Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

First, I want to thank my colleague and neighbor Senator Harkin for his timely remarks, and particularly for noting that we have been hunting partners. As a matter of fact, that has been in the news today. Not only has Senator Harkin noted our exploits together, but in this morning's Washington Post the senior Senator from New York noted that I have taken him pheasant hunting in Nebraska as well. I am going to be known not only for my hair but perhaps for hunting as well, so I appreciate that.

Of course.

He noted that he learned to shoot at camp and that he was a marksman, so that is probably a dispute I should not get in the middle of.

I thank the Senator very much for his kind remarks.

It is, obviously, a difficult time to speak about leaving the Senate, and I did that earlier. I leave with a great deal of melancholy and with a lot of friends and a lot of hope for the future of our country.

Dan Inouye

I rise today to express my support for passage of a 5-year farm bill and call on the House to act on this critical piece of legislation before Congress adjourns this year.

However, first I would like to briefly note how sorry I am at this moment--as I know we all are--about the passing of our good friend, Senator Dan Inouye. I would like to briefly reiterate the sentiments expressed by a number of my colleagues.

Senator Inouye was a man of courage and wisdom. He represented his State and country proudly. He will be sincerely missed.

As everyone knows, today Senator Inouye lies in state just a few steps away from this Chamber. It is an honor the very few--only 31-- have ever received. I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to serve with the Senator. I thank him for his friendship and guidance and offer the most sincere condolences to his family.

The Farm Bill

I appreciate the opportunity to make those remarks, and I would now like to turn to the farm bill, which is a critical piece of legislation in the Senate. We produced a bipartisan bill that cuts spending by $23 billion. Agriculture represents 2 percent of the Nation's budget, and $23 billion represents 2 percent of the spending cuts proposed in the deficit legislation Congress worked on last year but could not pass because of extreme partisanship.

As we work in these final days to reach a deal on how best to reduce spending in government and set a trajectory for the future, I am disappointed that the House was unable, or perhaps unwilling, to follow the example the Senate has given. By moving forward in passing a farm bill, we would save money, create a market-oriented safety net, eliminate direct farm subsidy payments, streamline, simplify, and consolidate programs. It would also create jobs our economy needs to grow.

I am disappointed this is not moving forward. The House's inaction is causing a continuing uncertainty for our Nation's producers as they begin to plan for the next planting year. It also affects our financial institutions which provide lending for our farmers, ranchers, and small-town rural businesses that benefit from the commerce provided by a strong agricultural economy.

Unfortunately, this comes at a time when farms throughout the entire State of Nebraska and across the country are also dealing with the worst drought conditions since the 1930s. The Senate farm bill addresses this crisis through the elimination of subsidies, replacing them with the Agriculture Risk Coverage, or what is known as the ARC, Program. It is a program that provides producers with a market- oriented, straightforward choice to determine how best to manage their operations risks. The safety net is then bolstered by expanded access to profit shares, which serves as the focal point of risk management and will ensure that farmers are not wiped out by severe weather or economic conditions.

The Senate farm bill also reauthorizes the 2008 farm bill permanent disaster relief programs and makes them retroactive to cover producers harmed by the 2012 drought. This includes the Livestock Forage Disaster Program, which provides compensation for the eligible livestock producers who have suffered in critical places such as Nebraska which has been hard hit by the drought and wildfires this summer, not to mention the continuing drought at this time.

I could go on regarding all the major reforms and improvements that the Senate farm bill makes to conservation, rural development, renewable fuels, in addition to the reforms of the commodities and livestock programs. However, without the House acting on any farm bill legislation--let alone the Senate bill which is a solid reform-minded bill, which strikes the right balance between the need to cut spending while maintaining a strong safety net--it will all be for naught. It is disappointing that jobs and our Nation's stable supply of food, feed, fuel, and fiber continues to be put at risk because of inactions spurred on by partisan gamesmanship.

As we seek to find commonsense solutions to the fiscal and legislative challenges before us in Congress, I urge the House to now act on the 5-year farm bill. It will help us achieve savings, bring needed reforms to commodity programs, and provide our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities the certainty they need to continue to be the world leader in agricultural production.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the great Senator Daniel Inouye. Senator Inouye was a fine colleague and a good personal friend of mine.

While Congress occasionally drifts without direction, Senator Inouye was a steady rudder in the Senate. He was the consistent source of quiet, but purposeful and effective leadership.

In an age where the loud crowd often demands center stage, Senator Inouye was a reminder that the truth is generally seen, rarely heard. He was a man who communicated concisely and precisely just exactly what he intended. Through his actions, Senator Inouye demonstrated time and time again that he would lead legislative efforts, pool necessary support, and do what needed to be done to best represent Hawaii and advance all Americans.

