mr. president, i strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose any attempts at repealing this program. at risk would be 142,000 american jobs generated by the united states sugar producing industry. many of these jobs would be lost to subsidized foreign producers who are generally less efficient and less reliable and produce sugar far less safely and responsibly than american sugar producers. i support idaho's sugar beet growers as well as the sugar growers throughout the country, and i'm committed to ensuring that they have access to the tools they need to produce affordable and abundant sugar supply. the bottom line is not only is this program not a cost to the united states taxpayer, it generates revenue to help us reduce our deficit. these are the kinds of programs we need to protect american producers, and i encourage all of my colleagues to oppose the shaheen amendment. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor.

mr. crapo: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reid: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now withdraw my motion to proceed to s. 1940.

the presiding officer: the motion is withdrawn. mr. reid: it's my understanding we're now on s. 3240, is that right, and a motion to recommit with secondary amendment number 2393 is now pending, is that right? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: calendar number 415, s. 3240, a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2017, and for other purposes. mr. reid: i now move to table amendment numbered 2393 and i ask for the yeas and nays on that motion to table. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators who wish to change their votes or to vote?

hearing none, the ayes are 50, the nays are 46. the motion to table carries. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will come to order, meese. the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to table amendment numbered 2392 and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. a senator: mr. president? mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent there be four minutes equally divided of debate prior to the vote. the presiding officer: the leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent there be four minutes of debate prior to the vote, time controlled by senator stabenow and -- the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky, and there will be order. mr. paul: our system of helping ensure that no one goes hungry in our country is a noble one, but we're now asking to spend $750 billion on food stamps. when we ask this, we need to remember that recently a woman in chicago faked the birth of triplets in order to receive $21,000 in food stamps. we need to remember that millionaires, including larry ficke, who won $2 million, are still receiving food stamps because he says he has got no income. he has got $2 million but no income. the presiding officer: order, please, and restore some of the senator's time. mr. paul: amanda clayton won a million dollars recently in the lottery and she was aghast that she lost a third of it to taxes. she now has two homes and mortgage payments. how can she make it without food stamps? so we're paying millionaires food stamps. 30% of polk county inmates are

getting food stamps. there has to be some reason. should you buy junk food on food stamps? should you get to go to mcdonald's on food stamps? it's out of control. it's not about helping those in need. it's about being wise with the taxpayer dollars and not giving people $20,000 a year in food stamps. we need to give it to only those who can't work, those who are infirm, those who have disease and are not able-bodied, but we're giving it to millionaires. we're giving it for junk food, and we're giving it to go to mcdonald's, and it's got to stop. it's doubled in the last ten years. we do not have an endless supply of money. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i think that americans would be just flabbergasted at the amount of money, and some of these programs are duplicative, so people getting food stamps for a meal are also getting a free lunch at school. some of these programs we're actually advertising for

applicants. in my hometown, they advertise to try to promote to get people to come in and eat the free lunch during the summertime. it's not that we won't help people. we just need to be conscious of how much money we have and can we help only those who cannot help themselves. what i would ask is for some reason the food stamp program is -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. paul: i recommend that we vote for this amendment. thank you. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: first of all, i strongly oppose this amendment, urge my colleagues to vote to table it. i would agree with the senator from kentucky, nobody who wins the lottery should get food assistance, and we outright ban it in this bill. we outright ban a number of areas where there has been waste, fraud and abuse. this bill does more on accountability, on food assistance than we have seen in many, many years. but it also doesn't do what this amendment does, which is block grant funding, cut it, send it back to the states with no

requirement it be used for people who truly need it. i can tell you coming from michigan, i have people who have never before in their lives needed help with food assistance. they are mortified. they paid taxes their whole life. they have never asked for help. and now the plant closed and they need some temporary help. those folks are on average getting help for ten months or less, and they deserve every dollar that we can help them with, and i want to make sure every single dollar goes where it should go. waste, fraud and abuse, we tackle, but for somebody in this great country who has paid taxes all their lives and worked all their lives and now needs help to put food on the table for the balance of the month, they need to know that we're going to be able to provide a little bit of temporary help. amendment is outrageous and would go completely against the commitment we as a country have made to help those who truly need it. i would urge that we vote yes to

table this amendment. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays have been ordered. the clerk will -- the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

sproeup are there any -- the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none, the ayes are 65. the nays are 33. the motion to table is carried. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the pending motion to recommit be withdrawn, amendment 2390 be withdrawn, that the stabenow-roberts amendment 2389 be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered original text for the purpose of further amendment, that the following four minutes be the first amendments in order to the bill with no other first-degree amendments in order until these amendments are disposed of. coburn 2353. hagan 2366, mccaskill 2222. on each of these amendments the

time will be divided. upon the use or yielding back of time on all four amendments, the senate proceed to votes in relation to the amendments in the order listed, there be no amendments or motions in order to the amendments prior to the votes other than motions to waive points of order and motion to table. upon disposition of these amendments, i be recognized. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. coburn: reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: i wonder if i might ask the leader a question through the chair. it would seem to me the process that we're planning now is that the leader is deciding what amendments we will vote on and what we won't. i wonder if he would be open to the consideration of us setting up 40 amendments over the next four days and coming to agreement on this. what we're playing is a game of low-priority amendments and high-priority amendments in the name of saying we're doing something rather than having an open amendment process, which is the tradition of the senate. my question to him, would he be

amenable on having negotiation on a much larger number of amendments so we don't continue to get out of order. this is the first time i've seen this list and this is a very low-priority amendment for me. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i wish my friend was nearly as exorcised over the year, 18 months, on getting on a bill. it takes us a week to get on a bill because we have to file motion to invoke cloture every time we proceed to a bill. we could save a lot of time if we could get on a bill and one reason there used to be so much, as he said, tradition, the tradition has been spilled into the spill ways, is that it was a rare occasion you had to do anything to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed. now it's what we do every time because the republicans demand

that. in direct answer to your question, i have worked with senator roberts and stabenow. we're trying to get some amendments up. they may be low-priority on his part, my friend from oklahoma. but some people think these are really important amendments. the two we just finished, no one, no one can consider those low-priority amendments. dealing with food stamps and with sugar -- these are always big deals on this farm bill. so i say to my friend, senator roberts, senator stabenow are trying to come up with a list. you're having some kind of a steering meeting or whatever it is now. maybe you go visit with them and try to help us get a list. i'm not going to the talk out here about a number, but as we did on the highway bill, we a done it on the f.d.a. bill, come up with some amendments. there's plenty of dead time around here. we don't have to spend a lot of time on the amendments

themselves, once we agree to them, because people will talk about them forever. so the answer to your question, yes, i would be happy, if we could get -- as we've been trying to get for a long time -- agreed-upon group of amendments. i want to finish the farm bill. i think that's extremely important to our country. so my friend, i hope that we can work something out. i've told my friend, the junior senator from michigan, the chairman of this committee, i would like something so we can enter into an agreement today to start voting on some of these amendments tomorrow. ms. stabenow: if the leader would be willing to yield for a question -- mr. reid: yes. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. isn't it true, mr. leader,ious to emphasize what you've indicated, that while we're moving forward step by step and what we can do before we get a larger universal agreement, that you -- you, as you have said, are orientation you'r open, yous

-- senator roberts and i are working with members on both sides to get a larger list, a list in which we would begin to move through. rather than just biding time on the floor while we're doing that, this gives an opportunity for members to debate on issues they care deeply about and to continue to move forward. but in fact, mr. leader, it is your desire in fact, correct, that you have asked that we do this and that we are in the process of putting together that larger universe of amendments? mr. reid: in response to my friend's question, the reason that we're -- we had these two votes this morning is while they're working on coming up with a finite list of amendments, why sit around here and twiddle our thumbs? at least through the process that we've gotten, get two major amendments out of the way. they're gone. and i would hope that it would lead to people allowing -- i

also have -- if my friend continues his objection, aim i'm going to set up some more votes this way. i don't want -- listen, this is not my preference of doing these bills. but i say to my friend, i would hope with the concern you have for the finances of this country and how you care about our country, care a little bit about these motions to proceed which are such a waste of our time. mr. coburn: mr. president, in -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: -- in response, i take the leader to his word, and i will go back to my caucus and explain that. i will object to this group of bill. but i would also note that we did put two amendments out of the way. the one amendment for sugar wasn't the one that wthathad tht the one we chose. never have we given up our rights to give the majority leader the right to decide what

amendments will be voted on or offeredment for the last three days we could have had a great, open process of having the floor open for amendments and moved eight or ten amendments a day. i i understand the conflict and the political roomifications of what he's trying to do. i will go and the seek the counsel and guidance of my caucus and return and give you a message. with that, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: before my friend leaves the floor, i also look with -- oh, what's the word? -- i look back at those days as recounted in caro's book and as we've heard here, to the days when the majority leader really did some things. during the days of lyndon onson, you couldn't even have a vote on anything unless he gave the nod. so i don't have that power anymore. that's changed over the years, and -- but i would love to be

able to have a bill brought to the floor. if we were able to get rid of these senseless motions to proceed that i have to file cloture on, we could spend a lot of time debating and amending these bills. that's what we need to get to. mr. coburn: i think you could eliminate motions to proceed very easily by saying that every bill comes to the floor and will have an open and honest debate determined by what the amendmentthe amendments that ths would like. we're not going to solve that problem nowvment i will take counsel with my caucus and will be back. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i call up amendment 2406 to the instructions to which -- this is at the defnlg. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reid proposes amendment numbered 2406 to the

instructions on the motion to recommit s. 3240. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that, mr. president. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i now call amendment 2407. a second-degree amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. reid proposes amendment numbered 2407 to amendment number 2406. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 250, s. 140. -- s. 1940. the presiding officer: the motion is pending. the senator sn senator from mons

recognized. mr. tester: thank you. i rise to talk about the farm bill and recognize the fine work that the senate agricultural committee did in bringing this bill forward. i am disappointed to say the least that this bill is bogged down in legislative games. this bill is too important for folks to play politics with. if you want to talk about a lack of predictability, this is a prime example. we should be passing a bill and instead games are being played. you know, agriculture is the largest industry in montana. montana's farmers and ranchers produce the food that powers the nation, providing an effective safety net for those of us in production agriculture is an important -- is important and it is potentially very costly. so it would have been easy for the senate ag committee to write a bill that keeps spending at the levels of the last farm bill, but they did not. this bill recognizes the fiscal challenges that we face, cuts more than $23 billion, more than

double the amount proposed by simpson-bowles commission. due to the good work of the committee, this bill reduces the number of programs at the department of agriculture. at the same time, the bill preserves a strong safety net for fathers invests in conservation and nutrition, and institutes much-needed reforms. i have offered amendments to address the issues that still face farmers and ranchers around the country. the first is my provision to ensure that farmers will be able to buy public varieties of seeds. my amendment will make sure that the department of agriculture follows through on the government's commitment to public seed varieties. it ensures that the usda will devote the row sources necessary -- resources necessary to support a strong public breeding program and develop public plant and animal varieties. for too long the agriculture department has failed to promote public seed varieties.

