Floor Statements

Madam President, I reserve the right to object. Under my reservation, let me first thank my colleague from Utah for bringing this matter before us. But, like him, I was in the Congress in the late nineties when we passed the TANF law. I remember being part of welfare reform. Prior to that time, we had what is known as AFDC, aid for dependent children, which was an entitlement program that offered the States the opportunity to move forward without risk because they were guaranteed a certain amount of money for every child who was eligible-- for every family who was eligible for welfare funds. We changed that to provide for temporary assistance for needy families, TANF.

I remember very clearly working with the States and working with my distinguished colleague, and what we told the States was this: You are going to get a block grant. That means you are going to be bottom-line responsible for the program, that there will no longer be a guarantee on the number of families who are enrolled in welfare as to dollars you are going to receive.

We promised two things: We told the States we were going to give them the tools they needed to get the job done. We provided the funds so they could provide for job training so that the people on welfare would have adequate skills in order to get jobs. We promised them childcare so that children could be taken care of while they were in the workforce.

We provided the tools, but we also said we would provide the States the flexibility to get the job done. We provided accountability, and accountability was the participation rate, which could be satisfied in different ways, which said the States have the flexibility to get the job done--a model of federalism--but we would let the States experiment to figure out the best way to accomplish the end result: getting people off of cash assistance, getting them into the workplace.

Now, let me point out to my colleagues that the waiver authority has been in the law for a long time, section 1115. We have had our disagreements with all administrations on the use of the waiver authority. My colleague refers to the GAO's report which dealt with five waivers that were requested from 2000 to 2009. Those State waivers sought relief from specific requirements. It did not bring forward an innovative new approach to try to use State experimentation to get the best results.

It is interesting that in 2008, under the Bush administration, Health and Human Services documented that the waiver authority indeed existed as it related to the participation rates and the way in which they could be satisfied.

Secretary Sebelius has made it clear that the waiver will only be used for a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent. So she is looking at using the waivers to increase participation rates, to increase the number of people who are actually employed. If there is not progress within a year, the State runs the risk of losing the waiver. It is focused on improving employment outcomes for participants.

I must say that I am extremely disappointed about the partisan nature of this discussion. I say that because I think we have all seen the ads that have been put on the networks by Governor Romney that accuse the Obama administration of eliminating the work requirement on TANF, on welfare, when the fact is that the use of this waiver authority has been to strengthen the work participation rates--to strengthen the work participation rates. These ads have been condemned by major news sources on both the left and right. They understand this. So you would think that once Governor Romney understood that his ad was misleading and wrong, he would take it off the air, but instead he has actually increased the usage of this ad, which I find to be outrageous. Maybe it is consistent with Governor Romney's recent disclosure of his concern for half of America, saying it is not his problem.

My job--our job--is to consider the needs of all of our constituents. TANF is a program that I think represents a model in federalism. It allows us to learn from the States so we can take their best models and use them for national policies. That is the reason for federalism. That was the reason we went to TANF reform. What the waiver authority is being used for is to give us that experimentation.

We have heard from more and more States that Congress mandates too much. I hear from my Republican colleagues all the time that we have too many mandates. Well, some States have a better way of doing it. Rather than spend their money dealing with the mandates, they said: Look, we will accomplish the bottom line. We will get more people working. We will get better results. We will get people better trained. We will not only get people employed, but they will have the skills to go up the employment ladder, to really succeed and have good-paying jobs in their lifetime. Let's do what is right, and then you can learn from us, rather than having to listen to the specific mandates some of my colleagues would like to see in stone here from Washington.

This was a commitment we made to the States in the nineties. The waiver authority is in existing law. The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Sebelius, is only using it for innovative approaches that increase the work responsibilities of the State, not diminish them. That has been well documented.

For all of those reasons, I do object.

Madam President, I very much appreciate my friend Senator Hatch, and we are good friends, and I very much appreciate the point he makes. I do need to correct at least two points.

One, I graduated from the University of Pittsburgh undergraduate, not law school. I am a graduate of the University of Maryland Law School, and I want to make sure my friends in Maryland know it was their law school.

Well, I was afraid to apply. I wasn't sure I would get in.

The second point, on a more substantive matter on this debate, is that I wish to point out the requests that were made for waivers between 2000 and 2009 were from the final requirement. They didn't seek to bring forward a demonstration program or a different way to get to their results. The difference here is that States should have the flexibility to come in with innovative ways if they accomplish at least what we set out in law for them to accomplish. In fact, with these demonstration waivers, they will have to do better on the end result on people working. I just wanted to point that out because I thought there were differences from the prior requests that were made and Secretary Sebelius's response.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Freny Dessai, Sarah Butler, Talitha James, Amanda Sellers, Bryan Watt, Daniel Lind, and Daniel West, staff of the Finance Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the consideration of the continuing resolution.

Mr. President, first I note Senator Grassley is on the floor and I thank him for the courtesy of allowing me to go next.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I take this time on behalf of Maryland farmers. They are hurting, along with many farmers around the Nation, because of the devastation from the drought. I am talking on behalf of the poultry farmers. As the Presiding Officer knows, in the Delmarva peninsula the impact they have had from the drought on the corn crop makes it extremely difficult to make ends meet. I am talking about dairy farmers in western Maryland. We have a robust agricultural community. It is one of the largest parts of our economy. That is true in just about every State in the Nation. We have seen the worst drought in 50 years. It is affecting 42 States in this Union. This is widespread. Congress needs to act.

