
mobile electronic benefits transfer technology. The grants may also be
used to help develop local systems focused on serving low-income
communities. This bill increases the mandatory funding dedicated to the
program to a total of $100 million.
The bill also extends and increases funding for community food
projects through grants to nonprofit organizations to be used in
improving access to healthy, nutritious food in communities, which can
include assistance to farmers markets and other local food marketing
systems. We included $5 million a year in mandatory funding in the 2008
farm bill, and this bill doubles that to $10 million a year.
For the Hunger Free Communities Initiative, the bill dedicates $100
million in new mandatory funding for incentive grants to support
increased purchase of fruits and vegetables by families participating
in SNAP in underserved communities.
To help farmers cover the cost of obtaining certification as
qualified organic producers, the bill includes an increased level of
mandatory funding, and it continues and funds the organic research and
extension initiative. Also continued are the program of block grants to
the States to assist fruit, vegetable, and horticulture crop producers
and a special program supporting research projects focused on helping
these producers. The bill continues the initiative I was pleased to
include in the 2008 farm bill to provide cost-share assistance through
EQIP to farmers who are making the transition to organic food
production.
Mr. President, these are only some of the important features in this
new farm bill. It is a strong bill, with substantial reforms and
continued progress toward improved food, agriculture, conservation,
energy, and rural policies for our Nation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 10
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on passage of S.
3240, as amended.
The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I thank my colleagues for their
patience and for supporting this bipartisan effort on the agriculture
reform, food, and jobs bill.
I thank Senator Reid for his incredible patience and willingness to
give us this time, and the Republican leader for joining in that effort
as well. I especially thank my ranking member Senator Roberts for long
hours and hard work on this bill to get to this point. It has been
truly a partnership. Senator Roberts is my friend and my partner in
this effort, and I am very grateful.
I have said all along in this debate that there are 16 million people
in this country whose jobs depend on the strength of the American
agricultural economy and our food systems. The agriculture reform bill
is about standing up for our Nation's farmers, our small businesses,
our manufacturers, our exporters, and others whose livelihood depends
on us getting the policy right.

[[Page S4397]]