While he chaired the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Commerce Committee, I worked with Senator Inouye most during his time as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I can attest that during most of our hearings, his very presence drove much of our activity. Through thick and thin, he reliably led many an effort.

Senator Inouye's addition to the bipartisan group that later became known as the Gang of 14 helped others start to view us as a body with legitimacy and true purpose. Daniel Inouye carried the Senate's respect and attention toward us, for which I remain incredibly grateful.

Years back, I was fortunate to travel with Senator Inouye to Italy as part of a Congressional delegation trip. It was during our time together there that I had one of the strongest emotional responses of my life. In Tuscany near the location where Senator Inouye was wounded, he visited the gravesites of many of those who served alongside him. Seeing Senator Inouye mourn and pay tribute to those who had fallen beside him in battle taught me something I could never learn from a book or a classroom. Without saying a word, Senator Inouye gave me a heightened respect for the shared purpose and camaraderie among those who serve in America's Armed Forces.

Yet while Senator Inouye had the utmost appreciation for what happened in the past, he did not allow it to stop him from thoroughly enjoying the present. It was on that same trip that the Senator also taught me an appreciation for a solidly-built, handsome pair of shoes. He advised me on the purchase of a pair of oxfords that are as comfortable today as the day I bought them.

Senator Inouye was a source of personal, policy, and even fashion advice for me, and I cherish the time I spent with him.

America is stronger today because of Daniel Inouye. He will be sorely missed by all.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the late Frederick Ladd Potter, who passed away on February 18, 2012. I wish to pay my respects to Fred's family and to note the important role he played in assisting me and my colleagues in developing and passing the Renewable Fuels Standard, RFS, as part of the Energy Policy Act, EPAct, of 2005.

Fred Potter began his lifelong commitment to ethanol and clean- burning transportation fuels in 1979 when he helped to open the Office of Alcohol Fuels within the U.S. Department of Energy. In 1981 he started Information Resources Inc., IRI, a private communications business, to promulgate information by publishing newsletters and holding press conferences. During this time, IRI played a major support role in removing the lead from gasoline, to be replaced by oxygenates which met the octane needs of gasoline.

In 1991 Fred worked out a merger with Hart Energy in forming Hart/IRI to greatly expand the publications business to include a wider range of newsletters, studies, research efforts, and conferences. The International Fuel Quality Center was established, to be followed by the Global Biofuels Center, all with the goal of improving fuel quality worldwide and reducing harmful emissions from the automotive sector.

Because of the pioneering work Fred accomplished in developing biofuel policy, Congress was able to put into place the first renewable fuel volume mandate for the United States. As required under the EPAct, the original RFS Program, RFS1, required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012.

Fred's contribution to achieving this foothold in our nation's comprehensive energy policy is well recognized by those of us who have been supportive of ethanol and biofuels throughout our careers.

Due to these achievements in 2005, Congress was able to expand the RFS program under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. RFS2 laid the foundation for achieving a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and imported petroleum, as well as the development and expansion of our Nation's renewable fuels sector with the established goal of 36 billion gallons of first-generation and advanced biofuels by 2022. I can think of no better remembrance for Fred than knowing his fundamental work was essential toward providing our Nation's transportation sector with clean-burning, high-octane fuels.

In addition to his work in renewable fuels, Fred Potter will be remembered for his unflagging service to America, his amazing cadre of friends, and his great and loving family. I, therefore, join with Fred's friends in the Senate in honoring his achievements, his memory, and his devoted family.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to thank the people of Nebraska. It is a tremendous honor to have had the opportunity to serve the state for 20 years--8 as Governor and 12 as Senator. The people of Nebraska are generous and hardworking and it has been a true privilege to represent them.

I also want to thank my parents--Birdella and Benjamin. Raising me in McCook, NE they instilled in me the values I have tried to embrace and which serve as guiding principles for me in both public and private.

I especially want to thank my family for their unwavering love and support. As my colleagues know, public service requires our families to sacrifice--sacrifice privacy and sacrifice the ability to determine their own schedule among many other things. And so I sincerely thank my wife Diane, our four kids and five grandkids for their patience and understanding. While it is hard to walk away from this body, I look forward to getting to spend a lot more time together.

As a public official the lens through which I have always tried to view decisions is: how will this policy, this vote or this decision impact my community, my State and my country? This focus and advocacy for my home State has resulted in both praise and criticism at various times but I stand before you today proud of the accomplishments achieved over the last 12 years and grateful for the opportunities afforded to me by the people of Nebraska. Arriving in the Senate in 2001 I recall thinking about what one of my predecessors in this body, Ed Zorinsky, used to say. Senator Zorinsky said that the biggest problem in Washington, D.C. is there are too many Democratic Senators and there are too many Republican Senators. There are not enough U.S. Senators. Unquestionably my proudest moments in the Senate are those efforts that were bipartisan and pursued by a collective motive to get the best possible result while maintaining the dignity of this institution.

