Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2013, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Iran Sanctions: Ensuring Robust Enforcement, and Assessing Next Steps.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 4, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``State of Wireless Communications.''

Mr. President, before the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee--and former chair of the Agriculture Committee-- leaves the floor, I just want to thank him not only for being a wonderful role model for me in chairing the Agriculture Committee, but also for the way in which he conducts the Judiciary Committee. He is evenhanded, fair, and gives every member the opportunity to make their case, whether it is legislation coming through on gun violence, immigration, or judicial nominations. I just want to thank the Senator for being the model of a statesman in all he does.

I agree that we need to move forward in a fair and open bipartisan way in filling the nominations of our judiciary. I just wanted to thank the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. President, we are resuming the consideration of the farm bill, the agriculture reform, food, and jobs bill. Before I address that, I want to take a moment--as many colleagues have already done, and many more will do--to pay a very special tribute to a dear friend and colleague, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.

Remembering Frank R. Lautenberg

I was deeply saddened, as we all were today, to learn Senator Lautenberg had passed away during the night. My thoughts and prayers are with Bonnie and the whole family, as I know they are grieving because of the special loss they feel and we will all feel.

He was the kind of Senator we will not see again--a World War II veteran. We have lost our World War II veterans. He defended freedom against

some of the most evil forces of the 20th century, and he was truly a member of the ``greatest generation'' of Americans.

We saw him battle cancer and survive. We have seen him come to the floor time after time on behalf of the people of New Jersey and our country to fight with tremendous courage for what he believed was right.

I daresay he was one of the lions of the Senate. He served for nearly 30 years, casting over 9,000 votes on behalf of the State and the people he loved.

What makes Congress special is that we all come from all walks of life, and as we know that is what makes a great democracy. That is what gives us our strength, not weakness.

Senator Lautenberg was the son of Jewish immigrants. He went to school on the GI bill--as my dad did--after defending our country. He went on to become a successful businessman by developing one of the most successful payroll companies in the world.

We were proud to have Senator Lautenberg speak on what it meant to be a success in creating jobs. He has been a wonderful voice in that regard.

He found his true calling in public service, and we all know that. During his five terms in the Senate he was one of the most fearless fighters on a whole range of issues. He has made a permanent mark on the quality of life of Americans. Among other things, he helped to strengthen drunk driving laws, pass the ban on smoking, prevent those convicted of domestic violence from possessing guns, to author legislation to help the public discover what pollutants were being released into neighborhoods, and to cowrite the new GI bill for the 21st century. I could go on and on with so many other examples.

I am proud to have worked with him to champion cleaning our beaches all along our coasts and Great Lakes, working to increase the awareness and treatment of autism, and fighting to make sure women have access to the health care we need and deserve.

He was a true fighter for the rights of all Americans, and he will be greatly missed.

Once again, I send my thoughts and prayers to his wife Bonnie, who is an amazing woman in her own right, his children, and his grandchildren during this very difficult time.

Mr. President, as we return to the debate on the farm bill today, it is important to note that what we do this week will reflect just how committed we are to 16 million Americans who depend on agriculture for their livelihood. All Americans depend on its success for the safest, most affordable, and abundant food supply in the world.

We have to lead by example. We cannot kick the can down the road. We, in the Senate, have already worked hard together on this farm bill which passed out of the Agriculture Committee with broad bipartisan support. We have had a good debate on the Senate floor and a number of votes. We are close to finishing the bill, and we need to get it done this week.

I will note that it was just a year ago when we were also working on this bill. At that time, after coming out of committee on a strong bipartisan vote as well, we had 73 record rollcall votes. Every one of the substantive amendments that passed on the floor is already in this bill.

So we started with the work we did a year ago and the amendments of colleagues that were passed on the floor of the Senate, and now we are building on that with additional ideas. We know it is time to bring this work to a close and get it done.

We need to move forward in order to take care of the people who rely on agricultural policy, conservation policy, nutrition, energy policy, and rural development. Every community outside of our major cities depends on rural development funds in order to be able to provide economic development, build the water and sewer project, build the road, and provide a loan for a small business. They are all counting on us to get this bill done so they have some long-term certainty.

This is a jobs bill, and the 5-year bill in front of us needs to get passed so they have certainty about how to plan for the future and how to continue to create jobs.

We also need to pass this bill because we need to stop unnecessary spending, and we do that in this bill. We need to also ensure that consumers will continue to have a safe, healthy, and affordable food supply. We need to come together to show that, once again, we can work together across party lines as we have done on this legislation. It is important to get this bill done this week.

I am very proud of the fact that last year we were the only committee that produced a voluntary deficit reduction plan. We went through every single page of the policy under the farm bill, and I asked: Does it duplicate something else? Does it work? Is it needed anymore? Is it worthy of taxpayer dollars?

At the end we had eliminated 100 different programs or authorizations. Some programs were consolidated or strengthened, such as conservation. Others were eliminated because they did not make sense. Things such as direct payment subsidies did not make sense. Last year we were able to produce $23 billion in savings.