usda must support diverse seed research so that farmers can adapt to various growing conditions. my amendment will not solve the problem. but it is a necessary first step to ensure that farmers have a choice of what kind of seeds to purchase. i have also introduced an amendment that takes a proactive approach to protect our country's livestock producers. back in 2009, senator barrasso and i wrote a new law to help livestock providers get compensation for losses related to wolves. any producer will tell you that they would rather prevent thank get compensated for a loss. but losses do happen. autumn in of states receive some -- a number of states receive some assistance from that prasm that's why i've introduced an amendment to help producers protect their livestock from the threat of predatory trepidation. it is a commonsense solution to support livestock producers who live near protected populations p predators. speaking of commonsense amendments, i am also offering

what some have called the biggest package of sportsman bills in a generation. my sportsman act combines over 20 different bills. it comes in response to the concerns that i have heard as chairman of the congressional sportsmen's caucus. what i hear most often from sportsmen is the importance of being access to public land. this dedicates sportsmen's access to some of the best places to hunt and fish in this country. some folks might ask, why is this important? hunting and fish something a way of life in places like montana. one in three montanans hunt big game and over 50% fish. for us, it is not just recreation. it is a critical part of our economy. it drives and sustains jobs. so senator thune and i, as cochairs of the congressional sportsmen's caucus, have cin combined the best ideas from democrats and republicans. it reauthorizes several vital

conservation programs and preserves our shooting heritage. that is why it has support from a wide variety of sportsmen and conservation groups. neither party has a monopoly on good ideas, mr. president. my sportsman's act takes the best from the house bill and the best from both sides of the aisle in the senate to move the ball forward for sportsmen and women in montana and the nation. by adding this sportsmen's package to the farm bill, we will conserve some of our most productive habitat, pass on hunting and fishing tradition to future generations entrusting them to those who care the most about it. let me shift tabers to a -- let me shift gears to a topic i gare deeply about. this weekend a group of world war ii veterans will be visiting our nation's capital, with a great deal of honor and respect, i extend a hearty montana welcome to each and every one of them. together they will visit the world war ii memorial, share

stories about their service. this journey will no doubt bring about a lot of memories. i hope it will give them a deep sense of pride also. what they achieved together almost 70 years ago is remarkable. that is a testament to the fact that a grateful nation will never forget what they did, nor what they sacrificed. to us, they were the greatest generation. they left the comforts of their family and their communities to confront evil. from iwo jima to abou to bastil. they won the war by concurring an empire and liberated a continent by defeating hitler and the nazis. to them, they were simply doing their jobs. they saw danger on the horizon and they enlisted in unprecedented numbers to defend our freels ants our -- freedoms and our values. they represented the very best of us and made us proud. from a youngagers i remember playing the bugle at memorial services of veterans of the first two world wars. iit instilled in me a sense of

respect that i will never forget. honoring every generation of veterans is a montana value. i deeply appreciate the work of the big sky honor group who made this trip possible. to the world war ii veterans making the trip this wrntiondz i salute you. we will always be grateful and we'll never forget your service or your sacrifice. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. udall: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado is recognized. mr. udall: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. earlier this week, i came to the senate floor to speak about the importance of the forestry title in what is a bipartisan farm bill that we're considering right now as i speak. in my previous remarks, i spoke about a growing emergency in our nation's forests caused by the largest bark beetle outbreak in our recorded history, an outbreak that's projected to kill nearly every lodge pole pine in colorado. i know the presiding officer from the neighboring state of new mexico is experiencing these

same conditions in his state. the forest service has estimated that 100,000 dead trees are falling in our forests every day. hard to imagine, but their estimates are such. 100,000 trees every day. that means that our landscapes are littered with tinder ready to burn, which combined with the rot, dry summer that we are already experiencing is a recipe for a disastrous fire season. mother nature bats last, which means that much of what we face is out of our control, but we can act and we must act in order to manage the magnitude of the crisis in our home states. in some ways -- i know the presiding officer sees this the same way i do -- the forests in colorado are the canaries in the coal mine that tie us into and identify the effects of a

changing climate. warmer temperatures and drought conditions have exacerbated beetle infestations in our forests, and we're now dealing with an unprecedented combination of explosive fire season events. there's a raging colorado wildfire today as i stand here in larrimer county, the high park fire, and it continues to grow. it's consumed over 6,000 acres, it's claimed the life of a local homeowner, and it's causing devastating effects on the surrounding communities. as of the first thing this morning, only 10% of the fire had been contained. we have made sure, though, that all available resources are dedicated to this effort, and i'm told that we now have over a thousand firefighters on site, which is good news. we won't know the true costs of the fire for some time, but it undoubtedly will have a lasting effect on my state.

i want to assure coloradans that i will continue to closely monitor the high park fire to ensure that firefighters on the ground have all the resources they need to beat back this devastating blaze. i also want to urge my fellow coloradans to heed the warnings and follow the evacuation guidance of the firefighters that are tasked with keeping us safe. and most importantly, i ask that we keep these brave public servants in mind as they work to protect lives and personal property, especially as what is a very unpredictable fire again progresses. i know the presiding officer had a series of fires in his state, and he knows the capricious nature of wildfire. now, i want to also, in giving a little more background, point out that the high park fire is burning predominantly on private land, but it is moving rapidly into a beetle-infested national forest, and this is a reminder

of exactly why we need flexibility to treat hazardous beetle-killed trees and to engage the public in active and collaborative management of our nation's forests. we can't reverse the tragic loss of life and property that the high park fire and many other fires have caused, but it is essential that we take steps to understand what can be done in the future to better prevent, prepare and respond to wildfires, and we must learn more about the conditions that make those fires catastrophic. let me just start by talking about homeowners. homeowners can create what we know in our states is called defensible space, depth space, and that involves clearing brush, moving woodpiles, looking at other actions that you can protect your structures through. and those actions have been proven to be the hallmark of

what saves such properties in past fires, and these are important takeaways that we have learned in my state of colorado in the wake of catastrophic fires, and they are the result of subsequent stories and studies that i have called for that informed the public about what they can do to protect their homes and property. the same studies have also taught us that federal forest management policies must prioritize tree removal around communities to protect homes, roads and infrastructure, something that i fought for to provide resources for over the last decade. and the added benefit to these efforts is they create local jobs and they support the critically important timber industry in our states. but that's not all, mr. president. we must also advance new policies that will actually help prepare our firefighters to combat these raging fires. a recent example of this is

action that the senate took to pass a bill i cosponsored to expedite the purchase of much-needed air tankers to fight wildfire. our nation's tanker fleet has aged and dwindled dramatically in recent years, and without sufficient air tankers, we are ill prepared to respond to catastrophic fires, especially multiple fires at once. i'm pleased that the congress passed this bill and i understand that the president is prepared to act quickly to sign the air tanker legislation into law. still, we need to and we can do more. mr. president, we need more flexibility to treat forests more comprehensively, and i believe as i mentioned at the beginning of my remarks that the forestry title of the farm bill is a good start. however, i believe it doesn't go far enough to authorize adequate resources to treat forests that have been affected by bark beetle infestations.

the forest service bark beetle strategy calls for doubling the number of acres it has been able to treat in past years. in other words, the forest service is saying, look, we want to double what we have been doing. we believe we have the expertise to do that. what else do they need, though? they need money. in fiscal year 2011, the forest service allocated $110 million treating acres affected by bark beetles in the western united states. but if we're going to double that acreage, we're going to need more federal support. a year ago, i fought to increase the amount of funding that the forest service had available to treat hazardous trees. i worked with the administration and strongly support a reprogramming request that would have allowed the forest service to use extra money to treat problem areas in the west. the senate supported this commonsense request, but i have to tell you unfortunately the house appropriations committee stood in the way of getting these critical funds into the

forest where it was and it's still needed most. so that inaction meant that thousands of acres of beetle-killed trees were not treated in areas that are potentially now worsening the high park fire as we speak. in the new farm bill, the agriculture committee has authorized $100 million for designated treatment areas affected by beetle infestation, which is less money than last year and certainly not enough to double the number of acres that were targeted for fire prevention and tree removal. at the current authorization level of $100 million, the forest service simply will be unable to meet its goal. so, mr. president, to help remedy this, i have filed a bipartisan amendment number 2295 with senator thune of south dakota which would increase the authorization for funding to $200 million to authorize adequate resources in order for

the forest service to address these looming and immediate emergencies. i have been a strong advocate for finding ways to ensure that we're prudent in how we spend taxpayer dollars, but the need to address this crisis is immediate and the threat to public health, safety and our economy will only get worse, causing us to pay more later. another way to put it is it's less expensive to prevent fires, to prepare for fires than it is to fight fires and then be involved in the rehabilitation of those landscapes after those devastating fires are finally put out. in addition to the amendment that i have filed with senator thune that would provide for increased authorization for the funding of tree removal, i have also filed amendment 2294 that would extend colorado's good neighbor authority. good neighbor authority gives the u.s. forest service and the bureau of land management the

capability and the power to enter into cooperative agreements with state foresters to plan and implement forest health projects on more acres more efficiently. this would give my state and other states the opportunity to collaborate with federal agencies to perform forest, rangeland and watershed restoration services, actions that a study i requested after the four-mile canyon fire in boulder county in colorado found firsthand helps agencies and homeowners better prepare to reduce the risk of damage and loss of life from wildfires. now, lest viewers and those who are interested in wildfire think that they are an aberration, wildfires are actually a fact of life in the west and in forests in general, and they will continue to occur over and over again in colorado, but i am committed to doing everything possible to learn from every fire and take whatever

precautionary measures we can with the hope of saving more lives, property and communities in the future. as i have said before and we all know, wildfires can easily become a multimillion-dollar effort affecting every level of government. as the bark beetle epidemic continues to present a significant threat to our economy, critical infrastructure and important natural resources, we must allocate resources to address this epidemic up front in a commonsense way. yet, i know the presiding officer has faced these challenges head on in his state. some may see this as just a -- solely a western problem, but i urge my colleagues to support bipartisan efforts to ensure that we manage our forests to reduce fire risk, protect water supplies and bolster our economy. our forests all over our country

are susceptible to fires and vulnerable to fires. we can work together in the senate to ensure that we have the tools to protect our forests and protect the communities and the people that live in those communities. mr. president, i appreciate your interest, i appreciate your partnership and i look forward to the senate taking up these two important amendments in the near future as we hopefully move the farm bill to passage in the senate and to the president's desk. mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. udall: i would ask unanimous consent to lift the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, as every one of our colleagues will attest, the work we do in this chamber is made possible by many exceptional people who do not carry an election certificate. i'm speaking of the dedicated staffers who work on committees and in our personal offices. many of the staff members we interact with every day go on to build their own careers in political life, while others use the skills they develop here to work in rewarding ways for the private sector. others continue in public service with nonprofit organizations or other kinds of government service. a few will make their contribution to public service by staying here as employees of the united states house of representatives or the united states senate.

and a smaller and more descringt group will develop such broad expertise in the legislative branch they might as well carry an election certificate of their own because of the respect, esteem, and high regard in which they are held. these are the men and women that other congressional staffers seek for their wisdom and guidance. these are the wise people that senators and congressmen look upon as peers. not only because of their good counsel and uniquely honed years of experience but also because they often know more about the legislative process than legislators themselves. among this more and most distinct group of staff members there is a standout, my friend stan slaws. i know the presiding officer knows stan. stan is marking his 14th year of service in my office but also 37 total years of work in

congress. a nature qif of glenwood springs, colorado, he is a graduate of harvard law school. he came to washington, d.c. in the late 1960's, working first in the general counsel's office of the atomic energy commission. stan's congressional career started in 1975 when he joined the staff of what was then known as the interior and insular affairs committee in the house of representatives. in 1977 stan became became a counsel to the new subcommittee on general oversight and and job cyberling, an iconic member of the house of representatives. in this capacity he worked with john cyberling and my father, morris udall, who was chairman of the full interior committee. stan has had many successes but one i'm most proud of is his work to draft legislation that became the alaska national

interest land conservation act, setting aside more than 100 million acres of alaska's pristine public lands. stan staffed hearings throughout the lower 48 states and alaska and is one of the many key professional staff who helped shape the final legislation. the law was a milestone in conservation, protecting an area larger stan the state of california and more than doubling the system of national parks, and wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers. when john syber ling, he served with bruce vento, stan continued to work on many other laws and regulations affecting the public lands and natural resources including the arizona desert wilderness act, sponsored by my father.

stan's expertise was simply indispensable. in 1995, stan left the resources committee to become the legislative director for david scals skaggs, a house -- david skaggs, a house member from colorado who benefited from scan stan's years of expertise with public lands issues. i have a letter from congressman skaggs noting all of stan's accomplishments and service and i ask unanimous consent to insert it in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: while stan was working with congressman skaggs he dealt with contentious issues related to rocky flats a former nuclear weapons sites and other in the nuclear weapons complex. stan was one of the first people i hired following my election to the house of representatives in november, 1998. he was -- it was one of the best decisions i've ever made. i was fortunate to have someone with stan's experience who also

understood issues important to colorado. while in my house office, stan was instrumental in developing a number of land and environmental bills that were signed into law. including the rocky flats national wildlife refugee act which -- refuge act which converted this vast open space into a wildlife habitat asset after it was cleaned up and closed. he also steered into law the james peak wilderness and protection area act, one of the last unprotected areas along colorado's front range mountainous backdrop. stan has been my expert on fire prevention, developing legislation on forest health and wildfire response and mitigation. but stan's work has not just been confined to the environmental arena. his intellect and sharp legal analysis have been invaluable on a wide range of issues and topics that face each and every one of us every day.

