Disaster Displacement Act of 2017

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Murkowski from the great State of Alaska--our great State--for talking about someone we really care about and someone who will do really important things for the entire country.

Senator Murkowski talked about Tara Sweeney's background. When we had the confirmation hearing in Indian Affairs, I had the honor of introducing her. She did fantastic in that interview. Republicans and Democrats all agree.

When you look at her background, she is a leader. You can read her resume. You can see all of the things that this relatively young woman has accomplished. Senator Murkowski mentioned some. She was, for example, the cochair of the Alaska Federation of Natives. That is an elected position in Alaska. Almost 20 percent of our population is Alaska Native. She was one of the youngest cochairs ever on that incredibly important organization.

She was the chair of the Arctic Economic Conference. She has also served in leadership positions at her Alaska Native Regional Corporations and the

National Congress of American Indians, and she is ready to lead an organization that needs leadership. She is clearly qualified.

Sometimes there can be confusion in terms of the laws that this body passes. In 1971 the Congress of the United States passed, and the President of the United States signed, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or ANCSA back home. As Senator Murkowski mentioned, this set up not reservation systems like we have in the lower 48 but a very innovative approach to Alaska Native claims for their land, and 44 million acres of State and Federal land went to the possession and ownership of the first peoples of Alaska. It was very innovative.

This body created Alaska regional corporations and village corporations, of which all our Alaska Native people are shareholders. My wife is a shareholder. My daughters are shareholders. That was mandated by the Congress. Yet, as Tara Sweeney has gone through her confirmation process, the Federal Government seemed to wake up to the fact that Alaska Native individuals owned shares in these Alaska corporations that Congress created, and time and again, they started to seemingly almost hold it against her.

Let me give you a little bit of a timeline of the delays that Senator Murkowski mentioned. She was nominated by the President to serve as the Assistant Secretary on October 16, 2017. That is almost 9 months ago.

First, her nomination went through a very long process through the Office of Government Ethics--again, because of the birthright shares that she is entitled to as an Alaskan Native because Congress told them that. So there was confusion. Again, a lot of people didn't know what this was. At one point, there was even the sense that she couldn't have the job until she sold her shares. But she can't sell her shares, as Senator Murkowski said. It is not like owning IBM or Microsoft.

Certainly, we were saying that if that were the precedent, you would rule out an entire class of great people--our constituents--from serving in the Federal Government. That couldn't be the precedent.

She has worked through this with the Office of Government Ethics, which has completely cleared her with regard to how she is going to manage these shares and recuse herself from anything her regional corporation has before her, which, by the way, historically, has almost never happened. She said she would do this in writing. That satisfied the Office of Government Ethics.

Her nomination hearing was held on May 9, where she again committed to recuse herself from matters that pertain to her regional corporation.

On June 6, she was unanimously voted out of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. During the confirmation hearing, she said several times that she would recuse herself. In that hearing, as I mentioned, members on both sides again asked for assurances that she would recuse herself from issues pertaining to her regional corporation, and again, she provided assurances in writing after the hearing.

You are starting to see a pattern here. I am not sure there is anyone who has gone through Senate confirmation recently who has had to reassure and say she is going to recuse herself again and again on an issue more than Tara Sweeney has. It is pretty remarkable, when you think about the fact that the reason she has these shares is because this body voted to create the act in 1971, and yet there is amnesia all over this city and, certainly, in this body.

Once again, as we are trying to move her to the floor, it looks like there has been another demand for another assurance and another letter on the same issues. So once again, Ms. Sweeney has provided that. Certainly, I hope that my colleagues--whoever is demanding this--will say: That is enough. If this very highly qualified person owned IBM or Microsoft or something like that, this would have been done and over. She would have recused herself. Yet, somehow, because she is an Alaska Native shareholder, there seems to be cause for additional delay. I think that is sad.

I certainly hope that is not intended to somehow focus on making it more difficult for an Alaska Native to serve in such an important position. I hope that is not what is going on here. The pattern is starting to get a little bit difficult to endure.

I think further delay, as Senator Murkowski mentioned, is a disservice to someone as qualified as Tara Sweeney, and it is not reasonable. She has been waiting for months. Every time there has been a demand made on her, she does it. Every time there is a letter to ask her to reassure something, she has reassured several times. She does it, but there is delay. That is not good for the individual. It is not good, actually, for trying to get good people to serve in the Federal Government, which we all want.