This year we were back at it again and looked at a couple of other ideas, and it is $24 billion in savings to reduce the deficit. To put that in some kind of context, under the across-the-board cuts we have all known to be called the sequester--the across-the-board cuts over the next 10 years for every agency--agriculture's across-the-board cut is $6 billion.

We could have said: Well, the sequester is $6 billion, so we will find $6 billion in savings. We didn't do that. We found four times as much in savings. We wanted to come to the floor of the Senate to tell every colleague that there is integrity in every program; that we have done everything we could to cut duplication, create accountability, and provide policies that make sense for the American taxpayer.

We don't do subsidies anymore, we do insurance. We partnered with farmers to buy insurance so they have skin in the game. They don't receive a check, they get a bill for the insurance. But just like any other insurance, there is no payout unless there is a loss. So that is the basic structure.

We have done a tremendous amount to also hone in on areas of, frankly, misuse or abuse in policy as it relates to the commodity title as well. For instance, this bill caps payments in the commodity program to half of what they currently are. So we cut in half the current limit on what may be received by an individual farmer.

Senator Grassley and Senator Tim Johnson deserve tremendous credit. Senator Grassley, as a member of our committee, has championed these reforms in payments for years, and this is the first farm bill that has that in the base bill. We are cutting the payments in half.

We closed something called the manager's loophole to ensure that so- called farm managers actually have to be farming. They have to actually be farming to get a farm payment.

Today the Washington Post has an article that I would encourage folks to read. It talks about folks who are in Manhattan and Georgetown, living in multimillion-dollar homes, receiving these payments, and they are not farmers. Because of the current structure and lack of accountability and focus, they are actually getting paid. They do not get that anymore under this bill. We have important reforms.

This bill saves money by tightening rules to prevent fraud and misuse in our nutrition programs. Our nutrition programs are critical and essential. Just as crop insurance is there when a farmer has a disaster, food programs are there when a family has a disaster.

We know, as in anything else, there are areas where there can be abuse or waste. In my own home State, much to my chagrin, we have seen lottery winners continue to receive food assistance. We stop that. We crack down on retailers engaged in trafficking of benefits, and we prevent States from allowing some individuals to claim expenses they don't really have in order to increase their benefits.

By ending the misuse but making sure we keep the standard benefit for every man, woman, and child who deserves some temporary help, we are putting more integrity into the food program. I would argue we need to make sure we stand strong against the cuts coming from the House of Representatives when we talk about food assistance for folks who have paid taxes all of their lives, who never

thought in their wildest dreams they would ever need help, who are mortified and who suddenly find themselves out of work and need to know somebody will be there to help them put food on the table, help them get back on their feet. Our bill does that while creating accountability. I am very proud of the work our committee has done.

We also have streamlined programs not only to save dollars but to create more flexibility.

We have done a tremendous amount of work in the area of conservation. We have over 650 conservation and environmental groups across the country endorsing our work in conservation. We took 23 conservation programs and cut them down to 14 and then put them in 4 very different and flexible areas. These conservation groups see that as an improvement because we are cutting down the paperwork and making it more flexible for farmers and community groups to be able to access conservation programs, and we are actually saving money as we are doing that.

In this bill, as the Presiding Officer knows, we have also codified a very important agreement that environmentalists, conservation groups, and farm commodity group leaders have come to in supporting crop insurance and making sure those who receive crop insurance are compliant with conservation. It is a very important policy, and I commend everybody who worked so hard on it.

Once again, as we go into this week, I wish to remind colleagues this is a jobs bill. Agriculture is a bright spot in our economy. It is the only area in which we actually have a trade surplus. The farm bill invests in a number of areas to boost exports and to help family farmers sell more goods locally. We make some changes. While we are cutting in certain areas, we actually increase in others. That is what we ought to do when we make good policy decisions. So we have increased funding for farmers markets, local food hubs, the ability for schools to be able to purchase more fresh foods and vegetables locally--things that create jobs locally.

We have spurred innovations in new biobased manufacturing--not just bioenergy, but we can replace chemicals and petroleum with things such as soybean oil and other agricultural byproducts that are actually cleaner, biodegradable, create jobs, and get us off foreign oil. So there are new initiatives in the farm bill that allow us to do that as well.

It really is a time for reform of the policies that fall under what we dub the ``farm bill.'' This bill, I believe and I think it is safe to say, is the most reform we have seen in decades. We have done it on a bipartisan basis. We have had tough votes and made tough decisions, but I believe they are the right decisions in terms of reform. This is a bipartisan effort, coming out of committee 15 to 5, and I hope for and expect a strong bipartisan vote as we had a year ago.

This really is a jobs bill. It really is a jobs bill, and in order to keep it a set of jobs policies, our farmers and ranchers need to have the economic certainty of getting this work done and having a 5-year policy that will allow them to plan and to continue to create the safest, most affordable food supply for Americans of anyone in the world. So it is time to get it done. We are anxious to work with colleagues this week to do that.

Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment. The Moran amendment follows the philosophy of this farm bill of moving from direct subsidies to crop insurance. It is an important crop, and it is important to make sure that we do have crop insurance tailored to alfalfa growers.

I urge colleagues to support the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

vote explanation

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coons and Senator Johanns--I am not sure if Senator Johanns is here--I wish to call up amendment No. 1079 on their behalf. We intend to take this by voice vote this evening.

Mr. President, this simply increases the authorization for the local and regional procurement program from $40 million per year to $60 million per year. It is based on a pilot project from the last farm bill to test various options on food aid for hungry populations, how to do it faster and more efficiently.

Mr. President, I would simply say that this is an amendment we are happy to accept on behalf of Senator Coons, Senator Johanns, Senator Durbin, Senator Isakson, and Senator Leahy. It would modestly increase the authorization for the local and regional food procurement program. I ask that we accept it on a voice vote.

I yield back the remaining time on both sides.

Have we completed the vote?

Mr. President, I see colleagues who wish to speak. I wish to thank colleagues for their diligence as we work through amendments on the farm bill. Our goal is to complete this by the end of the week. It is important that we complete this jobs bill. Sixteen million people work in agriculture and are depending on it, and they are depending on us to get it right, as we did a year ago. So I look forward to working with colleagues as we continue to work through the amendment process. I appreciate everybody's hard work.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 588, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Wyden amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, June 4, 2013; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that

following morning business the Senate resume consideration of S. 954, the farm bill; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, now that the circuit court nomination vote has been scheduled for later this afternoon, I ask unanimous consent that at 10:30 a.m. the Senate resume consideration of S. 954, the farm bill; that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the Sanders amendment No. 965, as provided under the previous order; finally, following the confirmation vote at 2 p.m., the Senate resume legislative session and consideration of S. 954.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

First, Mr. President, before discussing the amendment, I think it is important to note that this is not germane to the farm bill. Food labeling is properly subject to the jurisdiction of the HELP Committee; therefore, Senator Harkin opposes the amendment.

While I appreciate very much the advocacy of Senator Sanders on so many different issues, I do believe this particular amendment would interfere with the FDA's science-based process to determine what food labeling is necessary for consumers. It is also important to note that around the world now we are seeing genetically modified crops that have the ability to resist crop disease and improve nutritional content and survive drought conditions.

In many developing countries we see wonderful work being done by foundations such as the Gates Foundation and others that are using new techniques to be able to feed hungry people. I believe we must rely on the FDA's science-based examination before we make conclusions about food ingredients derived from genetically modified foods. They currently do not require special labeling because they have determined that food content of these ingredients does not materially differ from their conventional counterparts. I would urge a ``no'' vote.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Just for 30 seconds, this is a very important debate. I do not intend to interrupt it. But for purposes of colleagues who wish to speak next, I ask that once the debate is done, Senator Feinstein and Senator McCain have 15 minutes to discuss a farm bill amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 1 p.m. be equally divided between proponents and opponents of the Feinstein-McCain amendment No. 923; that following the confirmation vote this afternoon and the resumption of legislative session, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment; that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote and that the amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold.

One more comment, as I see my colleague is waiting to speak on the Senate floor. I want to thank everyone. As we are working through the farm bill, we are making progress, moving forward, and looking forward to continuing to put in place the final path for passage of the bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following first-degree amendments be in order to be called up: Hagan No. 1031, and Durbin-Coburn No. 953; that we have 5 minutes of debate on the Hagan amendment, that there be 10 minutes allotted to Senators Durbin and Coburn for their amendment, and I reserve 5 minutes I would control on their amendment; that we have a vote then at 3:15, and that when we vote in relation to the amendments we proceed to the votes in the order listed; that no second-degree amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the votes; that there will be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes; and then finally, upon disposition, Senator Merkley will be recognized.

Madam President, while I very much appreciate the amendment of Senator Durbin and Senator Coburn, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Crop insurance is insurance, and the farmer gets a bill not a check. They get a bill. The question is whether we are going to provide a discount so it is an affordable policy.

We ended subsidies through direct payments. We want them to move to a voluntary system of crop insurance. The bill they get has to be a bill they can afford to be able to provide the coverage, and then there is no payout unless they have a loss, such as a flood, drought, or whatever has happened. It is insurance.

There are several reasons this is not the same vote the Senate took last year on this amendment. With the historic agreement to attach conservation compliance to crop insurance--potentially reducing the acres and numbers of producers covered by crop insurance--will only reduce the environmental benefits and could lead to draining wetlands and plowing highly erodable land.

Let me say this another way: Of course most of the crop insurance goes to the largest farmers because they have the most land to insure. Just by definition, the larger the insurance policy, the more they are trying to cover. The question is--and the reason conservationists and environmentalists have come together--is because they want the large tracts to become conservation compliant.