First we should encourage our colleagues in the House of Representatives to take up and pass the farm bill that we have passed. That was a bipartisan bill. It was a bill that was debated in this Chamber. It is a bill that would help our agricultural community to get through this crisis brought about by extreme weather. As I mentioned, the farm bill was a bipartisan effort. It dealt with many components that would help segments of our agricultural community as a result of the conditions from the drought. Let me mention a few.

The livestock disaster provision that expired in 2011 in the farm bill is strengthened, it is made retroactive back to 2012, and it would help those who are in the cattle producing part of agriculture get through the conditions of this drought. Seventy-two percent of the cattle-producing areas are affected by the drought. It is going to have an effect on our entire country. We have a responsibility to make sure our farm policies help them get through the unusually disastrous weather conditions. As I mentioned earlier--and the Presiding Officer being from Delaware knows the poultry industry has suffered unbelievably. The reason, quite frankly, is--and I will talk a little bit more about this--the price to produce a chick in the poultry industry is so much dependent on the price for feed and corn. The corn price is extremely high as a result, in part, of the drought conditions.

The farm bill we passed would help the corn producers which, in fact, would help the poultry industry, so it is an important part of the farm bill. From my fruit and vegetable growers, the reform in the Crop Insurance Program would help them during these very tough times.

Let me mention the conservation programs. I know Chairman Stabenow has talked about this frequently on the floor, but the farm bill we passed reforms the conservation programs and allows our farmers to do the right thing. One of the things we learned from the Dust Bowl--the crisis we confronted in the 1930s--was that we have to take care of and protect our water and soil. We need to be attentive to water and soil. After the Dust Bowl crisis, we passed in the Congress different types of conservation acts.

The farm bill we passed in this House consolidates, reforms, and strengthens the conservation programs so our farmers can do the right thing not only for producing today but producing tomorrow and taking care of the circumstances we know Mother Nature will be throwing at us. We can't do anything about that until the House takes up the farm bill. They have yet to take it up.

I urge my colleagues in the other body to take up this bill. We need to do that for many reasons, one of which, of course, is the extreme conditions that the agricultural community in this country is confronting as a result of this drought.

Let me talk specifically about poultry. On the Delmarva Peninsula, the poultry industry is in crisis. It is in crisis. The Senator from Delaware, the Presiding Officer, understands this. Seventy-five percent of the cost to produce poultry is in the price of feed. The poultry industry uses corn for feed. They need to have corn. At the present time, corn is approaching $9 a barrel. What does that mean? If the price is at that rate, it would cost about $2 per pound to produce a chick for market. The retail price is $2 a pound. It doesn't take too much of an economic background to know we cannot make it under those economic conditions.

Our poultry industry needs help. They need to be competitive, and it is difficult to do that when we are so dependent upon the price of corn. The problem with corn is we are competing uses. It is not only used in the food chain, it is used as an energy source as a result of corn-based ethanol, which distorts the food chain.

I have introduced legislation, along with Senator Boozman and Senator Mikulski, that would modify the renewable fuel standards. Those are the standards which require a certain percentage of our renewables in corn ethanol. It would modify that, and let me explain how. It would link the amount of corn ethanol required for the renewable food standards to the amount of the corn supply. That makes sense. When we have more corn, fine, we can meet the renewable standards. But this year we have had drought conditions so we have much less corn. As a result, corn is going up in price, making it very difficult for our poultry industry. So then the requirements would be reduced. We think that makes sense. That is using market forces to help meet our energy needs but also to help deal with the realities of the poultry industry.

I have also joined with Senator Hagan, Senator Chambliss, Senator Pryor, and Senator Boozman in authoring a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency calling for them to waive the renewable fuel standards conventional ethanol product mandate for this year. Again, let the farmers be able to compete. Don't let us distort the marketplace.

Let me just say, in summary, agriculture is critically important to this country for many reasons. It is one of the largest parts of our economy, it is important for our national security, and it is part of our way of life. We lead the world in agriculture productivity. It is important for us on international trade and all the reasons I mentioned. We need to be attentive to how we deal with agriculture in this country. We need a farm and agricultural policy.

The farm bill we passed is necessary to be enacted or we are going to have a lapse in our agricultural programs. We have done our work. It is critically important before the House goes home that they take up the farm bill. I hope they will pass our farm bill in order to help farmers in Maryland and around the Nation. I then hope we would also pay special attention to the poultry industry, to recognize that because of the price of corn related not just to the food chain but to energy we have a responsibility to help an industry that is so dependent upon corn as a commodity to produce the poultry product.

We need to help our agricultural community to do the right thing. It is important for our country, and I urge my colleagues to pay attention to these issues before we recess for the fall elections.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Enzi for his patience in allowing me to speak for a few minutes in regard to the 11th anniversary of September 11. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in commemorating the 11th anniversary of September 11, 2001. The tragedy of 9/11 is forever seared in our Nation's consciousness. The attacks in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were intended to crush the American spirit but instead galvanized it to new strengths.

After 11 years, the memories are still raw and the pain is real. It is for the 3,000 people who perished that day that I stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and ask everyone: Never let go of those memories.

On that day, terrorists showed their utter lack of humanity; we responded by showing the best side of ours. We suffered a grievous loss on that day, but we must remember that we are a strong and determined nation and we will defeat those who want to do us harm.