he's been especially effective in tutoring many of the younger members of my staff on the inner workings of congress, helping them learn the nuances of drafting and serving as the highest standard for any congressional staff. like any accomplished lawyer,ston stan is fond of saying he can argue it flat or he can argue it round and his objectivity is legendary in our office. having said that, however, i also know that beneath his always-calm demeanor and his capacity to see all sides of a question, there beats the heart of a man who is passionate about doing the right thing. through many years of working on behalf of the people of colorado in my house office and now my senate office, stan has always been a voice of wisdom, reason and above all, integrity. my colleagues in the colorado

congressional delegation have often looked lookd upon stan as their resource as well. i've never minded sharing him because his advice and guidance carries weight that makes better whatever bill or policy he's been asked to consider. i dare say the presiding officer has also had the opportunity to work with stan and take advantage of his wisdom and insight. stan is a person of depth and accomplishment beyond his work in congress. he's one of the best-read people i've ever met, he's an expert on gardening, on opera, on history and the list goes on and on. and i have to say parenthetically as a graduate of williams college for me to say that about an amherst graduate probably has double weight. stan has an exceptional sense of humor and a dry wit. as demonstrated in the poems he often wrote making wry observations on current events which he would regularly

circulate to staff. in short, he has perfected what seems to be the lost art of being polite and courteous to other people, even when he disagrees with them. that of course is a quality that we could also use a bit more of in congress. stan is not only a good employee, he's also a good human being. and in the rough and tumble world of politics, that is perhaps the highest praise any of us can aspire to. his contributions to my offices, the offices of other members, the house resources committee, and the whole congress and ultimately the people of the united states serve as an example of a professional life that commands both respect and affection. just a few months ago, my staff and i celebrated stan's 70th birthday with him as we had his 60th and 65th birthdays in past years around today we are honored to celebrate his

retirement. my staff and i will miss stan, it goes without saying, and will miss working with him. and as a point of personal privilege i want to make it clear i know i will continue to seek his advice even after he leaves congressional service. i'm excited to see what the next chapter will be for stan, it will no doubt involve some adventure, some noble pursuits, some deep thought and some new summits to ascend. so please join me in thanking stan slause for 37 years of work in the u.s. congress and for his service to our country that he loves so much. we wish him well. mr. president, thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i'm pleased to follow my colleague from colorado who has come to the floor to recognize a

very fine public servant who has been working with him in the senate for years. i, too, today rise to speak of an alaskan who has dedicated a quarter of a century to service in the united states senate, working as my staff person down in ketchikan, alaska and i would like to share a few comments with my colleagues on this occasion. it's a little bit of a happy occasion and a little bit of a sad occasion and i think my colleague from colorado would agree that when we have someone who has dedicated so many years that we wish them well as they move forward, but their departure leaves a little bit of a hole for those of us who carry on. today i rise to honor sherry slick, who on june 1 began her 25th year as a senate staffer in southeast alaska based in her hometown of ketchikan. sherry plans to retire from federal service on july 30

after, again, a quarter century of service to her state. for sherry, i think her retirement is very likely a cause for joy. it's going to give her more time to spend with her kids and her grandchildren. more time to devote to the many, many volunteer and civic efforts that she is engaged in in southeast alaska. but it's going to be -- it's going to be a sad time for myself, for congressman don young. sherry has provided guidance to the alaska delegation in ketchikan, alaska's first city, through a very interesting time. it's been somewhat of a turbulent quarter century, one in which the region's former economic mainstay which is its timber industry has sharply contracted. during a period in which the tourism industry has significantly grown, and during a period where its prospects of supporting major mineral development i think have

substantially brightened, it's a good spot for us. it's a period when the ketchikan area which is the seventh longest entity in our state which is the only large community that is separated from its life line with its airport on a neighboring island, has endured somewhat unwelcome national attention, solely because they seek dependable access by bridge. now, sherry over the years has responded to tens of thousands of public and media inquiries, requests for help over everything from social security checks and visas to immigration documents. she's listened to thousands of complaints over access to alaska public lands. and to objections to many, many federal regulations, far too many to count here. through it all i think it's fair to say that sherry has been that proverbial energizer bunny.

she has more enthusiasm, more energy than most people combined. she listens patiently, she works tirelessly to help all. she helps those southeast residents and visitors deal with federal agencies, navigate the federal red tape, and then on top of it all, in that extra time, she volunteers to help her community and hem her state be a better place to live and raise a family. sherry's volunteer efforts were recognized by the community when she was named citizen of the year back in 2005 by the greater ketchikan chamber of commerce, but her accomplishments go far beyond being named the federal employee of the year. the ketchikan chamber of commerce's outstanding chamber emissary in 1991, is outstanding board member in 1994 and its chairman in 1996. she received the ketchikan rotary club's community service

award in 1994. she received the ketchikan federal executive association's lifetime community service award in 2006, received the ketchikan visitor's bureau rain bird award in 1990 and gained its outstanding service award in 2006. i think you can tell from this list of accolades this is a woman who doesn't sit still. this is a woman who seems to have more hours in her day than the rest of us. sherry is originally from corvalis, oregon, a agree in elementary education and also training from lynn benton community college in corvalis. she moved to ketchikan in 1975. she's been with us for 37 years now. she is a mother of two, brian and theresa. she first worked for eight years as the office manager of the ketchikan credit bureau before she moved to insurance

underwriting for three years. she became the assistant sales tax auditor for the ketchikan gateway borough for five years. it was in june of 1988 that our former senator, senator ted stevens, with encouragement with the other senator at the time, my father, frank murkowski, they plucked sherry away from local government to head the delegations unified southern panhandle constituent office. so she has been there in that position since 1988. but in addition to all of the legislative session -- all the legislative work, the tasks she has taken on for us, she has served a dizzying array of work for her community and state. since 2004 she has been working for the state's main care

provider. she is a board member of the ketchikan general hospital foundation. she served as chairperson of the ketchikan chamber of commerce, chairman of the ketchikan rotary. she was the secretary-treasurer of the ketchikan federal executive association. and she was also the treasurer and vice vice chairman of ketchn suropolis and treasurer of the ketchikan bureau of employees. while active in local and state politics she was the founding board member of the ketchikan soccer league, the vice president of the ketchikan killer whale swim club, coleader of the fire girls den mother program, and for four years was a board member, vice chairman and chairman of the ketchikan theater ballet, the latter

position allowed her to express her musical loves, which include playing piano, organ, clarinet and accordion. in her free time, after all that i have listed, in her free time, sherry also operated a part-time catering company. she was a partner in the alaska cruise line agency, which provides lectures to explain alaska's history, discuss its scenery and wildlife and answer tourist questions about the state as these voyages come up the inside passage. in that role, sherry has provided factual information to thousands of visitors to the 49th state, answering questions like whether or not visitors to alaska can use american stamps on their postcards. she has truly been an ambassador for our state's tourism industry. and through it all, including organizing and staffing literally hundreds of federal official visits, congressional

field hearings and volunteer fund-raising efforts, whether it's to aid breast cancer detection and treatment, sherry has maintained her calm, her poise, and her never-failing sense of humor and graciousness. not to mention her energy level. her dedication to family, community and career is universally recognized by friends and associates. i cannot thank her enough for her service to me during my decade here in the united states senate and her service to her fellow alaskans over the past 25 years. her intelligence, her knowledge, and her people-pleasing skills will sorely be missed in the future. i hope that all members here in the senate will join me in wishing her well and godspeed in her retirement pursuits. she has absolutely earned every one of her accolades and the true thanks of all alaskans in

the panhandle for a job very well done. i'm pleased and delighted to have her here with her granddaughter, enjoying some of the washington, d.c. hospitality. but again, cannot give thanks near enough to all the years of service that sherry has provided to our state. with that, mr. chairman, i thank you. i yield the floor. i thank the senator for his courtesy in allowing me to precede him in these comments. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today as i do week after week, and have since the health care bill was signed into law with a doctor's second opinion about the health care law. i do that as someone who practiced medicine, taking care of families all around wyoming for about a quarter of a

century, and continue to hear great concerns from folks back home and across the country about the health care law. and sofpb people ask the -- so often people ask the question does the president really understand the health care law? well, mr. president, last week president obama, i think really shocked a lot of americans when he made a statement -- he was not on the teleprompter. he was off script. what he said was the private sector, he said was doing fine. he said the private sector was doing fine. and he said the weaknesses in our economy had to do with state and local government. well, the words made it very clear to people all around the country that the president really was not in touch with what's happening in this country, and specifically with the economy. but then on monday president obama said something else, and it was about the health care law, that made it once again look as though he really doesn't understand what's happening all

across america. during an interview, the president was doing with a local news reporter from sioux city, iowa, the president actually was surprised to learn that his health care law is hurting small businesses. it is certainly hurting small businesses all across the country. he was surprised to learn of that. well, the news doesn't come as a shock to most americans. it definitely caught president obama off guard. here's what happened. the iowa reporter told the president that one business in iowa needed to close shop, move the jobs back to wisconsin because of the president's health care law. the president's response to the reporter i found troubling. president obama said, "yeah, that would be kind of hard to explain because the only folks," the president said "that have been kpwabgtd in terms of the health care -- that have been

impacted because of the health care bill are insurance companies." the president said the only folks, the only folks that have been impacted in terms of the health care bill are insurance companies. that, mr. president, is why i continue to come to the floor with a doctor's second opinion week after week, ever since nancy pelosi made that famous statement that first you have to pass it before you get to find out what's in it. i would hope by now, mr. president, that president obama would actually know what is in the health care law. but by his statements to this reporter in iowa, it certainly seems to me that the president does not know what's in the health care law, does not know how it is impacting jobs and the economy in the united states. how on earth can president obama really believe that insurance companies are the only people impacted by the health care law? small businesses all across the

country are being slammed by the law's expensive mandates, the mandates that people have to have a government-approved insurance, often much more expensive than what they have had before. the insurance premiums that he promised would drop by $2,500 per family have gone up lieer and faster than -- higher and faster than if the law had not been passed in the first place. the president said if you like what you have, you can keep it. now we know millions of millions of americans who had insurance they like aren't able to keep it. the fact that colleges across the country are dropping their insurance plans for students because under the president's law, those insurance plans were going to go up anywhere from four to ten times more expensive as a result of the mandates that those students buy government-approved levels of insurance which was a lot more insurance than the students needed, wanted or could afford. so the colleges are saying we

just can't pass this expense on to students, so we're going to drop it entirely. so it is astonishing that the president doesn't realize how many people are impacted in a bad way by his own health care law. he thinks only the insurance companies, but small business owners are forced now, because of this law, to choose between bad choices. one is they can offer just very high-cost, government-approved insurance making it much more expensive for them to try to run their business and hire workers in this time of significant uncertainty in the economy. or, number two, they won't offer any health care coverage at all because they can't afford the health care law's out-of-touch and expensive insurance mandates. the choice is completely unacceptable, and the president really should know that. someone in the white house ought to be informing the president. they ought to clearly be leveling with the president

about the impact of his bill, his law and his understanding of it and what the impacts of that are on american families and on the american economy. mr. president, the private sector is not doing fine, and this health care law negatively impacts people across the country, including many, many small business owners. the president also deserves to know from his advisors that his health care law is having a significant impact on american seniors. earlier this week senator coburn and i joined the rest of the republican health care providers in congress, in the house, in the senate, and we released a doctor's note on medicare. this new report details how the president's health care law specifically makes it harder for america's seniors -- america's seniors -- to get the care they need from a doctor that they

choose at a lower price. i would like to walk through this report. there is a section called ten facts seniors need to know about medicare's future. i'll just focus on five of those. number one, to control medicare spending, instead of trusting seniors, the president empowered 15 unelected bureaucrats. that's right, the president set up something called the independent payment advisory board, people who will be politically appointed. not elected. not elected by the voters. unelected bureaucrats, and they will be the ones in charge of deciding and controlling medicare spending. here's another. doctors overwhelmingly believe that the independent payment advisory board will hurt seniors' access to care. this is under the facts that seniors need to know about

medicare's future as a result of the president's health care law. in a recent survey, 80% of doctors -- 80% of doctors -- said that this independent payment advisory board, the one that the president likes and put in his health care law, it will cut reimbursement rates to doctors which will harm seniors' access to care. 80% of doctors are saying th-fplt now let's go to a -- saying this. now let's go to a third. without congressional action, medicare reimbursement rates will drop about 30% at the end of the year, which would harm seniors' access to care. that's the law as it stands now. if the law isn't changes, that cut will automatically go into place, and it's going to be that much harder for seniors to get doctors. seniors are very concerned right now about being able to find a doctor. if their doctor retires, they have a hard time finding a new doctor.

if that senior moves locations, they have a hard time finding a doctor in that location to take care of them. this has been an increasing problem made worse, mr. president, by the president's health care law. and i think that the president of the united states deserves to hear that and to know that and to realize the impact that his law has had on people way beyond, as he says, just insurance companies. the president also needs to know, because seniors know, that the president's health care law took $530 billion from medicare, not to save medicare, not to strengthen medicare, but to spend on other programs not for seniors. the health care law cut more than half a trillion dollars from the medicare program to fund new government programs. seniors realize this, and it is tomtime that the president of te united states understood the impact of the decisions that he made when he signed into law his health care law.