Probably the most straightforward example of this work is the compromise achieved by the Gang of 14. As many of my colleagues will recall, in 2005 there were several judicial nominees presented to the Senate for its consideration but which had not yet received an up or down vote. The majority leader at that time, Senator Frist of Tennessee, was considering what became known as the so-called ``nuclear option'' which would have changed the Senate's rules so that the minority party couldn't filibuster a judicial nominee.

There was a great deal of concern about how this would impact the Senate's longstanding tradition of majority rule while recognizing minority rights--and what this would mean to the way the Senate conducted its business in the future. At that time, myself and Senator Lott convened 12 of our colleagues--6 additional Democrats and 6 additional Republicans. Together we met and exchanged ideas about how to find a sensible way forward that would satisfy all 14 Senators such that each would agree the Senate was dutifully carrying out its ``advise and consent'' responsibility without unduly restraining the ability of the minority to assert itself in instances when it found a nominee truly and substantively objectionable or unfit to serve.

Ultimately an agreement was reached by this bipartisan group, there was not a rules change and in the midst of a highly partisan environment, the Senate moved forward in a positive way and I believe we did the right thing. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia was a critical member of the Gang of 14. In addition to his many, many, many accomplishments--everyone knew then and knows now that there is not anyone more well versed in the history of the Senate or who was more protective of it as an institution. I will never forget after the agreement was finalized Senator Byrd said that he was proud of the work accomplished and that we had ``saved the Senate.''

Hearing those words from Senator Byrd was undoubtedly one of the proudest moments of my career. Besides Senator Byrd, I have had the opportunity to serve with so many public servants in this body, and I thank all of them. I would start naming names, but I know I will leave someone out. So I want to thank all present and past Members of the Senate that I have worked with for the occasions we have had to work together so closely.

I also share the sentiment that many of my colleagues have noted in their farewell addresses, and that is the appreciation for the efforts of staff. Over the last 12 years I have worked with an incredibly dedicated and talented collection of individuals. We call on our staff to do a lot of work, often in a very stressful environment. I thank everyone in my office back home and at the office in DC for the work they have done on behalf of the State of Nebraska.

If I were to leave this body with one thought and hope for the future, it would be this: Congress needs to change its math, and by that I mean the Members of Congress should be more concerned about addition and multiplication and less involved in division and subtraction which seems to overtake this institution at times. My hope is that in the process of doing this, Congress and our Nation will have a stronger desire to find solutions for the country's greatest challenges more so than any effort to try to drive our citizenry apart.

With that, I will say one more time: Thank you to my family, my staff, my colleagues, and most especially to the people of Nebraska.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the worst drought in 50 years has hit Nebraska and the entire Midwest hard. Every single one of Nebraska's 93 counties is in a state of severe drought.

If you look at the chart I have in the Chamber, you can see that the drought is throughout the Midwest, into the Middle East, down into the Southeast, down into Texas and the West, even drought conditions in Hawaii, and it is abnormally dry up in the northern part of Alaska. The USDA has already declared more than 40 Nebraska counties as natural disaster areas. If you take a look at this picture, you can see the cornfields that are just completely dirt fields now; pasture that is nothing more than dried grass, where there is still grass and dirt; the soybean fields are decimated; and corn is in many areas not only dwarfed in its growth but is not producing ears of corn. The bone-dry conditions continue to damage corn, soybeans, pastures, and rangeland, even as we speak.

Just last week a small blaze quickly spread over the parched land in north central Nebraska. It rapidly grew into a fire that consumed tens of thousands of acres, 14 houses, and forced many others from their homes.

Nebraska is fortunate to have had hard-working firefighters in our State and others to put out those flames. Hopefully, we will not need to utilize their talents in the near future. Now what Nebraska needs is disaster relief. And we are not alone. If you look at this chart, you will see that a good part of the rest of the country needs disaster relief as well. Unfortunately, the disaster programs in the 2008 farm bill have already expired.

While the Senate passed the 5-year farm bill in June, the House is not even expected to take action on it. The Senate's 5-year farm bill strengthens and improves the 2008 farm bill, particularly the natural disaster relief provisions. It beefs up and rehabilitates livestock disaster programs, it provides tools to help reduce fire risk and improve forest health, it improves and increases access to crop insurance to protect against future natural disasters, it authorizes direct and guaranteed loans for recovery from wildfires and drought, and the list goes on--all important programs necessary to deal with this disaster we are facing in our country today.