This represents significant reform. It cuts subsidies, it cuts the
deficit, and it creates jobs. We are ending direct payments and three
other subsidy programs that pay farmers regardless of losses or whether
they are even planting a particular crop. We are putting in place the
most significant payment reforms ever.
I thank Senator Grassley for his tenacity and Senator Johnson for his
partnership in that effort as well. We are cutting Federal spending by
$23 billion by streamlining and consolidating programs. Therefore, we
are going to have an opportunity to vote on $23 billion in deficit
reduction--probably the only opportunity to vote on debt reduction in a
bipartisan way on the floor of the Senate in the next number of months.
We are eliminating more than 100 authorization programs and
streamlining others, strengthening crop insurance, consolidating
conservation programs and innovative energy programs, and we are
continuing the critical work around nutrition to give temporary help to
families who have fallen on hard times. We are also creating more
opportunities for families to buy healthy, local food and the
opportunity to put fresh fruits and vegetables in our schools and on
our tables.
Agriculture is one of the few parts of our economy where we are
running a trade surplus, and we need to recognize it is also a job
creator. The men and women who work hard from sunrise to sunset to give
us the bounty of safe, nutritious food that we put on our tables
deserve the certainty of this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on
a very important bipartisan effort and yes to the 16 million men and
women who bring us the safest, most affordable, most reliable food
system in the world.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, when you go back home or if you conduct
a press conference or if you have any contact with anybody about what
we are doing here in Washington, the No. 1 question is: Why can't you
all get along? Why can't you quit pointing fingers of blame? Why can't
you end the rhetoric? Why can't you work together? Why can't you get
something done?
We knew we had something special when we had a farm bill and the
current farm bill was going to expire and you would go back to a farm
bill that nobody wanted, or the 1949 act, which is ridiculous, and that
we had to move. Farmers and ranchers and their lenders and everybody
concerned with agribusiness knew we had to have a farm bill.
We went to work and we got a 16-to-5 vote out of committee, it was
bipartisan, and we did it in 4\1/2\ hours. That set a record. I don't
know of any time where in an Agriculture Committee, House or Senate,
that it has been moved in 4\1/2\ hours.
Now 2\1/2\ days, with 73 amendments, opening it up to everybody
regardless of circumstance, regardless if they voted for the bill or
not? That is what we have accomplished--2\1/2\ days, 73 amendments. It
is what can happen if we break the logjam of partisanship and work
together to get something done. A tremendous amount of credit goes to
the leadership of the Senator from Michigan. I feel very privileged to
have worked with her and to work with her staff. They have been like
Musketeers, every night, every morning, meeting: What can we do; how
can we fix this?
It has worked. So after 2\1/2\ days and 73 amendments I thank you all
for your patience. If anybody did not get an amendment, I am terribly
sorry, I don't know how I missed you; consequently, on that side as
well.
Let me say again, $23 billion provided in deficit reduction through
reduced mandatory spending. The chairwoman is right, this is probably
the only time on the Senate floor we will actually have a reduction in
Federal spending and make our deficit contribution.
This is a good bill. Is it the best possible bill? No, it is the best
bill possible. We should move it and we should vote for it. I urge you
to vote for it.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the Republican leader and I have spoken
privately. We would be remiss if we did not say something to the entire
Senate about how we feel about this bill and the leadership that was
shown by these two fine Senators. Also behind the scenes--we know how
hard they worked to get where we are--we have had such good staff
involved. These staff people are not fighting with each other. They
have causes they are trying to protect for their Members but they do it
in a way that is cordial. There has been nothing but courtesy shown for
weeks.
I have managed quite a few bills in my day. This is a difficult bill
to have in the position we have it in now. I hope our friends in the
House see what we have done. We are working together. I know they can.
I cannot say enough--although I will try--to applaud and compliment
Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts. They are both my friends but my
view of them has risen appreciably in their legislative methods of
getting this done.
They have done it on their own. Senator McConnell and I have done
what we can, but we have been bystanders to much that has gone on. It
has been the work of these two fine Senators and the cooperation of
every Member. I am grateful we are at the point where we are today--2
o'clock. We are going to be able to finish this bill and it is 2
o'clock in the afternoon, not in the morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Let me echo the remarks of my good friend. This bill
has been handled in a way entirely consistent with the norms and
traditions of the Senate. Members have had an opportunity to express
themselves in a whole variety of ways, both relevant to the amendments
and a few not relevant to the amendments. Senator Stabenow and Senator
Roberts have worked together very skillfully. This is one of the finest
moments in the Senate in recent times in terms of how you pass a bill.
I think we are all feeling good about the way this has been handled.
I think we are moving back in the direction of operating the Senate in
a way that we sort of traditionally understood we were going to operate
the Senate.
I also thank my good friend, the majority leader. I think this has
been a good cooperative effort, to have a process that respects the
traditions of the Senate. This is a very fine day in the recent history
of the Senate. Again, my congratulations to the chairman of the
committee and the ranking member. They did a fabulous job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? All time is yielded back?
The question is on passage of the bill, subject to a 60-vote
threshold.
Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 64, nays 35, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]

YEAS--64

Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Wyden

NAYS--35

Ayotte
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Graham
Hatch
Heller
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Lee
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Paul

[[Page S4398]]

Portman
Pryor
Reed
Risch
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Toomey
Vitter
Whitehouse
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Kirk