Senator Murkowski also underscored that further delay is not good for anyone who is an Alaska Native or an American Indian or somebody who cares about them, like we do, because right now, the most important position in the Federal Government, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior--which will be headed by someone who is immensely qualified in Tara Sweeney--is not filled. As Senator Murkowski mentioned, there is so much work to be done. This woman is a leader. She will get on it. She will get on it to help Alaska Native people and to help lower 48 American Indians.

We all know there are significant challenges on reservations and in some of the Alaska Native villages. We need a leader, and we have the leader. We have her. I am really concerned if there is going to be any more delay. What this body should do is confirm her right now.

Senator Murkowski and I are getting ready to ask at a certain point today, before the Senate moves to recess for the Fourth of July recess, for a unanimous consent request. As far as I can tell, almost every Senator knows that this is important. I am certainly hoping all my colleagues are not going to ask for further delay. I am certainly hoping they are not going to ask for further delay that somehow relates to her being an Alaska Native. That would be highly inappropriate.

Hopefully, we can move this nomination forward for confirmation today so that Tara Sweeney can get to work for some of the most important people in this country. We have been without a leader in this position for way too long.

I am certainly encouraging my colleagues--everybody here--to clear this unanimous consent request when we make it, and that we get her confirmed today.

Mr. President, I think I owe an apology to many of my Republican colleagues, if I could call for regular order, please.

Mr. President, I think I owe an apology to many of my Republican colleagues, and I hope I can get their attention.

We have talked a lot about the need for a farm bill. We have talked about

how we are in a rough patch in agriculture and how it affects every part of the country--all regions, all crops--and that we have crafted a farm bill in a bipartisan way with most of the titles.

I have not talked enough to stress what we have done with regard to the SNAP program, in terms of reform and efficiencies, and solving that bonus program that was full of errors, prompting the IG to fine several States.

Bear with me. I want to go over some of this progress that I think my colleagues will be interested in.

I thank my colleague for his amendment, which would modify the work requirements under SNAP, as has been indicated, and require a photo ID with the use of a SNAP EBT card. I understand the intent to work toward self-sufficiency among SNAP participants. By the way, the best thing we have done is we have seen the economy improve and have seen to it that people have jobs and can get jobs and actually get off of food stamps.

While I understand the intent is to promote work by broadening the application of the requirements, our bill would focus more on employment and training in the work requirements. The point I am trying to make is that in addition, many of the provisions in the amendment are duplicative of current law and regulations and would create significant administrative burdens for the Department of Agriculture and State agencies--something we don't want.

Our bill is focused on more accountability in the employment and training programs to get folks back on the path to employment. Ten States have pilot programs, taking a look at exactly how they can accomplish this goal. Eight more we deal with in this bill. That is 18 States where we have pilot programs where we can actually make progress and that is by States innovating, by adopting State pilot programs, as I have just mentioned.

We authorize new State innovation employment and training pilots. I just basically addressed that. We make sure State work programs consult with local employers when setting up and evaluating a training program. That means we are much more specific. We set up a process for groups of employers and nonprofit stakeholders to conduct their own training programs that count for SNAP participants with minimal regulatory burden.

So we are achieving regulatory reform while, at the same time, getting basically nonprofit stakeholders to come in and actually take part. That is a good thing.

These are all things that will provide the tools to States, to people, to employers, and to nonprofits that will get people working again.

I urge my colleagues to support my motion to table this amendment, and then we can find the appropriate balance in getting people working again. Obviously, we point out that this issue is going to come up again when we go to conference--if we can get a bill; if we can at least keep on the bipartisan track to get a farm bill done.

Again, I appreciate the effort to combat fraud in SNAP, but I am in opposition to this amendment, along with the independent grocers, the convenience stores, and retailers all across the country.

Current law allows States to have a photo on EBT cards, but most States have concluded that the cost of putting a photo on the card would outweigh any savings from fraud prevention. For the few States that have opted for a photo EBT card, it has created so much confusion at the register for many retailers, since EBT cards are shared with different people in a household. It is a problem.

While I share concerns about the SNAP program's integrity, the bill already includes several provisions that would improve the integrity of the program, such as the use of increased data matches across the program.

These are efficiencies I haven't talked about to my Republican colleagues. I know the ranking member certainly has made her caucus aware of them. Therefore, I respectfully urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to table the Kennedy amendment No. 3383 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Thank you, Mr. President.

