the vote meets the 60 vote requirement a vote on the final passage is likely to occur tomorrow. now we are going live to the senate floor. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god of our salvation, whose ear is always open to hear the cries of contrite hearts, consecrate our lawmakers today

for your service. give them tallness of stature to see above the wall of prideful opinions the greatest good for the most people. lord, provide them with the courage, vision and wisdom to face these crucial days confident in the ultimate triumph of your providence. make their lives as lighted windows of faith, hope and love amid the encircling gloom. be the unseen guest at every meeting and guide each of their decisions.

we pray in your merciful name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., february 3, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable angus king, a senator from the state of maine, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president, i move to move to calendar number 297,

the veterans omnibus bill. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 297, s. 1950, a bill to improve the provision of medical services and benefits to veterans, and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, following my remarks and those of the republican leader, we will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany the farm bill, h.r. 2642. the time until 5:30 will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. at 5:30, there will be a cloture vote on the farm bill conference report. as we have already announced, the final passage will be tomorrow after our weekly caucuses. s. 1977, i'm told, is due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 1977, a bill to repeal section 403, the bipartisan budget act of 2013, relating to an annual adjustment

of retired pay for members of the armed forces under the age of 62, and to provide an offset. provided i would object to any further proceedings, mr. president, with this legislation at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: i'm so sorry to interrupt. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: mr. president, tonight the senate will vote to end debate on the farm bill conference report. i expect the senate to conclude work on this measure which will reduce the deficit and protect hungry families, and this will happen, as i indicated, tomorrow afternoon. passing this legislation will support our nation's farmers and ranchers and more than 16 million jobs in the farm industry. it willen sure our farms remain the most productive in the world and protect agricultural jobs. mr. president, i have been in the senate a while, in the house a while, as has been the

chairman of the agriculture committee, a junior senator from michigan, so i have seen people handle legislation. work done by senator stabenow has been remarkably good. it's exemplary for her to work to the point where we're now going to pass this important legislation. i look forward as she does to a strong bipartisan vote on cloture tonight and on the passage of the bill tomorrow. mr. president, on another topic, as we continue to work toward final passage of the farm bill, a bipartisan group of senators has been working behind the scenes to reach agreement to restore emergency unemployment benefits to 1.6 million americans. in the three weeks since republicans filibustered a bill to extend this important program, 220,000 more americans lost their benefits.

state economies across the country have suffered as unemployed people who are already getting by on so little had to find ways to survive on even less. when unemployment benefits dry up, customers disappear from local stores and businesses suffer. more than $2.2 billion is drained from state economies since emergency unemployment insurance expired. nevada alone lost $29 million in economic activity just last month, and $28 million has drained from the economy in the republican leader's home state of kentucky since emergency benefits expired on december 31. so it's no wonder two-thirds of americans, including 65% of independents, believe we should extend unemployment assistance. helping neighbors who have been hit hard is not only the compassionate thing to do, it's also the smart thing to do for our economy. mr. president, economists say there is no way to stimulate the economy more than to give these

people who don't have jobs some money because they are going to spend it. since the republicans filibustered this bill to restore benefits without adding a penny to the deficit, the legislation wouldn't have added a penny to the deficit, the toll on local and national economies has been devastating, but the toll on unemployed americans has been immeasurable. for people who have worked all their lives, lost their jobs through no fault of their own, being unemployed is difficult enough. but worrying about how to pay the rent, put gas in the car, buy groceries and look for a new job can be demoralizing. for the long-term unemployed, some of those who have been struggling to find work for more than a year, $300 a week in unemployment benefits can be the difference between keeping a roof over their heads or becoming homeless, and this is no hyperbole. 57-year-old nevada woman wrote me last week to say the loss of her unemployment check was the last straw.

now she is homeless and couch surfing, sleeping on the couches of friends kind enough to take her in. this is what she wrote to me, and i quote -- "can you imagine sleeping on friends' couches at my age? can you imagine having to sell everything you had worked so hard for just to keep gas in the car in the event that someone calls for an interview?" close quote. but she did go on to say more, and here's what she said -- "i have worked my whole life since i was 16 years old and contributeed to a system that is now failing me on a major scale. millions of people just like this unfortunate nevada woman, people who have worked hard all their lives, contributed to their communities and played by the rules are on the verge of losing everything just like her, but it doesn't have to be this way. i remain cautiously optimistic that republicans will heed their constituents at home and help democrats restore emergency benefits to americans in need.

congress can't solve every problem, but we can solve this problem. all we have to do is work together, democrats and republicans, do what is right for our transits, our country and our economy. i urge republicans join us to restore these crucial benefits. would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany h.r. 2642, which the clerk will report. the clerk: conference report to accompany h.r. 2642, an act to provide for the reform and continuation of agricultural and other programs and the continuation of agriculture and other programs of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 5:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees.

the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: mr. president, i want to first as we begin the final debate and vote on the farm bill conference report, i want to thank our majority leader for supporting this effort every step of the way. every time i have gone to him and said mr. leader, we need to have time for some particular procedural vote or to move it along, he has been there, and i want to thank him very, very much for moving this conference report so quickly. i want to thank also senator cochran and our entire committee when senator cochran is here later today. i want to particularly speak more about the wonderful partnership that we have had. i know that the senior senator

from north dakota will be speaking after me. i want to thank him, senator hoeven, for being an invaluable partner through this entire process. and it's been just a tremendous pleasure working with the senior senator, and he has made a real impact, and i am very, very appreciative. as my colleagues know, the last farm bill expired 490 days ago. 490 days ago. it's time to get it done. it's time to pass this tomorrow and to give it to the president for his signature. mr. president, this is not your father's farm bill. this is not your father's farm bill. this farm bill is focused on the future, not the past. we worked long and hard to make sure the policies work for every region of the country, for all of the different kinds of agricultural production we do in our country, from tara additional road crops to

specialty crops like fruits and vegetables to livestock to organics to local food systems. for the past two and a half years, we have been working in a bipartisan way with colleagues here in the senate and in the house of representatives, and i greatly appreciate our partnership with the chairman of the house and ranking member to craft a farm bill that reflects the future in american agriculture and the healthy food choices that consumers are asking for in the marketplace. as we begin this final debate, i want to focus for a few minutes on some of the things that people might not be focused on in this bill. later today, i am going to speak about the bill and each of its parts. but there are just five things i wanted to highlight as we begin this debate. first, conservation. the farm bill is actually our country's largest investment in land and water conservation on private lands, which are the majority of our american lands.

that means we are restoring and preserving wildlife habitats and open spaces. we help farmers reduce runoff to keep rivers and streams clean and teeming with fish. importantly, this bill includes a historic new agreement that ties conservation compliance to crop insurance, and this bill helps prevent plowing up of native grasses through the provision called sod saver that will save taxpayers money and preserve sensitive habitat for years to come. second, energy jobs. this farm bill has major investments in american energy independence. i am very proud to say that this conference report contains the full $880 million investment we passed here in the senate for renewable and clean energy. it includes my grow it here, make it here initiative to support innovative, biobased manufacturing that takes crops grown on our farms, uses them to replace petroleum and other

chemicals and transforms them into consumer products. it contains the rural energy for america program known as reap to help farmers install on-farm renewable energy and energy efficiency systems to lower their energy usage. and this bill supports the development of the next generation of biofuels, including new technologies using food and agricultural waste. third, healthy foods. one of the things in this bill, among others, is an incentive program based on a successful program in michigan called double up bucks, which essentially doubles food assistance when a family is shopping for produce at a farmers market. speaking of which, we have quadrupled support for farmers markets. four times more help than the previous farm bill. that means farmers have more choices to find fresh locally grown foods, and it means farmers have more fuentes to

sell those products and grow our rural economies. fourth, research. crops and livestock are affected by pests and diseases, and if we are going to continue to be the world's leader in food production, we need to invest in order to fight back. unfortunately, for years we've had to cut funding for critical research and this has been a great concern of mine and all of our committee. this farm bill includes an innovative solution to that problem. it creates a new agricultural research foundation modeled after health research foundations to bring private and public dollars together to support our scientists all across the country who are working to find pests, find cures to crop diseases and focus on food safety and innovation. and finally, mr. president, reform. this farm bill contains the greatest reforms to agricultural programs in decades. we have final ended direct

payment subsidies. which are given to farmers in good times and bad. instead we shift to a responsible risk management approach that only gives farmers assistance when they experience a loss. the bill also ends farm payments to millionaires, addresses a loophole that allows people who aren't farming to get payments, and tightens payment limits with a cap on payments that for the first time includes all commodity title programs including limits on marketing loans. and i might add we look at every part of the farm bill for reform and savings and i think it's safe to say we're the only area of the federal government who has voluntarily cut spending in our own area of jurisdiction. counting sequestration cuts, $23 billion in deficit reduction that we have made a commitment to achieve.

and we have. so i've spoken about five reasons to support the farm bill. there are many, many more. this farm bill reflects a major step forward in creating a new paratime eye diem for the future -- paradigm for the future and a victory for all americans who care about protecting our soil and water resources. increasing american energy independence and the quality of life of rural communities across our country. with that, mr. president, at this time so other colleagues may be able to speak i will yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in morning business? the presiding officer: we're currently considering h.r. h.r. 2642, the conference report. mr. mcconnell: i ask to proceed on my leader time.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the state of the union speech last week president obama promised america a year of action. he says he wants to use his pen and his phone to make it happen. well, here's what i say. use that pen and that phone of yours today for the keystone x.l. pipeline. the jobs that will be created almost immediately. here's something both parties can agree on. i see my colleague from north dakota here. nobody's been more aggressively advocating the keystone pipeline than he has. this is an important shovel-ready project for america. here's the president's chance to work with republicans on a bipartisan plan to create thousands, literally thousands of private-sector jobs almost immediately. here's your chance to show you're not captive to the

ideological extremists on the left. here's your chance for action on a policy the american people actually want. here's your chance, mr. president, on friday the state department released yet another report concluding what the president and everyone else already knew. the keystone x.l. would meet the president's stated requirements on the environment, that there was basically no good reason, no good reason not to build it. so here's a project that essentially wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime to build, that would have almost no net environmental effect, and that would put thousands of americans to work right away. it's an initiative that is supported by an overwhelming, overwhelming majority of americans, that's supported by unions, by businesses, by republicans, by independents and even by prominent democrats, close to 20 right here in the senate alone.

and yet the president has delayed and delayed for more than five years. five years now. not because the project needs to be tud studied further but because of pressure from the most dock train they're fringe of the doctrinaire left. these are the kind of folks who care a lot more about ideology than what makes sense for the middle class. and yet these are the same folks who have a lot of influence in today's democratic party. just look at the war on coal. a war that's being waged with scantd concern for the lives of people who live in the states like kentucky. people are really, really hurting, and it doesn't seem to matter much to these folks. so here's the thing: the president's run out of excuses on keystone, it's way past time to make a decision, and let's be honest, this decision shouldn't be a hard one at all.

because the science, the economics, and common sense all basically point in one direction, and as far as i can tell, ideology is really the only thing that could lead to a different decision here. so is president obama on the side of the middle class or is he on the side of left-wing special interests? he needs to use that pen to show us where he stands, and he really ought to do it today. and while he's at it he should pick up the phone, too. because in his state of the union address the president called for congress to help break down trade barriers that stand this the way of more american jobs. he called for legislation that would help prevent foreign countries from taking the trade jobs that should be going to america's middle class. china and europe aren't standing on the sidelines, he said, and neither should we. , he said. republicans applauded him for that.