The Senate's 5-year farm bill makes necessary upgrades to the policies in the 2008 farm bill to help Americans recover from natural disasters, and it does it without digging the country deeper into debt. The Senate passed this bipartisan farm bill in June, but the House will not take action on it. Plus, the House is expected to move a separate bill, essentially a 1-year extension of the old 2008 farm bill. A 1- year extension of outdated and inefficient policies is not adequate, it is irresponsible. We need the substantial reforms in the Senate's 5- year farm bill now. A 1-year extension of current policy does nothing to help those who need the farm bill and its disaster relief the most. When you can do better, you should do better.

Congress passed a 5-year farm bill in 2008, 2002, 1996, 1990, 1985-- you get the picture--just about every 5 years between 1965 and today. Surely the House can pass a proper 5-year farm bill. And the need to is all the more apparent in the face of the nationwide drought, with the disaster relief provisions in the 2008 farm bill having expired on September 30 last year, 2011.

Now, instead of passing a 5-year extension of the farm bill, they have held a lot of political messaging votes and they put off doing what should have been done at the very beginning. And now, while America is getting hit by drought and fire, while American farmers and ranchers do not have the disaster relief because there is no farm bill, the House is merely going to pass a 1-year extension of current policies. They want to buy some time, kick the can down the road.

Well, now it is time for the House to do its job. Do what is right for the country. Do not take the easy way out. Show the American people that you remember why you are here and what you need to do and can actually do it. Americans do not want a flimsy 1-year extension of inadequate coverage and outdated policies. Americans want a dependable, modern, and economical 5-year farm bill that cuts Federal spending. That is what the Senate gave the House. That is what the House Agriculture Committee gave the House to work with--its own 5-year plan. Sure, there are real differences between the Senate bill and the House Agriculture bill, but there should be room for consensus. So the House must pass the bill or pass our bill, but do not pass a 1-year extension of outdated policies that will not work for modern American agriculture. Do not try to just coast along without a 5-year farm bill.

The lack of a 2012 farm bill will fail to provide certainty to farmers and ranchers and lead to higher prices for all consumers at the grocery store. And this is on top of the already predicted 3 to 4 percent rise in food prices caused by the drought. We do not want that and America deserves better. Nebraska's farmers and our American farmers and ranchers and all those affected by the drought are depending on Congress to do our job right and fairly debate this issue. So do not kick the can down the road.

I urge the House to bring a 5-year farm bill to the House floor as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a historic figure in Nebraska who helped this country through troubling times in a battle against racism, hatred and fear and in pursuit of justice and equality.

Hiram Hisanori Kano was born in Tokyo, Japan, in 1889. When former Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan traveled to Japan, the Kanos, as part of the Imperial family, hosted his visit. Their visitor from the west sparked in young Kano an intense desire to travel to the United States and especially to Bryan's home state of Nebraska.

As the story is told by James E. Krotz during the Annual Council Eucharist at the Church of Our Savior in North Platte, NE, in 1916 Mr. Kano came to America, where his skills were put to good use in helping the many young Japanese who were immigrating to the United States to farm. He came to America and quickly earned a Masters Degree in Agricultural Economics at the University of Nebraska. In the years that followed he served as organizer, translator, teacher and spokesman for Japanese immigrants living in Nebraska.

Just 1 year after his graduation from the University, Kano faced his first challenge when the Nebraska Constitutional Convention assembled in Lincoln in 1919. The purpose was to update the State constitution to reflect the monumental social, economic and political changes brought about by World War I. A number of bills were introduced that would have discriminated bitterly against Japanese immigrants. One would have prohibited aliens from owning land, inheriting farmland, or even leasing land for more than 1 year. Since the Japanese did not have the right to become naturalized citizens at that time, these laws would have excluded them entirely from farming, except as hired laborers.

Mr. Kano left his farm in rural Nebraska and hurried off to the State capital, where he testified before the Judiciary Committee. ``In Nebraska,'' he told them, ``there are about 700 Japanese, including Nisei [American citizens born to Japanese immigrant parents]. There are about 200 Japanese farms, mostly raising sugar beets along the North Platte River. Nearly all are

tenant farmers whose skill and hard work satisfies their landlords and the sugar company. Japanese living in towns or cities mostly operate cafes and restaurants, with the help of their employees. They are friendly and cooperative with their neighbors, sharing their joys and sorrows.'' Mr. Kano was successful in persuading the Nebraska Legislature to vote against the anti-Japanese bills, which went down in defeat.

Several years later, Mr. Kano joined with Bishop George Allen Beecher to defeat a similar bill and came up with a compromise. Bishop Beecher, an Episcopalian, was obviously impressed by Hiram Kano because in 1923 he descended on the Kano farmstead unannounced and asked Mr. Kano to serve as a missionary to the Japanese immigrants living in western Nebraska. Already a deeply committed Christian, though not an Episcopalian, Kano was profoundly moved; and in 1925, he left his farm and traveled to Mitchell, NE, to begin Bishop Beecher's missionary work among the Japanese.