We are getting very close to finalizing the farm bill on a bipartisan basis. We just have some UC requests we are going over. Stay tuned. I hope Members understand that when we do have a vote--this vote was over 60 minutes. There was some commentary on it. I understand that, but certainly we can do better than that on behalf of our ranchers, farmers, growers, and the great State of Texas. Thank you very much, and we will be back to you just as quickly as we can. I know people have very important schedules to meet.

I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the amendment offered by Senator Lee and Senator Booker would prohibit checkoffs from partnering with farm groups and others that engage with government. This prohibition would extend far beyond farm country, and it would have negative impacts on the general public. This is because checkoffs partner with a diverse number of entities, not just farm organizations, to conduct research and education campaigns on environmental, conservation, improved nutrition, and other critical areas that benefit our entire society.

Examples of entities who have contracted with checkoffs and would be barred from continuing checkoff work because they engage in lobbying include the American Heart Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, and the National Women, Infants and Children Association. These organizations and many others would be prohibited from partnering with checkoffs if this amendment were adopted.

I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the impact this amendment would have, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the Lee-Booker amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be agreed to en bloc: the amendment by Senator Isakson, No. 3348; Senators Wyden and Murkowski, No. 3346; Senator Enzi, No. 3181; Senators King and Collins, No. 3221; Senators Gillibrand and Toomey, No. 3390; Senator Heinrich, No. 3287; Senator Rubio, No. 3364; Senator Sullivan, No. 3303, Senator Hirono, No. 3321; Senators Cortez Masto and Portman, No. 3388; Senator Durbin, No. 3389; Senators Brown and Portman, No. 3323; Senator Cantwell, No. 3365; Senator Moran, No. 3171; and Senator Thune, No. 3371. I further ask that it be in order for the following amendment to be called up and reported by number: the amendment by Senator Lee, No. 3074. I further ask that the cloture motions with respect to H.R. 2 be withdrawn and the Senate now vote on the

following amendments in the order listed: Senator Lee, No. 3074; Senator Thune, No. 3134; and Senator Roberts, the substitute No. 3224; further, that the Lee amendment be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption; and that following disposition of the Roberts amendment, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the Senate vote on passage with no intervening action or debate and that passage be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold.

Madam President, I rise today on behalf of Iowa's farmers and ranchers in support of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 or what we refer to as the farm bill. I thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for bringing this critical piece of bipartisan legislation to the floor for consideration.

Farmers, ranchers, and rural communities are resilient--some of the toughest in the face of adversity. But low commodity prices, trade tensions, and unpredictable weather have taken a toll on many of our folks back home. These are the people Americans rely on day in and day out to put food on our tables, clothes on our backs, and fuel in our cars.

In trying times, it is essential that we provide farmers and ranchers with the certainty and the predictability they need and they deserve. These folks helped guide my priorities for this bipartisan farm bill, which maintains a robust crop insurance, makes improvements to commodity programs, and promotes soil health and water quality.

I am thankful that several of my provisions and amendments can be found within this bill. Long overdue reforms to the Conservation Reserve Program will refocus the program's intent on highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land and provide opportunities for the next generation of American farmers to access land to build economically viable farm operations.

This bill also strengthens the ARC-County Program, limiting payment discrepancies and ensuring that farmers receive the necessary support they deserve. It also puts farmers first by providing critical support and mental health resources to those in need or those facing tough times.

I do want to note one area of the bill where I think we need to do more, and that is on the issue of SNAP reform. Most notably, the bill misses an opportunity to help able-bodied SNAP recipients rise up out of poverty. SNAP is a program that is relied on by children, in addition to elderly Americans, people with disabilities, and many working families who are struggling to make ends meet. No American should go hungry, and SNAP provides critical assistance to our most vulnerable citizens.

We also have an obligation to ensure that this safety net does not perpetuate a cycle of poverty and is not abused by those who should not be taking this benefit. Unfortunately, we have seen some shocking stories that show how SNAP has, at times, been misused. For example, I am reminded of the 28-year-old, lobster-eating, Cadillac-Escalade- driving surfer from San Diego, CA, who had not worked in over a year and was receiving food stamps. He was unabashedly abusing the system and taking benefits away from those who need those benefits the most. Surfing is a pretty physically active sport--I think we can all agree to that--and it was safe to presume that this young man was able- bodied. We should not allow this type of behavior to continue, and we should not allow more examples of people taking advantage of a safety net that is set up to help those who need it the most.