he's absolutely right. but now the president's own party is standing in the way of getting anything done. so if there ever was a moment for the president to use his phone, this is it. because trade should be bipartisan issue. it sure used to be. just ask president clinton. so, mr. president, america's middle class is hurting, the very least washington can do for them is create job-creating initiatives like keystone and enhancing american exports. so we'll see soon enough if the president meant what he said about his pen and his phone. if his year of action will really be just that instead of another tired slogan. the answer here is pretty simple. the president needs to step up and lead. middle-class americans have taken a back seat to the hard left extremists in this town for entirely too long. it's time for the president to stand up to these folks and do

the right thing, pick up that phone and that pen and let's get this done. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: mr. president, i ask to proceed on the farm bill at this time for discussion. the presiding officer: the senator may proceed. mr. hoeven: it's interesting that i follow both our minority leader on the keystone issue and also the chairman of the ag committee in the senate, the esteemed senator from michigan, senator stabenow, had who has done such a marvelous job leading the farm bill. the role of congress is to govern. people of this great country, more than 300 million people, the country that leads the world, they send us here to govern.

and to govern, we have to join together on a bipartisan basis to get something done. and solutions by their nature, particularly solutions to complex problems, are never perfect. there are no perfect solutions. but we're elected to join together, republicans and democrats, to solve problems. to put together solutions though not perfect solutions that will meet the challenges that this great nation faces. in energy, i echo the sent iments and i have -- sentiments and i have worked on the keystone project more than five years first as a governor and now as a senator. we have trea bipartisan support -- tremendous support on that project. the minority leader is right on point. but i come today to talk about something i think we are on the cusp of moving forward, something we've worked reason is hard, particularly these last

two years and that's the farm bill. and i want to begin by thanking and commending the senator from michigan, who is the chairman of the senate ag committee, who has worked on this with unbelievable dedication and has truly shown the spirit of bipartisanship that i'm talking about. and so i want to begin by thanking our chairman, senator stabenow, had who has worked with democrats and with republicans, who has continually reached across the aisle not only to her ranking member, the good senator, the senior senator from mississippi, senator cochran, but also to our counterparts in the house to representative frank lucas, chairman of the ag committee this the house, and colin peterson, the minority member in the house, one from oklahoma, one from minnesota, north and siewt south, east and west, democrats, republicans,

senators, houses members to fashion a product that is truly a compromise but is a vital solution that we need to put in place and we need to put it in place now for our farmers and ranchers. so i begin with this slide. with this chart. and i have to say it's the only one i brought. the same chart i'm going to end up with. i'm going to talk about the farm bill for a few minutes, but here's why a farm bill is so important. and it's not just that it's so important to our farmers and ranchers. it's important to every single american. and beyond. for these simple reasons pacific northwest the farmers and ranchers we have in this country produce the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. the highest quality, lowest cost food supply in the world. that's what we're talking about. when we talk about good farm policy, we're talking about something that benefits every

single american, every single day. every single day. somebody can say to you, oh, well well, gee we don't need a farm bill, don't worry about the farm bill, let the farmers and ranchers do it the way we'll do and see what happens. really, really? that's what we should do? we should take a chance on not having the kind of sound farm prarm pram we have now when we have the highest quality, row lowest cost food supply in the the world, in the history of the world that benefits every single american every single day, we should say let's not worry about that, let's let it go, see what happens? i don't think that's a very good argument. so let's talk about this farm bill that is so important to every single american. 16 million jobs in this country either directly or indirectly rely on agriculture. we have a favorable balance of trade in agriculture.

and we have a network of farmers and ranchers across this country that do an amazing job every single day. i'm going to start out by talking about the fact that we actually save money. we save more than $23 billion. so think about it. think about it. here's a mandatory spending program where we strengthen the program, we strengthen the farm program, improve it, more cost-effective and save $23 billion to reduce the deficit and the debt. how about we go through every other program in government and see how we make it better and reduce spending, because when we do that we'll have done what we're talking about here in the farm bill. seems like a good idea. i see the good senator here from montana, and the senator from south dakota as well as the esteemed senator from michigan. they'll tell you the same thing. here we are reforming a mandatory spending program and we're reducing the cost while strengthening the program. seems like what we ought to be doing.

and i know some folks will come down and say it could be better because of this or we're wee should have done this or that and go back into the same old gridlock and i guess argue for having yet another extension on a farm bill that expired over a year ago and should sister been done a long time ago. but we provide a better program with savings, more than $23 billion to help reduce the deficit and the debt. what did we focus on to make this more cost-effective and make it better? as our chairman on the ag just said, we eliminate direct payments. wasn't to talk about reforms, we eliminate direct payments for the first time in a long time, more than $50 billion in direct payments and we replace it with something much more cost qective. we -- effective. we replace it with strengthened crop insurance so farmers and ranchers can insure to manage risk even though they prayed

operate in an environment they certainly don't control the risk. when you talk about weather, every year you're putting in a crop and waiting to see what the weather will be, it's a very difficult proposition. so we work with them on cong on crp insurance so they can insure the way other businesses do. that's much more cost effect than the ole direct payments, which our ag chairman said just a minute ago, those ag payments were going out good years or bad years, whether they need them or not. now it's insurance, the way other businesses work. and we give them an option, we give them a countercyclical program called the price-loss coverage that works on a countercyclical basis. so if times are tough, if prices are low, if they need help, they get help. and if times are good and prices are high and they have a good crop, they don't get help. that's cost-effective. and so we've tried to design it so we generate real savings, more than $23 billion, but if it

works as we hope, we'll generate more savings. so we'll i continue to have the highest quality, lowest-cost food quality in the world, continue to support a job base, 16 million i and growing, and creating a favorable balance of traitd in this country in agriculture, and we hope with the reforms we've made we'll continue to help reduce the deficit and the debt. we also provide strong support for livestock. i think perhaps the senator from south dakota will tell you about a terrible storm that occurred earlier this winter. this had been a tough winter across the country. but for livestock producers out in the midwest, in south dakota, in my home state of north dakota, and other areas, thousands and thousands of cattle were killed in an early blizzard. we provide help and support for those cattlemen. and we continue to provide other programs that will help them market not only here in our country but overseas to continue

to build that favorable balance of trade for our country. and in the dairy program, as was very important to get agreement in the house, yet another example of how the conferees had to work to strike the right balance between what everybody wanted, republican and democrat, to come up with a program that we could get support on. there are -- there's no supply management in the dairy program. it helps our smaller dairy producers with an insurance-type product and the cost of the premium increases with larger -- with higher levels of production. by the dairy producer. so it's designed i think the way that i think everybody should feel is a fair basis. where, again, when our smaller dairy producers need help, it's there. but it's cost-effective and it's done without supply management. conservation title. again, the senator from michigan talked about the importance of

conservation. here's an example where we had disagreement. right? this goes to the heart i think of what's in this farm bill. here's an example, as i've said, that our chairman did a marvelous job on the ag committee, working with our ranking member and everybody else, but on conservation, i have to say i had some different ideas than what is in the final compromise bill. i felt that crop insurance and conservation should have remained decoupled, but they're not. they are coupled in the final product. but to make things work, again, we sought and found compromise. we made changes in the bill that truly make the conservation provisions much more farmer friendly. what do i mean by that? i mean it's not retroactive, it's forward looking. the conservation rules in the bill apply going forward, they don't go back retroactively to

the start of the last farm bill. very important. you can't put people in a situation where they're being forced to go out and change their farm or ranch on a retroactive basis. very important. another provision that we were able to include in the report language is mitigation. farmers and ranchers do a tremendous job on conservation. i love to hunt and i love to fish. my wife likes to fish even more. when i'm out there hunting, i see what's going on. i see who's taking care of the land and making sure that the water is there, the cover is there, the food is there for wildlife, deer, birds. and so any conservation program to be truly effective, you've got to enlist the farmers and ranchers' support so that the conservation community and farmers and ranchers are working together in a way that works for those individuals, those business people, those families, those farmers and ranchers who are out there making their living, every day they're out

not there. they're not just out there once in awhile. they're not just out there stiesms like i am when i go out hunting, they're all there all the time making it work. so these provisions have to work for them. and that's why when we talk mitigation, the mitigation rules have to work for the people that own the land. the farmers and ranchers. and that's why we've worked to include language that makes sure usda is focused on an acre-for-acre approach as long as there's reasonable and commensurate value, and we set up a fund to help them do that. and i think we achieved a good result. all of the wildlife groups, the conservation groups and the hunting groups are onboard. they're endorsing this bill. even the n.r.a. endorsing this

bill. strong support from conservation groups, from hunting groups, fishing groups, wildlife groups. but at the same time, i think we've got provisions in there that truly make it farmer friendly so it works for our farmers and ranchers. and i know that was something that we had to work on very hard to get to but is vitally ergy title. strong energy title. we included the provisions and, in fact, strengthened the beginning farmer and beginning nt to end on reforms.d then i

we've reduced discretionary spending 35% over this five-year stretch and that's without counting for inflation. but two-thirds of the federal government is mandatory spending, mandatory spending programs. so we've got to find ways to make revisions so that we protect and preglefb the programs that are vital to us, like med -- preserve the programs that are vital to us, like medicare and social security, but we also have to find ways to take these mandatory programs and find savings and reforms, like we do here in this farm bill. so when we talk about eliminating direct payments, when we talk about payment limitations that for the first time apply to everything, whether you're getting the arc program, the price-loss coverage program in your farming operations, whether it's the marketing loan program, your total payments can't exceed $125,000. now, that's the first time we've had a cap that applies to everything, right? we've had caps before but they didn't apply to everything. that is a real reform.

and you're going to hear others come down and say well, it should have been better, it should have been like this. but again, we didn't have one program apply to everything where we truly had a cap. so when we talk about eliminating direct payments, when we talk about a cap that applies to everything, that's a real reform. furthermore, we have an a.g.i. limit, adjusted gross income limit, that also applies to everything for the first time, just like the payment limit. right now if you make $900,000 or more, you don't get any of those program assistances. before, again, it did not apply across the board. that's real reform. that's real reformmen reform. and i think in the supplemental nutrition assistance program, where we knew it would be tough to come up with a compromise. you know, clearly differences of opinion on each side of the aisle and between the senate and the house. here again, i want to commend the leaders of our conference

committee, senator stabenow, senator cochran, represent repre luklucas and representative petersen. there was a lot of work to do in the conference committee. and to get an agreement on food stamps, on snap, supplemental nutrition assistance payments, was no small effort or accomplishment. and it, again, like all compromises, if you look at it, it really is fair to both sides. the compromise itself, based on the reforms we made in liheap and getting the states to truly make sure that we don't have ople who need help get help,hat we've truly strengthened those provisions. the scoring by c.b.o. is about $8 billion reduction. but again, we get our economy going, these kind of reforms will generate more savings while still ensuring people who need help, get help. now, if you look at that number, that is very close to what the

senate said they had to have. so for those who are in that camp, they should feel like, you know, this is a bill they can support, that's a fair compromise. and on the house side, where clearly there was a disair to havdesire tohave a significant r number, if you look at this as a two-step program, where you look at the stimulus program, and there was $11 billion in that, and the $18 billion here, that's close to the house's number. like all good compromises, it is fair and it does seek to get the kind of reforms that i think the american public wants, to make sure there is not waste, fraud and abuse in the food stamp program but for those that need help, they get that help. again, i want to commend not only the leadership in the ag committee but also the leadership in the house and the senate for recognizing that it is time to put a solution in

place for the american people. and, again, no solution is perfect but we cannot continue to operate with an expired policy that not only does not give our farmers and ranchers the certainty they need to continue to produce the highest quality, lowest-cost food supply which benefits every single american, but where we don't achieve the very savings and reforms that we've been sent here by the american people to achieve. so it's time to vote. we'll vote on this farm bill now, there was a very strong vote in the house. 250-160. strong bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. the senate needs to step up now and put this solution in place for the american people. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. johnson: i rise today to urge my colleagues to support the farm bill conference report.