Kano was ordained Deacon in 1928 and continued in that order for 8 years. He served as pastor of St. Mary's church in Mitchell and also served the Japanese mission in North Platte. For the next 12 years, Deacon Kano served as an agricultural consultant, English teacher, advocate, friend and pastor to the Japanese in the Platte Valley. In 1936 he was ordained priest and continued his tireless ministry.

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese Imperial Navy attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. American reaction against Japanese immigrants was swift and harsh. Father Kano was arrested by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that very afternoon on the steps of his church in North Platte.

Despite the protests of their many friends and without regard for their exemplary behavior, the Japanese were severely treated and some even sent to prison camps. Father Kano spent time in five different camps. There he continued his ministry, calming the fears of his people and giving them strength through knowledge. Through what he called the ``Internment University,'' he helped hundreds of Japanese Americans learn to read, speak, and write English. Following his release from custody, Father Kano returned to his mission with the church.

It was not until the Walter-McCarran Act of 1952 that Father Kano, then 63 years old, could become a naturalized citizen. By then, he had worked 33 years in service to his country, his people, and his church.

The Reverend Hiram Hisanori Kano died on October 24, 1988, at the age of 99. Each year, the Episcopal Church in Nebraska and in Colorado celebrates the life and ministry of Father Kano on the anniversary of his death. As a layman, Father Kano was a quiet, persevering warrior in the battle against the evils of racism. He was a champion for his people in the struggle for justice and peace, respected as he fought for the dignity of every human being.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Marine LCpl Hunter ``H.D.'' Hogan, who was killed by sniper fire in Helmand Province, Afghanistan on June 23, 2012.

Following in the footsteps of his father, Steve, Lance Corporal Hogan joined the Marines in 2009 immediately after graduating from Brownstown Central High School in Norman, IN. He served admirably and was assigned to 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Lejeune, NC.

Lance Corporal Hogan grew up in Indiana, where he and his childhood friend, Chase Plumer, built an arena at the Plumer family farm in order to host rodeos. His classmates and friends remember him being ``tough as nails,'' owing in part to his avid love for rodeo. Lance Corporal Hogan was a Marine with the heart of a cowboy and dreamed of finishing his military service, then hitting the road as a professional rodeo competitor. He avidly competed in bull and bareback bronco riding.

By all accounts, everyone who ever met Lance Corporal Hogan liked him. His kind personality and compassion for others translated into him making the personal choice to enter the military and defend his fellow Americans. Lance Corporal Hogan served his country honorably, and his courageous choice to protect our country and to help the people of Afghanistan achieve peace and security represents all that we can be proud of about our Armed Forces.

The numerous family members residing in my home State of Nebraska, including Lance Corporal Hogan's father, Steve, and his grandfather, Jim, gave him a beautiful and touching memorial service, incorporating his love of all things relating to rodeos and cowboys. Not only was his last ride in a beautiful refurbished wagon drawn by two bay draft horses, a white horse less a rider led the procession, displaying the true heart and soul of this Marine cowboy.

I commend Lance Corporal Hogan's bravery and selflessness, while offering my deepest condolences to his wife, Brittney, of New Bern, NC; father, Steve, and grandfather, Jim, both of York; his numerous friends; and the fellow servicemembers he left behind. It is a small comfort for those who must now go on without one they loved so dearly, but they take some solace in knowing he gave his life for a noble goal.

LCpl Hunter Hogan made the most of his short life, and the greatest tragedy is that now it is impossible to know what more this promising young man might have accomplished. I join all Nebraskans in mourning the loss of Lance Corporal Hogan. His heroism and his life remain an inspiration for us all.

I wish to be recorded also as I would have voted no.

Madam President, I rise to call up my amendment No. 2242.

Madam President, this amendment would ensure that rural communities in all our States will remain eligible for housing assistance from the Department of Agriculture.

My amendment simply extends the grandfathering clause these communities have operated under since 1990 and ensures that these communities remain eligible through 2020. This is a bipartisan amendment that is supported by my colleagues, Senators Johanns, Moran, chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Johnson, and my good friend and neighbor Senator Tester.

I urge adoption of my amendment.

Madam President, I rise to call up my amendment No. 2243.

I ask that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I rise to call up this amendment addressing Federal performance payments that States receive to make sure Americans in tough times who need Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits receive them and those who don't do not get them.

It is a commonsense, good government amendment that builds on a 2002 bipartisan agreement between the States, the previous Bush administration, and Congress. In my view, Congress shouldn't eliminate incentives to improve efficiency in SNAP, as some are proposing. Congress should, though, better target these Federal performance bonus funds so States can use them only--and let me emphasize ``only''--to improve their SNAP.