Many of those responsible have been hunted down and brought to justice. In the case of Osama bin Laden and many others, justice was brought to them. Now there is no doubt that those who wish to do harm to America know they do so at their own peril.

Today, it is clear our men and women in uniform and our intelligence community will never rest. They will never waiver. We have come a long way since September 11, and we owe so much to those men and women and the families who support them. Today, we join to show the world that our Nation is united and resolved to defend our freedom and safeguard our liberty against any enemy.

We also take time to remember those who perished on September 11 and to remember their families with a special prayer. We reflect on the heroism of the firefighters, police officers, medical workers, city officials, and ordinary citizens who gave their own lives trying to save others.

Each of us has been affected by 9/11. On September 11 we showed the world a brand of resilience that could only be made in America. In the minutes, hours, and days after the attacks, Americans showed their amazing propensity for compassion, sacrifice, and selflessness. Charity, voluntarism, and a reawakening of the American spirit guided us through those weeks directly after the attacks. Men and women waited in lines for hours to give blood, children donated their savings to help with relief efforts, communities sponsored clothing drives, and different faith groups held interfaith services. Our response showed the world that Americans have an unquenchable love of freedom and democracy.

Now, 11 years later, I stand before you, always remembering that stunningly clear day that was to be forever ingrained into our national identity. My prayers are still with those who suffered, those still suffering, and those we lost. But time has taught me that the way to honor the victims of 9/11 is to come together as we did in the days and months after 9/11. On that day, we were truly united. September 11 was not an attack on Blacks, Whites, Christians, Jews, or Muslims or on conservatives or liberals. It was an attack on all of us, and we came together accordingly. We helped our neighbors and we helped strangers. We reaffirmed our commitment to justice and the rule of law. On that day we were reminded that the best parts of our American character will forever trump any opponent.

So as I stand before you today, I encourage all Americans to nurture the best parts of our common American character. What is that character? It was the selflessness and courage of a New York City firefighter running into a smoking tower and up the stairs when everyone else was running down. It was the composure, confidence, and decency of bystanders helping perfect strangers. It was the sense of country that caused many to answer the call of duty and enlist in the war on terror.

It was the faith people showed in their fellow citizens that allowed for empathy, not hate to define us afterwards. On this day, let's not only mourn for those we lost but let's vow to them to be as good as they would expect us to be.

Mr. President, 9/11 was intended to bring this country to new lows but instead we achieved new highs. Keep the memories of 9/11 in our hearts and let them guide our actions, actions that show each other and the world how good we are and how good we can be.

Archibald MacLeish wrote, ``There are those who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream.''

Surely 9/11 was a nightmare horrific. As horrific and cruel as it was, it cannot extinguish the dream.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Gillibrand for bringing this to the attention of the Senate and the American people and to thank Senators Rubio and Durbin for being here.

It is hard to believe it has been 40 years since that tragic event in which terrorists had the attention of the world during the Olympics in Munich.

It is hard to believe that over the last 40 years we have experienced so much of the violence from extremists and terrorists.

Tomorrow we will commemorate the 11th anniversary of the attack on our own country. We recognize the only way we could stand up for this type of extremism is to never forget and to rededicate ourselves to do everything we can to root out extremists, to root out terrorists, and to never forget the consequences of their actions.

I wish to thank Senator Gillibrand and Senator Rubio for the resolution we passed in this Congress to let those who were victimized 40 years ago know we will not forget them and that we continue to dedicate our efforts to root out this type of hatred and this type of extremism to make sure the Olympic spirit--which is world competition to bring peace in the world--is alive and well in the Senate and the United States of America. We will continue to commemorate what happened so we don't forget and dedicate ourselves to a more peaceful world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 56, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the matter be printed in the Record as if read.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3510, introduced earlier today

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, it has been 2 years since Congress passed legislation that provided for transparency in the mineral industry. It was a provision that was included in the Dodd-Frank bill. It was included as an amendment on which Senator Lugar and I worked. I wish to thank Senator Lugar for his incredible leadership on this issue-- transparency--as well as so many other issues that affect the security of not only America but global security.

The provision is something we worked on to provide transparency in developing countries. It provided a visible sign of U.S. leadership, that we are going to do everything we can to promote good governance around the world; to demonstrate that we understand that for the stability of America, we need countries that have good governance.

The United States spends more money than any other country in the world on our national security budget. In fact, we spend more than most of the other countries combined spend on national defense. We have the ability to use our military for our national defense, but it is much better if we can develop stable countries around the world. The way to develop stable countries is to help them build a stable economy, to help them build wealth, and to help them have good governance.

It is impossible to see the type of progress we want in the developing countries unless they have good governance. I might say that the more we can help in this regard, the more we promote good governance and economic growth, the better off we will be. Our direct security burdens will be reduced, and we will have new markets, which will create economic opportunities for America.

As the Presiding Officer knows, this is the guiding principle of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We used the Helsinki Commission as our implementing arm. The Helsinki Accords that were signed in 1975 between Europe--all of the countries of Europe--the United States, and Canada recognized that it was in our national security interests to support stable countries that respect human rights and have good governance.

This is the reason the Cardin-Lugar amendment was so important in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform legislation. Let me explain what it does. It requires mineral companies to list the payments they make to extract the minerals they take out of a country. Whether we are talking about gas or oil, whether it is diamonds or copper--the companies need to divulge their individual payments to foreign countries in their reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC.