it's taken a long time to get to this point, with several unnecessary roadblocks along the way, but we're finally near the finish line and it's time that we conclude this process. i commend chairwoman stabenow, ranking member cochran, chairman lucas and ranking member petersen for their leadership in developing this reasonable conference report. the agricultural act of 2014 will reduce the deficit, restructure our ag support programs, continue to feed the hungry, aid livestock producers hit by the blizzard, and enable consumers to know where their food comes from. this conference report certainly isn't perfect. as with any legislation that is

this important and far-reaching, it's impossible to fully satisfy everybody. but this is a reasonable compromise. our ranchers will benefit significantly from this bill. not only does this compromise enable country-of-origin labeling to continue as well as maintain usda's ability to ensure a fair and transparent marketplace, but it also contains critical livestock disaster assistance programs to help ranchers in my state who are still recovering from the 2012 drought and last year's terrible blizzard. our ranchers lost tens of thousands of livestock and have been left hanging because of congressional inaction. with passage, they will finally be able to get the aid they

need. beyond the importance assistance for livestock producers, this bill also reforms our farm programs by eliminating direct payments and restrengthening the crop insurance program. it also offers key support for young and beginning farmers and ranchers, and it contains reasonable conservation requirement for farm program and crop insurance eligibility. this legislation represents more than just assistance to our farmers and ranchers. it's also a jobs bill. it contains mandatory funding for several energy and rural development programs and it will help usda deal with the huge backlog of gaining rural water

and wastewater applications. hundreds of rural communities across country, including aberdeen, watertown and brookings in south dakota, will also continue to be eligible for rural housing programs as a result of a provision i included in the senate-passed farm bill that is maintained in this conference report. i would also lake to highlight provisions to address some key forestry issues important to the fight against the pine beetle in the hills. this bill provides the forest service and forestland owners with critically needed tools and flexibility. this includes permanently authorizing stewardship contracting to combine timber harvests with the needed conservation work building on

the pine beetle response project in the black hills by streamlining activities to combat insect and disease epidemics and clarifying the first extension to permitting. these changes provide needed certainty for both private and public forest managers. while i'm overall very pleased with this conference report, there are disappointments. the senior senator from iowa and i have worked for years for meaningful payment limitations. income, we were able to include -- in fact, we were able to include in the senate bill a hard cap on payments as well as new language that is defined farm program eligibility. the house bill contains nearly identical language. however, this conference report actually loosens payment caps,

and it passes the decision of defining actually engaged to the secretary of agriculture. this is frustrating. however, w afford on, i will ure the intent of farm bills with respect to farm eligibility when it undertakes rule make. even though i'm nolt fully pleased with everything in this conference report, i think it does represent a compromise. as such, i urge my colleagues to join me in passion the bill. if we don't, food prices will rise, ranchers in my state will be forced out of business, and we won't get the deficit reduction reforms to our farm programs. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. tester: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator montana. mr. tester: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to speak on the importance of passing this farm bill that's in front of us. but i not only speak as a senator, but i also speak as a farmer, someone that's involved in production agriculture whim a not wearing a -- when i'm not wearing a suit or casting votes or traveling around the state finding out what's on th the mis of montanans. from planting and hauling food to market i know firsthand the life in production agriculture. and i know that whether you are a farmer or rancher or forester, it can be very tough because there's a lost uncertainty. uncertainty that i witnessed firsthand last summer when i visited the fields of montana's galantin valley, a valley that was devastated by a hailstorm literally hours before harvest was to begin. or the uncertainty caused by the

blizzard that cost south dakota 240uthousands of cattle this lat fall. farmers and ranchers accept that uncertainty is a fact of life because we deal with weather. they know it's part of what comes with being in production agriculture. but what they can't accept and what they shouldn't accept is a federal government that takes six years in drafting a five-year formula. we don't need that kind of uncertainty, and that's why we need to pass the farm bill we have today. when i talk to my fellow producers in montana around around the country, they tell moo he that the lack of a long-term farm bill is preventing them from making critical impis decision. wort a long-term farm bill, farmers don't know what crop insurance is going to look like. they don't know what to expect from future farm loans, it is hard to plan thoad invest in next year's prop. you can't even do the simple business planning without the

farm bill. many of us here in the senate got our start in business and know the importance of a predictable business environment. well, farming and agriculture is no din p. you need certainty to grow and to prosper. the fact is, mr. president, the lack of a long-term farm bill is hurting economies from montana to maine. folks need and are deed managed a responsible long-term farm bill and i think it's time for the senate to dot right thing. and that is, pass the five-year farm bill. but i am a not encouraging folks to vote for this bill just for the sake of certainty. you should also vote for it because i think it strengthens the hands of farmers, ranchers, american families who depend on them. livestock owners will see many benefits from this farm bill. this five-year plan makes livestock disaster assistance proms permanent and retroactive, helping those south dakota ranchers that i spoke of a minute ago to recoup their

october losses as well as montana ranchers who lost cattle to drought back in 2012. all in all, livestock owners will be better able to manage risk, include production and meet the new challenges because of this bill. because of fathers the bill removes term limits on usd u.s.-guaranteed farm loans. it also provides more support for farmers and ranchers just getting their start in agriculture. in rural america we need more young producers willing to get up appeared work hard, keep small family farms and ranches going. this bill is a positive step. conserving lands is another critical issue across this quun, particularly rural america. farmers and reafnlings are the true stewards of the land. this bill continues that proud american tradition. whether by improving portions of the conservation reserve program or sod buster, this farm bill supports our outdoor economy by

working with farmers and ranchers to re-serve more native prairie for wildlife habitat. that is good news for the hundreds of an lars of this country and montana is no exception. it is good news for the folks that sell rifles and waders. all in all this, great outdoor economy adds up to $6 billion in the state of montana alone. this bill also includes an extension of pilt payments to rural county whose can't generate enough revenue from lands controlled by the federal government. this is a big deal in rural america. and it continues strong country-of-origin labeling so that consumers know where their meat was bonn born, raised, and processed. now, the big multinational meatpacking firms may not like it, but for american ranchers, it is critically important, as it is for our consumers.

why? because americans know that we produce the finest beef in the world. this five-year farm bill takes all these positive steps while saving taxpayers $23 billion by making tough choices in the nutrition assistance program and changing how we apply farm subsidies. chairman stabenow and ranking member cochran have quiten a scengs -- have written a commonsense bill. this an era when too many folks look for reasons to vote "no" instead of "yes," it takes strong and determined leaders to bring a responsible bipartisan bill like this to the floor. and that's why, because i'm in production agriculture especially, the work that chairman stabenow and member cochran did for the american farmers and ranchers needs to be commended. that commitment is going to keep america's rural economy strong.

the senators from michigan and mississippi are the reasons this bill is finally at the finish line. thanks to them, we're on the verge of approving a bipartisan bill that will strengthen production agriculture and support family farmers and ranchers across this country. my wife and i took over our family's farm in north central montana in 1978. we had land and a strong work ethic but we had little else. so with some hard work and a few good decisions and weather that cooperated, our farm is doing pretty well right now. our story can be repeated across rural america, but production agriculture will only be strong if it has the certainty that comes with a commonsense long-term farm bill. and that's what's in front of us today, a bill that lets farmers and ranchers how to plan ahead, how to make their books balance, a bill that lets distributors allocate resources and make

sound business decisions and a bill that takes responsible steps to strengthen programs that are working and ending others that are not. mr. president, let's not leave farmers and ranchers and all americans who depend on them high and dry again. with strong support for production agriculture, with strong support for kne a nutritn program and with a bill that savings taxpayers significant dollars, it is time to vote "yes" and send this farm bill to the president's desk. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. stack stastab plap? the presiding officer ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: i want to thank the senator for his wise counsel throughout the process of writing the farm bill. it is nice have a farmer in the senate who can give you practical ideas and reactions, and this is somebody who's been out th there fighting for the

farmer, small farmers who take sure they have the same shot at big producers. i want to thank senator tester not only for his support, but he has a very key voice here in supporting farmers and ranchers across the country, and i've -- i very much appreciate -- i've very much aprooshted his counse- appreciated his counsel as we bring to a conclusion.

i would ask that time during the quorum call be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i put in a quorum call, please. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed

with. fer sphe without objection. mr. sessions: the agricultural act of 2014 is the culmination of a lot of hard work by our conferees, representative mike rogers and martha roby from alabama, as well as my colleagues here in the senate, senator stabenow and cochran and others. the important legislation contains a number of commendable measures. during my time in the senate, you've been a strong supporter of alabama's farms and believe this legislation does make a number of possible reforms over the long term that should help in the efforts to reduce, not grow, the involvement of the federal government in agriculture. for example, the legislation transitions farm subsidies from a system of direct payments to a more market-based crop insurance support program. senator lugar always favored that. i think many other people who've thought about agriculture think that's the right path to go, and

i have supported that. as a five-year bill, that legislation should also give our farmers and their families some certainty that they need to make prudent planning decisions and give them choices to select programs that best meet their needs. so i believe you're farmers can move forward and help our nation remain a global leader in the production of food and fiber. the final bill also contains other essential provisions to reduce unnecessary regulations, such as the inclusion of a forest -- environmental protection agency forest road fix, which i have strongly supported. it's just an excessive intervention into the forest industry to have the e.p.a.

involved in the issues as they're talking about here, and i think we've clarified that so that won't be a problem. it also contains provisions that are designed to help alabama catfish producers, peanut and cotton farmers and forest landowners to compete in the global economy. i'm pleased the final bill contains my provision to help farmers in states like alabama that have not significantly used irrigation practices in the past. under the current usda policy, farmers have been excluded from the federal irrigation program if they don't have a history of irrigation, and that makes no sense where you're trying to involve more people to smartly use irrigation. and i think the ranking member and the chair of the committee for supporting us on that, senator stabenow. my provision will help ensure more alabama farmers are able to

access these programs and it's been a priority of mine for some time, although it's a small part of the overall bill. as a whole, the congressional budget office claims the farm bill will reduce the bill by $16.6 billion over ten years. this is a step, a small step, however, in the right direction. it means that if current law were extended without change, we would be spending $16.6 billion more than if this bill were passed. so that's positive. i wish we could do more. we can do more. unfortunately, we haven't done more, but that is a positive step. it's fair to say that the elimination of countercyclical and direct payments almost entirely is an historic occasion. of course congress enacted freedom to farm in 1996, which was intended to slowly phase out these kinds of subsidies.