My amendment ensures that the incentive payments go toward activities that improve efficiency, effectiveness, and the integrity of SNAP. These efforts have results. Since these incentives were put in place, the SNAP error rate--and overpayment and underpayment rates--has fallen nearly 43 percent.

That is a good investment.

I urge the adoption of my amendment.

I rise today to discuss an amendment that I am proposing to the 2012 farm bill that we are debating in the Senate. Before I speak to that, I also want to associate myself with the leader's comments about the importance of taking care of our cyber defense, putting ourselves in a position to be able to deflect and deter cyber attack from terrorists and otherwise against our industries and against our Federal Government.

As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, cyber command is part of our responsibility. The leader is exactly on target with his comments about the need to move forward to protect our country against future cyber attacks--which we encounter daily--recognizing that we perhaps do know what we know, but we are in that unfortunate position of not knowing what we don't know.

To modernize and move forward is absolutely essential to maintain our vigilance against cyber attacks in the future.

Mr. President, the amendment I wish to talk about today and propose is about fairness. It is about fairness for America's farmers and ranchers and fairness to all taxpayers.

First, I note that one of the key elements of the 2012 farm bill that we drafted in the Senate, and is now on the floor, is about reform. In particular the bill reforms a program of Federal subsidies that have gone to farmers regardless of whether farm prices were high or low.

These subsidies are known as direct farm payments. They were established by the 1996 farm bill as a way to transition producers away from a government-controlled system of agriculture to more market-based agriculture.

These direct farm payments, which are outdated government subsidies, were supposed to be temporary, and the 2012 farm bill takes the necessary step to eliminate them and remove them from the future.

When this change is enacted, farmers will not be paid for crops they are not growing on land they are not planting. Eliminating these direct payments will save $15 billion over 10 years, which will be used for deficit reduction.

Producers in my State understand that given our Nation's fiscal problems, we have to have shared sacrifice to get the debt and deficit under control. If we end these outdated subsidies, the farm bill establishes that crop insurance will be the focal point of risk management by strengthening crop insurance and expanding access so that farmers are not wiped out by a few days of bad weather or bad prices.

Crop insurance is a shared private-public partnership that maintains the safety net we all need to sustain American agriculture. In my efforts to identify other areas where shared sacrifice for deficit reduction can be pursued, I am proposing an amendment to eliminate another set of government subsidies which are unnecessary and should be eliminated. These subsidies go to just 2 percent of the Nation's livestock producers. They receive substantial taxpayer-paid subsidies for grazing on public lands.

In the interest of fairness to all livestock producers and the taxpayers, we need to reform Federal grazing subsidies. My amendment would require that ranchers pay grazing fees based more closely on the market value for their region when grazing on public lands. Today, the 2 percent of livestock producers grazing on public lands pay far below market value that other market producers are paying.

Given our huge Federal debt and deficit, we can no longer afford to heavily subsidize an elite group of ranchers to graze their cattle on public lands at the taxpayers' expense. These ranchers receive a special deal--Federal ``welfare'' so to speak--that they don't need, most ranchers can't get, and taxpayers should not be paying for.

It is a matter of fairness to level this playing field, and it will help balance the budget as well. This 2 percent of the country's ranchers have grazing rights on public lands that cost the government, by lost income, $144 million a year to manage. But the government collects only about $21 million a year in grazing fees from ranchers, according to a 2005 study by the GAO. That leaves a net cost to taxpayers of more than $120 million a year. Losing the $120 million of tax money per year isn't fair to taxpayers, nor is it fair to producers who then are required to subsidize their competition.

This report also found that the two agencies that manage most of the Federal grazing lands--the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service--actually reduced grazing fees during years when grazing fees on private lands increased. Get that: The Federal Government reduced fees on public lands when fees are being raised on private lands.

The GAO found that from 1980 to 2004, BLM and Forest Service fees fell by 40 percent. At the same time, grazing fees charged by private ranchers rose by 78 percent. By an actuary's term, that is disintermediation. One is going one direction and the other another direction.

Furthermore, GAO found if the goals of the grazing fee were to recover expenditures, BLM and the Forest Service would charge $7.64 and $12.26 per ``animal unit month.'' That is much higher--get this--than the current $1.35-per-animal unit ranchers pay to graze on public lands. That is not fair.

The GAO stated that the formula used to calculate the fee includes ranchers' ability to pay and is not ``primarily to recover the agencies' expenditures or to capture the fair market value of forage.'' No kidding. That is what they said and what they think this program is all about.

In Nebraska, it costs livestock producers who get this special deal $1.35 per cow to graze on public lands. But it costs other producers who don't graze on public land an average of $30 per cow to graze on private land just in northwest Nebraska. It costs an average of $38 per cow on private land just across all of northern Nebraska. That is according to the University of Nebraska's agriculture economics department.