and then many seniors on medicare advantage will lose their plan. more than one in four seniors are currently on medicare advantage. it is a choice they make. they know they're on medicare advantage. over 11 million seniors on medicare advantage. and yet the cuts put forth in the health care law make it that, according to the actuary of medicare alone said that by 2017 when the medicare advantage cuts in the president's health care law are fully implemented, roughly half -- half of the seniors who like the medicare advantage plan that they have will lose it. the president said, if you like what you have, you can keep it. but perhaps he should have realized that the law you signed caused him to break a number of the promises that he made to the american people, and that is another one of those broken promises. so the president promises, if you like what you have, you can keep it.

we find out that many more people are not able to quheep they have. the president -- to keep what they have. the president said his plan would lower insurance costs by $2,500 per family. we're seeing that the costs are going up faster than if the law had never been passed in the first place. the reality is, from the time that i've given my second opinion last week to now, the president needs to realize that the private sector is not fine understand that the president's health care -- and that the president's health care law hurts small businesses, hurts seniors, and hurts patients all across this country. if the president wants to do something to help the private sector, then he should work with congress to repeal his health care law and to replace it with better reforms that actually would be better for patients and providers and taxpayers. this health care law, as i see, it's bad for patients, it's bad for providers, the nurses and

doctors who take care of those patients, and it is bad for the american taxpayer. we need health care reform that provides care they need from a doctor that they choose at a lower cost. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. baucus: mr. president, i ask that further proceedings under the quoirk be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without t objection, the senator is recognized. mr. baucus: i ask that herrick fox and the benjamin thomas be granted floor privileges for remainder of the debate on s. 3240, the agriculture reform, food, and jobs act. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. baucus: i rise in strong opposition to multiple amendments to the farm bill that would undermine support for the american sugar producers and the

american jobs they create. these amendments would pull the rug out from underneath sugar beet producers in my home state of montana. it would leave farmers and other sugar industry workers from montana and across the country vulnerable to job loss. in these tough economic times, this is a step backwards in job creation. that's a step we can't afford to take. montana is the fifth-largest sugar beet producing state in the nation. in 2010, our cash receipts totaled more than $66 million, and those dollars mean good-paying american jobs. that's why the farm bill continues vital support that helps american sugar producers sustain more than 140,000 jobs and nearly $20 billion in economic activity every year. our sugar policy is a proven investment in american jobs at

no cost to the taxpayer. that's right. let me repeat that. the united states sugar policy doesn't cost american taxpayers a single cent. so why in the world would we want to get rid of this job creator at a time when jobs should be our number-one priority? the policy does not restrict access to low sugar prices for manufacturers, but it allows sugar producers from montana and the rest of the united states to compete in the world market, with access to less quality sugar, cheaper labor and fewer regulations. other countries very, very strongly protect their sugar industry. now, some will argue that our sugar program, while not costing the american taxpayer directly, costs them indirectly at the grocery store. let me be very clear. for every $1 candy bar bought at a grocery store, only 2 cents of

that total cost is sugar. for every $1, only 2 cents of that cost of that candy bar is sugar. with no cost to the american people and proven benefits extending from rural farmers to the entire economy, this policy workers. -- this policy works. and it is a life lininger to montana sugar beet farmers and the rural communities they live n i won't let us get rid of policies that support proven job creators at a time we need jobs more than ever. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. a senator: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection,he senator from kansas is recognized. mr. moran: thank you. i come to the floor this afternoon to address an issue related to hunger, a topic that is a significant component of the farm bill that we are debating, and particularly to raise the topic associated with an amendment that i have offered. it's an amendment numbered 2403. most of us have heard the expression -- it's an old saying that goes like this -- give a man a fish and he seats for a day. teach a man to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life. by teaching someone how to fish or how to grow crops, we help them provide food for themselves and their families. the bill we're considering has funds set aside for a program called food for peace, title 2. they are intended to do just

that, to help combat world hunger and malnutrition. we have a long history in kansas, senator dole being a prime example of someone who has cared greatly about hunger, not only in the united states but around the world. and the funds used here in food for peace are ones that i think are very important to us as a matter of certainly humanitarian issues but also to the security of our country and its future. there are funds designated within that title 2, some to be used for emergency aid and some to be used for developmental aid. and the difference being the ability to respond to an immediate crisis or disaster, and other funds, the developmental aid to be used to imove the chances that that crisis never occurs. i think the question that i want to raise with my colleagues here in the senate is how do we allocate the amount between emergency food aid and the amount of money that we use to teach folks the skills necessary to help them survive when disaster strikes?

we're not talking about any new spending, any new money. 'r address the issue of how do we allocate what amount has already been decided upon by the committee? i have been to darfur, for example, spent time in sudan and saw the efforts by many to keep people from starving, and those are very important. i'm thankful for the generosity of americans, both as charitable organizations and as taxpayers, who provide emergency food assistance to these people, and we never want to have the kind of suffering that we see there and other places around the world. but i'm concerned about the allocation that's included in this bill, and i have introduced this amendment to ensure that at least 20% of the food for peace, the title 2 funds, are available each year for prevention-based programs that reduce hunger in

poor crisis-prone communities. if we can prevent the need for emergency food assistance and help more people gain the skills needed for their lifetime, then we should do that, and that's what this amendment is intended to do. the legislation we're considering significantly reduces the minimum amount of funding for developmental programs that equip vulnerable people around the world to feed themselves. this farm bill that we're debating reduces by nearly 40% the amount of funds that would be used for the important work of developmental aid, and instead directs those dollars to emergency food aid. the amendment i'm offering would raise the minimum amount that would be spent on developmental programs by 5% so that we can prevent circumstances where people are starving and need that emergency aid. this has been an issue that we have worked on for a long period of time. i was involved -- this is my third farm bill as a member of

congress. in the 2008 farm bill, we created a lock box, an amendment that i offered that was included in the 2008 farm bill that set aside about $450 million for purposes of developmental aid, again trying to make certain that we have the resources in place that reduce the chances that we're going to need emergency aid. it is true that many countries have high concentration of malnourished children and subsistence farming usually goes hand in hand in those circumstances. affected by droughts and crop failures, eroding soils and lack of sustainable income, these populations are short of food several months of the year, and they often time need emergency food aid as a result. as a consequence of that circumstance, even though title 2 emergency food aid programs are intended to be short-lived, lasting between just a few months, maybe up to a year, usually most emergency food aid

is directed to the same areas year after year because the continuing need, it's a recurring need, in fact. so year after year, we're trying to provide emergency food aid to the same populations in the same areas in the same countries. and my point is that we would be wiser in spending our dollars by trying to reduce the need of that recurring star -- starvation, that recurring need of lack of food. while the amount and length of a food crisis and the need to stretch our taxpayer dollars as far as possible and using food aid more effectively is a key to success, the 2008 farm bill assured that a portion of that food aid would be combined with technical assistance, training and business development to boost agricultural productivity, conserve natural resources, link farmers to markets and improve child nutrition, incomes and diets. that lockbox set aside about

$450 million, as i said. it's expected if this bill was fully funded that the millions is now nearly $100 million less. and so we're moving in the direction of providing a lot less developmental aid, and in fact when -- in the 1970's when this program was amended and altered, 75% of title 2 money, food for peace money was set aside for developmental aid. over time, that amount has been reduced time and time again. through economic empowerment, improved infrastructure, watershed revenue votingses, these programs in developmental aid help protect and safeguard against the need for emergency aid. providing a consistent and adequate level of funding for prevention-based programs has been proven to work. for example, in haiti, world vision has been implementing a five-year multiyear assistance program supported by

developmental aid funding. the central plateau region of haiti has historically suffered from lack of adequate food, causing extremely high levels of poverty and stunting among children under ages 2 years of age. world vision has worked with clinic and community health workers through a mobile clinic strategy to provide preventative nutritional and primary health care supported to mothers and children, and during their last naonal nutrition survey, large parts of that central plateau moved from red and yellow, the crisis areas, the severe food insecurity areas to korean, indicating the investment in preventing malnutrition, using the nonemergency programs is an effective and worthwhile investment, and we continue to fight ongoing hunger by preventing additional use of the need for emergency funds down the road. so in haiti, we see the example of using the prevention dollars to reduce the need for disaster

or crisis dollars. title 2 prevention-based programs are implemented by private volunta organizations and co-ops, supported again by the american people and have regular audits and oversight. we're talking about organizations like world vision, as i mentioned, catholic relief services, food for hunger, mercy corps, congressional hunger, united methodist committee. these are folks who are engaged day in, day out, year in, year out in trying to prevent hunger from occurring or the circumstances which create hunger in a community from occurring, and the inability to plan and predict the uncertainty of the amount of money that would be available by what we do each year in appropriations and what we do every few years in a farm bill makes their job much more difficult. and so the consistency of having the resources available to fight , the need to fight the circumstances that create the

need for crisis intervention is something that is important. the certainty that can come from knowing that there will always be this certain amount of money available for prevention. reasonable levels of food aid are important in both the urgent needs. there is going to be crises. certain things that happen, a flood, natural disasters occur, and we know we need to be able to respond quickly to -- but we also know we need to be able to reduce the incident of hunger occurring time and time again in certain areas of the world. with this amendment, title 3 -- i'm sorry, title 2 will still largely be used for emergencies but will increase by a modest amount the funding for developmental programs that help eliminate the need for that emergency assistance down the road. i would encourage my colleagues in the senate to support this amendment. i know this has been a significant issue within the senate committee on agriculture, and i appreciate their consideration of this topic. i would like to commend the

chairperson, senator stabenow and the ranking member, my colleague from kansas, senator roberts, for their tremendous efforts in trying to bring to the united states senate a farm bill that meets both the needs of agriculture producers and the people that they -- that they feed. and so my sincere appreciation to both those senators and other members of the senate agriculture committee for their work. i would particularly like to express my gratitude for the senator from kansas, senator roberts, for his continuing involvement in agriculture throughout his time as a member of the house, chairman of the house agriculture committee, now the ranking member of the senate agriculture committee, and his efforts on behalf of the folks back home as well as around the world are greatly appreciated by me. again, i would ask my colleagues in the senate to support an adequate portion of the food for peace resources being used to stave off recurring food crises rather than just reacting to them.

i yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. president, as we deal with the farm bill, we have to acknowledge that 80% of that bill now is food program, the snap program, the food stamp program. i will repeat that. 80%. so really we need to not call it the farm bill anymore. it really needs to be considered primarily the food stamp program that it is. and when we look at the bill, our sponsors are rightly pleased that they have tightened the belt of the farmers, they have reduced some of the subsidies and programs, they have created

a little bit of policy, i believe, and they deserve some credit for that. but of the $800 billion that will be spent in the next ten years, according to current policy for food stamps, $800 billion compared to $200 billion in the rest of the farm program, the $800 billion is only -- they are only claiming a $4 billion savings. so it is quite true that we in america do not want to have people hungry. we do not want to have people malnourished, but we want to run a food stamp program that has integrity, that creates an incentive for responsible personal behavior, that helps america be a healthy nation. and i don't think we're there

yet. in fact, we have got members on the democratic side who are opposing even this $4 billion, less than a .5% reduction in projected spending. they don't even want to have that. cut the farmers, all right, whack them 10%, 20%. don't cut the -- anything else and deal with any other programs. so i -- our challenge simply is to make sure that people are in need get it but that we see this as a program for the most part that's temporary, helping people through tough times and creating an incentive for them to mov on and be successful and find wk and take care of themselves and their dependents. this chart i believe would give some indication of where we are. it's an accurate illustration of the spending in this bill. we're talking about the 2013

bill, next year, beginning october 1 of this year, we'll spend $82 billion for the food stamp program, out of the legislation we're dealing with, $6 billion will go to conservation programs, that's not really a farmers program, they may get some benefits from it. $6 billion for commodities, the orange. and $8 billion for crop insurance which is a new fundamental basis of farm policy. i'm not complaining that farmers are being squeezed. hopefully we've done this in a smart way that will make those programs better, too. but what i'm suggesting to you there's virtually no change in the 80%. and we don't have the money to waste if it can be done better and more smartly. so the main farm provisions in

the bill experience a $14.7 billion reduction, that's a reduction of nearly 10%. if the food stamp proportion were to be reduced by 10%, it would save the united states treasury $75 billion, for example. food stamp spending has quadrupled since 2001. it doubled between 2001 and 2006. some people say the reason food stamps use is up is because of the unemployment and the recession. well, that's not exactly so. for example, from 2001 to 2006 under president bush's time when the economy had a small recession but was moving along very strongly in 2006, still it doubled from 2001 to 2006.