but when times became particularly difficult for our farmers in the years following the 1996 bill with low prices and drought, these programs were in essence reinstituted by congress. and the retreat from -- and the movement away from federal intervention was greatly eroded. in my view, that's all i have at the bottom -- my view -- congress should constitutedly seek to reduce the role of the federal government in farming. but millions are dependent on farming for their livelihoods and a thoughtful conservative approach to reducing federal intervention would be to continue this reduction steadily over time. it surely can't be done smartly all at once without some real dislocation in the agricultural marketplace. although, i must say i think we could have gone a good bit further this year. but i remain concerned that the

reform to the snap program, the food stamps program are much too modest. i hope our actions here today help set the stage for badly needed reforms that i and others have outlined during our debate on the farm bill in 2012 and 2013, and now this year. yet, it seems clear to me that the bill before us today regrettably does not go nearly as far as it could in addressing the abuses and the wastefulness that are contained in those programs. for example, the bill spends $956 billion over ten years. nearly 80% of that is for the snap program. agricultural support food programs. it is in reality, as someone has said, a snap bill, a food stamp

bill. 80% of the money goes to that one problem. it asks our farmers to contribute a disproportionate share to deficit reduction. the bill cuts food stamps by only about $9 billion and it cuts the agriculture programs by about $8 billion. that sounds fair, balanced, as my colleagues like to use that word "balanced" but you're cutting $8 billion from the 20% of the program and the other $8 billion from the 80% of the program. and that's not balanced. i want to say to my colleagues there is no intent or desire on any member of this senate to have people who are hungry remain hungry. and people who are needing food not to have food. what we're saying is there are great numbers of abuses in the program that have clearly been identified and should be fixed, and haven't sufficiently been

fixed. though it repeats -- it repeals direct payments, the bill replaces those payments with new programs to seek to help farmers in a more effective way that will cost at least $27 billion. so we reduce some programs and increase others. i think most of that is in the ag insurance policy, which is probably in general a better way to help our agriculture industry. congress needs to be careful about spending more money. many senators and independent analysts think these new programs may cost even more than c.b.o. is currently projecting. it moves money from direct support to crop insurance, and i think that could be good. we've studied the farm bill conference report and note that the congressional budget office has concluded it increases spending in 2014 by $2.1 billion above the spending limits

democrats and republicans agreed to in december. spends more than we agreed to in december, $2.1 billion over the limits we agreed to in a bipartisan way. so in the senate, this would normally subject the legislation before the senate to two points of order, budget points of order, because it violates the budget spending limits we just agreed to. proponents of the bill would then be required, to either reduce the spending in the bill to the agreed upon level or gather a supermajority of 60 votes to waive the point of order and agree to violate the budget. however, the senate majority, democratic colleagues -- well, let me just say it this way. that's not fair to say. the majority in the senate have deployed a budget gimmick with

republican support that renders these points of order, and consequently a minority's right to enforce the spending limits ineffective. and this is something i predicted two months ago when this legislation, when the ryan-murray legislation passed. i said on december 18 as that deal was being debated -- quote -- "with 57 different reserve funds, the murray-ryan spending bill that is before us now will allow senator reid and chairman murray to bring to the floor a practically unlimited number of big tax and spending bills. it will not be subject to the 60-vote limit. normally the minority party would be able to raise a point of order under section 302-f of the budget act." so the budget committee chairman has decided to make an adjustment to the budget spending levels, and she can do so because of the ryan-murray

spending agreement. that passed the house, the republican house, and the senate. and this will allow increased spending in the farm bill above the amount we agreed to. though two points of order would lie, they are voided in the ryan-murray legislation because of the powers granted to the budget committee chairman in that legislation. so let me explain this power that was granted yet again. the ryan-murray agreement includes 57 deficit-neutral reserve funds. operationally a reserve fund allows the chairman of the senate budget committee to adjust allocations of budget authority and outlays to a senate committee or committees, aggregate levels of budget authority, outlays and revenues and other appropriate levels prior to senate consideration. this allows the proposed legislation to avoid most

spending and revenue-related budget points of order as long as the measure complies with both the subject matter and deficit neutrality instructions in the reserve fund. in the case of the farm bill, the ryan-murray budget numbers refers to the senate-based budget which garnered bipartisan opposition. so the budget, s. con res. 8, in section 313, gives the chairman of the budget committee the power to adjust the budget for any farm bill explicitly reauthorization of the farm bill -- quote -- "provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2018 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2013 through 2023.

complex words i just read. but, in other words, the farm bill is now in a situation where it can increase spending in the first fiscal year and promise that it will recoup the money later on, which is exactly what this bill does and the minority's rights are diminished in its ability to stop it because of the ryan-murray budget agreement. so that's what i warned about in december. some said there wasn't anything to it. i warned it was, and i think we're already seeing that there is something to the complaints i made. i said on the floor of the senate -- quote -- "the power that senators had to block, tax and spend legislation that breaks spending limits has been eroded significantly by ryan-murray. the danger is that we will

certainly have spending increases in the short term, but we have only promises of spending limitations in the future. there is no point of order that lies against the bill, because the ryan-murray budget agreement. i asked my colleagues, acknowledge, i'm not sure members of the house or senate fully understand the impact of what occurred after that secret meeting between the two budget leaders. it's far from perfect, and we'll see how we proceed with the ag bill. i appreciate those who have worked on it. we need to do the right thing for agriculture. it's an important part of our nation's economy and our national security. i have invested a lot of time and effort in it, as i know most of my colleagues have. and i appreciate the work of those who have produced this

legislation for us. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: we all know the senate and house agriculture leaders unveiled the long-awaited conference report last week for the 2014 farm bill. it's been a long trip getting this far. every conference committee, of course, has some covers, but the 2014 farm bill i think has had more than of fair share of twists and turns, right now to the negotiations on dairy policy in the fleeting hours before we as conferees sign this conference report. it sounds like in the old days the perils of pauline but we had the farm bill tied to the railroad tracks about to head over the dairy cliff. fortunately we had chairwoman stabenow and ranking member cochran and their superb staffs,

and i would say i am blessed with also a superb staff, and we ended up with a bipartisan bicameral farm bill that addresses the needs of every region in the country. senator stabenow and i were on the phone about every hour day and night and weekends, from michigan and vermont, from overseas, from here, but it worked. everybody got a chance. republicans and democrats alike got a chance to express their views. so now it's time to vote. pass the bill. send it to the president that gives sorely needed certainty to our farmers, families, our rural communities. after all, the 2014 farm bill saves taxpayers $23 billion. it eliminates duplicative programs. it strengthens the toolbox for

skwefrbg our national resources. -- for conserving our natural resources. it gives farmers much-needed long overdue certainty as they make planting decisions. they don't have the luxury that we seem to give ourselves to wait to the very last second. they have to plan months in advance. it also provides relief to struggling families, support for rural communities, investments in a sustainable energy future. now, is it a perfect bill? of course not. no farm bill is. and while it includes provisions i would not have preferred, i do believe that it has a lot of provisions that will benefit vermont and the nation. i wish that the commonsense dairy policies that were passed twice by the full senate, supported by republicans and democrats, by the chair and the ranking member and also by the house agriculture committee, i wish they hadn't been ambushed in the other body at the last

hour. as a result, we don't have a market stabilization program, something that was proposed by dairy farmers themselves, and a program that would have protected taxpayers from exorbitant costs, it would have insulated dairy farmers and consumers from volatile roller coasterring milk prices. fortunately, the speaker of the house and some of the very powerful, huge industry figures from out west did not want it, but we do have, because of the constant work of everybody -- and i again would praise the chair of our own committee, senator stabenow. we have a solution that, while not perfect, will help our small dairy farms protect themselves from poor economic conditions. when milk prices plummet or when feed prices skyrocket or as we

have sometimes seen in the worst scenario when both things happen at the same time. the farm bill includes changes to lower the cost of the margin protection program for vermont's small family dairy farms. they will also discourage large dairies from using this program to flood the markets through overproduction of milk, something that wipes out small family farms. but the bill as not just about farmers. it's also a food bill that supports hungry children and struggling families and has healthy food initiatives. i'm disappointed the final bill contains any cuts to the supplemental nutrition assistance program. but the conferees, we worked together and we rejected the deepest cuts of the hunger safety net and the most harmful new conditions which are advocated by an extreme majority of the house, both of which would have undermined the very

reason we offer food assistance. their provision would have slashed nearly $40 billion from nutrition assistance programs, it would have eliminated eligibility for millions of americans. it would have been harder for millions of needy younger children to receive free school milk. frankly, mr. president, i am fed up. there are members in the house or sometimes members in this body who say we can't afford to feed these hungry children, they go to school. these are the same members who voted for a blank check to go to an unnecessary war in iraq, something that's cost us $2 trillion, they did it on a credit card to go to war in iraq. feed children in america so they might actually learn when they are at school? oh, we can't afford that. come on. feeding those hungry children is an investment in the future of

this great nation. and some of the demeaning and offend sieve provisions such as allowing drug testing of beneficiaries and unrealistic work requirements. those were left out. if you ask somebody who has been a tax-paying, hardworking citizen for decades that when the factory closes and they are out trying to find more work and they need supplemental nutrition to feed themselves and their family, are we going to demean them after what they have done for the country at that point? of course not. and the legislation, though, promotes food security in low-income communities, encourages healthy eating through increased access to fruits and vegetables. that's something we have done in vermont for years. it's also one of the reasons, that and the fact that we cover every child from birth to 18 years old for health care, that's one of the reasons vermont always listed as either either -- vermont is always listed as either number one or

number two for the healthiest state in the nation. but the legislation is also -- and again i compliment the chair on this -- it continues the shared responsibility to preserve our working farm land and our natural resources. you lose these natural resources, this farm land, they don't make it anymore, you're not going to get it back. federally supported crop insurance will ease farmers exposure when natural disasters strike. they will keep working lands in production. but meanwhile, enlisting farmers to continue the simple conservation practices they are already following would ensure the protection of our wetlands and our sensitive lands. in a country as diverse as ours, it is no simple task to produce a farm bill that addresses the need of every region or every industry or every priority, but i am proud that this is a bill that offers a targeted approach, attacking the needs of each state and agriculture sector rather than doing it the easy

way that would be a one-size-fits-all, which when you end up doesn't fit anybody. the regional equity program guarantees that no state is left out from receiving conservation resources under the farm bill. not only vermont communities but rural america everywhere will be strengthened by a broadband development program, energy efficiency initiatives and water treatment and distribution loans. vermont's very beautiful northeast kingdom, their reap zone, will continue to be a catalyst for growth and progress building a resill gent, growing economy. organic agriculture is supported through certification cost share and stronger enforcement and crop insurance and funding for organic research, which we should do with the fastest growing sector in agriculture. i'm also pleased that many of the harmful provisions of the

house farm bill were removed during the conference negotiations, including dangerous secrecy provisions. attacks on critical environmental regulations. and one that was proposed by an extremely conservative republican, we have actually threatened to limit states' rights. what an amazing turn of event. we got rid of that. so bottom line, the senate and house have produced a farm bill that at its core is about keeping america strong. and make no mistake, farming is part of our national security. look at the number of nations in this world that would give anything to be able to feed themselves and have food left over to export. we are more secure as a nation because we can do that. this farm bill will boost the

economy, it will create jobs, it will offer support to the hungry, it will conserve our natural resources, it will improve our energy security, it will stand up for our country's families. i am proud to have signed the conference report, another farm bill. it will support america today into america's future. i look forward to one of my few duties i get to do. after this bill passes, the speaker will sign it. i will sign it as president pro tempore. i know what he has said to all of us, the president will then sign it. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i'm going to address a small part of this bill but a very important part of a bill, something i have been working on through at least two

farm bills, and since the chairwoman of the agriculture committee is here, senator stabenow, i thank her for defending my position up until the last day or two of the conference, and she kept me informed fully about the difficulty of the position that both houses have taken getting that out of conference. so i come to the floor not to discuss just my issue but to use it as an example that when the the -- my colleagues may look forward to the future, but just because something goes through the united states senate, even without controversy or because it wasn't an amendment to strike what i'm talking about that came out of committee, it passed in

the house of representatives by a 230-194 vote, in the same language that you would assume that something that was the same in both houses would not be changed by the conference. in fact, rule 28 of the senate rules says this. conferees shall not insert in their report matters not committed to them by either house nor shall she strike from the bill the matter agreed to by both houses. so if you are interested in the senate rules being followed by conference committees in the future, understand in this particular case it was not followed, because the provisions weren't necessarily struck but were changed in such a manner that really the $387 million

that the congressional budget office said would be saved if my provision stayed in, that amount of money will not be saved. we're talking about a situation that we're trying to correct here going back at least to the 2008 farm bill and maybe previous to that where 10% of the biggest farmers get 70% of the benefits from the farm program. so its subsidizing farmers as opposed to helping small farmers get through conditions like natural disaster, politics, other things beyond the control of farmers that safety net for farmers was intended to help. so we could have saved $387 million, the rules of the senate said that this should have been in the final package that came back to the united states senate, but it's not here and it seems to me my colleagues

ought to be aware of that fact because they may be in a similar situation sometime on some other conference committee report, and the question is are you going to let a small number of people for most of this conference report, four people negotiating the difference between the house and senate, speak for the other 531 members of the congress, and are you going to let a majority of that group of people represent a minority of the senate and a minority of the house? and that's -- by this being taken out or this being changed in such a way so it has no value, that's exactly what has happened. making sure that we have limits on the amount of money that a farmer can get and real numbers that work is not something new.