There is even more environmental impact on the large tracts than on the small tracts, which is why we saw this historic agreement between 30-some different farm, environmental, and conservation groups to say: We will support crop insurance, but you have to do conservation compliance on all of the land.

Limiting crop insurance support to producers will cause producers with large pieces of land to leave the insurance system, losing the conservation benefits and possibly increasing the costs, again, to smaller providers. If everybody is not in, then the cost goes up for who is in.

In fact, we know if we take the largest purchasers out, it is estimated we could see premiums go up nearly 40 percent for those who are currently in the system, and we are more likely to go back to ad hoc disaster assistance.

In the drought of 2012, one of the worst on record for U.S. farmers, there were no calls for our crops to receive ad hoc disaster assistance. The corn, wheat, soybean growers, and others across the country were able to survive. Why? Because of crop insurance, and it worked.

I urge colleagues to take a second look at this. We are talking about preserving a historic agreement that came together around conservation compliance. We want to make sure all of the land that is in crop insurance is covered, and we are protecting our soil and water.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

I appreciate the confidence my friend from Oklahoma has about what business decisions will be made. Let's assume they don't walk away from crop insurance; they will be walking away from conservation compliance if they are not required to do that.

If this agreement falls apart--and it is an agreement that was delicately put together with over 30 different farm organizations, as well as conservation and environmental folks, to work together to support crop insurance. But to require environmental compliance--they may or may not make decisions about crop insurance. I do know if they do leave, the folks in the program, which are small- and medium-sized programs--as a matter of economics, like any other kind of insurance-- will see their costs go up. We do know that.

We also have this broader question that relates to the large farmers the Senators are talking about where the benefit to having comprehensive conservation compliance for our country is a benefit we want to make sure we keep intact. It would be undermined with the passage of this amendment.

Madam President, it was my understanding that the consent was for the Hagan amendment and then the Durbin-Coburn amendment. So if we could proceed in that order-- The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the order in which they will be voted.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Hagan amendment.

We yield back all time.

Madam President, I would urge a ``no'' vote for a number of reasons, but let me simply say the problem with increasing crop insurance premiums by about 40 percent, which is what this does, is we are going to reduce participation in crop insurance, reduce coverage, and drive up premiums. Most important for me, we have a historic agreement to tie crop insurance to conservation compliance, and this would undermine that effort.

I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Before proceeding, I wish to thank everyone for their good work up to this point and announce there will be no further votes. The next vote will be at 5:30 p.m. on the Monday we return, and we will proceed and complete the bill.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to thank colleagues for their work this week, to thank my partner Senator Cochran and both of our staffs, who have been working very hard to complete the process of this very important jobs bill called the farm bill.

Let me take a moment to remind everyone that we are talking about 16 million jobs in America that come because of agriculture, because of what we do in the food industry altogether. It is incredibly important we complete this work. I am very confident when we come back into session in another week that we will complete our process.

I thank our majority leader and the Republican leader for their support in our moving through this process, and certainly our majority leader, Senator Reid, who has been incredibly supportive in working with us and giving us the time to come directly from committee to the floor of the Senate and to work with colleagues through amendments on both sides of the aisle to get this done. We are doing this the way we have always done it, which is in a bipartisan fashion, working through both Democratic and Republican amendments. At the end we will have produced what I believe is the most reform-minded farm bill in decades.

Let me also remind my colleagues we have before us a bill that is different than anything I can think of actually in terms of deficit reduction. We have a bill that has over $24 billion in spending cuts put forward by our committee and supported by the communities that are affected--$24 billion in deficit reduction, which is much more than we would be required to do if we went with the across-the-board cuts that have been so debated with the sequester. The Agriculture Department and the farm bill are responsible for $6 billion in deficit reduction through the sequester. We have added four times to that amount in deficit reduction, but we are doing it in a smart, focused way, making tough decisions, setting priorities, eliminating subsidies that don't make sense anymore, and strengthening risk management, market-oriented programs.

We have debated, and will debate more, something called crop insurance, which I will remind my colleagues does

not allow for someone getting a check. They get a bill. They pay for crop insurance. We do it in a partnership between the Federal Government and farmers to help them have affordable risk management. That is what we strengthen in this bill. We have been told by farmers all across the country that the most important risk management tool for them is insurance--crop insurance that is affordable.

We have also in this legislation done something that is historic, which is as we have moved from subsidies to insurance, we are tying conservation compliance to the purchase of insurance. This is a very important policy, and we have many groups--over 30 groups--that have come together, and I want to commend all the commodity groups and the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union and all those that came together, along with environmentalists and conservation organizations, to put a real priority on both a strong risk management system called crop insurance and a strong conservation policy called conservation compliance. This is a very important part of our bill as we look to savings.

Frankly, we have looked at savings in every single part of this bill. We have 12 different bills all put together called titles in this thing we call a farm bill, and we have looked at savings in each area of the bill. We have, for instance, taken a hard look at our conservation programs and decided that instead of 23 different kinds of programs, we actually could consolidate and streamline down to 13. We put them in four different buckets of activities, with a lot of flexibility, working with community groups and grassroots groups on conservation, and saw that we could save money, which we have done.