We did that for many reasons.

One reason, quite frankly, is that although many countries in the world have vast sums of mineral wealth, these are some of the poorest countries in the world. We call it the ``resource curse'' because the natural resource wealth of the country isn't just being denied to the people for their economic growth, it is being used to fuel corruption within their own country. So one of the reasons for the provision we incorporated in the Dodd-Frank bill was to provide transparency so that the people of the country, along with the international community, will know exactly where payments are being made for the extraction of mineral wealth in a country.

Senator Lugar and I also thought that such information would be important for U.S. investors, too. If someone is going to invest in a mineral company, he or she has a right to know where that company is signing contracts and paying money for access to the natural resource(s).

It is also important for U.S. interests. We need stable mineral reserves. As the Presiding Officer knows, we have gone to war over the need for oil. We need stable markets so that we do not jeopardize our own economic progress.

So the Cardin-Lugar provision gives us a chance to follow the money, as the saying goes, in a particular country.

For all of these reasons, Mr. President, we passed a provision as part of the Dodd-Frank legislation that requires every company that is involved in extracting minerals to list those payments specifically by project in their SEC filings.

It was pretty clear as to what needed to be done. We gave the authority to the SEC to issue the necessary regulations. Well, we have been waiting 2 years for these regulations--2 years. We are now well beyond the time limit that was spelled out in the legislation for the SEC to issue its regulations. Yet the SEC still hasn't issued final regulations.

I have read the statute over and over again. I helped write the statute. Senator Lugar has read the statute. We do not understand the difficulty. It was not a complicated provision. It said exactly what the companies have to do. So we are somewhat puzzled why it has taken this length of time for the SEC to issue its final regulations. In the meantime, we are being denied the benefit of this law. We are being denied the opportunity to protect our investors. We are being denied the opportunity to follow the money, to help promote good governance abroad. All that has been delayed as a result of the SEC's failure to issue regulations.

I must say that it also jeopardizes U.S. leadership. Yes, there are other countries interested in following what the United States is doing. We have heard from Europe, and we have heard from Asia. They want to adopt similar laws. They do not know what to pass because they are still waiting for the SEC to act. So the failure to act isn't just affecting our ability; it is also affecting other countries. Collectively, between Asia, Europe, and the United States, we can pretty much cover all of the international extractive companies and therefore have a real, major impact on transparency on this issue.

I might say that one of the criticisms I have heard is about why we have a separate bill. We already have what is known as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, or EITI. There is an international organization that is voluntary. Countries can join. The United States has participated in the EITI. EITI participants help countries with best practices for developing the governance to deal with how they handle their mineral wealth. EITI is an important program. It is a voluntary program. It works well.

The Cardin-Lugar provision in the Dodd-Frank legislation complement the EITI. The two work together. Between the two, the EITI and our legislation, there's a way that we can really require companies to make the information available in an open way. The EITI gives developing countries the technical assistance they need to manage their mineral wealth in the most effective way for the benefit of their own people, to elevate their wealth and to have a more sustainable economy.

This delay has caused a great deal of concern to many of us. Quite frankly, Oxfam, for example, has filed suit against the SEC for its failure to issue regulations, and I am very sympathetic to that lawsuit.

I wish to inform Senators that we have now been told the SEC will finally issue its regulations on August 22, in just a few weeks. SEC officials have formally responded to the Oxfam lawsuit, saying the agency will issue regulations on August 22. I have received a letter from the SEC indicating the same thing. It is long overdue.

I am looking forward to seeing the regulations from the SEC. I hope the SEC follows the letter and spirit of the legislation. It is up to Congress to pass the laws. SEC needs to implement the laws under direction and guidance from Congress. We have made it clear that we want openness and transparency. I know some oil companies may not like that, but they do not write the laws, we do. It is up to the SEC now to promulgate the regulations that carry out the intent of our law and help us move forward so that the resource wealth of countries in the developing world become a real asset, a real benefit, as they develop sustainable economies and good governance, which helps global stability and helps the global economy.

We will be watching the SEC. I know we will be in recess on the 22nd, but we will be watching the SEC. I hope that Congress and the SEC will be working

together and that the United States will continue exercising its leadership, so that we will see other countries follow suit where we really can make a difference in the wealth and growth of countries around the world that for too long have been suffering even though they have enormous mineral wealth.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the devastating impact the drought gripping nearly 80 percent of the country is having on food producers.

Fewer natural occurrences are more devastating to agricultural production than extreme drought. The drought conditions the United States is facing today are considered the worst the country has seen in more than 50 years.

Data computed in the Palmer Drought Severity Index indicate that the severity of the current drought is on par with the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

USDA has determined that more than 1,000 counties in 26 States, encompassing more than two thirds of the lower 48, are experiencing drought conditions. Drought conditions stretch from coast to coast and encompass nearly every State south of 42nd parallel west of the Mississippi River while also including nearly all of Florida, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. It is also worth noting that farmers on Delmarva peninsula are coping with a drought of their own as well as record high temperatures.

While these conditions undoubtedly present challenges for commodity growers, agricultural science, modern farming techniques and a series of financial support programs help commodity growers cope with increasingly difficult growing conditions.

These advances in farming, combined with robust grower supports like commodity direct payments and federally subsidized crop insurance premiums, along with a high market price for corn, driven by increased demand for corn from a variety of sectors, including ethanol producers who must meet government mandates to produce 15.2 billion gallons of ethanol this year, all help U.S. grain growers survive this difficult growing season.