president obama vetoed a farm bill in 2008 because he said it continues subsidies for the wealthy. in another part of his veto message, he said the american taxpayer should not be forced to subsidize that group of farmers who have adjusted gross incomes up to $1.5 million. as a rationale for vetoing that bill. so what we have here is the moral authority of a majority of the senate, a moral authority of the house of representatives and their positions taken on this language that limited a farmer to no more than $250,000 and defining a farmer as somebody

who is actually engaged in the business of farming so that nonfarmers don't get help from the farm program has been taken out regardless of the moral authority that -- that said that should be kept in the bill. in other words, conferees taking out something that represented a minority of the house of representatives and a minority of the united states senate. so we're here to vote on a farm bill. cloture today, final passage tomorrow. the farm bill is a very important safety net for producers. it gives farmers a chance to survive in tough times. as a farmer, i understand the risk of farming. my payment limit reforms were adopted, as i can't say too many times, in both bodies of congress. it would have saved $387 million.

and people said that when we limited through my amendment that you could have one nonfarming manager per farming operation, they were saying that that was unreasonable. there would have been a lot of money saved with that but more importantly, would you have had a situation where nonfarmers as the situation today and will probably be the situation in the future are going to be able to get benefits from a farm program when they don't have any legitimacy for that. these -- this provision should not have been touched because it was the same in both houses. subsidies as i said, when the biggest farmers get 70% of the benefits from the farm program actually put a new generation of farmers, the young and beginning farmers, at a severe disadvantage. you know, there's nothing wrong with farmers getting bigger.

that's the american dream, to use your potential to the best you can to do the best for yourself. but, frankly, when farmers that should be getting big payments from the farm program get them, subsidizing large farmers to get larger is in my estimation wrong. and particularly when it drives up the price of land as it has in the recent five to eight years, drives up the price of cash rent as it has recently, it's very difficult for people that are just trying to get into the business of farming to start out. and so i think our farm program where you can have nonfarmers qualifying for the farm program, being managers when they might not even be making a

phone call to the operation and having limits that don't mean much, that's exactly what we're doing, subsidizing big farmers to get bigger, and young and beginning farmers being at a severe disadvantage. changing my reforms behind closed doors, as i said, is wrong. the house and senate have spoken on the issue, no debate in the senate here, 230-194 votes in support of the fortenberry amendment in the house of representatives, something that under the senate rules is the same in both bodies should not be messed with by the conferees. but it was changed very dramatically. some are saying that the effort to -- that conferees took to give the united states department of agriculture authority to bring about some of

these reforms honor-on who is actually engaged in the business of farming will do the job, but they've had that authority for a long time and i see this as a washington hat trick to say you've done something when you haven't done anything. so i'm not going to be able to vote for this bill because it would endorse what has happened, egregious manipulation behind closed doors of something the same in mote houses should not be tolerated and i hope my colleagues will take that into consideration so it doesn't happen to them in the future. how we will fix other entitlement programs if we can't cut subsidies to millionaire farmers who don't even farm makes it very difficult. and as i said, my friend from michigan, the chairwoman stabenow has worked hard on this bill. i really wanted to support this farm bill. i just can't get over what happened behind closed doors

once again here in washington and i know she has told me so many times she has defended my position and i thank her for doing that. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. north dakota. ms. heitkamp: thank you so much for this opportunity to talk about something that is -- i ask that quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: in north dakota in

spite of all of the discussion about our great energy renaissance and all of the above and the new manufacturing and yes, we are going to be a test site for -- for the unmanned aircraft, in north dakota we live and we breathe agriculture. in summer our plains are filled with beautiful sunflowers and canola fields and flax and if you have never seen a field of flax i'll send you a picture. it's the most amazing view especially when the canola is next to the flax. our ranchers take serious provide in their cattle herds that graze around our state. and the wheat, grain, corn and soybeans farmers provide help feed the world and are the best products produced in agriculture today. agriculture also supports 16 million jobs around the country including thousands of manufacturing jobs in north dakota. this is not surprising given that our state is one of the most productive farm states in

the country. those jobs make it possible for our state to continue to harvest each year, supporting families across north dakota but also throughout the country. i take great pride in the work our farmers and ranchers do. i know all north dakotans do as well. for too long we weren't supporting them enough to enable them to do their jobs. in fact, we held farmers and ranchers in limbo because they haven't been sure on how to prepare for this chron kropf year since congress should not done its job and passed a farm bill. but finally that's about to change. during my campaign i pledged to work tirelessly to get a long-term farm bill passed. now we are literally at the one-yard line of finally reaching the goal of passing a five-year bipartisan farm bill. i'm incredibly proud of the work we have done wand we have almost accomplished and i do have to give a shoutout to our tremendous chairwoman, senator debbie stabenow, who as senator

hoeven put it, she's a tough negotiator. and i think that's one thing everybody who -- tough but fair and absolutely remarkable not only this year but also in 2013 and 2012 and never resists an opportunity to inform anyone who crosses her path about the importance to the economy of this country that a long-term farm bill positions us much better to be competitive in the world. you know, one thing we talk about a lot here is the budget. and about long-term systemic reforms that can give us what in public policy we need to do, such as a safety net for farmers but also reduced costs to taxpayers. this farm bill saves $23 billion in federal dollars while still still providing one of the strongest ?ets for farmers -- safety nets for farmers and ranchers ever crafted in a long-term farm bill.

it makes critical forms to target resources where they are most needed while giving farmers the opportunity to thrive. this farm bill achieves that goal and puts our agricultural system in a strong position to continue its role as a world leader. this is achieved through effective farm program for growers, livestock disaster coverage for ranchers and livestock producers, enhanced crop insurance offerings, expanded research which is so critical to so many of our new crops, increased export production for agricultural products, critical investments in biofuels and in energy, a renewal of the sugar program to prevent excess imports of unfairly subsidized foreign sugar, and targeted conservation assistance to tackle the unique problems in this country particularly in my state with devil's lake and the red river valley. you know, in north dakota we grow more than 20 different

crops each year. and we lead the nation in the production of 13 different commodities, including spring wheat, durum pete wheat, barley, canola, sunflowers and flax seed. while we talk about this explosion of both corn and soybeans i can tell you north dakota is leading the way in diversification which i think is the future for agriculture. north dakota is also a leading livestock state with thousands of cow calf operators raising livestock in the west and a leading producer of sugar beets from growers in the red river valley. approximately 25% of my state's economic base in unemployment employment are derived from the work done on the farm. i talk about this quite a bit. when you think about economics and you think about what generates economic activity at the very beginning, you have to have new wealth creation. and in this country new wealth

creation comes from what we extract from the earth, how we use our resources, and it comes from importation of goods and services, our exploitation of our goods and services. that's new wealth creation and farming is such a critical component. and when you think about that, you realize that our farmers and ranchers help grow the economy and reduce our nation's trade deficit. north dakota alone exported more than $3.1 billion in -- $4.1 billion in commodities this year contributing to a farm cash receipts of over $7.6 billion. but to simply put in a crop, north dakota growers -- this is an average grower in north dakota -- spends upwards to a million dollars in import costs with the hope of earning a modest profit, a modest return on that investment at the end of the year. what's more, each year north dakota faces challenges completely out of their control like floods, droughts, price collapse and the introduction of

new pests and pathogens. what's more, each year north dakota growers face incredible risk with in the last two years the uncertainty of not having a farm bill. they are additional to do this, they are able to take the risk because the rest of the country takes a little bit of risk with them. for that food security and that national security that american agriculture provides. for too long, this body's debated farm and rural policies in place in our country without providing the needed certainty to america. soon, in just a few hours, we'll have the opportunity to prevail by putting rural america on strong grounds by passing a comprehensive long-term farm bill that stands up for our ranchers and our producers and stands up for the people who consume agricultural products in this country. and to my way of thinking, i urge all of my colleagues to

vote "yes" on this bill. it's good for my state, it's good for the country, and it's good for the world. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: thank you, mr. president. i believe i have 20 to 30 minutes. i would appreciate it if you would let me know when i've consumed 15 minutes. the presiding officer: the senator will be so notified. mr. coburn: i come to the floor -- i've been in the congress for a lot of farm bil bills, seen a lot of things tried. saw freedom to farm. saw the last farm bill. saw the one before that. and i'm looking at this one, and it reminds me of the commercial, the auto commercial, "something's up." "something's up." well, it sure is. only in washington can we claim a bill saves $24 billion when it increases the spending 43% over the next 10 years.

how's that fit? is that just the language of washington? in fact, we're going to spend almost a trillion dollars over the next 10 years on what should be called a food security bill rather than a farm bill because this isn't a farm bill, this is a food security bill. and the language that we hear from our colleagues is totally parochial or product based. and we hear all the claims that we're thinking about the best interests of the nation. what we're really thinking about is the best interests of the parochial values from our own states. and that's how you get this conflagration of people coming together to pass a bill that i admit has some limited reforms in it. bit i just heard the senator from north dakota talk about how we create wealth. i couldn't disagree more. we create wealth by making sure

the risk of capital investment are responsive to market forces. this farm bill is anything but that. there's no response to market forces, because there's no place else in this country where you can go into a business or an enterprise and being guaranteed that your revenue's going to be secure. we've even added a new supplemental low-cost crop insurance program, that all of us, who aren't farmers in america, are going to play the deductible on. plus we're, going to subdie 62% to 6 -- subsidize 62% or 63% of all the crop insurance in the country. so when we make occurrence, we're modifying the risk. so, therefore, markets aren't going to work. and so we talk about sugar prices. americans are losing candy manufacturers like crazy. why is that? because americans pay twice as

much as the rest of the world for sugar. because we're protecting cane sugar and beet sugar farmers rather than letting market forces work. i'm really disturbed at the process of this bill as well. senator durbin and i tried to put some income limitations on the benefits to the wealthiest in this country when it comes to crop insurance. it passed this senate with 64 or 65 votes. it was in the bill when it left here. the house passed the same thing by a voice vote. and the conferees took it out. what's a farm bill really about? it's about protecting the wel well-heeled and the well-connected in the agriculture community. i know a little bit agriculture. my dad ran a ranch with 5,000 mother cows. i worked on it summer and after

school. back then, in the 1970's, there were no benefits for a cattle rancher. that's all come into the farm programs since the 1970's. guaranteeing them that now they'll make decisions that are against market forces but will farm the government. so i'd say again, only in washington, when we're going to spend $350 billion more on a program over the next 10 years, will somebody claim that we're cutting spending $14 billion to $20 billion. only in washington will that happen. that -- it's unique washington accounting. and we've heard all the proponents say what a great job they did. well, let me talk a little bit about some of the details of this farm bill. you know, one of the things the

president talked about, he just put joe biden in charge of job-training programs, looking at all of them, seeing if they have metrics. g.a.o.'s studied that. i've actually studied -- looked at every job training, state and federal, in my state. they had 10 job-training pilot programs in this bill. we don't need any more job programs. what we need to do is make sure the ones we got work. and have metrics on them, make sure that when we spend american taxpayers' dollars, that we're actually giving somebody a life skill rather than filling the coffers of the companies that contract to do all this job-training programs. and the small bureaucracies that suck up the grants. because in oklahoma, the federal programs are highly ineffective, especially when you compare them to the state-run programs, which are highly effectivemen effecti.