We listened to mayors and rural communities around Michigan and around the country--those who represent townships and counties--who said make sure you continue to have a strong rural economic development presence. Because once you get outside the cities in Michigan or around the country every community is partnering with rural development for business loans, water and sewer projects, transportation, firetrucks, police cars, housing, and all those efforts working through rural development. But we heard from our local officials that it was complicated. We currently, in law, have 11 different definitions of ``rural.'' That made no sense. They said: Could you please give us one? We looked through all the different programs and streamlined it and now we have one definition, so it is easier to work with, less paperwork, and it makes much more sense.

We have continued to strengthen the part of our agricultural economy called ``specialty crops.'' This is near and dear to me in Michigan-- fresh fruits and vegetables and other areas that are very important to many States, including mine. The organic community is a fast-growing part of agriculture, and so we strengthen that as well.

We have looked from Mississippi to Michigan, California to Delaware, and everything in between, to make sure this is a bill that works for all parts of agriculture, and I am pleased to say we have been able to do that.

We have also made sure the energy title is strong, both in supporting farmers and ranchers who want to be focused on energy efficiency on the farm or the ranch, and also in expanding efforts beyond our traditional biofuel efforts to something that is near and dear to my heart which is called bio-based manufacturing.

We have very exciting opportunities in America. I know our Presiding Officer is as passionate about manufacturing as I am, and we now have the opportunity, working with our agricultural groups, to create ways to replace petroleum in plastics and other types of materials that we have today--synthetic fibers and so on--with agricultural by-products.

If you buy many of our great American automobiles today, you might find you are sitting on foam that is actually made from soybean oil instead of petroleum oil. So you might be sitting on soybeans in the seats. Many parts of the interior of the automobiles that folks are now buying actually have some kind of agricultural by-product, whether it is wheat chaff or corn husks or soybean oil. So we know we can use these new opportunities to not only create markets but create situations that are much better for our environment and that create jobs. This is a new and exciting part of what we are doing to expand opportunities through the energy title as well.

We also are very pleased and proud of the efforts around nutrition for folks in this country who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves hit hard by the economy. We want to make sure they continue to have the support they need around food assistance. That is absolutely critical, and I am pleased we have stood together in opposing very damaging amendments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Because just as crop insurance is important for our farmers when they have a disaster, food assistance is important for our families when they have a disaster. I think it reflects the best about us as Americans that we want to make sure we are providing that assistance.

We also are making sure we are doing more around farmers markets, and fresh fruits and vegetables in schools, making local food hubs a possibility so we have local farmers being able to come together to market their products as well.

There are many pieces in this farm bill that all relate back to jobs, all relate back to reforms we have put in place, and relate to making sure we have a continuation of the safest, most affordable food supply in the world here in America. When you go home tonight, if you sit down to have supper, thank a farmer. We all understand this is the riskiest business in the world, and the job of the farm bill is to provide support and risk management tools for our growers when they need them, but also to be great stewards of taxpayer dollars and to do what is right for rural communities across America and for families that need some temporary help as well.

There are many pieces, and I haven't even mentioned all of them. But I did want to remind people why we take the time on the floor to work through these issues and these amendments. We have more work to do, but we see the light at the end of the tunnel. We will be putting together a list for final votes on amendments when we come back into session, and we are looking forward to doing that and to completing this effort.

Again, I would remind colleagues, we did this last year. The House did not do their job. They did in committee, on a bipartisan basis, but not on the floor. We did our job. Last time around I remember doing 73 different votes on this particular bill. We wrapped in almost every single one of those amendments that were passed into the bill we presented to the Senate this time, and we are continuing to work together on other amendments as well. But it will be time, when we get back, to bring this to closure and to once again demonstrate the Senate can work together on a bipartisan basis to do the right thing for the families and the businesses and the farmers and the ranchers we represent. Sixteen million people in this country are counting on us to get our job done, and I am sure we will.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be in order: Moran No. 987 and

Coons-Johanns No. 1079; that at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 3, the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the two amendments in the order listed; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to either amendment prior to the votes, and that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2013, at 11 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2013, at 9 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2013, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``United States-European Union Economic Relations: Crisis and Opportunity.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2013, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2013, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Federal Programs and the

Federal Workforce of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2013, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Improving Federal Health Care in Rural America: Developing the Workforce and Building Partnerships.''

Mr. President, before the Senator from Wisconsin leaves the floor, I would like to indicate how thrilled I am to have another Great Lakes Senator with us in the Senate. Senator Baldwin is an invaluable member of the Budget Committee. She is fighting hard for Wisconsin agriculture. Now that we are in the middle of the efforts on the farm bill, I know she is deeply involved and concerned about our men and women who provide the food we put on our tables every day.

We thank the Senator for her leadership. We are so pleased to have Senator Baldwin in the Senate.

Madam President, I say to my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, if I might ask, before he proceeds on his amendment, if I could enter a unanimous consent about the vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment No.