While this example is an exception rather than the rule, I am concerned that the ability to abuse the system could increase the number of folks who simply choose to sit back and decide they will also ride the free waves, rather than get in the game and return to employment.

We need to encourage those who can to start working again. Getting people back to work is the most effective way to prevent poverty, both in the near term and for people's long-term stability. Programs like SNAP should encourage able-bodied adults to participate in the labor force. According to the Census Bureau, 30.5 percent of adults who did not work lived in poverty in 2016. However, on the flip side,

just 2.2 percent of full-time workers and 14.7 percent of part-time or part-year workers lived below the poverty line.

Folks who are employed are not only better off financially, they also benefit from the sense of purpose and confidence that comes from a job. As I always say, there is dignity in a job. Take, for example, April, a Missouri woman who was on government assistance from the age of 16 to the age of 30, receiving food stamps and housing assistance. When she was caught shoplifting, she was forced to do community service. She volunteered at Watered Gardens, a rescue mission in Joplin, where folks living in poverty get the help they need while they are also working at the gardens. April was so inspired by her time there that she started a women's discipleship center in her community and is now living a fulfilling life.

SNAP currently requires able-bodied adults without dependents to work, participate in training, or volunteer for at least 20 hours a week to receive assistance. That is the current requirement, but unfortunately 35 percent of Americans live in an area where work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents have been waived. They have been waived. Of the 1,200 areas where this has been waived, over half have unemployment rates below 5 percent, and over 500 of those areas are at full employment. These waivers were intended for States and communities that are experiencing economic downturns, not States like California, which has a statewide waiver, despite a record low 4.2-percent unemployment.

Our economy is booming right now. We have a 3.8-percent unemployment rate. For the first time on record, the number of job openings exceeds the number of Americans looking for work.

This is the best possible time for us to encourage work among able- bodied SNAP recipients. That is why I introduced an amendment which would strengthen the waiver process to ensure that areas with low levels of unemployment are not exempt from SNAP's requirement for able- bodied adults without dependents to work, train, or volunteer.

I planned to offer this amendment today. I am not going to because I want to keep the farm bill moving for the sake of our farmers, but I do want to see this done at conference. Despite its imperfections, we have a bill before us that will feed hungry Americans, protect natural resources, mitigate risk, and support rural jobs.

With heavy rainfall this past week across Northern Iowa, some hard- working men and women are now facing even greater challenges. Flooded fields have producers worrying about crop damage. This all underscores the need for a strong and reliable safety net and timely passage of the farm bill.

The goal and absolute requirement is to provide farmers and ranchers across our Nation the certainty and predictability they deserve during difficult times. I look forward to working alongside my colleagues to meet this goal by passing this farm bill, and I encourage support.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to talk about the farm bill and an amendment I filed along with Senators Cornyn and Heller, but I first want to thank Chairman Roberts for doing the remarkable job he does bringing people together on the Agriculture Committee. For the first 2 years I was in the Senate, beginning in 2015, I was on Agriculture, and I really enjoyed watching the way he worked trying to bridge the gaps between different interests.

In the Agriculture Committee, it is less along partisan lines and more along regional lines. So the fact that we have a farm bill before us, which I will support and I believe is good for farmers, is a testament to the leadership of Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow.

A lot of people probably don't realize that although North Carolina is a relatively small State, with the majority of our population in urban centers, we are also one of the top 10 agriculture States. We have over 80 commodities raised in our State which contribute about $84 billion to our State in revenue. So it is a very important sector--in fact, I would argue, the most important sector.

It is absolutely important that we get the farm bill right and that we have fair treatment for all crops. Chairman Roberts is working on that, and I am going to do everything I can to help him as we work with the House Members in conference.

I want to spend the remaining part of my time talking about something that is also very important.

About 80 percent of the farm bill is dedicated to the SNAP program. We heard Senator Ernst talk about it in her comments. It is a very important program for nutritional assistance, but it is also important we implement policies that make sure it is sustainable over time and that for those who are reliant on it, we ultimately do everything we can for those who are capable to no longer rely on it. How do we do that?

Right now, there is a program for adults where, if you don't have dependents, there is an expectation about work requirements, but I believe we have to make sure we have more people looking for work, being trained for work as a requirement for getting the SNAP benefits.