unemployment remained at about 5% at that time. it's now 8%. when food stamps were first expanded nationally, one in 50 americans were on the program. today it's one in seven. are we confident that all of those seven need this kind of subsidy? are we really sure that's needed? i think we need to examine the program. if they need this benefit, let's get it for them. if not, let's not. there are nearly 80 welfare programs in the united states government, 17 for food and nutrition support. 17 programs for food and nutrition support. costs now exceed $700 billion annually for all these federal programs, food and others, too, plus $200 billion in state contributions. so that's almost a trillion dollars a year.

which is so much money, it's difficult to express it. an individual, for example, on food stamps may have a household whose total income -- may have a household that's eligible to be receiving and may receive $25,000 a year in total welfare support. we have a host of programs that people can qualify. so we need to keep that in mind as we go forward. there's a patchwork quilt of federal, state programs that help people in need in addition to charitable and religious support that people can access. now, the farm bill proposes to permanently elevate food stamps far above the prerecession levels. in 2008 we spent less than $40 billion on food stamps.

over the next ten years, 2008, just a few years ago, $40 billion a year, food stamp spending over the next ten years is estimated to average almost $80 billion, doubling that. this chart will show how we've grown from a little under $20 billion in 2001, about $17 billion, to -- we'll go to in 2021, over $70 billion. you see a little decline there. that decline is the result of the projections from the congressional budget office, and we hope they're correct, that unemployment will begin to drop in the future. so they're not showing that even though unemployment is now 8% in 2011,hey're not showing that you're going have a major drop-off because unemployment is falling. hopefully it will be falling. hopefully we'll get this economy

on the right track. but the point i would suggest that's revealed in this chart and the projections is that unemployment is not the tng that's driving the food stamp increases. the increases far exceed the unemployment rate increases, and the decline from a projected reduction in unemployment is not very much, either. were food stamp spending returned to prerecession levels, those, say, in 2007 and then indexed for inflation increasing each year according to inflation, it would produce for the united states treasury a $340 billion savings. so i don't think in 2007 the numbers that were spent there are disproportionate to what we would need today.

and i believe properly managed we could do better. so the amendments i have filed, and there are four, address some of the perverse incentives for states to have -- to increase food stamp registration rather than an incentive to increase the integrity of the program. for example, one of the things we need to do is to deal with the federal provision that provides bonuses to stes who increase the number of people that are registered. states currently receive bonuses for increasing enrollment in the food stamp program. they don't get bonus eggs for efficiently managing the program, they don't get bonuses for finding people who are on the program and on the program illegitimately, who are selling them on the marketplace or

otherwise abusing the program. they get bonuses for seeing how many people they can sign up. that's not a sound policy. the next amendment that i have is restoring the asset test for food stamps. you would think that that's pretty well accepted, that if you have a certain amount of assets, you shouldn't have the government to pay for your food. if you have value in assets. through a system known as categorical eligibility, 43 states, 43 states have now provided benefits to individuals whose assets exceed the statutory limit for them. only 11 states did that in 2007. why? a couple reasons, it appears. one of them is i guess they helped get the incentive bonus

for signing up more people. so if you change this asset test and get around the asset test and sign up more people, maybe you get a bonus. number two, what incentive does a state have to reduce the amount of dollars from washington, not a dime of it do they match, what incentive do they have to reduce the amount of money, free money in their mind, from washington going to the state? not much, really. so this amendment, if passed, according to the congressional budget office would save $11 billion. and all it would do is to say that you have to comply with the requirements of the program before you get the food stamps. what the situation is that -- is that it's called categorical eligibility. if you qualify for any other program, the states have been

given the power to say you qualify for food stamps, even though you don't need the formal qualifications, but if you qualify for these others under categorical eligibility, you're categorically entitled to food stamps. and so that's not a good policy. it's just not. it doesn't have the same standards and we should fix that. another thing, there's what's been referred to as the liheap loophole. this reform and the amendment that i want to offer and i have offered and i hope we'll get a vote on it, it requires households that received larger food stamp payments on the basis of home energy expense actually provide proof of that expense. this is a real problem. states have been part of this frankly. they've learned how to manipulate the low-income heating assistance program

moneys, and it creates an opportunity to have more people qualify for food stamps. it's not good policy, it should not be continued. c.b.o. says if that abuse were eliminated, it would save $9.5 billion over ten years. and then another amendment called the save amendment would simply require that the federal government use a program called save, similar to the e-verify program to ensure using the computer system that those adults using benefits, adults receiving benefits, are in fact, lawfully in the country country. if you're not lawfully here you should not be getting welfare support from the united states government. how basic is that? you just should not. one of the most important things we can do to restore integrity in our immigration system is to

quit providing economic benefits for people who violate the law. this is the first thing you do. and it's an important thing to do. i think that would be an amendment that we should -- should include. so according to the congressional budget office, federal spending is set to increase 50% over the next ten years. i repeat, federal spending is projected to increase 50% over the next ten years. and this creates a problem for us. our per-person debt is worse than that of portugal, greece, spain, or italy. this is the chart that shows that. we didn't make these numbers up, and it's perfectly established that they're accurate. so that per capita debt of the united states, per person, what does the united states government owe?

49,008 his hundred dollars -- $49,800 per person. france is 2535, greece 40, italy 40, ireland 46. now, this is not a healthy thing for us. so the idea that we are to have unlimited ability to throw money at every problem we have and not make sure that every single people truly in need is wisely dollar we appropriate to help spent is over. we've got to end that concept. this government, this congress, this administration has been far too bla. se -- blase about managing the people's money. it's just like, well, we want to leave the money out there and maybe it will create a stimulus, and somehow it will help the economy and we'll give more than we need and not worry about it and we don't want to investigate anybody, we don't want to cut anybody off, that

would sound like it's unkind. but it's not unkind to insist that people meet the qualifications of the programs, and that the people that don't meet the qualifications don't get the money. that's the only common sense, and that's justice as americans know -- know about it. amazingly, 40 cents of every dollar we're spending in our country today is borrowed. the united states is headed for what has been called the most predictable economic crisis in its history. the debt course we are on is unsustainable. we are headed to a debt crisis if we don't change where we are going as every witness before the budget committee of which i'm ranking member has told us. yet many senators in this body are not only unwilling to achieve even the $4 billion in savings on the $800 billion program, but some consider -- and they consider the $4 billion too much to reduce from the

program. well, you know, the senator from new york proposes to increase food stamp spending even more than the current growth that we've seen, explaining -- quote -- "food stamps are an extraordinary investment because every dollar that you put into the snap program, the food stamp program, you get out $1.71 close quote. i want to reet pete that because this is with what the director of the program said or the secretary of agriculture, i believe. he said for every dollar spent on food stamps you get out $1.71, close quote. under this reasoning, we ought to increase the food stamp program ten times. it's going to bring in more money for the treasury and make the economy grow. why don't we just pay for your

clothes, pay for your shoes, pay for your housing. why not? it's precisely this kind of thinking that has bled our treasury of money that we need to pay for the demands that this country has. i also think it's a moral issue. what is our policy objective? it is our national goal to place as many people -- is it our national goal to place as many people on welfare, food stamp support, as we can possibly put on that program? is that our goal? is that a moral for the united states of america? just to see how many people we can place in a situation where they're dependent on the federal government for their food? i just ask that. i think we should wrestle with that question. under the current proposal, no fewer than one out of nine americans will be on food stamps

at any point during the next ten years. at least one out of nine will be on the program. what is the better goal? to permanently have one in nine americans on food stapl stph-ps or -- on food stamps? or to have as many americans as possible he achieving financial eupbd independency. left unattended, the safety net can become a strap, guided by the moral principle that welfare support can become damaging not only to the treasury of the united states, but to the recipient. over time the trillions of dollars we spent on welfare programs with the greatest of intentions, with the greatest desire to do good, can replace the normal support of family and private family church and

community. it can become a barrier to self-sufficiency and become an incentive not to be engaged in the tough, real world of work and competition. so it's not compassion, i think, to increase without limit the size and reach of the federal government. the central premise of the american society is that the empowerment of the individual is always preferable to the empowerment of the state. now, mr. president, i understand that the amendments that i have, that we spent a lot of time working on, each one of them is crafted to improve the program. none of them represent major cuts in the amount of spending that's involved in the food stamp program. each one of them, the biggest savings would be about $10 billion. but in each case it's $10 billion that would be saved,

that would benefit the efficiency of the program, the integrity of the program, and not reduce any of the benefits that will go to those who qualify for food stamps under existing law. it would not reduce that. but i'm concerned that the majority leader has filled the tree on this bill. senator reid has basically taken control of the amendment process. and so we have a bill moving through the senate that will spend about $1 trillion over the next ten years, that this bill will -- that 80% of the spending in this bill will deal with food nutrition programs, the snap program, 80% of it. and we've only had one amendment that deals with that program. only one. and we've been here for days

without voting on anything. the majority leader wants to approve your amendment. we want to be sure. senator roberts is trying to get amendments from the republican side to be voted on. the majority leader, well, i don't think i'll approve that one. i don't think -- no, we don't want to vote on that. we've already voted on something like that. we're not going to vote on that. you've already had a food stamp amendment. we're not going to have any more food stamp amendments. that's the kind of talk that's going on here. but this is the united states senate, the greatest deliberative body in the history of the world, something we are exceedingly proud of, that you can have debate, vast, continuous, intense debate as part of the glory of this body. and so now we have one person, the majority leader, using a

parliamentary technique called filling the tree, is basically saying i don't get a vote on any of those amendments i just mentioned? i believe they're responsible amendments. i believe all four should be adopted. i believe it would make the food stamp program better. it would help ensure we have enough money to make sure the people who are in need get it. and if we don't get off the debt course we're on, we're going to be in a crisis, and all the programs are going to be cut maybe more than we really need to cut them, because we have got to get on the right course. so i'm objecting about this. not happy about it. i don't think it's healthy. i do believe that the majority leader has utilized this technique of filling the tree more than any majority leader in history. far more than any majority leader in history. and it's not a healthy trend for the program. we've always had a lot of amendments on the farm bill, and we need to have these amendments.

i hope and believe that -- i hope that we will get votes on this. we'll be able to debate these amendments, and we'll be able to help improve the food stamp program. and i would want to mention one more thing. senator rand paul offered a bill, an amendment earlier that did not pass, that would have block granted the money to the states. i'm not sure -- different people can disagree exactly how he would go about that and whether he did it the right way and the spending level that he chose was appropriate. but let me say this. a system in which the federal government gives unlimited amount of money to the states and they pay it -- and they pay all of it, 100%, creates a

perverse incentive for the states to make sure that they achieve every possible dollar from washington and creates no incentive for the state to enhance the integrity of the program and to stop those who are abusing it. because when you spend state money to investigate and prosecute and stop abuse, you've reduced the treasury of the state. when you reduce the amount of food stamps pouring into the state, you reduce the amount of federal money coming into your state, an additional adverse consequence economically for that state. so we need to put -- create a situation which the state is given a certain amount of money, a fair formula. then they have the responsibility of making sure it goes to the right people. and if poor people aren't getting enough money, they'll then have an incentive to identify those who are improperly getting the money,

cut them off and direct the money to people in need. we don't have that incentive today. that's one reason the food stamp program is not operating effectively. i think senator paul was correct fundamentally in his approach that block granting the food stamp program to the states would create the right incentive to make the program more effective, to create more integrity and make sure that people most in need receive the benefits. i would thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. first i'd like to thank the senator from alabama for calling this body's attention once again to the debt crisis we face as a country. i was with some people just a little while ago and i was telling them a story about a conversation i had in colorado about our debt and our deficit and the moral obligation we have to our kids to actually deal

with this problem, face up to the facts and my then-ten-year-old daughter with a es with me, caroline, and we walked out on the front stoop of this place. she said to me, daddy? i said what? she said just to be clear -- making fun of me because i say that sometimes. "just to be clear, i'm not paying that back." which is the right attitude for her to have, the attitude children across this country ought to have and the attitude we ought to have. i want the senator to know i look forward as we get into this discussion this summer to figure out how we find a bipartisan comprehensive path through this morass so that caroline bennet doesn't have to pay back a debt that she didn't accrue. i wanted to come, mr. president, today to talk about the economy because i think one thing we can agree on in this body for sure is that the best deficit-reduction program we could find would be to get this economy moving again. i want to talk about one sector in particular that's created

tremendous economic growth in colorado, and that's the wind energy sector. i know my colleague from colorado, mark udall, came down earlier today to discuss the same issue, and i so much appreciate his continued efforts in fighting for these jobs. just a piece of context here, mr. president. we face very significant structural issues in this economy that we have, but i brought this slide down here before, but what it shows is that our gross domestic product, our economic output, is actually higher today than it was when we went into the worse recession since the great depression. our productivity is off the charts, that's the blue line, and it's been going that way since the early 1990's because of our response to china and india and other places, because of our use of technology and because of the recession itself, which drove puckettivity straight up as -- drove productivity straight up as

firms tried to figure out how to get through these tough times with fewer people. we've got 23 million or 24 million people who are unemployed or underkphroeud -- underemployed even though we're generating this economic output. i think there are two fundamental answers to this. the first is education. the other is innovation. jobs are going to be created tomorrow and next week and the week after that that have rising wages, not lowering ones, not falling ones. and this economic recovery, like the last economic recovery, those two together are the first recoveries we have had as a nation in our history where economic growth decoupled from job growth and wage growth. and i don't know about you, mr. president, but that is what i hear about most in my town hall meetings at home.