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for passage of the bill, the bill (S. 3240), as amended, is passed.
The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion upon the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. President, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and
Jobs Act, or the 2012 farm bill, represents the most significant reform
of U.S. agriculture in decades. This bill is the product of many months
of policy discussions and late night deliberations guided by the steady
leadership of Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts. I commend
their efforts in successfully navigating this bill. All Americans stand
to benefit from their hard work and commitment to reform agriculture
policy and strengthen our rural communities.
There is a reason why people across the country--farmers and business
owners, faith leaders and county commissioners--have been paying
attention to what we are doing.
This bill benefits all Americans, including in Ohio, where 1 in 7
jobs is related to the food and agriculture sector. From making the
farm safety net more fiscally responsible, ensuring communities have
access to broadband, protecting nutrition and conservation programs, to
strengthening initiatives for healthy, nutritious food--this
legislation touches all Ohioans.
Also, at a time where there is too much gridlock, this bill is a
welcome change.
Many thanks to Leader Reid and Senator McConnell for their patience,
their cooperation, and for allowing time for proper consideration of
the farm bill.
Many of the policies I proposed as legislation and worked to include
in this farm bill were made at the suggestion of Ohioans. Traveling
across the State on my ``Grown in Ohio'' listening tour, I learned what
is working and what needs to be changed from people whose primary job
is to grow our food, feed the hungry, and run small businesses and
small towns. Thanks to the many Ohioans who have shared their opinions,
ideas, and provided feedback over the past several months. This farm
bill is better because of their involvement.
This legislation would not have been possible without the dedicated
work of the Senate Agriculture Committee's leadership of Chairwoman
Stabenow, Ranking Member Roberts, and that of its members. In
particular, I enjoyed the opportunity to work with a number of my
Agriculture Committee colleagues. Their willingness to reach across
party lines ensured that this bill had a much-needed dose of Midwestern
pragmatism. I would like to thank Senators Thune and Grassley, as well
as Senators Harkin, Nelson, Lugar, Johanns, Klobuchar, and Casey. Their
continual engagement in the farm bill process has made a stronger
product and I am grateful for their efforts.
The 2012 farm bill has been many months in the making and was made
possible by the work of Senate staff, often in a bipartisan manner.
Mike Seyfert, Joel Leftwich, and Tara Smith of Ranking Member Roberts'
staff were invaluable resources in this process, as well as Jared Hill
for Senator Grassley and Lynn Tjeerdsma with Senator Thune, whose work
with my staff was indispensable.
I was continually impressed with the open and collaborative nature of
Senator Stabenow's staff. This farm bill was written in a unique and
challenging process--all of which made the efforts by Chris Adamo,
Jonathan Coppess, Joe Shultz, Tina May, Brandon McBride, Jacklyn
Schneider and others to remain engaged and open to suggestions all the
more invaluable. Their hard work has not gone unnoticed.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 3240,
legislation to reauthorize the farm bill. It is important to reflect on
the process and the debate we just had, as well as consider the final
product. First, I wish to commend Chairwoman Stabenow and Ranking
Member Roberts for their diligent efforts in bringing this bill to the
Senate floor for consideration and debate. It is no small achievement
and there have been countless hours expended by Members and staff on
this very important effort. However, in spite of this, as I weigh the
bill and its impact on the State of Georgia and the Southeast, I am
truly disappointed that I am not able to support it.
This bill does include significant reform with the elimination of
direct payments and it makes several improvements to crop insurance. I
have always been an advocate of risk management delivered through the
private sector. However, the bill establishs a one-size-fits-all
program rather than recognizing the limitations of crop insurance for
certain regions of the country, namely, the Southeast, and whether the
new commodity title program, the Agriculture Risk Coverage, ARC,
program can work as a safety net for crops other than corn and
soybeans. Leaving producers without an effective safety net provides
very little protection and certainty for those outside of the Midwest.
A good idea often stumbles by asking it to do too much. Crop
insurance is a tool that addresses risk in an individual crop year. It
does not work as a safety net by insuring against multiple-year price
declines. This is simply beyond its design and capabilities. Crop
insurance is a critical part of a producer's risk management program,
but it is not a cure-all to a commodity market that can expand and
contract based on the vagaries of weather, disease, and international
events. That is why farm policy in the past encouraged programs such as
the marketing loan and the countercyclical program to work with, not in
competition, to crop insurance.
This week we have had the opportunity to debate and improve the bill.
We made some important changes, but it still lacks the balance I have
advocated for the past several weeks. It is still my hope to support
the bill at the end of the legislative process. Perhaps after action by
the House of Representatives and a conference of the two Chambers, we
will see the changes necessary to gain my support.
Chairwoman Stabenow has assured me on several occasions that my
concerns will be addressed and I know she will keep her commitment. I
would rather have dealt with the issues during the Senate debate, but
that was not possible.
We must remember that the farm bill should help farmers and ranchers
manage a combination of challenges--much out of their own control. We
must also remember that the farm bill is not an entitlement for any one
region or any one commodity. Policymakers must remember that the bill
needs to serve all producers in all parts of the country equitably and
effectively. To fail in this endeavor means we as legislators have
failed to produce a bill worthy of the people we represent. I am proud
of the work we did on the 2008 farm bill and its ability to provide a
strong safety net program for producers. I am confident that the next
farm bill will adhere and honor that same commitment we made 4 years
ago.
While I could not support the bill in front of us, I look forward to
working with my colleagues in the weeks and months ahead.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate today
passed the Farm bill. This is bipartisan legislation that is critical
to all Americans--from the farmers who grow our food, to the consumers
who purchase that food, to kids who get school lunches, and to the
neediest in our Nation who deserve access to adequate nutrition. I
especially want to commend Senator Stabenow and Senator Roberts for
their yeoman bipartisan work to craft this important legislation.
As Senator Stabenow has so eloquently put it time and again, this
bill is a jobs bill. One in every 12 American jobs is tied to
agriculture and this legislation represents an opportunity to create
more jobs.
In my home State of Oregon, agriculture is now more than a $5 billion
a year industry and it reflects a wide array of crops, mirroring the
diversity in America's agriculture.
As I like to say, Oregonians do a lot of thing well, but what we do
best is