so in this farm bill, we're creating more job-training programs. sounds good. good sound bite on the floor, good sound bite at home in the press, but something's up. and what is up is we continue to make the same mistakes as a legislative body. and that mistake is, is we want to please constituents at home more than we want to fix the real problems in front of this nation. let me talk about the snap program for a minute. there's not anybody in this country that i want to go hung hungry. but when this country was first founded, we used some very good principles that the senate and the house have totally disregarded in terms of how you help people. and i reference the historical

blueprint on this from a book that was written by a man by the name of marvin o'lasky. and the title of that book was called, "the tragedy of american compassion." how did we used to help people versus how are we helping them now. how did we build up people as we helped them versus now how are we tearing down people as we help them. creating dependency versus creating responsibility. and he outlined several factors that this country has used in the past that we ought to be reembracing. and let me just list a couple of them. one is we should give relief to people only after on one-on-one personal investigation of their need. let me say that again. we ought to know they need it. because contrast where the money's coming from.

the money's not coming from today's taxpayers when we're running a $640 billion deficit. the money's coming from our kids and our grandkids. and do we not have an obligation to know that when we give somebody a snap card that they really need it? versus the fact that the snap cards get sold, the p.i.n. number gets sold and the snap card's used by somebody else and i take my cash. that's going on all throughout this country. and that's not to say that most of the people who are getting this benefit don't need it. but because there's no personal investigation into it, no accountability on the part of the receiver or the giver, we're creating a situation in our country where we're undermining self-reliance. the second point he made was to give necessary articles in only what is immediately necessary.

that means you have to investigate it. to give what is least susceptible to abuse. to give only in small quantities and in proportion to immediate needs. and less than might be procured by labor except in cases of sickness. that's a great principle. let's help people, but let's help people help themselves. and let's don't create a situation of temptation to do the wrong thing. to give assistance at the right moment, not to prolong it beyond duration of the necessity which calls for it. we don't do that at all. in any of our programs. to require of each beneficiary absence from intoxicating liquors and drugs.

to discontinue relieving all who manifest a for up depend on ohms rather than support their own exertions for support. i don't have one problem paying my taxes to make sure people don't go hungry. and that have food on the table for their kids. you know, i just watched a video my daughter had referred to me and it's a documentary. and i have to say as a physician, understanding the scientific tests and the great research that was in this, it's called "forks over knives." and it makes the case that most of our health care costs are based on our diet. and it's very, very accurate and very well done. except we have no limitations. senator harkin and i for years have tried to get limitations on how food stamps and snap cards are used. we can't budge anybody to say

that we ought to limit it to healthy foods. because for every dollar we're spending on food, we're creating a dollar in health care costs down the road. i'd recommend my colleagues watch that study. it is unbelievable in terms of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension. no medicines, just changed diets and all of a sudden those things go away. they go away. because we take big agr agribusinesses push to use what is profitable out of the food chain and then start supplying foods that are actually good for us. mr. coburn: it seems to me that congress looks backwards instead of forwards when it comes to the

farm bill. one of the things we ought to do is look at the world and what the population is. i -- i also want to say that the hardest-working -- some of the hardest-working people in this country are the people in are in agriculture. i don't say these things to demean them. but markets really do work and we really hurt our farmers when we take them away from market forces because that will cause them to make decisions that are false choices when it comes to capital investment. and those are false choices for our country because that means capital's going into something that's subsidized by the government rather than going into something that's not subsidized that will create a greater good and more wealth for our country. this bill does exactly that. you realize that in this bill, you're guaranteed 86% of your

revenue. i mean, think about that. do you know anywhere elsewhere you can get your revenue on your crops guaranteed at 86% and the federal taxpayers are paying most of the cost of the insurance for that? individuals in oklahoma and maine and virginia are paying higher tax dollars so we can create a system where we're investing in crops, one, that aren't necessarily good for us, and, two, that cause us to pay a higher price for a com domesticy produced crop, whereas we can redirect those same inputs into a product that's much better for us and would be much more competitive. one of the points i would make, in 2013 net farm income was $131

billion. that's 16.5% over what it was the year before. and in an economy that's only growing less than 2%. and yet we're going to spend almost $100 billion a year in the future, of which only 15% of that -- 18% of that will be agricultural programs outside of the food stamp program; we're going to spend $18 billion to misdirect capital in a way that in the long run we won't see that kind of growth. i'll finish up with just other commentary. it is necessary that we have a farm program, but there's one

little trick in this farm bill that everybody ought to be aware of. it's the pressure for the next farm bill that's put in this farm bill. and you know what it is? they didn't eliminate any of the permanent law that's on the books. they just let it stay there and then we created a farm bill for five years. what's the purpose of that? the presiding officer: the senator has consumed 15 minutes. mr. coburn: thank you. the purpose of that is so in ten years and in five years when we come to another farm bill, the default will fall back to the 1940's era agricultural law, which will create pressure to do a farm bill. and if we do the same thing next time, it's going to cost $1.5 trillion over the following ten years. my best friend is a feed corn,

soybean, and wheat farmer, farms in excess of 2,000 acres in oklahoma. on breaks when they're harvesting, i go down and drive a grain buggy. i get to hear it from the farmers' perspective. you know what he tells me? we don't need any of this anymore. we don't need it. we need decisions on capital investment to be made on risk and markets. you can't tell me when we've got $131 billion in net farm income this year that we need to be subsidizing 86% of everybody's product, guaranteeing them no matter what happens to both yield and price, you're going to

get 86%. the and the americaand the amere cost this bill isn't just the $1 trillion that we're talking about. it's going to be much higher. and i'll make one final point. we've had historically high commodity prices. and they've moderated somewhat. but if they go back anywhere close to historical prices, this bill is going to cost at least another $100 billion, just in one program alone. and c.b.o.'s assumption is that we're not going to do that. but most of the leading agricultural economists in this country think corn is going to be under $4, it is going to be $3.75 and that wheat will decline and soybeans will decline. so the score you have on this bill is nonsense because it doesn't reflect the reality of

what's happening out there. i would say, i appreciate the hard work that the people on the farm bill did. umi'm highly critical of adding new job programs. i think you've missed it completely. you don't even know what the real problem is in terms of job training in this program. and it's 10 pilot programs that aren't going to make a difference anywhere. what we ought to have is real programs that are w.t.o.-compliant, that reconnect capital investment, reconnect capital investment with the real world forces of market prices and markets. you know, we spend $200 million a year just on one program, assisting farmers selling their products overseas. you know what sells products

overseas? price, quality. but we got a little $200 million program that everybody in organized agriculture gets to take advantage of. get a couple of trips a year on the federal taxpayer. it ought not be so. if you want to promote your product, you ought to be out promoting it. we shouldn't be promoting private brands with federal government money. we ought to create the opportunity to promote it, but we shouldn't be doing it. needless to say, i will not be voting for cloture on this. and i will reemphasize again, senator durbin and i had a great amendment. those that signed the cfns repor--those that signed the coe report that took that out can't stand up and say anything about anybody that's wealthy in this

country or the tax rates or anything else because you just gutted one of the thition that would have -- one of the things that would have really put back equality in terms of the farm program for the very, very wealthy in this country. we're continuing to pay hundreds of millions, if not billions, monthly to the most well-connected, well-financialed, wealthiest people in this country because they're farming the farm program and taking that out, you lose all moral authority to ever say anything again about income inequality in this country, because you chose -- those that signed the conference report -- to take that out. so we understand how politics works. i understand how politics works.

but credibility is important in our country, and we're losing it. we're losing it here, we're losing -- just look at the polls, we've lost it in the nation's capital, as far as the american people are concerned. and we haven't just lost credibility. we're losing legitimacy because we wink and nod and do the parochial vote, even though in the best long-term interests of our country we're doing the wrong thing, but it sure sells well at home. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i have one unanimous consent request for a committee to meet during today's session of the senate. it has the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that this request be agreed to and that this request be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. klobuchar: thank you, mr. president. i rice today to speak on two -- i rise today to speak on two matters, the first is the farm bill and the second is the u.s. attorney situation in my state, the state of minnesota. being a senator from ar a state that is a leader in agricultural products and now the sixth-biggest state in terms of agricultural exports, i can tell you that the agriculture sector of this country is strong and it has been a jewel in this economy, when you look over the last few years and you look at the industries that were hit so hard during the downiit downtur. our food supply remains strong because we believing in investing in agriculture and agricultural research and the next wave of machinery and all kinds of things. it has helped our country and been a positive for our country. we have 80,000 farms in minnesota. we're an exporting state.

it is not just about the small farmers all over our state. it is also about the businesses, it is about the employees, and it is about the fact that as it is a country that makes our own food and we are not dependent on foreign food the way we're dependent on foreign oil. i fought hard to get on the agriculture committee when i came to the senate. i was honored to serve on the farm bill conference committee under senator stabenow's leadership and we worked together on a bipartisan basis to put together a farm bill that strengthens the safety net for our nation's family farmers, preserves critical food and nutrition malls' programs and bs down the deficit to the tune of $20 billion, which is one of the reasons we wanted to put this new farm bill in plasms the bulk of the savings comes from that transition from those direct agricultural subsidies to a more risk-based management system of crop insurance.

we also worked hearte hard in te conservation area. hunting and fishing are a way of life in my state. we streamlined that's programs from 23 to 10 and have the support of hundreds of environmental and conservation groups, including if he is ants forever, which is gaffed based in minnesota, as well as ducks unlimited. we also worked hard in the energy area to finally fund that title to acknowledge that we need many sources of energy in this country, including biofuels, including wind, including solar, and that's a big part of this bill as well. we kept the nutrition program strong, despite the fact that we were up against $40 billion suggested in cuts from the house of representatives and found a way to make some changes that might not have been our top priority but they were ways that we were able to move on the farm bill and work with some of these states that were leveraging

their heating assistance for food stamps. most states were not affected by this. my state was not affected by this. we also provided permanent disaster relief for our nation's livestock producers, something that was very important when you look at all the dead cows in south dakota and everything that happened there. i believe the strength of this bill is a testament to the work and leadership of chairman stabenow, for her tireless efforts. i want to thank senator cochran as well as chairman lucas, ranking member peterson, from my state, and then also congressman tim walls, who served on the conference committee as well. this bill is important to the farmlands of our country, but it also is good for rural economies. i believe we do right by ourselves when we do right by our rural communities, and i was listening to my colleague from oklahoma, and i, too, have been on combines with farmers. i will say i wasn't driving that combine, which wouldn't have been good for the farm or the neighboring farms.

i was a passenger. but i heard a different story from my farmers in terms of the concern that we bounce year to year and not know what the policy is. that how good it has been to have a five-year policy in place for farm policy, how far we've come from the freedom-to-farm days when we were foreclosing on farms all over our state, and how we want to be able to continue to produce food in our state and to encourage young farmers and ranchers, why that amendment was part of my major focus was to give them some breaks on crop insurance and grazing their cattle on c.r.p. land. now i'd like to turn to a very different topic, which is minnesota's u.s. attorney. this is an appalling situation, mr. president. as you will hear by the numbers. for 887 days, minnesota has not had a full-time permanent u.s. attorney. 887 days. during that time from august