the wind production tax credit, it seems to me, cuts right to the core of whether and how we want to compete in this global and changing economy. i want to show you another picture here, mr. president. this is it. this is a factory in colorado, in brighton, colorado, bricks and mortar, made in america. it's a wind production facility. we're not talking about some fly-by-night experimental industry here. this has triggered tremendous economic growth in colorado and all across the country; good-paying jobs, manufacturing jobs here in the united states. as representative steve king, a republican from iowa, has said recently in an op-ed he published, the production tax credit has driven as much as $20 billion in private investment. this is not some bolshevik scheme.

that's $20 billion in private investment supporting jobs here in the united states. manufacturing jobs here in the united states. wind power accounts for more than a third of all new u.s. electric generation in recent years. in colorado alone, mr. president, it's created 6,000 jobs. it's moved our state toward a more diversified and cleaner energy portfolio. but because they can't get any certainty out of washington, like everybody else, developers and manufacturers are already starting layoffs. they're laying off employees today in anticipation of the credit expiring at the end of the year. vestus is poised to lay off 1,600 workers if we fail to act. it's hard for me to understand when our concerns about the deficit and our concerns about economic growth are ones that we hear about every day on the floor, why laying off 1,600

workers in colorado is a good idea. eber droler renewables, also doing business in colorado, laid off 50 employees. nationally 37,000 jobs are at risk, not to mention the ones we could have created after 2012 but won't if we let this credit expire. i know that sometimes i sound loik a broken record but the world is not going to wait 230r us. -- wait for us. our largest single export today is energy actually. and that's a very recent occurrence that we became a net exporter of energy. before that, our single-largest export was aircraft. we build the best aircraft in the world, $30 billion a year is what that export is to the united states. china's export of solar panels last year was $15 billion. half our largest single export

-- they didn't export one solar panel years ago. i'm sure that china would love to have this business as well. we can get out of our own way and extend the p.t.c., extend the tax credit, cab those jobs and grow our own clean energy economy. mr. president, this is not a partisan issue. i led a letter several months ago where republicans and democrats from the colorado delegation came together to urge a quick extension as part of the payroll deal. that effort, unfortunately, was not successful, nor have the others that we've tried to take in the interim. shortly after our letter, i filed an amendment, a bipartisan amendment, with the senator from kansas fully paid for, one-year extension of the credit. you know, this place has become the land of flickering lights. we stefnedz on extend one thing,

another thing for two months. couldn't we just extend this for a year to give people some degree of certainty, particularly with it's paid for? i'd like to thank senator moran, the republican from kansas, for joining me, for letting me join him to lead that amendment. following that, several colleagues and i partnered with senator grassley and others to write a bill that will extend the credit for two years. there's clearly plenty of bipartisan support out there. and i know people in my state, whether republicans or democrats or independents, are not even thinking about that and know that they want us to get this done. nearly 7,500 coloradans have signed a petition on my web site supporting the wind production tax credit. i'd urge others today who are watching this to visit my web site and please add their name. mr. president, i conclude by asking why, when the economic stakes are as high as they are, congress cannot get their act together on this? we need to extend the wind

production tax credit and we need do it now. mr. president, i'd ask that my next statement appear separately in the record from the one that i just gave. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. presiden--mr. bennet: thank, mr. president. i rise to speak on coburn amendment numr 2553. i want to be the first to say how much i appreciate my colleague from oklahoma's efforts on deficit reduction. we're currently working together to promote a comprehensive approach to deficit reduction and i deeply appreciate his leadership, which in many ways has been unparalleled on this issue. however, i have to oppose this particular amendment, and i understand we're likely to consider the amendment this afternoon. i'd urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment by supporting the motion to table. this amendment will repeal the popular environmental quality incentives program, equip, and

the conservation stewardship program, c.s.p. both are critical programs authorized under the conservation title of the farm bill. in colorado, i have heard time and time again from our farmers and our ranchers how critical these programs are to holding on to their family farms. equip, for example, is on the front line of agricultural production. it helps farmers ensure that their operations contribute to clean water and clean air in our rural communities. the proactively and successfully addresses new and emerging resource issues to avert the need for regulation. to put our farmers and ranchers in a place where they have less regulation, not more, because of the work they're doing on the ground to conserve their land. let me just give you one example from colorado. equip resources have been used to ensure that the sage grouse stays off the endangered species list. a listing that would threaten

ranchers all across the west. that's a result of the great work that's been done by farmers and ranchers in colorado, with the equip program. by providing resources to mark barbed wire fences making them more advice baling to the -- making them more visible to the bird, equip is working well. it is the flagship of voluntary, incentive-based programs which is a direction we should head and a direction we head in this farm bill. both equip and c.s.p. provide quantifiable benefits that reflect the very conservation challenges all across our country. i strongly support this new conservation title as we reported it out of committee in a bipartisan vote. and as i've mentioned and has been discussed on this bill, this bill is also remarkable for the cuts that it makes. $23.6 billion. to my knowledge, there is not any committee, any other

committee in the senate or any committee in the house of representatives, that's actually reached bipartisan agreement -- and in this case bipartisan consensus -- on budget cuts, which is the way we should be doing business around here because it's what the american people and the people in colorado expect from us, particularly on these difficult questions around our deficit and our debt. and $.4 billion of those -- and $.4 billio 6.4 billion of thosee from the conservation title, not all of which i like, but we made difficult compromises at the committee level. and we ought not make further cuts on the floor, especially to programs that make smart and effective investments in our rural communities. so i will oppose for those reasons amendment number 2353 and support the motion to table, and i'd urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. feithally, i'd -- finally i'd like to say thank you to the

chairman of the committee, to the ranking member, pat roberts, and to the chair, debbie stabenow, for their extraordinary bipartisan work in et going the bill this -- work in get being the bill this far. it is my hope that leadership on both sides reaches an agreement on these amendments so that we can move forward and dot right thing for our farmers and ranchers back home in colorado. with that, i see my colleague from connecticut, senator lieberman. mr. president, thank you for your patience. you're yield the floor. -- i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank my friend from colorado. i rise to speak as if in morning business. officer without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i want to speak about the really urgent need for the senate to adopt cybersecurity legislation, and i beginning by recalling a recent story in "the washington post" that detailed how a young man living an owetio an ocean as

was able to use his computer to hack into the cyber control system of the local -- of a local water utility here in the united states. it took him just 10 minutes and required no special tools or no special training. while the hacker could have taken over the water company's operations and caused real damage, instead, he posted screen shots of his hack on the internet to show that he had been there and prove his point that our nation's internet security is woefully lax, and it took very little in the way of resources or skill to penetrate it. mr. president, this kind of story is but one piece of what i would call an avalanche of

evidence, showing that there is an urgent need to pass comprehensive cybersecurity legislation that will safeguard our critical cyber infrastructure. the fact is, as this 22-year-old's activities showed and as authorities in the area such as admiral mike mcconnell, the former director of national intelligence has said, that cyber structure, which is owned by private entities, is simply not adequately defended. and when it's not adequately defended -- and here i'm talking about vital national systems, the electric power grid, water companies, transportation systems, pipelines, et cetera, et cetera -- when those are not -- the cyber systems that control them now are not adequately protected, it means

our nation is not adequately protected because a cyber attack can incapacitate vital national entities that we all depend on every day, and in fact cause enormous harm and loss of life, as much as a conventional attack by air in earlier confrontations and conflicts. yesterday the majority leader came to the floor of the senate and spoke, i thought, eloquently about the urgency of the senate adopted cybersecurity legislation. i wanted to come to the floor today to thank senator reid for that statement and to say, as chairman of the senate homeland security committee, how strongly i agree with him. and of course we're not alone. a few days ago, six of you are a

nation's most experienced national security leaders spanning the last two-plus administrations, transcending any lines of partisanship, wrote a letter to senator reid urging him to bring up cybersecurity legislation as soon as possible. and that's a quote -- "as soon as possible." in that letter to both not just senator reid but senator mcconnell, the republican leader as well, former department of homeland security secretary mike chertoff from the bush administration, former director of national intelligence, admiral mike mcconnell, i referred to, in the bush administration, paul wolfowitz, also from the previous administration, former n.s.a. director mike hay derntion also from the previous

administration, vice children of the joint chiefs of staff, general james cartwright, and former defense secretary -- deputy defense secretary bill wynn sent this letter. incidentally, to say what is already a matter of public record, in doing so they expressed opinions that are quite similar to what we've heard from all the leaders of the current administration when it comes to security. secretary of defense panetta, the director of national intelligence clapper, the director of the c.i.a. petraeus, and so on -- and of course secretary are i napolitano frome department of homeland security. i want to read from this letter from the national security leaders because it sums up where we are. and i quote now. "given the time left in this legislative session and the upcoming election this fall, we are concerned that the window of opportunity to pass legislation that is, in our view, critically

necessary to protect our national and economic security is quickly disappearing." and these -- in the letter they went on to say, and i quote again, "we," the signiners of te letter, carry the burden of knowing along with the lot of the rest of us that 9/11 might have been averted with the intelligence that existed at the time. we do not want to be in the same position again when cyber 9/11 hits. it is not a question of whether this will happen; it is a question of when." end quote. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to include the text of this letter in the record of the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. leamr. lieberman: thank the chair. so the majority leader came to the floor yesterday echoing these sentiments in his floor speech when he said, "when virtually every intelligence expert says we need to secure the systems that make the lights

come on, inaction is not an option." end quote. i couldn't agree more with senator reid. the fact is that the house of representatives, the so-called other body of congress, has passed a cybersecurity bill, a package, that i think takes some significant initial good steps. and i thank the house for that. but i believe that the bipartisan senate cybersecurity act of 2012, s. 2105, which is sponsored by senators collins, feinstein, rockefeller, and me, takes the additional necessary steps and, therefore, to secure our cyber systems -- and therefore is preferl. and it is preferrable in large part because it addresses the need to secure our nation's critical cyber infrastructure. that is the computers that

control the systems that if command deared, attacked or intruded upon could allow an tacker to open and close key valves and switches in pipelines for gas and oil, and refineries, factory, water you and sewer systems and electric plants and banks and along transportation nodes without detection by their operators. mr. president, we need to pass this bill or something very much like it so we can go to conference with the house and iron out whatever differences we have this year, so we can get legislation to the president's desk, and he has endorsed, i'm grateful to say, s. 2105 and certainly endorsed the principles that are in it. test.

before -- we have to do that so we raise our defenses before we are victims of a cyber 9/11. the time remaining to do so in this session is obviously growing shorter. we know that the lame-duck session will be almost exclusively taken up with -- with difficult questions about the budget debt, sequester, the expiration of the so-called bush tax cuts, and much more. so we've got to act. and i'm really encouraged by senator reid's statement yesterday and my own belief, after conversations with him, that -- that he is -- the leader is isn't on bringing this legislation to the floor in ju july. the truth is, if we don't take it up in july and see whether we've got the votes -- and i'm confident we will when it comes to the floor -- we're not going to be able to pass this legislation in a way that's timely and allows us to go to conference, reach an agreement and send the bill to the

president of the united states for his signature. when we talk about cyber security, the biggest threats, we all know, come from other nations, nation states, also non-state actors, such as terrorists, and organized crime syndicates. but this young man that i referred to at the beginning of my statement and his ability to quite easily penetrate the cyber control system of a local water company in the united states shows us that an attack can come from just about anyone and from just about anywhere. according to the "washington post" story -- and i quote -- -- this individual, who goes by the name prof-p-r-o-f -- "is a bright, unemployed 22-year-old who favorshoodie sweatshirts and -- fares hoodie sweatshirts and lives in his parent's home somewhere overseas."