[[Page S4399]]

grow things and add value to those things. This bill has a lot in it to
help Oregonians do that even better and in turn create more
opportunities to sell those products better locally, nationally and
abroad.
I was particularly pleased to have been successful in adding two
amendments to the Farm bill. These are amendments to make it easier to
provide healthier foods for children in schools and to help address the
problem of hunger in our country.
One of my amendments would for the first time test out direct farm-
to-school approaches to provide healthier foods for children in our
schools. It will do this through a competitive pilot program with at
least five farm-to-school demonstration projects in all regions in the
country.
While there are currently some farm to school programs in place, it's
a patchwork system and, according to the Agriculture Department's own
Economic Research Service, ``data and analysis of farm to school
programs are scare.'' This pilot program will fill in the information
void about what works and what doesn't, and it will provide a way to
improve and replace ineffective programs.
What is more, under these demonstration projects, innovative States
and school districts will truly be able source fresh, high-quality
local produce for our schoolchildren to enjoy. No more having to
purchase faraway food from a Federal warehouse hundreds of miles away
when there is healthy food just down the road.
Under my amendment, schools win. Farmers win. And most importantly,
our children get to enjoy the delicious, local produce that they should
be able to enjoy--every day--for breakfast, or for lunch, or for a
snack. That is why the American Academy of Pediatrics the Nation's
pediatricians supported my no cost farm-to-school amendment.
With the adoption of this amendment, it will be easier for delicious
pears, cherries, and other healthy produce, grown just a few miles down
the road, to make it into our schools.
Schools and school food authorities from all over the country with
innovative ideas can now begin drawing up novel plans of action to
purchase fresh, local produce for their kids.
New ideas will come forth, and the existing farm-to-school
infrastructure will improve as new and better distribution models begin
to emerge.
I am heartened that the farm-to-school movement has truly become
national in scope, as more people recognize both the health and
economic benefits that derive from these efforts. My amendment will
make this movement not only bigger but better.
I thank Senator Stabenow and her staff for working with me on this
amendment and helping me get this passed.
Fewer folks will be hungry thanks to the Senate's passage of my
microloan for gleaners amendment.
These gleaners are mostly volunteers who collect food from grocery
stores, restaurants, and farms--food that would otherwise be wasted--
and distribute it to agencies or nonprofit organizations that feed it
to the hungry.
These good Samaritans who save food from being tossed into landfills
or burned in incinerators will finally be able to access the capital
they deserve to expand and improve their operations.
At a time when food waste is the single largest category of waste in
our local landfills--more than 34 million tons of food, even a portion
of that wasted food could feed a lot of people. By redistributing food
that would otherwise go to waste to the hungry--again, without spending
extra taxpayer money--we can do more to ensure that this unwanted food
is used to tackle hunger in America.
Instead of burning this food in incinerators, gleaners can help more
people in need burn this food as calories.
This is just one more step in the right direction to help alleviate
food insecurity in our country.
I again thank Senator Stabenow and her staff for their assistance in
getting this amendment passed. It will provide real help to a group of
selfless folks that are trying to bring some commonsense solutions to
the hunger crisis.
As happy as I was to get the Farm Bill passed and get these
amendments included, an opportunity to encourage healthier eating by
recipients of SNAP benefits--what was previously known as food stamps--
was unfortunately not able to come up for a vote.