There will be a lot of people who are going to talk about the heartless nature of this program, but let's talk about what is really being proposed versus what you may hear in a floor speech or in the press.

What this program is about is for people between the ages of 18 and 50 who do not have children under the age of 6. Why 6? Because at that point they are generally going to school, so daycare issues are not as great. We are not talking about people who have a health problem or someone who has a disability. They are exempted.

We are talking about adults who may have older children, who are able-bodied, and should be expected to work or do some sort of community service as a condition for getting the SNAP benefit.

There are a lot of people we think we can provide the benefit, get them to work a minimum of 20 hours a week, and ultimately maybe get them a job where they would no longer need the SNAP benefit and be free of any dependence on government to make their ends meet.

There are also people who may not have skills that can get them into a job at this point. So if you can't find a 20-hour-a-week job, you can at least perhaps get into a job training program so you have the necessary skills to make a living wage.

A couple of months ago, I was visiting a center in Charlotte, about 15 minutes out of my hometown, which has been stood up by Goodwill. It takes all comers. Anybody who wants new job skills can come to this facility. They can pursue certifications. They can do the prerequisite work there to then go to a community college or university. This program is about saying: If you don't have the skills you need today to get into that job that would free you from government assistance, then I think it is reasonable to expect that maybe 20 hours a week you go to training programs like this so you are better prepared to do it over time.

That is essentially the nature of the amendment I have filed, along with the support of Senator Cornyn and Senator Heller.

There are a couple of reasons why you want to do this. We need to make sure we can get as many people to work, No. 1, so they can be free of government assistance; and, No. 2, to make sure the economic burden on taxpayers does not become so great that, at some point, the only way we can pay for the SNAP benefit is to cut the SNAP benefit. In other words, I want to make sure these safety nets are always well-funded and always there for people who need it.

I think this amendment and an opportunity to talk about it, and potentially make progress on this farm bill, is something I am excited about. I think we can do it in a way to make sure people who genuinely need it will get it, but those who genuinely have an opportunity to free themselves from government assistance over time can do that too.

I will leave you with this. When I was 17 years old, I was supposed to go into the Air Force, and I was discharged because of an automobile accident. I had moved out of our home when I was 17. I found myself not going to college and actually not being employed. Fortunately, for me, there was a community

college or a technical school back in Nashville, TN, that I went to which gave me the job skills that, over a very short period of time, gave me a job which ultimately led to my professional career, and I guess ultimately led to me being a U.S. Senator. So I am speaking from personal experience.

If I had taken the path of maybe just looking for a program that didn't have a work requirement, didn't necessarily have the motivation to go down the path I did--there are people out there whom I think we are going to lose who could be some of the greatest business executives, plant managers, artisans, and trades men and women we have ever seen. That is why programs like this and amendments like this I think require serious consideration and hopefully the support of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have been a member of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee since I was first elected to the Senate. The work that committee has done throughout my tenure in the Senate has proven that a bipartisan, reasonable process is not only possible but is preferable to the rancor and rhetoric that so often curtails the important work before the Senate.

The 2018 farm bill process once again demonstrates this distinctive quality of the Agriculture Committee, which has produced a vital legislative product that will improve our Nation's agricultural, food, and environmental systems. As a former chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, I know just how much work it takes to draft and advance a bill of this size, breadth, and influence, and I thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for working together to get this done.

This bill stands in stark contrast to the version passed by the House of Representatives just last week, in which an ugly partisan process resulted in legislation full of environmental riders and harmful policy constraints that would devastate the millions of families that depend on our nutrition programs for basic nutrition. I urge all Senators to recognize that the bipartisan product reported nearly unanimously by the committee is a strong bill that provides leadership on food, agriculture, nutrition, natural resources, and rural development issues. The policies it advances are based on the best available science and will provide for effective management.

This bill is so much more than just a ``farm bill'' or even a ``food bill.'' This is a bill that addresses a wide swath of American life and helps to set priorities for the policies that affect every single one of us. It is our chance to show farmers, foresters, families, rural communities, and every American consumer that we hear their concerns and can help everyone live a healthier, fuller life. Vermont farmers and families expect that the programs and guidance within the farm bill will help our struggling farms, large and small, to stay productive, ensure that children are well nourished, and protect our environment. This is a bill for every America and a bill for future generations.