I note that I am aware others before me have tried to reform Federal grazing fees, and they are saying to me right now: Good luck. Given today's critical need to get our Nation's fiscal house in order, it is time to bring grazing costs on public lands more in line with what it costs producers to graze on private lands. There is no fairness in this disparity.

I urge my colleagues to join me in working to improve the 2012 farm bill reforms by ending unfair and outdated Federal grazing subsidies. Doing so would bring fairness to all livestock producers and have the added benefit of saving taxpayers more than $2 billion over the next decade--savings that could help pay down the national debt and reduce our deficit in the meantime.

With that, I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator for her strong efforts in bringing together this very important reform bill. We are moving in the right direction now with farm policy, moving away from protectionism, moving away from outmoded programs to something that certainly is, in today's world, important; that is, a safety net but a safety net that involves risk management as opposed to direct farm payments.

This is particularly important to the State of Nebraska and all our producers. We are No. 1 in production of many commodities, from red meat to great northern beans; second in the Nation in the production of ethanol, pumping more than 2 billion gallons of this homegrown fuel into our energy supply every year.

Our productive farmers and ranchers in Nebraska make us fifth in the Nation in agricultural receipts. While nearly one-third of all Nebraska jobs are related to agriculture, it is our No. 1 industry. Given that importance to my State, I truly appreciate the work that has been done and the strong bipartisan support of 16 to 5 to get this bill out from the committee to the floor.

Truly it is about reform. It creates a market-oriented safety net. It eliminates direct farm subsidy payments. It streamlines and simplifies and consolidates programs and at the same time creates jobs, helping our economy grow.

I would like to emphasize one point again. This major reform moves us away from government controls on production and moves us toward the private market to help sustain American agriculture, going in the right direction. It does all that while also making, as it has been noted, a substantial contribution, more than $23 billion, to deficit reduction. That sets the example of how Washington can begin to get our fiscal house in order. Our bipartisan work in the agriculture bill is important. It demonstrates that we can work together, particularly when it comes to deficit reduction and finding new ways to do things in a different way.

Turning to the reforms, by ending duplication and consolidating programs, the bill eliminates more than 100 programs or authorizations. It contains strong payment limitation language. Funding programs for those who do not need them is nothing short of agricultural welfare. Producers in my State understand we cannot keep funding programs for those who do not need them, nor should we.

They understand we do need to fund programs for those who are in need, particularly given our national fiscal problems. We need to prioritize better. So the bill ends those outdated subsidies, ensuring that farmers will not be paid for crops they are not growing on land they are not planting, and ends direct farm payments, saving taxpayers $15 billion on that program alone. That is a lot of money, even in Washington terms.

As we end those subsidies, the farm bill establishes that crop insurance will be the focal point of risk management, as it should, by strengthening crop insurance and expanding access so farmers are not wiped out by a few days of bad weather. This allows farmers and ranchers on their own to select the best risk management for their production needs, rather than having to rely on the sometimes good will of the government to bail them out in periods of volatility.

At the same time, one of the greatest challenges farmers face is the risk that prices will decline or collapse over several years. When things are good, people never expect them to go bad. When they are bad, they are worried they will never go good. Insurance will not cover multiyear price plunges. This leaves farmers exposed to high costs and low prices, and that can put them out of business.

In the Agriculture Committee, we worked to address this risk by creating the Agricultural Risk Coverage Program, a program that provides producers with a very simple choice to determine how best to manage their operation's risk. It seeks to strike a better balance with this market-oriented approach. We want farmers to stay in farming, but we do not want them to farm Federal programs.

To conclude, this is a solid reform-minded start. In my mind, it strikes the right balance between the need to cut spending while maintaining a strong safety net to ensure a stable supply of food, feed, fuel, and fiber. It is my hope that we will act on this bill soon and that the House will follow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of one of my long-time aides, Denise Addison, who was a devoted public servant and cherished friend. Sadly, Denise lost her long battle with cancer on May 12, 2012.

Denise first came to my office back in 2001. While I was just starting my Senate career that year, she was already an experienced veteran, having worked in Congress for 25 years.

Although Denise was not a native of Nebraska, having grown up right here in our Nation's capital, she found something special in our great State and adopted it as her own. In 1998, she began working with former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, later transitioning to the office of then-Senator Bob Kerrey, whose staff members were so impressed by Denise's performance that they strongly recommended she be one of my first hires.

Denise's work with my constituent services team was impeccable. She was well aware of how important my constituents are to me and, as such, took great pride in her work. Her amazing memory and attention to detail made her a valuable staff member, and her complete satisfaction with her daily work made her irreplaceable. In this town, it is rare to find someone who possesses all of the qualities Denise brought to my staff, including loyalty, dedication, and genuine fulfillment.