960; that the time until noon be equally divided between Senators Inhofe and Stabenow or their designees; further, that no second-degree amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Madam President, before speaking on the amendment, I wish to share--and I know everyone in the Senate wishes to share--their thoughts and prayers with the people of Oklahoma.

As the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma knows, I have a strong connection with Oklahoma. My mom grew up on a farm picking cotton in Oklahoma, and we have talked before about my grandparents, until they passed away, being there. It was a wonderful trip for my family to go to Ponca City, OK, in later years to my grandparents to visit every summer. I will never forget that in the backyard my grandparents had a tornado shelter, basically. It was on a little mound of dirt. We opened the door and it was just like Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz, opening the door and going down into the cellar. A couple of times in the middle of the night we had to get up and go use the cellar, and I know how frightening it was for me as a child to experience that.

I know the storms have gotten more and more intense with more and more devastation. We all hope for the very best in the recovery for all the families involved.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the concerns raised by the Senator, but I rise in strong opposition to block granting and cutting the food assistance program called SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, for our country.

I have always viewed, as chair of the Agriculture Committee, two programs very similarly. The first is crop insurance, which is there when there is a disaster for a farmer. The second one is SNAP or the Supplemental Food Assistance Program, which is there when there is a disaster for a family. They both go up when the disasters go up, and they go down when things get better. So when we have droughts, when we have what has been happening to our farmers over the last year and before, we see costs go up for crop insurance. We don't cap that arbitrarily saying, We don't like these droughts, we don't like these breezes, we don't like all this stuff, so even though it is real important to the farmers, we are going to cap how much we will help them. The crop insurance is there.

The same thing is true for a family. It wasn't that long ago--in fact, the beginning of 2009--when we in Michigan had the highest unemployment rate in the country. I believe it hit 15.7 percent unemployment at that time. We had an awful lot of people at that time-- and many who have continued although things are getting a lot better-- who have paid taxes all of their lives; never thought in their wildest dreams they would ever need help putting food on the table for their families, but they did. It was temporary. The average length of time someone needs help is 10 months. But I consider that to be a point of pride for our country, that we have a value system which says we are going to make sure when families are hit with hard times through no fault of their own, they are not going to starve; they are going to be able to put food on the table for their children. I think that is the best about us.

Now that things are getting better and the unemployment rate is coming down, the cost of these programs is coming down. Our farm bill shows a cut in spending not because we have decided we are only going to help some people and not other people--some children, not other children--but because people are going back to work. They didn't need the help anymore, so we are seeing those lines go down. By the way, as crop insurance goes up because disasters and weather events have gone up, we are seeing family disasters going down, which is where we want it to go.

Unfortunately, this amendment would cap the amount of help we would give on supplemental nutrition. It would cap it for 2014 at just over half of the current levels, so we would say we don't care how many families have a problem, we don't care what happens; we don't care what happens because of weather that wipes out a business and suddenly folks who have worked hard all of their lives find they need some help they never thought they would need. This would arbitrarily cap at just over half the current levels needed to maintain the current help. It would mean absolutely devastating results for millions of families who are trying to feed their children.

If we consider the fact that about 47 percent of those who get help right now are children--almost half of the food help in this country is for children--and then we add to that another 17 percent for senior citizens and the disabled, and we put that together, we find this amendment would be insufficient to even cover those individuals, let alone the other 37 percent of men and women who get help right now. Unfortunately, block granting this program would not only--and capping it and cutting it--would not only hurt families who are counting on us for temporary help but it would create a situation where we couldn't respond during an economic recession as we can right now.

Again, crop insurance means we respond. When there is a disaster, costs and spending go up. I support that. But in this area, if we are capping and block granting and sending it back to the States, there would be no ability to be able to do that.

The other thing that I think is absolutely true for many of our States--and certainly, unfortunately, I regret to say, in my own State right now; it is a fact--is that by block granting and not requiring that the dollars be used for food assistance for families, there is no guarantee it will go to food assistance. None. When we look at the pressures on budgets and other areas for critical needs or things people feel are important, we have absolutely no guarantee that this would go to food for families.

We have a very efficient program right now. It has one of the best error rates of any Federal program right now--maybe the lowest--and we are able to efficiently support families and do it in a way that guarantees they actually get the nutritious food they need.

I am deeply concerned about the amendment. I do not support it. I think it takes us in exactly the wrong direction as a country. It leaves a whole lot of families high and dry in an economic disaster, or any kind of disaster that could occur for them. At their most vulnerable point, when they are trying to figure out what to do to get back on their feet, we create a situation where they don't even have enough food for their families to be able to feed them during their economic crisis.

I strongly urge colleagues to vote no on the amendment.

I would be happy to.

First, to my friend from Oklahoma, I would say the budget office has indicated it will not only not go up another 100 percent, it is going down. So they have projected about an $11.5 billion reduction which we have put into our farm bill. It is going down because the economy is getting better.