I have heard countless heartbreaking stories from Vermont dairy farmers who are struggling to stay afloat right now amid perilously low milk prices. In addition to dairy, I know that agriculture across the country is facing increasing difficulties when it comes to competition, trade, dropping prices, and dramatic weather challenges that have farmers everywhere on edge. I am proud that this bill will continue to address these. I particularly want to thank the chair and ranking member for the inclusion of the improved Dairy Risk Coverage Program that builds on the important margin protection improvements I was able to secure in February for our struggling dairy farmers. The bill also provides important support for the rapidly growing organic industry and local food systems and the opportunity for farmers to diversify their crops by growing and selling hemp products.

We continue the proud tradition of providing nutritional assistance to our fellow Americans with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, and this bill continues our commitment to worldwide stability and productivity with programs like McGovern-Dole, Food for Peace, the Global Crop Diversity Trust, as well as valuable research to support farmers here at home and around the world. We know that, when families and children do not have to wonder where their next meal may come from, children do better in school, workers are more productive, and our Nation is stronger. The same is true when we support international efforts that combat poverty and provide lifesaving humanitarian assistance, we alleviate poverty and build stronger U.S. partners.

Our Nation's conservation tradition is reinforced in this bill, with significant funding and necessary improvements to programs that allow farmers and forestland owners to make environmentally friendly improvements to their land and take care of the natural areas that make our lands and our countryside so vital, productive, and unique. Wildlife, biodiverse ecosystems, and the air, land, and water we rely on will be cleaner and healthier because of this bill. Through the support of the committee's chair and ranking member, the bill does not include problematic changes that would have weakened pesticide and forestry laws.

This farm bill provides critical economic development support to address the unique challenges and needs faced by our rural communities. I am proud of the steps this bill makes possible to improve the lives of rural citizens everywhere by investing in rural community infrastructure and facilities, including a new priority for treatment centers for substance abuse disorders, while providing and expanding much-needed technical assistance and access to affordable capital for small and growing rural businesses that serve as economic engines in our rural towns.

This bill is a good bill, a strong bill, and it is a breath of bipartisan fresh air. Coming on the heels of our recent passage of the first package of Senate appropriations bills for fiscal year 2019 earlier this week, we are again proving that the Senate can move important and complicated legislation with bipartisan support when we take the time to work with each other and we commit to keeping these bills free of controversial items.

This bill serves as an example of why we are all here: to help those who need it, to make sure our Nation is secure, and to protect our natural resources for generations to come. I will work with the chairman and ranking member to ensure that this bill passes and that we are able to send a strong and balanced bill to the President that we can all stand behind.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the 2018 farm bill and the importance of passing this bill.

I thank Chairman Roberts and Ranking Member Stabenow for their dedication and determination in producing a truly bipartisan bill that cleared the Agriculture Committee 2 weeks ago with a strong bipartisan vote. Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer have been dedicated to moving this bill to the floor. Under Chairman Roberts' and Ranking Member Stabenow's leadership, the committee held six hearings, examining every title of the bill, passed a bill out of committee on a nearly unanimous 20-to-1 vote, and included almost 70 amendments before getting it to the floor this week.

The Agriculture Committee and the farm bill are models of how we can work across the aisle on tough problems and on major legislation that impacts every American--the farmers and ranchers who grow and raise the crops and livestock that sustain us, the hunters and conservationists who rely on the wetlands and grasslands protected, the families who rely on access to healthy foods.

This is an important bill. I hear it every day from people in my State--fishermen and hunters, farmers in rural communities and leaders. They understand that we do not want to be a country that becomes dependent on foreign food. We don't want that to happen.

In Minnesota, we produce a lot of food. Our economy is diverse from north to south and east to west--corn, soybeans, hogs, and turkeys in the southern and western part of our State; wheat, canola, and sugar beets in the northwest; and dairy and cattle in the central and southwest. As a State, we are No. 1 in turkeys. Yes, Mr. President, that is true. Minnesota is No. 1 in turkeys and sugar beets. We are No. 2 in hogs, No. 3 in soybeans, No. 4 in corn, and fifth overall in agricultural production. But the prices farmers have received when selling these goods have been declining since 2013. USDA's Economic Research Service is forecasting net farm income to fall another 6.7 percent this year, which would represent the lowest level since 2006.