Our national farm support programs are centered on assuring the financial security of commodity growers. However, there is little to no assurances on the availability and affordability of corn feed for livestock and poultry and for food production broadly.

This issue hits very close to home for me as Maryland's poultry industry continues to struggle tremendously during this drought because there is so little corn feed available. What feed is available is extremely expensive.

Feed accounts for more than 75 percent of the cost of raising poultry. Corn futures project the price of corn hitting $9 dollars a bushel by the end of the summer. As the price of feed continues to rise, feed costs will make up an even greater percentage of the cost to grow birds to market weight.

And unlike raising hogs and cattle, which ruminant species that can eat other types of feed like soybeans or hay, chickens can only eat grains--in other words corn.

To understand how important the availability of affordable corn is let's take a look at chicken by the numbers:

As of today, the price per bushel of corn is $8.20.

One bushel of corn equals 56 pounds of shelled corn.

On average, it takes 7 weeks and 13\1/2\ pounds of corn to raise a single chicken to market weight.

Market weight for a single chicken is approximately six pounds, although the weight of the bird that is actually meat is probably somewhere closer to three or four pounds.

Approximately four birds can be raised, from egg to slaughter, on a bushel of shelled corn--or, a little more than $2 worth of corn.

The retail price for a whole three pound chicken at a popular Maryland supermarket chain is $6 (at $2 per lb).

That means that the retail price of a pound of chicken is equal to the price of corn feed. And corn is just one input cost to raising poultry.

Clearly market conditions like this are not sustainable for maintaining a viable domestic poultry industry.

Domestic poultry, beef, and pork producers operate without the safety nets commodity growers have. Those domestic producers that are still owned by U.S.-based companies are at an even greater disadvantage, because many of the foreign owned meat and poultry companies in the U.S. can afford to operate at a loss for extended periods of time because they have financial backing from state-run banks overseas.

Our meat and poultry producers are in dire need of relief if they are going to survive into the future. One way to provide some relief for poultry and livestock growers would be to modify the Renewable Fuel Standard's ethanol production mandate for corn ethanol so as to provide our farmers better access to the corn stocks they need.

Food producers--including livestock and poultry producers, who use tremendous amounts of corn to raise their livestock and produce food-- do not have the luxury of a mandated market for their products.

I understand the important role domestic ethanol production will play in helping our Nation achieve greater energy security. However, the nurturing and growth of our domestic biofuels industry must not come at the expense of our domestic food supply. In other words, we cannot sacrifice U.S. food security for energy security. That is why I do not support the use of food based feedstocks like sugar and corn to be commercially produced into ethanol.

Domestic food production is reaching a state of crisis driven by the increasing cost of inputs, like corn, that the food producers have to unfairly compete with industries that are operating with under government production mandates.

That is why Senators Boozman, Mikulski and I introduced legislation making a simple change to the Renewable Fuel Standard to help provide domestic food producers access to corn.

This legislation will link the amount of corn ethanol required for the RFS to the amount of U.S. corn supplies. This legislation sets up a process so that when the USDA reports on U.S. corn supplies towards the end of each year, based upon the ratio of corn stocks to expected use, there could be a reduction made to the RFS mandate for corn ethanol. This is a commonsense solution to make sure that we have enough corn supplies to meet all of our corn demands.

Once a year, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency will review the current corn crop year's ratio of U.S. corn stocks-to- use ratio in making a determination of the RFS.

Another way to deliver some of this needed relief would be for the House to immediately pass the Senate Farm Bill

that passed with bipartisan support in the Senate in June.

The livestock disaster provisions originally enacted in the 2008 Farm bill expired in 2011, leaving producers without disaster assistance for the current crop year. The Senate bill strengthens these programs and makes them retroactive to address the current drought of 2012.

As of July 17, approximately 73 percent of cattle producing areas were affected by moderate or more intense drought.

As I mentioned earlier, the Delmarva peninsula, where a fair amount of the corn is raised for feed for Delmarva poultry, is in a state of drought, as are the regions of the country where the rest of the corn Delmarva poultry uses is shipped in from.

Livestock disaster programs are critical as farmers and ranchers experience losses in livestock and grazing land due to extreme heat, drought, and fire. The 2012 Farm Bill provides permanent funding and authority for the Livestock Disaster Programs.

Beyond helping livestock and poultry growers, the 2012 Farm Bill also provides much needed assistance to fruit and vegetable growers, too, by expanding crop insurance coverage to these farmers. The bill also allows the Risk Management Agency to conduct research and development on new crop insurance products to expand access to index-based weather insurance products for fruit and vegetable growers.

The House appears poised to just kick the can for a year. The House is likely to consider a measure to merely extend the 2008 Farm Bill for a year, while also offering some drought assistance--paid for from cuts to conservation programs.

This is a plan that the American Farm Bureau opposes, and demonstrates both the dysfunction of the House--in that they won't simply do what's easiest and best for farmers by taking up and passing the Senate bill--while also ignoring how vital farm conservation is to preventing agricultural disasters.

The Senate Farm Bill preserves USDA conservation programs. The Natural Resource Conservation Service, formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service, was born out of the tragedy of the Dust Bowl.