Yet that was the kind of person Denise was--both at work and in her personal life. Even more remarkable than her tenure in the Senate was her commitment to her family--her husband Carl, whom she affectionately called ``Mr. A;'' her three children, Al, Dominique, and Jasmine; her parents; her five brothers; and her cousins, who were always more like sisters to her.

When Denise and I first started working together, her youngest daughter, Jasmine, was just starting kindergarten. Today, she is almost through high school. Denise was incredibly proud of her children and always put the needs of her family before all else.

Although the last 2 years of Denise's life were definitely a struggle for her, she never complained. Instead, she remained, as always, more concerned for those around her than for herself. I do not think she ever fully recognized what an immense impact she had on all those who knew her.

While Denise was taken from us far too soon, there is solace in knowing

she confronted her illness by continuing to be the same kind, caring person she had always been, living life to the fullest right up to the end. Denise Addison was truly one of a kind, beloved and missed by everyone who had the pleasure of being her friend.

Thank you, Denise, for who you were and for all you did for me, for my staff, and, most important, for the State of Nebraska. The ``good life'' will not be quite the same without you.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 20th anniversary of a successful program in my home State of Nebraska called the Rural Health Education Network, or RHEN which focuses on increasing the health workforce.

The RHEN program was established at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, UNMC, as an effort to develop a network of volunteer faculty in communities across the State who would serve as mentors for students entering into various health care professions to perform rural rotations as part of their training. This partnership between UNMC and these Nebraska communities provides hands-on training for these health profession students.

Working with volunteer faculty across rural Nebraska communities, almost all UNMC students are able to complete a rural rotation during their education. Students spend up to 2 months living and working in a rural community under the guidance of a local health professional. In 2010, more than 530 students from UNMC participated in 854 rural rotations in 74 Nebraska communities. The program allows these UNMC students to experience the good life in Nebraska communities, inspiring many students to launch a health career in a smaller community.

The RHEN program has since expanded to promote career opportunities in health care to students in rural areas and smaller communities. In fact, RHEN has become the umbrella under which most of UNMC's rural outreach education activities are accomplished.

One goal of RHEN has been to create innovative programs at the undergraduate level and establish a career pipeline for students from rural areas to become health care professionals in rural Nebraska. A key component in attaining this goal was the establishment of the Rural Health Opportunities Program, or RHOP.

Built on the logic that persons raised in rural areas are more likely to return to rural areas after school, RHOP gives youth from rural areas a head start in pursuing a health care career. Under RHOP, qualified high school graduates receive tentative acceptance into one of nine UNMC health profession programs when they begin undergraduate studies at either Chadron State or Wayne State College in Nebraska. The undergraduate tuition is waived for these students, provided they meet all applicable academic standards.

The RHOP program provides students a career path to nearly every health care field, including medicine, nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, dental hygiene, physical therapy, physician assistant, radiography, and clinical laboratory science. Since its inception,

Seventy-five percent of all practicing UNMC RHOP graduates have worked in a rural community for at least part of their careers;

Currently, 183 out of 359 practicing RHOP graduates are health care providers in rural Nebraska;

Two hundred fifty-three RHOP alumni are practicing in 57 Nebraska counties; and

Seventy percent of RHOP graduates stay in Nebraska.

Based on RHOP's initial success, UNMC has since developed three additional early admission programs:

The Kearney Health Opportunities Program grants students at the University of Nebraska-Kearney, UNK, pre-admission to UNMC in five programs including medicine, nursing, pharmacy, radiography, and clinical laboratory science.

A collaboration between Peru State College and the UNMC College of Pharmacy reserves three slots each year in the College of Pharmacy for Peru State graduates.

The Public Health Early Admission Student Track allows Chadron State, Wayne State, Peru State, and UNK to each annually select three students for direct enrollment into a UNMC Public Health graduate program to help relieve the critical shortage of public health workers in rural Nebraska.

Additionally, since 1993, UNMC has sponsored annual science meets for eighth graders in Nebraska communities to get students interested in science-based careers. More than 1,000 students have participated in these meets. Further, RHEN hosts a career day each year for more than 250 students to visit and experience UNMC.

Now recognized as one of the most effective health workforce development programs in my state, RHEN's anniversary provides the perfect opportunity to recognize the accomplishments of this amazing program and how it is making a difference across Nebraska. To illustrate, RHEN's focus is one of the reasons why U.S. News & World Report ranks UNMC's primary care medicine program among the top 10 in the country.

In closing, the Rural Health Education Network program has made a significant difference in helping students become health care professionals for rural Nebraska, and I extend my congratulations to this program on 20 years of making a positive impact and increasing the health care workforce across Nebraska.