2011 to august 2013, todd jones was responsible for doing two jobs. he was responsible for being the u.s. attorney in minnesota and also being the acting director of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. as you can imagine, with the mess after "fast and furious," he had a lot of work to do at the a.t.f.f we have a full-time leader. over the summer, thanks to my colleague over there from the state of arizona, senator mccain, we were able to finally confirm todd jones to that job. the a.t.f. had been without an acting permanent director, without a permanent director for seven years. we got that done and of course then it officially left the minnesota u.s. attorney's position open, even though it had already been open for two years. even before that decision was made by the senate to confirm todd jones, senator franken and i had gathered together a

bipartisan group, including the former u.s. attorney under president bush, to advise us on a replaimple replacement for jon before the time we confirmed mr. jones because of our concern over the problems in the office, many of which were on the front page of our newspaper. we were able to get a recommendation from our committee for a replacement, mr. andy lugar, a respected litigator, former 123457b9 assi. attorney. it has now been 196 days since we made that recommendation to the president. it has been 187 days since director jones was confirmed with no full-time u.s. attorney again in the office. while the office has continued to provide the united states with the high-quality legal representation it deserves, minnesota needs a full-time u.s. attorney. mr. lew tkpwar sailed -- mr. lugar sailed through the

judiciary committee. he passed all the testifies including the f.b.i. tests. he has the support of law enforcement that i've spoken with, has the support of our republican congressmen in the area. i want to thank senator grassley who also supports him and has raised issues with the u.s. minnesota attorneys office because of the fact that we haven't had a full-time attorney for 888 days. and he has been supportive of our efforts to quickly move mr. lugar's nomination not just to the committee but to the floor. senator grassley is in a similar situation because his u.s. attorney for the northern district of iowa was nominated on the same day and is also awaiting confirmation on the floor. they have both come through the judiciary committee without any objection. so why is this important? well, i ran a prosecutor's office of about 400 people for eight years. we worked directly with the u.s. attorney's office. we were there when during 9/11, when the u.s. attorney's office in minnesota was dealing with

the massawi case. we worked hand in hand. we took a number of their white-collar cases and i've been able to witness firsthand how day in tkaeupbd out you need a -- day in and day out you need a u.s. attorney to make difficult decisions. without a full time u.s. attorney it is difficult to decide where to put limited resources in terms of strategic decisions we have not had that person in place for 888 days. protecting our nation from terrorists is a top concern for all of us. you might not think, mr. president, when you hear of the minnesota u.s. attorney's office, you might not think terrorism. but in fact the u.s. attorney's office in minnesota is renowned for its counterterrorism efforts and terrorism prosecutions especially investigating the terrorist organization al-shabab. for years authorities have been on alert for al shabab.

in operation rhino the minnesota u.s. attorney's office recruited a man to fight for terrorists in somalia. mohammed was indicted in november 2009 in minnesota and pled guilty in july 2011 to conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim abroad. this operation is part of an ongoing terrorism investigation. as you know, there has been suicide bombings in somalia, sadly recruiting people out of our somalian community in somalia. we are proud of our community but this did happen. it led to charges against 18 people for aiding al-shabab eight of whom have been convicted, some receiving sentences of up to 20 years in prisons. i ask you, mr. president, why would you pick an office like this not to have a leader for 888 days? through a variety of circumstances, the fact that the a.t.f. job was held up in terms of an appointment and then the

fact that this is being held up right now, we still don't have a leader. in addition to terrorism case, the u.s. attorney's office is also responsible for prosecuting major drug crimes. recently the office won a major conviction and played a key role in shutting down a big synthetic drugstore in duluth, and two weeks ago the minneapolis star tribune had a major news story about a growing heroin epidemic in minnesota. as we've seen from the death this weekend of someone who is a celebrity i think we all know there's also been heroin deaths all over this country, so minnesota is not alone. but we are alone in that we have not had a chief leader in our u.s. attorney's office to come up with the strategy to deal with this case for 888 days. in the first half of 2013, 69 people died of opiate related overdoses in hennepin county, minnesota. that would be 69 people dying. some of these deaths were young kid.s.

this is a situation that demands attention immediately and mr. lugar is eager to work with law enforcement on a strategy. federal and state law enforcement also partnered to combat identity theft and white collar crime. minnesota had the second biggest white collar conviction in terms of money next to madoff in the country. yet this is an office that we have chosen not to put a leader in for 888 days. the u.s. attorney's office won a conviction in a $3.65 billion ponzi scheme case, as i mentioned, the second biggest scheme in u.s. history. currently minnesota's u.s. attorney's office is headed by an acting director, but an acting director simply can't provide the same kind of leadership as a full-time u.s. attorney. i know the local heads of the d.e.a., f.b.i. and other federal, state and law enforcement agencies are very anxious to get a u.s. attorney in full time. i would also note that we also don't have an administrative officer because we are awaiting

putting in a u.s. attorney so that mr. lugar can hire an administrative office. this is not a small office. there are more than 100 people working there including 54 lawyers, and again, they are without a full-time boss and a leader. i think these hardworking prosecutors and the people they work with deserve a leader in the office. when minnesota was first made a state, president zachary taylor filled the position of u.s. attorney in two days for our young, new state. back then they deserved a u.s. attorney. if they could get it done in two days, i think we should be able to get it done in 888 days. i urge my colleagues to support his swift confirmation and give this office and its hardworking prosecutors the full-time prosecutor that they deserve. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i'd like to make remarks about the farm bill conference agreement that's before us. of course across the nation americans are demanding that washington restore their faith in government. last year we saw a congress crippled by government shutdowns and debt ceiling standoffs. we nearly failed to pass a defense authorization bill. and while many of my colleagues have high hopes this year for returning the practice of moving legislation through the regular order and perhaps working under a more open amendment process, i am profoundly disappointed at one of the first pieces of legislation we'll send to the president this year is a $1.5 trillion farm bill. it's mind-boggling, the sum of money that's spent on farm subsidies, duplicative nutrition and development assistance programs and special interest pet projects.

taxpayer groups like the citizens against government waste blasted this farm bill as -- quote -- "a dung deal." last week the "wall street journal" called it -- quote -- "a bipartisan taxpayer raid," writing -- quote -- "it's no accident that congress dropped this porker under the cover of the state of the union hoopla. handouts to agribusiness and millionaires, continued trade protectionism for the sugar industry, it's all still there." unquote. how are we supposed to restore the american people's confidence with this monstrosity? a few weeks ago we crammed down their throats a $1.1 trillion omnibus appropriations billowed with wasteful spending. tomorrow we'll wash the omnibus down with another $1 trillion. the only policy that gets bipartisan traction in congress is washington's desire to hand out taxpayer money like it's

candy. we've heard about some of the -- quote -- "savings" generated by this farm bill. it's true there are noteworthy cuts to several outdated depression-era farm subsidies like the direct payments program and the counter cyclical programs. we also close hoop holes in our food stamp programs and conservation programs which generated about $16 billion in savings according to the congressional budget office. and i applaud the conferees for their efforts. but unfortunately, just about every subsidies eliminated under the farm bill is simply reinvented into a new and many times more expensive program. for example, we have a new thing called agriculture risk coverage program which locks in today's record-high crop prices and guarantees farmers up to an 86% return on their crop depending on market conditions, a.r.c. --

agricultural risk coverage -- could cost taxpayers between $3 billion to $14 billion each year, far more expensive than the $5 billion saved by the elimination of the direct payments program. the bill also maintains the $95 billion federally backed crop insurance program which subsidizes crop insurance premiums. we then pile on a new $20 billion program called supplemental coverage option that subsidizes crop insurance deductibles. the bill also strips out an amendment offered by my colleague, senator durbin and senator coburn, which would have prevented crop insurance subsidies from going to individuals with a gross income greater than $750,000 a year. that amendment was adopted by 59 votes in the senate's farm bill

earlier last year. and guess what? surprise, it's absent from the conference agreement. millionaire farmers can rejoice that their crop insurance subsidies are safe. that's millionaire farmers, farmers with a gross income greater than $750,000 a year. so the next time i hear the managers of this bill talk about the small farmer, i guess they're talking about millionaires as well. but it's all part of farm bill politics. in order to pass a farm bill, congress must find a way to appease every special interest of every commodity association from asparagus farmers to wheat growers. if you cut somebody's subsidy, you give them a grant. if you kill their grant, you subsidize their crop insurance. let's look at several handouts that are special interest have reaped in this year's farm bill. the bill provides $7 million in

grants for the marketing of sheep. some who may be viewing this at home will find that, maybe think i'm making it up that we're spending $7 million of their tax dollars for the marketing of sheep. now it also adds a thing called, and i'm not sure i pronounce it right, japonica rice. japonica rice is a sushi ingredient grown primarily in california and it is added to the list that can receive farm subsidies. now the bill provides $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry. i repeat. $100 million to promote the maple syrup industry. it says the american tax dollars will, and i quote from the bill, promote research and education for maple syrup production,

promoting sustainability in the maple syrup industry and market promotion for maple syrup. so, my fellow citizens, the next time you see an advertisement for maple syrup, you may want to watch it because it's your tax dollars that paid for it. it places a 15 cent fee on harvesting christmas trees. not even christmas is left out of this one. a 15-cent fee on harvesting christmas trees. that money then is earmarked for promoting the orchard industry. $12 million for a wool research and promotion program. now, there's a lot of needy areas of america today, but i had no idea that wool research and promotion was worthy of 12

million of our tax dollars. i think this next one is probably my favorite or unfavorite. $5 million for a study to -- again i'm quoting from the bill -- "evaluate the impact of allowing schools to offer dried fruits and vegetables to children." i know that that's a tough decision for schools to make as to whether they should offer dried fruits and vegetables to children. do we need $5 million to help them evaluate that? $25 million for a new grant program to -- quote -- "teach children about gardening, nutrition, cooking, and -- get this -- and where food comes from." i'm sure all over america children are asking, where does food come from? this may sound like a

well-intentioned initiative, but this grant program is a lot like 18 other food and nutrition programs that the government accountability office declared duplicative in a report issued two years ago. the federal government's duplication of the nutrition program has cost $62.5 million annually in previous years. so here is a new grant program under the label of nutrition education. the energy title of this bill doles out about $881 million in energy programs. most americans don't realize that the farm bill has become as much about energy subsidies as farm subsidies. there is funding for ethanol research, biorefinery installations and a sugar to ethanol program where the federal government purchased surplus sugar, sells it at a loss to ethanol producers.

american taxpayers will spend $5 million on the -- quote -- biodiesel fuel education program. now, if there is anything that's needed in america, it's a good, vigorous biodiesel fuel education program, and we're going to spend $5 million on it. it's to spread the gospel on the benefits of biodiesel. i have no objection to the use of biodiesel. in fact, i think i prefer it much more than the alternative compared -- as an alternative compared to corn ethanol, but here we are $5 million educating consumers on the benefits of biodiesel. hid engine this bill is a tax on heating oil. just yesterday, "the washington times" talked about the farm bill's national oil heat research alliance program in an article titled "congress seeks to jack up fees on home heating oil in the midst of frigid

winter." the article reads congress' mammoth farm bill restores the imposition of an extra fee on home heating oil, hitting consumers in the cold weather states just as utility costs are spiking. the fee, .2 of a cent on every gallon sold, was tacked onto the bill which is winding its way through capitol hill. the fee would last for nearly 20 years and would siphon the money available to develop equipment that is cheaper and safer and encourage consumers to update their equipment. it was backed by the northeast lawmakers who said it would fund important research to benefit consumers. the bill prohibits oil companies from passing the fees on to consumers, but taxpayer advocates said that's a sham and that the money has to come from consumers. to say they can't pass on the costs, said diane katz, research fellow of regulatory policy at the heritage foundation, it's kind of silly because of course the costs of going -- are going to get passed on.