The disastrous droughts of the 1930s taught us the lesson that we need to do more to protect water and soil resources so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

The 2012 Senate Farm bill conservation programs are critical for keeping America's farmers and ranchers doing what they do best--growing and producing a safe and stable food supply. Crops need healthy soil and plentiful water to grow, and natural disasters like drought have a long-term impact on soil and water quality.

The Farm bill's conservation title provides farmers and ranchers access to the tools they need to conserve and keep our Nation's natural resources as resilient as possible, even in the face of drought and other natural disasters.

For the good of American agriculture and the American consumer, I urge the House leadership to take advantage of this last opportunity before the August recess to do what is right and pass the Senate Farm bill. My hope is that House leadership will realize that it behooves us, when we go home to our districts during the summer recess and attend State and county fairs, to be able to tell our farming communities that we sent a Farm bill to the President with meaningful reforms and essential disaster relief to help them through these difficult times.

Personally, I want to be able to tell my poultry growers that Washington hears their plight. That is why, in addition to urging House passage of the Senate Farm bill, I would also like to see further relief for poultry growers in the form of improved access to corn feed.

For decades, America's corn growers were outproducing demand for corn from food producers. While consumers may have benefitted from relatively low corn prices, American corn and grain growers were hurting badly.

Since 2007, the tides have been turning significantly. National demand for corn is at an all-time high and corn is likely to reach $9 a bushel in the near future. A growing and hungry Nation, combined with new demands for corn that are the result of technological innovations, have created new uses for corn in the form of ethanol as both a motor fuel additive and in plastics. These new uses, combined with expanded traditional uses, have fueled the upward spike in corn prices.

The effects of the 2012 drought are obviously a catastrophe that we cannot legislate away. However, there are actions that the USDA and EPA could take to help improve market access to the corn stocks food producers need to keep feeding America.

Senators Hagan, Chambliss, Pryor, Boozman, and I have authored a letter to the EPA administrator calling for the waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard's conventional ethanol production mandate for this year. Doing so would allow food producers to compete fairly with ethanol producers for corn.

While ethanol production is down, due to high corn prices ethanol producers are sitting on roughly 2.5 billion production credits, known as RINs (Renewable Identification Numbers), that they could cash in and further reduce the perceived demand for corn and increase the supply available to food producers.

I understand the important role domestic ethanol production will play in helping our Nation achieve greater energy security. However, the growth of our domestic biofuels industry must not come at the expense of our domestic food supply. We cannot sacrifice U.S. food security for energy security. That is why I do not support the use of food based feedstocks like sugar and corn to be commercially produced into ethanol.

I believe the future of biofuels must be in the development and production of cellulosic and advanced biofuels that are not derived from feedstocks that are part of essential food sources.

Because of corn's many uses, it has become a commodity that is in high demand. Assuring our domestic food producers' access to this valuable and increasingly scarce crop is so important to controlling the cost of food in America and maintaining the economic viability of our U.S. food companies.

I urge my colleagues to join Senators Hagan, Boozman, Pryor, Chambliss and I in calling on EPA to waive the RFS corn ethanol production mandate and call on the House to pass the Senate's Farm bill.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the 200th anniversary of the city of Frostburg in western Maryland. Frostburg is located in the mountainous terrain of Alleghany County and sits on the eastern slope of Big Savage Mountain. Frostburg's first settlers arrived during the construction of the National Road in 1811; the first permanent residents settled there a year later, in 1812, which is the bicentennial we are observing September 14-16, 2012. The town was formally incorporated in 1816. It was originally called Mount Pleasant but the name was changed to Frostburg, after Josiah and Meshach Frost. Meshach Frost built the city's first house which later became home to the Stockton Stagecoach Company and prompted the construction of other hotels and accommodations for travelers on the National Road. This traffic along the road contributed to the growth of the town as it became a regular stopping point.

Although coal had been discovered near the town as early as 1782, difficulties in transportation made mining in western Maryland impractical. But with the local development of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad and the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal in the 1840s, coal mining began to flourish, providing tremendous economic opportunities for Frostburg. In 1846, Meshach Frost opened the Frostburg Coal Company and began to send the first large shipments of coal to the east. Only 4 years later, numerous other companies became active in the area, including the Allegany Coal Company, the Maryland Coal Company, and the Washington Coal Company. By 1863, the economy of Frostburg and the surrounding area was firmly tied to the increasingly profitable coal industry. Another industry to develop during this period was the manufacturing of fire bricks from high grade clays found in the area. In 1902, the Big Savage Fire Brick Company was formed and to this day is one of the major manufactures of fire bricks on the east coast.

Frostburg State University, founded in 1898, was donated to the State by the citizens of Frostburg and was intended to train teachers for Maryland's public schools. The school grew slowly from an original enrollment of 91 students and has expanded to serve over 6,000 students today. The University has become a major economic engine for the community and a hub for academic and cultural activity.

I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mayor W. Robert Flanigan and the residents of the city of Frostburg on its bicentennial birthday and 200 years of industry and ingenuity.

Mr. President, if I might, let me first thank Katharine Beamer for her service to the Senate and to the American people. She has been an incredibly valuable part of my staff, detailed from the Department of State to my Senate office. She has helped me deal with preparations for my responsibility, as the Presiding Officer knows, while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as we deal with the confirmation of ambassadors. It is important to be adequately prepared to deal with the many foreign visitors who come to our office and to deal with foreign policy issues.