These commodities are increasingly sent around the world. From 2006 to 2016, Minnesota producers sent $7.1 billion worth of ag products to markets around the world, making us the fourth largest agricultural exporting State in the United States. Our soybeans and dairy go to China, pork to Canada, beef to South Korea, and corn and poultry to Mexico. These exports are a crucial part of our economy, and the unknown on trade and the threat of terrorists, especially from allies with allies, such as Canada and what we have been seeing there--and I hope we will have a reasonable approach with our allies going forward-- those headlines are having real impacts on many farmers' bottom lines.

Finally, no matter where the farm is located or what crops they grow, all Minnesota farms and rural communities face weather risks. This spring, many farmers and ranchers were delayed getting into their fields because of an April blizzard. We had rains that were unexpected, and the uncertainty out there in the countryside makes our work on the 2018 farm bill even more important.

What do I like about this bill? First of all, it continues to protect and improve the tools that help our farmers deal with risk. The improvements included in the commodity title will ensure more consistent payments across counties in the Agricultural Risk Coverage Program and more access to risk management tools, such as crop insurance.

It also replaces the Margin Protection Program for dairy producers and invests additional funds in the new Dairy Risk Coverage Program. This is a major challenge in my State and many others.

We have also started a vaccine bank for the first time--something Senator Cornyn and I worked on. He is here in the Chamber, and I thank him for his leadership in working on this vaccine bank that we have started. It will help us with avian flu, H1N1, and other diseases that we see with our animals.

Senator Thune and I worked together on several provisions in the conservation title of the bill to help farmers get more out of their land. We also worked to increase the CRP cap to 25 million acres and to fix a loophole in the conservation sodsaver program.

This bill includes a number of amendments. I see Senator Stabenow is here on the floor, and I again thank her for her leadership in helping us. Michigan, just like Minnesota, understands how important agriculture-based energy, biobased manufacturing, and clean energy technology programs and initiatives are. Those amendments were all included in this farm bill. I truly appreciate it, as well as the work that Senator Hoeven and I did to increase access to credit, while providing for better data reporting on borrowers and participation rates.

I close with this: In these times of uncertainty in agriculture, we need to work to strengthen the farms and rural communities that sustain us every day. Whether it is hemp in Kentucky, hogs in Iowa, sugar beets and sweet corn in Minnesota, or energy in Michigan, this farm bill is about our Nation's future, and it is about adjusting what is working, making it a bill that meets the challenges ahead, and making sure we are investing in the farmers and the workers of the Midwest and not the oil cartels of the Mideast.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Minnesota leaves, I want to thank her for her amazing leadership as one of the senior members of the Agriculture Committee. She has not only made a significant difference as it relates to energy--and she talked about bioenergy and the biobased economy, which is so important for us, for jobs and energy independence. She has been a real leader there, as well as in conservation, commodities titles, local foods, and all of the ways in which this bill has come together. So I thank the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I want to step back and look at the reality of SNAP and the food assistance program today.

The farm bill has two kinds of safety nets. It is a safety net for farmers and a safety net for families.

The good news is, because the economy is doing better, we are going to save over $80 billion in the next 10 years on the food and family side because the economy is getting better and people don't need temporary help and they are going back to work. The challenge for us is that in this bill, we have a lot of farmers who need a safety net because we have seen prices drop by 50 percent and weather disasters and other things that have been very challenging for them.

So, No. 1, I think this is an amendment in search of a problem. No. 2, we already have work requirements--let's make that very, very clear. Despite things that have been said before, we already have work requirements in the SNAP program.

Now, 75 percent of those who get food help are senior citizens, people with disabilities, and children and their parents--75 percent. Of the 25 percent--they are required to work at least 20 hours a week, and if they do not, then the most they can receive is up to 3 months' worth of food help in a 3-year period.

The amendment essentially would limit and change that for people. For instance, it would subject parents of children as young as 1 years old to new work requirements, but there is no funding for training or support for childcare or anything to help that mom be successful.

In the underlying bill, we have funded 10 States to help those who have extra challenges get into full-time employment, and we add 8 more States to that. That is the positive way to do it, not just saying that moms of children as young as 1 years old have to meet a work requirement in order to feed their children. This also eliminates waivers that States use in high-unemployment areas, like Tribal areas.

Basically, what is being said here is that we shouldn't trust States. I think about all the times we hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about State block grants and about supporting States. This goes in the exact opposite direction--taking away the opportunity for States to be able to ask for waivers in high-unemployment areas.