but this particular good guy, what-hat hacker, knows the risks that our nation is facing. he told "the post" -- and i quote again -- "eventually somebody will get access to a major system and people will be hurt. it's just a matter of time." that is the truth. six of our nation's premier equity security experts are in agreement with this 22-year-old hacker. as they said in their letter, it's just a matter of time, and we've got to act before that time comes. to my colleagues who have concerns about the -- the cyber security act of 2011, the collins-feinstein-rockefeller- li collins-feinstein-rockefeller-li eberman legislation, i say, come on and work with us, we can and must resolve our differences. in fact, around some of the

major areas of discussion-controversy, the section of our bill that has performance requirements for private-sector entities that own the most critical infrastructure which, if attacked, could cause mass deaths, casualties, catastrophic economic loss and -- and a denigration of our national security. those are -- and then the other section being the information-sharing section where some people have civil liberties or privacy concerns, there's really a good-faith effort going on to resolve those differences because i think increasingly, members of the senate on both sides just reacting to -- to the facts are worried that this is a real and present danger to our security. perhaps the most real and present immediate danger of a --

a massive attack on our homeland that exists today is by cyber attack. and i don't think any of us want to look back and say, well, why didn't we act before we were attacked? therefore, i'm encouraged by these deliberations. but i say to anybody else who has concerns about our bill, members of the senate, please be in touch with senators collins, feinstein, rockefeller or myse myself. if we can't resolve our differences, then draft amendments and let's debate them on the floor and have up-or-down votes and let the senate work its will. as senator reid said in his remarks yesterday -- and i quote again -- "everybody knows this congress can't pass laws that don't have broad bipartisan support." so we're going to need to work together on a bill that addresses concerns of lawmakers

on both sides of the aisle. and that time is coming soon. , i'm confident to say, based on my conversations with the majority leader, that time is coming soon on the floor of the senate. but we've got to start now to make sure that we're ready when the bill comes to the senate floor. i -- i guarantee you that one day in the near future, if we don't pass comprehensive cyber security legislation and there is a serious and significant attack on us over cyberspace, we will rush to pass it and that will be too late and we will not do it in a thoughtful way. time grows short while the threat keeps swelling. what if the next 22-year-old who decides to take over a water plant or an oil or gas pipeline or an electric power plant

decides to make a more convincing demonstration than just posting screen pictures on-line? if a 22-year-old can do this, think what an enemy nation with a significant amount of money and personnel and training behind it could do to us if we're not adequately defended. so i say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because this is not a partisan issue at all. this is a national securit security-homeland security issue. let's get to work. let's get ready for the floor debate on cyber security that i'm -- i'm confident is coming soon, and then let's pass this urgently needed legislation for the sake of both our national and economic security. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon is recognized. mr. wyden: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call and to speak as if in morning business for up to

20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: madam president, i'm going to take just a few minutes to outline the amendments that i plan to offer on the farm bill, and in the beginning, i particularly want to commend the chair of the committee, senator stabenow and senator roberts. i think we all understand that if you want to tackle a big issue, an important issue, you've got to find a way to come to something resembling common ground. this bill is especially important. this is a jobs bill at a time our country needs good-paying jobs. it is an extraordinarily important health bill, particularly one with great implications for how america tackles the issue of obesity. it is an environmental bill because it has great implication s for conservation. and of course it has extraordinary impact on rural

communities, rural communities that are hurting right now. and so the amendments that i'm going to be offering on the farm bill address those major concerns, and those concerns are particularly important to my state. my home state does a lot of things well, madam president, but what we do best is we grow things. we grow things and we want to add value to them, and then we want to ship them somewhere. we grow lots and lots of things, hundreds of crops, wonderful fruits, wonderful vegetables, and we want to have a chance to grow this part of our economy. it is a $5 billion economy for the state of oregon, and one that we want to strengthen in the days ahead. the first amendment that i will be offering on the farm bill, madam president, addresses the farm to school program. schools all across the country

purchase the produce, pares, cherries, tomatoes, lettuce they serve to school kids from department of agriculture warehouses. in some cases, these warehouses may be hundreds and hundreds of miles away. there are schools, however, who wish to source their fruits and vegetables locally, and there are producers who wish to sell their goods to local schools. now, you don't have to be a fancy economic thinker, but that really sounds like a market to me. and the congress ought to enable this market, not make it more difficult for this market to function. now, i just spent a lot of time in rural oregon over the last few months, and as i have indicated, harry and david, a producer in my home state -- and a lot of senators have gotten

their wonderful products over the years for holiday gifts. they would like to sell their wonderful pears to the school down the street. in attempting to do so, harry and david have been met with a real maze, a wealth of really odd federal rules that has prevented them from doing so. it should not be, madam president, bureaucratic water torture through a local producer to sell to a nearby school, and it's getting at that kind of bureaucracy and red tape that my amendment on farm to school seeks to address. as of now, federal agriculture policy seems to be dishing out a diet of paperwork, process and limited options when we ought to be promoting innovation and getting away from this sort of

one-size-fits-all approach. so my farm to school amendment would allow for at least five farm to school projects across the country, representing regions from all over the country where states like mine that were innovative, with proven, established farm to school programs in place would actually be able to tap, madam president, their full potential, their full potential to source healthy quality produce to nearby schools that prefer to buy their food locally rather than from one of these far away federal warehouses. now, under this kind of approach with this crucial kind of program, the schools are going to win, our farmers are going to win, and our kids are going to be able to enjoy delicious local produce every day, every day under this particular amendment.

the second amendment that i plan to offer, madam president, also encourages healthier eating, and this one deals with the snap program, the program that was formerly known as food stamps. as the president of the senate knows, this program represents a substantial amount of the funding for the farm bill. it's an over $70 billion federal program. there are 700,000 snap recipients in my home state of oregon. for too many oregonians, this program is the only thing that stands between them and hunger. and i have said it on this floor before, i want to say it again, i am not in favor of cutting these benefits. quite the contrary. i think senator gillibrand has an excellent amendment to ensure that that doesn't take place.

i hope that she will win support here in the senate for it. we shouldn't have in a country as rich and strong as ours as many americans going to bet at united hungry and trying to dig themselves out of the great recession at the same time. so i am not in favor of cutting snap benefits, but i am, madam president, in favor of incentivizing this program to make it possible for those of modest incomes to get healthier, more nutritious foods, especially in light -- in light of the growing obesity epidemic that our country faces. and, madam president, what troubles me is that in one sense, the food stamp program, the snap program is something of a conveyor belt for calories. it essentially says all of the

various food products are equal. and at a time when we see such extraordinary rates of obesity, particularly for low-income children and low-income women, i would only hope that we could look at ways to create incentives for healthier eating. i am not in favor of setting up some kind of federal policy that starts dictating from washington, d.c., what folks who are using the snap program can eat. i'm not interested in some kind of national nanny program or something that says you can't eat this or you can't eat that. what i am proposing is that here in the senate, we look at ways, particularly when you're talking about $70 billion, $70 billion of federal nutrition spending to look at ways to at least promote

healthier eating wherever possible and the increased consumption of healthy fruits and vegetables. studies by the centers for disease control show that low-income women and children, those who are most likely to receive snap benefits, are more likely to be obese than higher income women and children. so what i am proposing with this amendment, madam president, is giving the states some flexibility to try out ways to make snap benefits a lunch pal for better nutrition, rather than as i characterized it a conveyor belt for calories. and what i'd like to see, madam president, and i know the president of the united states hails from a state with substantial amount of agriculture, is to see, for example, farmers and retailers and health specialists and those who rely on the snap program get together and see if they can

find a consensus, some common ground on a way to wring more nutritional value out of those snap benefits. we have tried this idea out, madam president, on those in our state, those in the retail community and farmers and antihunger groups and others, and they have said we certainly think that we could work together to do more to improve nutritional outcomes under this very large program. so the amendment makes clear, madam president, that you couldn't get a waiver to reduce eligibility or reduce the amount of benefits that someone on the snap program receives, but you could, for example, try various approaches to promote nutritional eating. the state could encourage snap recipients to purchase more fruits and vegetables by partnering with grocery stores

or other food sellers to provide coupes enabling -- coupons enabling snap recipients to purchase extra or discounted fruits and vegetables. there are now programs that allow snap benefits to be exchanged at farmers markets for coupons to purchase $2 worth of produce for $1 of snap benefits. the cost of the extra produce is paid for using nonfederal funds. a state waiver could enable this type of program, for example, to be expanded beyond farmers markets. so there are a host of innovative proposals, in my view, that could improve public health, increase the consumption of healthy food, and i just hope that as we go forward towards the conclusion of this legislation here in the senate, madam president, that we can look at ways to accept the proposition that not all of the wisdom resides in washington, d.c., particularly when we are

seeing the skyrocketing rates of obesity tragically with special implications for low-income women and children. i think there are better ways to proceed. this amendment empowers the states to have that opportunity. the third amendment that i'm going to offer, madam president, i have not spoken about on the floor to date and i want to take just a minute to describe what this amendment deals with. it's an amendment that i plan to offer that addresses the issue of industrial hemp farming. it is cosponsors by senator rand paul, it is identical to legislation in other other body with 33 bipartisan cosponsors. this is in my view a textbook example of a regulation that flunks the commonsense test. there is government regulation on the books today that prevents

america's farmers from growing industrial hemp, and what's worse is this regulation is hurting job creation in rural america and increasing our trade deficit. when my colleagues get i think more information about this outlandish, outrageous restriction on free enterprise, i think most of my colleagues are going to say that the restriction on industrial hemp is really a poster child for dumb regulation. the only thing standing in the way of taking advantage of this very profitable crop is a lingering misunderstanding about its use. and the amendment that i have filed on this issue will end a ridiculous regulation once and for all. right now, madam president, the united states the importing millions of dollars of hemp

products to use in paper products, construction materials, textiles, and a variety of other goods. we're importing a crop, madam president, that the u.s. farmer could be profitably growing right here at home if not for government rules prohibiting it. our neighbors to the north can see the potential for this product. in 2010, the canadian government injected over $700 billion into -- 7 who thousand dollars do into their hemp to fortify the inroads, fortify the inroads that the canadians are making in u.s. markets at the expense of our farmers. it was a very good bet. u.s. imports have consistently grown over the past decade, increasing by 300% in ten years and from 2009 to 2010 they grew

35%. the number of acres in canada devoted to growing industrial hemp nearly doubled from 2011 to 2012. now, i know that there are going to be members of congress and others who are listening to this and they're going to say all this talk about hemp is basically talk about marijuana. the fact of the matter is while they come from the same species of plant, there are major differences between them. major differences between them, and i want to just take a moment to recognize what those differences are and to focus on the benefits from producing domestically the hemp we already use. under this amendment the production of hemp would still be regulated but it would be done by the states through permitting programs, not the federal government. nine states have already put

legislation in place to provide for a permitting system that enforces the prohibition on marijuana and ensures that industrial hemp maintains a very low t.h.c. level under 0.3%. the lowest grade marijuana typically has 5% t.h.c. content. the bottom line, madam president, is no one is going to get high on industrial hemp. now, hemp has been a profitable commodity in a number of countries. in addition to canada, australia also permits hemp production and the growth in that sector helped the agricultural base survive when the tobacco industry dried up. over 30 countries in europe, asia, north and south america currently permit farmers to grow hemp and china is the world's largest producer. in fact, our country is the only industrialized nation that

prohibits farmers from growing hemp. oregon is home to some of the major manufacturers of hemp products including living harvest, one of the largest hemp food producers in our country. business has been so brisk there that the portland business journal rated them as one of the fastest growing local companies. there are similar success stories in other states with industrial hemp. one company in north carolina has been incorporating hemp into building materials, reportedly making them both stronger and more environmentally friendly. another company in california produces hemp-based fiberboard. no country is better than ours at developing, perfect,, and expanding markets for our products. as the market grows, it ought to be domestically produced hemp that supplies that growth. madam president, i'd just like

to close on this topic with a couple of the statements by one of the leading newspapers in my state, "the ben bulletin." madam president, i think it would be fair to say that "the bend bulletin" would not cite itself as one of the first places that you ought to look for left-wing thinking, and here's what they had to say with respect to this proposition when they encouraged support for my amendment. i quote here, "producers of hemp products in the united states are forced to import it. that denies american farmers the opportunity to compete in the market. it's like surrendering the competitive edge to china and canada where it can be grown legally." the editorial then goes on to say -- and i quote -- "legalizing industrial hemp does not have to be a slippery slope