I particularly want to thank her for her help in the so-called Magnitsky bill, a bill that passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has been also supported in the Senate Finance Committee. She has been a critical part of our team in developing the necessary support so that bill could move forward.

I want to thank her for her help on the Cardin-Lugar provisions that provide transparency among mineral companies so we can trace the resources of developing countries, allowing those resources to benefit the strength of a country's economy rather than become a curse.

And I want to thank Katharine Beamer for her help on a lot of human rights issues she has been involved with, including the issue of Alan Gross.

Senator Durbin has spoken on the floor and has brought to our attention the human rights violations of a Marylander who is today in a prison in Cuba. Alan Gross was providing help to a small Jewish community in Cuba. He wasn't doing it in any secret manner. He was trying to provide them a better opportunity to communicate with the Internet. He was very open about what he was doing in Cuba and was doing it in order to advance the ability of a community to keep in touch around the world.

As a result of that activity, Alan Gross, a Marylander, was arrested and imprisoned, tried and convicted, and sentenced to 15 years in prison. His appeal to the Cuban Supreme Court was denied in August of 2011. For the past 2\1/2\ years, since December 3, 2009, Alan Gross has been imprisoned in Cuba--over 2\1/2\ years.

Throughout my legislative career, I have worked hard to improve the relationship between Cuba and the United States, particularly among the people of Cuba and the people of the United States. I have worked on ways to ease certain restrictions so we can improve the climate between our two countries. But what the Cuban Government is doing today in continuing to imprison Alan Gross is absolutely outrageous. It violates international human rights standards and it is against any sense of humanity.

I am going to continue to speak out about it and urge the Cuban authorities to do what is right. This has gained international attention and there have been efforts made by other dignitaries from other countries to try to get Alan Gross's case heard in a proper manner. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Durbin's extraordinary leadership on this issue. Senator Durbin took the time, when he was in Cuba, to meet with Alan Gross. I have been with Senator Durbin when we have met with Alan Gross's family. I have been with Senator Durbin when we have tried to engage other international diplomats to implore the Cuban authorities on a humanitarian basis to release Alan Gross.

There was no reason for his arrest. There was no reason for his conviction. There is no reason for his being in prison today. But one doesn't have to get too much involved in that issue to suggest that the Cuban authorities should release Alan Gross on a humanitarian basis. I say that because his health is in question. Alan's health has steadily deteriorated during his imprisonment. He has lost over 100 pounds, suffers from a multitude of medical conditions, including gout, ulcers, and arthritis, that have worsened without adequate treatment.

Of equal concern as his own health are the conditions of his beloved mother and daughter, both of whom are suffering from cancer. The Gross family should not have to suffer through another day of this desperate situation without Alan at home for support.

So for all those reasons, we speak out today to once again urge the Cuban authorities to do the right thing as far as human rights and their legal system and release Alan Gross. They should do the right thing from a humanitarian point of view and let Alan Gross come home to his beloved family so he can be supportive of them during this difficult time in their lives. We urge them to do the right thing so we can have a better relationship between the people of Cuba and the people of the United States. They should release Alan Gross because it is the right thing to do.

We are going to continue to speak out about this. I know many of us have looked for different ways in which to help the Gross family and we will continue to do that. But the simple, right thing for the Cuban authorities is to release Alan Gross today, and we urge them to do that.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today is the 37th anniversary of the Helsinki process. Starting with the signing of the Helsinki Final Act on August 1, 1975, this process began as an ongoing conference which helped end the Cold War and reunite Europe. It has continued as a Vienna-based organization that today seeks to resolve regional conflicts and promote democratic development and the rule of law throughout the region.

While serving in both chambers of the U.S. Congress, it has been a unique and rewarding privilege to engage in this diplomatic process and its parliamentary component as a member and chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, with the goal of improving the lives of everyday people. While they may be citizens of other countries, promoting their human rights and fundamental freedoms helps us to protect our own. It is, therefore, in our national interest to engage in this process.

On this anniversary, however, I do want to focus on three U.S. citizens who suffered the ultimate violation of their human rights when they were taken into a field and shot, deliberately murdered, in July 1999 by a special operations unit under the control the Interior Ministry in Serbia. They were brothers: Ylli, Agron and Mehmet Bytyqi.

The Bytyqi brothers were Albanian-Americans from New York. Earlier in 1999, they went to Kosovo to fight as members of the Kosovo Liberation Army in a conflict which eventually prompted a NATO military intervention designed to stop Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and his forces. When the conflict ended, the Bytyqi brothers assisted ethnic Roma neighbors of their mother in Kosovo by escorting them to the Serbian border. Accidently straying into Serbian territory, they were arrested and sentenced to 2 weeks in jail for illegal entry. When released from prison, they were

not freed. Instead, the Bytyqi brothers were transported to an Interior Ministry training camp in eastern Serbia, where they were brutally executed and buried in a mass grave with 75 other ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Two years later, after the fall of the Milosevic regime, their bodies were recovered and repatriated to the United States for burial.

Ylli, Agron and Mehmet were never given a fair and public trial, an opportunity to defend themselves, or any semblance of due process. Their post-conflict, extrajudicial killing was cold-blooded murder.

In the last decade Serbia has made a remarkable recovery from the Milosevic era. I saw this myself last year when I visited Belgrade. This progress, however, has not sufficiently infiltrated the Interior Ministry, affording protection to those who participated in the Bytyqi murders and other egregious Milosevic-era crimes. Nobody has been held accountable for the Bytyqi murders. Those in command of the camp and the forces operating there have never been charged.