We know that with food assistance, as the unemployment rate goes up, one of the lagging indicators, the things that aren't affected as quickly in coming down, is food assistance for families. So it is now coming down. In my judgment, it is coming down the way it should come down, which is the fact that people are going back to work; that is why it is coming down.

Again, to arbitrarily cap something as basic as food going on the table for a family is something that I, with all due respect, can't support.

Here is what we are finding--and it is not my belief, it is the CBO scoring. The Congressional Budget Office, which we rely on, provides objective scoring--not my judgment--and it is telling us it is going down. The Senator is correct that it is slow to go down. As unemployment goes down, it takes a little longer before food help goes down, because we provide some help to people as they are getting back to work even if they are not at full speed back to work. So it does go down more slowly, but they have adjusted it over the next 10 years showing that, in fact, the spending on food assistance is going down because the economy is getting better. That comes from the CBO and is built into the dollars we have in the bill.

What I find objectionable is so many people lost their jobs. The reason it went up is because people were out of work. So I find that objectionable because a lot of those folks were in my State.

I have worked very hard to do everything I can to support the private sector, and the good news is that manufacturing is coming back and agriculture is strong and moving forward. So in my judgment, yes, I find it very concerning that more people needed help putting food on their table. The good news is that less of them are going to in the next decade, and that is because people are going to be getting back to work.

I believe our time has expired. I don't know if we have others who wish to speak at this point.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered and agreed to: Franken amendment No. 992 and Vitter amendment No. 1056.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Shaheen, I called up her amendment No. 925.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, for the information of Members, we are working to set up a vote later this afternoon on this particular amendment. I am working with Senator Cochran and his Republican colleagues in order to set up that vote.

Mr. President, as we continue debate on the Agricultural Reform, Food and Jobs Act, I want to remind my colleagues how important this bill is for our economy and for the 16 million people whose jobs rely on agriculture. When we go home at night and sit down at the dinner table, it is because those 16 million people have worked hard to make sure we had safe, affordable food on the table. They are the men and women who farmed the land. They are also the people who manufacture and sell the farm equipment, the people who ship the crops from one place to another, the people who own the farmers markets and the local food hubs, the people who work in processing and crop fertility, not to mention the researchers and the scientists who work hard every day to fight pests and diseases that threaten our food supply.

I want to talk specifically for a few moments about the work we are doing in the conservation title of the farm bill. Our farm bill improves 1.9 million acres for fish and wildlife habitat. This is about jobs as well. Healthy wildlife habitats, clean fishable waters, are not only good for our environment, but they also support hunting, fishing, and all of our other outdoor recreation that benefits our economy and creates jobs. In fact, outdoor recreation supports over 6 million jobs in our United States.

In this farm bill we are including a new historic agreement around conservation--the most powerful conservation work in decades. It is truly amazing what can happen when people actually sit down and listen to one another and work together. If farmers want to participate in title I commodity programs, including the current Direct Payments Program, they must take steps to use best conservation practices on their land when it comes to highly eroded soil and wetlands. This has been the case for many years.

Of course, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act we are debating now eliminates those subsidies.

Instead, we are strengthening crop insurance, which farmers need to purchase, and we are making market-oriented reforms to the commodity programs. But here is the issue: If we eliminate direct payment subsidies, we don't want to create unintended consequences by not having that link any longer. It is important for all of us that sensitive lands be managed in the best possible way. That is how we avoided having a dust bowl during the droughts. It is important for us to continue protecting wetlands, which help prevent flooding and are important to wildlife habitats for ducks and other waterfowl.

Commodity groups and conservation groups were on different sides of this issue for a long time. They looked at the issue from vastly different viewpoints, and they didn't agree on the best approach. They could have followed the very typical Washington playbook. They could have gone to their corners, fired off e-mails and press releases, brought the lobbyists in and demonized each other. But that is not what happened.

Like farmers and families across the country, they sat down together around a table and did something we don't do enough. They listened to each other. They listened and tried to see the other's viewpoint and they came to understand one another. It turned out their differences weren't so great after all. With a little compromise and a lot of hard work these groups were able to come together with a plan that conserves soil and water resources for generations to come and protects the safety net on which our farmers rely.

This has been called the greatest advancement in conservation in three decades. I want to underscore for my colleagues that this is an important historic agreement, and others deserve credit. As much as I certainly would like to take credit for this, or I am sure Senator Cochran would--and we certainly were very supportive in encouraging this--the agreement came about from a group of people working together.

I know a number of my colleagues are planning to talk about amendments on crop insurance. Some have already been on the floor talking about amendments. I know a number of colleagues voted for some of those amendments the last time around, but this conservation agreement puts us in a very different situation this year. For one thing, we want to make sure the biggest landowners who control the most acres are using crop insurance.

Crop insurance is voluntary. Prior to crop insurance, there were subsidies and then ad hoc disaster assistance. Now we are encouraging them to purchase crop insurance, and we want them to have it, which means now they would need to use conservation practices to preserve sensitive lands and wetlands on those largest tracts as well as small tracts.