towards legalizing marijuana. it can be a step towards removing regulatory burdens that limit oregon farmers from competing in the world market." madam president, i ask unanimous consent a copy of the editorial from "the bend bulletin" on this issue be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. wyden: so, madam president, for a farm bill that empowers farmers and increases rural jobs, let's give them the tools that they need to get the job done. let's boost revenue for farmers and reduce the overhead costs for businesses around the country that uses this product and let's put more people to work growing and processing an environmentally friendly crop with a ready market in the united states. madam president, for all the reasons i've described, i will be urging my colleagues to support this amendment so the law can be changed and farmers are not prevented from growing a

profitable crop in the future. even though my amendment is about growing a crop and should be clearly relevant to the farm bill, it may be blocked from getting a vote because of the senate rules on what amendments are allowed to be offered once cloture is invoked on the bill. if i get the opportunity, i'm going to bring this amendment up through the regular order, but if cloture is invoked and my amendment is not allowed, i want colleagues to know that i will be back at this again until there are smarter regulations in place for industrial hemp. madam president, in closing, let me say that i don't think you can overstate the importance of the best possible farm bill. senator stabenow and senator roberts have in my view done yeoman work in trying to build a bipartisan approach, and the question now is can we use the

amendment process to improve on the kind of bipartisan effort they brought to the floor. in each of the areas that i've described this afternoon, the question of improving the farm-to-school program, the question of how we can take sceps to wring or value out of the snap -- steps to wring or value out of the snap program, better nutritional outcomes and then help a promising industry, the industry of industrial hemp, each of these areas, madam president, gives us a chance to attain the objectives of what i've described as the best possible farm bill without spending one single dime of additional taxpayer money. not a dime of additional taxpayer money. so it's my hope, madam present, that we can take the good work that has already been done by senator stabenow and senator roberts and build on that, and i hope that

the senate will support the three amendments i've described this afternoon. and with that, madam president, i would yield the floor and i would also note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. stabenow: madam president, i would ask that we vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. and the quorum call is vitiated. ms. stabenow: thank you very much, madam president. first, let me thank all of our colleagues that are working with us as we he move forward in

putting together a package of amendments to be voted on here in the senate. i want to thank everyone. of course my ranking member, senator roberts. but people on both sides who are working together in good faith as we move through this process. this morning we did have two votes in the next little while we will have two more. and i do want to speak to one of those, madam president. but also to just indicate again to all of our colleagues how important it is to farmers and ranchers, families, rural communities across america that we come together and pass this farm bill. 16 million people have jobs related to agriculture. i'm not sure there's any one single piece of legislation that we've had in front of us that actually impacted 16 million

people like this one. and, of course, we're very proud of the way we've come together in a bipartisan way to propose something that actually cuts the deficit by over $23 billion and creates real reforms that taxpayers have asked for while is then they think our risk -- while strengthening our risk management tools for agriculture and support for families with their own personal disaster when it comes to putting food on the table during an economic downturn for them. i want to take specifically a moment, though, madam president, to speak and urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on a motion to table a coburn amendment 2353 that would repeal two of the

most successful conservation programs in the history of our country, the environmental quality incentives program which we all call eqip, and the conservation stewardship program. eqip is on the front lines of production agriculture, helping farmers comply with regulatory pressures, and it's been very effective. it's the corner stone of our company's commitment to voluntary incentive-based conservation. voluntary, working with farmers, working with ranchers in a voluntary way, to partner with them to be able to provide ways to tackle environmental issues that we all care about. and i might just underscore the fact that what we call the farm bill is actually the largest investment we as a country make in conservation of land, air,

water on working lands. lands that are owned by the private sector, partnering, because we all have a stake in runoff and clean water issues and erosion issues and all of the other things that relate to protecting our wildlife, our wetlands for not only habitats, but also for our hunters and fishermen and all of the other issues around which we celebrate what we've been able to do around conservation in this country. but eqip really is a cornerstone of our commitment to a voluntary incentive-based conservation program, and it provides a cost share to farmers to implement practices that have been absolutely proven to work to benefit our country's soil, air, and water resources. this last year the environmental quality incentive program

entered into 38,000 contracts with farmers and ranchers all across america, covering 13 million acres of land. eqip has a number of incredible stories across the country, in louisiana, helping farmers recover from hurricane katrina. in oklahoma helping producers implement best management practices to reduce sed debt limit in the mission -- sediment in the mission creek. in michigan, it's helped farmers struggling those to protect their herds and their livelihoods. this is one of two critical conservation programs that would be repealed by this amendment. the other one is the conservation stewardship program, and this encourages higher levels of conservation

across agricultural con sraeugs. c.s.p. undertakes additional conservation activities, improving, maintaining their current activities, and they focus on seven resource concerns as well as energy: soil quality, soil erosion, water quality, water quantity, air quality, plant resources and animal resources. all things important not only for our farmers and ranchers, but to all of us. every community, every state, all of us in the country. this program is extremely popular, has been very successful. this year producers enrolled 12 million acres in the program, and this brings the total to 49 million acres across the country that now have conservation

practices as a result of the c.s.p. it provides conservation benefits to more acres than any other conservation program in the country. so, i so i would strongly urge that we table this amendment. i would ask for a "yes" vote in tabling the amendment, and i would like to talk a little bit more about what we have ton in a positive way in the sceftion -- in the conservation title. one of the areas of this bill that i'm most proud of is the work that has been done with conservation and environmental groups all across the country -- in fact we have 64 3 different groups who have said this is the right approach and in tough economic times when we know we don't have additional dollars, we took a look at every single page, every single program -- there are 23 different programs in conservation. every time somebody had a good idea, a program gets added. rather than looking at

duplication, redun dan circumstance how we could streamline, make it better for farmers, communities, better for ranchers, make it simpler, more understandable. so we decided to go back and do what every taxpayer, every citizen has asked us to do and that is streamline, create more accountability, cut the paperwork, makes things work better. so we do increase flexibility. we support locally led, ground-up conservation efforts. we increase transparency and accountability. we streamline, consolidate programs, help farmers comply with regulatory pressures, and we basically have come together -- we've taken 23 different programs down to 13, and put them in three different areas and created a lot of flexibility. so we want to stretch the dollars even farther in four areas -- working lands, easements, conservation reserve program, and regional

partnerships, which are so important to so many of us. all across the country family farms are passed down to children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren and our rapidly growing population demands that our farmers and ranchers double their production over the next few days -- or next few decades and use fewer acres to do it. so innovations in farmin farmins absolutely critical. but no amount of technology can make up for degraded soil or polluted water. the farm bill's conservation programs help our producers meet their challenges and the country's challenges, ensuring that we have a safe, abundant food supply, clean water and thriving wildlife populations for many general rawings to come -- generations to come. and it's wonderful to see the partnerships that are going on all across michigan, all across the country. many farmers take advantage of

these voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs. in you are a great lakes region alone -- in our great likes region alone, but i would say that not only in michigan but our presiding officer from minnesota as well certainly cares deeply. we partner so much of the time on great lakes and champion great lakes initiatives. but in the great lakes region alone producers use at least one form of conservation on 95% of their acres, 95% of the acres we have conservation going on. and so as we look at the fact that -- as we look at streamlining from 23 to 13 programs, making them more flexible and so on, we actually have been able to achieve savings of $6 billion while maintaining conservation functions, and i would argue strengthening their effectiveness while cutting the dollars. nationally, there are 357 million acres of cropland, 406

million acres of forestland, 119 million acres of pastureland, and 409 million acres of ranchland under private ownership in the united states. that's a lot of land, madam president. and all of that is impacted by what we do in the conservation title of the farm bill. and we also know that the challenges that my farmers face in michigan are different than those in kansas or oklahoma or minnesota or montana, so we have built in enough flexibility in this new title while modernizing it, reforming it, creating flexibility to be able to meet very different needs across the country. we are -- i will briefly go through each area just to focus on that. we are focusing, as i said, on

four different areas -- working lands where we have the two programs that are being proposed to be eliminated right now; the environmental quality incentive program, which i spoke about, and also the working lands -- excuse me, the environmental quality incentives program and c.s.p. is in the working lands title. we also include the conservation innovation grants which are geared to projects that offer new approaches to producers for environmental and production benefits. and we, again, look for ways to support efforts that have not been receiving ongoing funding through the pass bill to be able to continue and have great flexibility in a number of different programs, one being a critical issue for america's sportsmen and women, which is access to good recreational

land. i know that's very important in my state of michigan, very important to my family, and the voluntary public access and wildlife incentive programs encourage private owners to open up their land for recreational use -- hunting, fish, bird watching. right now 26 states are taking advantage of the program, and we continue this in the bill, which is very important. our second area is on easements. there are three existing conservation easement programs. we're putting them into one to protect our lands from development and keep them devoted to agricultural use as well as to keep the land for grazing. wetland easements restore, protect, and enhance wetlands which are important to water quality, gaun quantity, and wile habitat. we're focused on long-term land protection.

over the last 20 years the wetlands reserve program helped more than 11,000 private landowners voluntarily restore, protect, and enhance wetlands and wildlife habitat. and so we're very pleased that all of this is in the bill as well. the conservation reserve program, which has been very successful, from 2006 to 2010, the usda estimates that the conservation reserve program was responsible for reducing 1.09 billion tons of sentiment, 3.1 billion metric tons of nitrogen, and 613 million pounds of phosphorus from going into our waters. that's really an accomplishment, going into our great lakes, into our oceans, in our rivers, into our streams. these are the main contributors to many of the water quality issues that we face as a country.

during the same time period, usda estimates that the conservation reserve program contributed 284 million metric tons of greenhouse gas reductions. so it is reducing co2 and i would say it is equivalent to taking 5 million car 55 millione road a year. coming from the car state, madam president, i appreciate c.r.p. doing that, we want to be able to continue to drive our automobiles and we're proud of what we're doing around automobiles. but can you imagine that this program alone has taken enough co2 out of the atmosphere to equate to 55 million cars being taken off the roads? as of 2011c, c.r.p. was enrollig under the acreage cap of 32m over the next couple of years, over 15 million acres are set to

expire. we recognize that not awful those will be re-- that not all of those will be reenhole rolled but we want to make sure there's adequate room to reenroll the most sensitive acres. last year parts of oklahoma -- and i have a special affinity for oklahoma. my mother was born in oklahoma, my grandparents' family having lived there all their lives. i am very familiar with that state. but parts of oklahoma experienced drought worse than the dust bowl era of the 1930's. but i would didn't see dust storms like the 1930's. because the voluntary conservation efforts of the c.r.p. in particular worked to reduce soil erosion and keep the soil where it was supposed to be, which is on the ground. huge successes that we have seen because our country has made an investment in protecting our

precious land and water and air. we also have established a new program called the regional conservation partnership program, which consolidates four very effective regional partnerships into one, and i'm very, very pleased that we've been able to do this. there's great significance for members in all parts of the country. we consolidate the conservation partnership initiative, the agricultural water enhancement program, the chesapeake bay water initiative and the great lakes sediment control promise -- control program. we focus on conservation efforts that are locally led, that are voluntary, and we create more flexibility and transparency for reporting as well as making sure

that we have adequate resources. when we're talking to producers in a variety of partner organizations, nonprofitsprofit- again, hunters, fishermen, other organizations that are very, very excited about this new regional partnership section -- we appreciate all of the input and the support we've received to be able to make this affective. -- effective. let me just say, in conclusion, madam president, that we have a conservation title that is supported in terms of its approach by almost 650 different conservation and environmental groups all across america, every 50 states. they've sent a very strong message. they've worked with us. they know times are tight. they knew we had to create savings. we had to reduce dollars, but we had to make sure we had enough flexibility to be able to do the job that people across our

country want to see done in protecting our lands, our water, and our air. this has been achieved with a tremendous amount of hard work onl, many people -- on many, many people's parts. and i am so grateful to be working on our committee. so many others dish appreciate our subcommittee -- so many others -- i appreciate our subcommittee chairman, senator bennett from colorado as well, the presiding officer from minnesota as well. we have many people who feel very, very strongly -- our chairman of the finance committee who is o who was on tr earlier speaking about this, another true champion on conservation. so many people in our committee. icti could go on and on about ts on both sides of the aisle, i might add. so if i start naming people, i will probably get in trouble for missing someone. but we have strong people, strong advocates on both sides of the aisle, and i want to

thank everybody for their wonderful work hon this conservation -- on this conservation title. i think it's an example of the great work that's been done in putting the bill together. so again i would urge colleagues to vote "yes" to table the coburn amendment and the additional amendment which i will talk about at a later point that will be coming before us and to continue to work with us as we bring together otopath forward to -- together the path forward to completing this very, very important bill that affects 16 million american jobs. i would yield the floor.

tab stab madatab stab madamms. , i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ^stphaoe