Federal Milk Marketing Improvement Act of 2011

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 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

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.

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.

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

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

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.