This is disappointing. Not disappointing for me, but for the millions
of SNAP beneficiaries, public health officials, and others who know we
can do better to encourage healthier eating and increase consumption of
healthy fruits and vegetables.
The existing waiver authority for SNAP is extremely restrictive and
has resulted in a number of innovative State proposals being denied. It
makes no sense to continue to stifle innovation and progress when it
comes to incentivizing beneficiaries to eat healthier.
I will continue to push for ways to promote healthier eating through
the SNAP program, given that it will improve public health, increase
the consumption of healthy food, boost local farmers' incomes, and give
taxpayers the confidence that their tax dollars are being spent on food
that is really food.
I was also very disappointed that my amendment to legalize industrial
hemp was also not granted a vote.
I firmly believe that American farmers should not be denied an
opportunity to grow and sell a legitimate crop simply because it
resembles an illegal one.
I fought for an amendment that would have recognized industrial hemp
as a legitimate crop, but since doing so requires amending the
Controlled Substances Act it was considered non-germane to the current
debate and could not be brought up for a vote.
However, just my raising this issue has sparked a growing awareness
of exactly how ridiculous the U.S.'s ban on industrial hemp is and I
feel that important progress was made in advancing this dialogue.
I am confident that if grassroots support continues to grow and
Members of Congress continue to hear from voters, then commonsense hemp
legislation can move through Congress in the near future.
I plan to continue to keep fighting for this and hope to reintroduce
this as a stand-alone bill.
I also want to raise concerns with language that was passed in the
bill that amended the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. It is my hope
that this issue will still be addressed in conference. I understand
Senator Bennet made remarks expressing that same desire.
The language in the forestry title of the Farm bill amended an Act
which I played a key role in helping pass originally in the Senate a
decade ago.
As part of efforts to pass that legislation, which streamlined
National Environmental Policy Act requirements, as well as appeals and
judicial review, a carefully balanced compromise was reached.
Environmental protections and clear limitations for appropriate places
for the use of that authority were enacted as part of that legislation.
The language in the Farm Bill creates a sweeping new authority to use
the Healthy Forest Restoration Act for areas potentially threatened
with insect or disease infestations but fails to include any of the
environmental protections or clear limitations in the original
legislation. Additional, the way those areas that are threatened by
insects and disease are defined is very broad.
I worked very hard with several of my colleagues to try to reach a
compromise. It is my hope that given a little more time, we will be
able to reach a compromise before a final Farm Bill becomes law.
I hope we will have a chance to perfect this language to address
these concerns as the bill goes to conference.
Lastly, I want to touch the labeling of genetically modified foods.
I have always believed that consumers benefit from having more
information about the food they consume, and that is why I supported an
amendment offered by Senator Sanders regarding the labeling of such
foods. However, I continue to believe that the most realistic way to
improve consumer information about genetically modified foods is to
take a national approach and I will continue to work towards that goal.
That is why I cosponsored Senator Begich's legislation to ensure that
genetically modified fish are labeled.
In sum, I again want to reiterate my strong support for the Farm Bill
passed

[[Page S4400]]

in the Senate and my great pleasure at having successfully gotten two
amendments into this bill.
I raised several additional issues and it is my hope that there will
be continued opportunities to address these issues going forward.
I yield the floor.

____________________