So amendments that weaken crop insurance would reduce the number of farmers participating in crop insurance, raising premiums for family farmers and reducing the environmental impact and the environmental benefits of this historic conservation agreement. With this new agreement, the math is very simple: The more acres that are in crop insurance, the more we have environmental and conservation benefits.

My dear friend from Illinois came to the floor a while ago and said: The majority of crop insurance is with a small number of farmers. Well, that is true. The larger the farm, the more one would use crop insurance. It is just like saying anybody who buys insurance for a bigger home has more insurance than the smaller home. Bigger businesses--manufacturers--probably buy the biggest part of insurance rather than small businesses. I am not sure what the point is of saying that. Of course, we have large farmers buying more crop insurance than small farmers. We want to make sure we have the environmental and conservation benefits on those large farms just as on smaller farms.

Here is another reason my colleagues should reevaluate these amendments, and I would encourage, as they come before us, that we vote no. This chart shows the counties that were declared disaster areas last year. An awful lot of red. And 2012 was one of the worst droughts on record ever in the United States.

In the past, in situations such as this we would have passed ad hoc disaster assistance for the corn growers, the wheat growers, the soybean growers, and the other crop farmers. But we didn't have to do that because crop insurance works.

Crop insurance is not a subsidy. When people have crop insurance they get a bill to pay. We share in that cost to make sure there is a discount so they can afford the bill, but they get a bill. They do not get a check. The only farmers last year who needed disaster assistance were the ones who can't participate in crop insurance, which we fix in this farm bill.

We address permanent livestock disaster assistance. They do not have access to the same crop insurance. We address farmers, such as my cherry growers, who were wiped out when it got warm in the spring and then froze again and completely wiped out the cherries. They do not have crop insurance now. They need some extra help. In this farm bill we are giving them access to crop insurance, which is the primary risk management tool for farmers.

Producers purchase crop insurance so they are protected when there is a disaster, but if we weaken crop insurance, resulting in premium hikes of as much as 40 percent on small farmers, we are going to be going back to the days of ad hoc disaster assistance, something we cannot afford in today's tight budget climate.

Finally, we need to keep this historic agreement in place through the conference committee. We owe that to the folks who sat down and worked out this agreement. So I ask colleagues to stand with the 34 different organizations that came together--and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the groups in the coalition that put this together.

Mr. President, we need to make sure our colleagues in the House, as well as in the Senate, stand with all of these groups who worked hard to compromise and forge this very historic constructive agreement. If we want to preserve conservation wins we have in this farm bill, we

need to support the farmers, the environmentalists, and the conservationists who have made it very clear this agreement is something they stand behind. We should not be weakening crop insurance or making it harder for large producers, who have the majority of the land we want to conserve, to have less of an incentive to participate in the program.

Let me just say--and I know my colleague from Vermont is here to speak as well--that I want to thank again the 34 organizations-- everyone from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, National Cotton Council-- and right on down the line--the National Farmers Union, Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and USA Rice Federation.

This is an incredible coalition, and it speaks very loudly both to the fact we need to keep in place the No. 1 risk management tool for our growers but that we need to also make sure they are providing the conservation practices to protect our soil and our water which is so critical for the future--for our children and grandchildren.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, the Senate begin consideration of S. Res. 65 at 3:45

p.m.; that there be 50 minutes for debate, that the Republicans control 30 minutes and the majority control 20 minutes, and that of the majority's time, Senator Menendez control 15 minutes and Senator Blumenthal control 5 minutes; that all other provisions under the previous order remain in effect; and that upon disposition of S. Res. 65 the Senate resume consideration of S. 954; that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form and the Senate immediately proceed to vote in relation to the Shaheen amendment No. 925; and that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. As a result of this agreement, if all time is used, at approximately 4:35 p.m. there will be two rollcall votes, the first on adoption of S. Res. 65, the Iran sanctions resolution, and then in relation to the Shaheen amendment on the Sugar Program.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Let me say, for purposes of the Members, now that we have completed our official voting for today, I want to thank everyone for all of their hard work and the staff for all of their hard work. It is a continuing pleasure to work with my ranking member Senator Cochran. We are in the process of securing a time for a vote, hopefully in the morning, and then we have a number of votes tomorrow.

We are on a path to getting this done. With the cooperation of the Members, we are hopeful we will have a number of votes tomorrow and be able to complete this very important bill.

I would just remind colleagues that 16 million people work in this country because of agriculture. It is probably the biggest jobs bill that will come before this body, and we are very grateful for everyone's patience and willingness to work with us to bring this bill to completion.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, May 23, following the cloture vote on the Srinivasan nomination, and notwithstanding cloture having been invoked, if invoked, the Senate resume legislative session and consideration of S. 954; further, that the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the pending Sanders amendment No. 965; that there be no second-degree amendments to the Sanders amendment prior to the vote; that the amendment be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold; finally, that the time consumed during consideration of S. 954 count postcloture.