It also slashes work exemptions that States use to cover special populations, such as veterans. It would incentivize States to cut people off of SNAP by forcing States to meet unrealistic workforce targets or face stiff penalties, and it would cut the amount of time that someone--again, I mentioned that you have to work 20 hours a week; otherwise, you can receive no more than 3 months' worth of food help in a 3-year period. This would say ``No, no, no; 3 months is too much out of 3 years'' and it would take it down to 1 month.

Finally, there is the Kennedy provision specifically requiring household members to show picture IDs to purchase food. Colleagues should know that this is strongly opposed by the Food Marketing Institute and the National Grocers Association and the manufacturers. It would impose new liabilities on more than 200,000 stores, including small businesses that participate in SNAP, which would then be liable and responsible for what happens under this provision.

It would create barriers for seniors, people with disabilities who rely on caregivers to purchase their groceries, and others who depend on someone else to get them their food assistance, and homeless individuals, including veterans, without IDs might be denied food as a result of this provision.

I join with the distinguished chairman who will be making a motion to table this amendment. We will have the opportunity to thoughtfully address these issues in a conference committee.

This amendment, in my judgment, would undermine what has been a very positive bipartisan effort to get a farm bill done and, in fact, would stop us from being able to complete this bill.

Mr. President, I will join with Chairman Roberts. We are close to the final UC and to the final vote. We will ask folks to stay close, and we hope to begin that process shortly, with everyone's support and indulgence. Thank you.

Mr. President, I join with the chairman in asking members to vote no on this amendment. Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, most people in America are probably familiar with the advertising slogans: ``Pork, the other white meat'' and ``Beef, it's what's for dinner,'' but what they might not know, what they might not be as aware of is the cronyist underbelly of slogans like these.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture checkoff programs behind these very slogans and others like them tend to collect compulsory fees from producers of milk, eggs, beef, and other agricultural products. These funds are then used to promote and do research on those particular commodities.

Unfortunately, these programs have been rife with opportunities for abuse. Many of these programs have crept far beyond the scope of their statutory mandate by engaging in illegal lobbying and anticompetitive activities. Take, for example, the case of a small California company called JUST, Inc., formerly known as Hampton Creek, which a few years ago was attacked for selling its vegan mayonnaise known as Just Mayo in stores nationwide. It turns out that a Federal entity called the American Egg Board conspired with USDA employees and top executives from the egg industry to threaten and coerce retailers into not carrying the Just Mayo brand.

The original intent of these programs was to research and promote certain commodities, not to disparage other ones, and they certainly were not intended to prevent any new products from having a fair chance in the marketplace.

Let me just stop, by the way, while we are talking about Just Mayo and that incident, to take note of the fact that it ought to be very concerning to us that the Federal Government became involved in a campaign to pressure someone about whether they could set up a brand of vegan mayonnaise and call it that.

So what were supposed to be promotional boards have instead become protectionist boards. What is more, checkoff programs force farmers to pay into a system that sometimes actively works against their interests and, on top of that, the boards for these programs have come under fire for a lack of transparency and for misuse of their funds. Some have gone so far as failing to submit congressionally mandated spending reports, refusing and delaying requests under FOIA, and even engaging in protracted legal battles to prevent public audits from being disclosed.

In short, these programs--the so-called checkoff programs--are in significant need of reform. This is why I have worked hard with my colleagues--Senator Booker, Senator Hassan, Senator Paul, and Senator Warren--to introduce amendment No. 3074. This amendment would address some of the most grievous abuses of these commodity checkoff programs.

First, the amendment would prohibit them--these checkoff programs-- from contracting with any organization that lobbies on agricultural policy with an exemption for research at institutions of higher education. It would also prohibit employees and agents of the checkoff boards from engaging in activities that may pose a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the amendment would establish uniform standards for checkoff programs that prohibit anticompetitive activity and any unfair or deceptive practices.

While this amendment would not abolish checkoff programs, it would implement much needed transparency measures so farmers can see what their checkoff dollars are actually being spent to do. These commonsense reforms will not be convenient perhaps to the giants of the agricultural industry--at least not the ones using checkoff dollars to rig the system in their favor. These commonsense reforms will help farmers--and particularly the little guys--from the small farms and the startup companies to see exactly where the fees they pay are going and ensure that their hard-earned money is not being used unfairly against them.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment to bring about much needed reform with checkoff programs.

I yield the floor.