The same situation applies to the April 1999 murder of prominent journalist and editor Slavko Curuvija, who testified before the Helsinki Commission on the abuses of the Milosevic regime just months before. There needs to be justice in each of these cases, but together with other unresolved cases they symbolize the lack of transparency and reform in Serbia's Interior Ministry to this day. Combined with continued denials of what transpired under Milosevic in the 1990s, including the 1995 genocide at Srebrenica in neighboring Bosnia, these cases show that Serbia has not completely put an ugly era in its past behind it. For that reason, not only does the surviving Bytyqi family in New York, as well as the friends and family of Slavko Curuvija, still need to have the satisfaction of justice. The people of Serbia need to see justice triumph in their country as well.

I want to thank the U.S. Mission to the OSCE in Vienna, which under the leadership of Ambassador Ian Kelly continues to move the Helsinki process forward, for recently raising the Bytyqi murders and calling for justice. I also want to commend the nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Serbia, Michael David Kirby, for responding to my question on the Bytyqi and Curuvija cases at his Foreign Relations Committee hearing by expressing his commitment, if confirmed, to make justice in these cases a priority matter. On this anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, I join their call for justice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Katharine Beamer, a Department of State detailee from my office, be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session.

Would the Senator yield.

Let me thank Senator Menendez for his leadership on this issue. He has been very articulate about preserving jobs and creating jobs in New Jersey and in America.

I thank him for once again standing for American workers. I thank Senator

Reid, the majority leader, for his commitment to bring up the trust fund and the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, I thank him for his leadership.

Senator Menendez has laid out the issue very clearly. This is an averted tariff. It works against American workers. Cotton, mainly on shirts but other commodities, such as wool and suits--as the Senator pointed out, if someone manufactures the suit or the shirt out of America and imports it into America, costing us jobs, they pay less tariff than if they are an American manufacturer that imports the product to manufacture the product in America. They pay a heavier tariff, which costs us jobs, which makes no sense whatsoever.

I thank Senator Menendez for his leadership. I thank Senator Reid and Senator Baucus for understanding this and giving us an opportunity before this expires on the wool trust fund. It is making sure it works effectively. I took the floor last week to talk about English-American Tailoring, located in Westminster, MD. There are 380 union jobs in Westminster, MD. I showed a photograph of seamstresses making suits in America. I think most people thought that photo was taken decades ago, but it was taken this month. This is about how we can preserve jobs in America. They are making the best suits in the world. They are exporting their suits to other countries, but they can't do it unless we have a level playing field.

The leadership of the Senator from New Jersey on bringing to the attention of the American people the need to extend and make effective the cotton and wool trust fund is critically important to preserving jobs in Maryland, New Jersey, and in our Nation.

Again, I thank Senator Menendez, on behalf of American workers, for his leadership on this issue.

Madam President, I rise to express my outrage at the recent attack on a tour bus in Burgas, Bulgaria, that killed five Israeli citizens and the Bulgarian driver and injured scores of passengers. This heinous act was obviously the handiwork of terrorists who prey on innocent civilians in order to shock and horrify the world and try to rally some to a twisted, violent ideology. The terrorists must be stopped.

I am equally outraged by the fact that the Burgas attack appears to be the latest in a series of attacks on Israeli citizens. There have been several since the beginning of this year alone, two aimed at Israeli diplomats in India and Georgia in February, as well as a foiled plot against tourists in Cyprus the week before the tragedy in Burgas. The attacks targeting Israeli Embassy personnel in India and Georgia fell on the 18th anniversary of a suicide bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires which killed 85 people. Argentine authorities blamed that attack on Hezbollah operatives.

All of these attacks have the hallmarks of Iranian involvement or plots by their surrogates. The day after the attacks in India and Georgia, Iranian nationals involved in a bomb-making plot in Thailand were arrested after they accidentally detonated their homemade explosives, severely injuring one of the perpetrators. Thai officials reported that the improvised explosives found in Bangkok were the same as those used in India and Georgia.

I understand that the investigation of the Burgas attack is ongoing and the United States and other countries are working closely with Bulgarian officials. White House counterterrorism chief John Brenan has visited Bulgaria, and, while he did not implicate Iran or Hezbollah in public statements he made while there, he pointed out that both Tehran and its Lebanese surrogate have been implicated in attacks on civilians in the past.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that Israel has ``fully substantiated intelligence'' that the Burgas attack was carried out by Hezbollah. I have not seen that information, but I think that based solely on press reports of results thus far in the investigations of these attacks, one can reasonably conclude that Iran and Hezbollah have been involved--further evidence of Iran's longstanding use of political violence and sponsorship of terrorism to achieve its goals.

According to a recent edition of the Jewish Press, the Director of Israel's Mossad and the Chief of its Shin Bet have said that Iran and Hezbollah have tried to commit terrorist attacks against Israeli diplomats, businessmen and tourists in over 20 countries during the past 2 years.

We must stand with the people and the Government of Israel. We must lead the international community in redoubling efforts to assist Israel, and all countries on whose soil these heinous acts are committed, in tracking down the terrorists and bringing them to justice and continue to work to prevent such attacks in the future.

I am confident that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support our government's work with Israel and the international community to counter Iran's insidious network of terror.