money is fungible. so here we have a special oil tax on consumers where the revenue is earmarked back to the heating oil industry, about $15 million a year, according to the g.a.o. why is the federal government in the business of collecting funds for heating oil research on behalf of the heating oil industry? the bill reauthorizes usda loan subsidies for peanut growers and allows them to use their peanuts as collateral. if a peanut grower forfeits on their usda loan, the federal government takes ownership of the peanuts and taxpayers bear the cost of storing the peanuts. the infamous sugar program is housed in this farm bill. this is probably the most ongoing scandal in the history of all the farm bills and of all the egregious aspects of it. like the peanut program, usda gives sugar growers primarily in

florida, louisiana and michigan hundreds of millions of dollars in loans each year. if a sugar grower misses their profit margins, they get to keep the loan and transfer their excess sugar to the federal government as collateral. over the past year, sugar subsidies and forfeitures have cost the taxpayers $258 million while over 640,000 tons of sugar was handed over to the usda. and do you know something? if you really look at it, there are a few families that control the sugar industry in florida, and those -- those families, god bless them, have been generous contribution toss both democrat and republican parties. so the taxpayers have paid $258 million, over 640,000 tons

of sugar was handed over to the usda. combined with with import -- with import tariffs and marketing controls, the usda sugar program costs consumers over $3 billion every year. it's one of the most obscene federal farm subsidies ever conceived. this farm bill, advertised as full of reforms, does nothing. another bizarre handout in this farm bill that i have been involved in now for many years is the creation of a catfish office. again, i assure my colleagues i am not making this up. a catfish office inside the u.s. department of agriculture at a cost of $15 million a year. the usda will hire inspectors to visually inspect catfish in seafood facilities. only catfish, not a shrimp, not

a cod, not a tilapia, but only a catfish. you are going to have a special office, called appropriately catfish office, to inspect visually catfish in seafood facilities and only catfish. senator shaheen and i and 11 other senators sponsored legislation to kill this catfish program. i have been opposing it for years. in 2012, our legislation was adopted in the senate by voice vote, and i assure the distinguished manager of the bill, that is the last time that on this issue i will accept a voice vote, because the distinguished chairperson assured me that with a voice vote that this amendment of ours would remain in the legislation, and obviously that has not been the case. so the next time that the

distinguished manager, if it ever comes up again, assures me that an amendment of mine will be adopted in the final legislation, i will have to have better authentication than just taking her word. last year, the house agriculture committee passed a bipartisan amendment to repeal it in the farm bill. despite all this opposition, the unpopular catfish office resiliently survived conference. we don't need a new usda catfish inspection program. the food and drug administration already tests catfish along with all other seafood, but certain farm bill conferees are insisting on creating a catfish office because catfish farmers in southern states don't want to compete against foreign catfish importers, particularly those from vietnam. its true purpose is trade protectionism at the taxpayers'

expense. under this farm bill, there will be a virtual ban on catfish imports for several years, while foreign inspectors switch from f.d.a.'s inspection procedures to usda's catfish procedures. the government accountability office investigated the proposed catfish office and in four different reports, four different reports called it duplicative and wasteful and warned that it fragments our food safety system by splitting f.d.a.'s responsibility to inspect seafood. in fact, one government accountability office report simply titled -- quote -- "responsibility for inspecting catfish should not be assigned to usda," and it called on congress to eliminate the catfish office. both the u.s. department of agriculture and the f.d.a. have questioned the scientific value of the proposed catfish. several years ago, the usda

studied the idea and concludeed there is substantial uncertainty regarding the actual effectiveness of a usda catfish inspection program. even the president's budget proposed to zero it out. american consumers should also be concerned about the trade implications in this program. some nations, including vietnam, have threatened w.t.o. retaliation against american agriculture exports like beef and soybeans. trade experts warn that this catfish gimmick is the kind of protectionism that harms our efforts to win concessions under trade agreement negotiations like the trans-pacific partnership, which could reduce the tariffs on american products sold to asian trading programs -- partners. again, senator shaheen and i tried to eliminate the catfish office in the senate's farm bill, but the managers blocked the vote on our amendment.

the house agricultural committee did the right thing and passed the farm bill amendment to eliminate it. unfortunately, when this bill went to conference, several senate conferees blocked the vote in conference to repeal it. actually blocked a vote in conference and actually rewrote the law to increase it. it seems that catfish is one bottom feeder with friends in high places. at the end of the day, this farm bill will be hailed by its supporters as reform minded. let me assure the american public that this is hardly reform. it was managed under a closed amendment process and will prove to be more wasteful and costly than any farm bill we have ever seen. for these reasons, i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. and, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to have included in the record at this time "the wall street journal"

editorial entitled -- appropriately entitled "a bipartisan tax raid." the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first of all, i want to thank our majority leader again, as i did earlier today, for his help in bringing this conference report to the senate as quickly as possible and for his willingness every step of the way to work with us, and i want to thank my partner in the senate, senator cochran from mississippi, for his wonderful leadership, and i am going to at this point in time i think turn to him and allow him to make his statement before proceeding with mine, but i just want to say to senator cochran and to all those

from mississippi who are lucky to have him as their senator fighting for them what a pleasure it has been to partner with him and his really excellent staff and to have the opportunity to come here today with a strong bipartisan product that represents the agriculture and food interests of all parts of our country, and at this point, i would yield to the distinguished senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president, i am honored to be invited by the distinguished chairman to proceed in describing our work product, the farm bill conference report. it's been a true pleasure working with her and the members of her staff. it seems like over a long period of time, with her coming to my state of mississippi and traveling to other regions of the country, to get a firsthand

impression and a lot of knowledge about the challenges being faced by the agriculture sector in our country. she has brought to this effort a lot of enthusiasm and common sense, intelligence and new pure hard work, and personal courtesy that abound, all of us who serve on the agriculture committee in the senate during hearings preparing for the markup of an agriculture bill, during conference with our colleagues in the house to produce a conference report. i'm pleased that this conference report is a five-year -- represents a five-year mash. it is very important to production agriculture and to all americans, as a matter of fact. the leadership that we have had from other senators on the committee are reflected here, too. we've had an active committee participating in hearings as

well as our markup session. it's been a pleasure to work with senator stabenow and all of our fellow colleagues on the committee. we are recommending reforms in this legislation that are designed to assure producers that we understand the value of a safety net that will support them when they are struck by disasters or other things that are out of their control, marketing disasters are just as severe as weather-related disasters. the risk-management policies in the bill recognizes -- recognize the regional differences in priorities of agriculture production throughout the country. the commodity and crop insurance titles of the conference report reflect how congress can work effectively to support american agriculture and at the same time be responsible to taxpayers.

the conference agreement consolidates and improves programs to encourage farmers and ranchers to use healthy land and forest management practices to conserve land, water and wildlife resources. programs like the wildlife habitat incentives programs which will become a part of the environmental quality incentives program, and the wetlands reserve program, are very important elements of a new emphasis on conservation. we also achieve savings that are significant from reforms in the nutrition title of the farm bill. the expected costs of nutrition programs are reduced by $8 billion. the conference report includes programs to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. i'm particularly proud of our work to address the needs of our nation's food banks because

whether it's in jackson, mississippi, or indianapolis, indiana, many people turn to these facilities when other options are not available. other titles of this legislation such as the research title have proven that keeping the united states lead in agricultural research is essential to our maintaining an edge in global competition. our land grant universities such as mississippi state university and alcorn state university in my state have seen their university-based research commercialized to improve american agriculture production. in addition to agriculture program reforms, this conference report contributes to the goal of deficit reduction. the congressional budget office estimates the bill will save taxpayers nearly $17 billion.

the farm bill baseline was trimmed by $6 trillion from sequestration, resulting in an overall savings of $23 billion. mr. president, failure to enact this farm bill would leave farmers and related businesses with uncertainties that have been hanging over the agriculture sector for the last two years. this bill achieves significant savings and addresses a variety of agriculture needs across the country. i urge the senate to support passage of the conference report. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. let me say what a pleasure it's been to work with the distinguished senator from mississippi and also the chairman in the house, congressman lucas and the ranking member, congressman

peterson. this really has been an example of the house and senate working together in a bipartisan way. we are about to take the final steps now in passing the 2014 farm bill. we have actually, as you know, passed this twice in the united states senate, each time we've gotten large bipartisan majorities because of the fact that we've worked together. the final conference report that we have before us is one that i believe that we can all be proud of. i hope my colleagues will support it and send it to the president for his signature. now, we all know this has been a long time in coming. in fact, frankly, way too long. our farmers and ranchers have waited way too long. this bill a long and winding road but in the process we have worked together, we've not quit, we've worked across the aisle. the final bill has the support of over 370 different groups,

and they represent those from all over the country in all over the ideological spectrum. that's because we wrote this bill when we were working hard to find common ground. we listened to each other, we respected each other, and we developed a bill that works for every kind of agriculture production in every region of our country and for families and consumers across the country. we have 16 million people who work in america because of agriculture. 16 million people. many of them work in michigan, many of them work in mississippi, they work in california, in new england, virginia, in north dakota, and every other state in this great country. they grow different crops in different climates, and they have different needs. and that certainly is one of the challenges, always, for a farm

bill, particularly when we're talking about a farm bill that reforms programs. those 16 million people are on our minds every single minute as we wrote this bill and that's why we have such a strong coalition supporting this farm bill. this is a farm bill for the future with a whole new focus on responsible risk management, healthy, locally grown foods, strong conservation practices, clean energy, research. in fact, it's a bit of a misgnomor call it a farm bill really. it's really 12 different bills all of them impressive and worthy of colleagues' votes, and they all are put together in what we call the farm bill. so i want to take a moment to talk about these different pieces and all of the great policies that we have been working on for two and a half years. the first title, the commodity

title. if you were going to split off the commodity title of the farm bill and give it a name of its own you would probably call at this time farm bill. that is what pretty well described the commodity title. and many that's why even though the commodity title of the farm bill is, in fact, smaller in terms of spending this year than it has been before the farm bill has held on to its name all these years. once upon a time the commodity title was the be-all and end-all. the first farm bill was written during the great dispretion depression when the agricultural system in the country groak down. farmers left food to wrought roth in the fields because crop prices were so low. it would bankrupt them to spend the money to harvest and to ship their products to market. and at the same time, people were so desperate for food that for some -- we have some of the most iconic images of the

depression that are long, crowded bread lines that stretched for blocks and blocks. we've come a long way from the depression in awg -- and our agricultural policies today are very different than they once were. add that's that's why this farm bill focuses on the future of agriculture in this country. this is not your father's farm bill. in 1996, congress passed a law called freedom to farm that eliminated the last vestages of those production controls. and to give farmers time to get used to the new system that bill created a system of direct payment subsidies which were supposed to be temporary. well, it didn't quite work out that way. those payments continued. farm bill after farm bill. even when it was quite clear they were no longer defensible. the checks kept coming and in good years and bad. in some cases the checks went to

people who weren't even farmers. in today's budget climate we just cannot afford those business as usual policies of the past. so it's been one of my top goals as we wrote this bill to end direct payments once and for all and that's exactly what we have done together in this farm bill. we also went through this bill page by page and made major reforms. we streamlined programs, we've cut red tape, we've eliminated waste. and the first thing in this bill, page one, line one, is repealing direct payments. this is not your father's farm bill. this is a critical step in changing the paradigm of agricultural policy. instead of direct payment subsidies we are shifting the focus of the farm bill to responsible risk management. you know, farming is a risky

business. in fact, i can't think of a more risky business than farming in this country. we saw this in south dakota last fall when a freak blizzard wiped out tens of thousands of cattle and devastated ranchers. we saw this the year before when record setting droughts wiped out crops across america's heartland. we saw it in michigan where the combination of an early thaw and a late freeze almost destroyed our entire cherry crop and our apple crop. no other industry is so dependent on the whims of mother nature or the wild swings of markets as agriculture. that's why we have a farm bill. we have a stake and we should be produced that we have the safest, most affordable food supply in the world because we partner with farmers. but that's why risk management is our number-one goal in this bill. and it's, in fact, what farmers

have been asking for. they want the ability and more importantly, the responsibility of managing their own risk. of course, in a country as big and diverse as ours the risks faced by farmers in michigan are different than risks faced by farmers in oklahoma or minnesota. that is a key principle that guided us when we wrote the bill to make sure it worked for all different kinds of crops throughout the country. as farmers are managing their risk we're giving them the choice to participate in an agricultural risk coverage program that we're calling arc which will help cover losses they incur at the individual farm level or county level. or they can participate in a price loss coverage program which will trigger, if prices drop below a reference price. both of these programs will use

historic base acres, be coupled from production to minimize any influence from the program on farmers' decisions on what or where to plant. we don't want them planting to the government program. in addition in order to qualify for either of these programs farmers must agree to comply with conservation and wetlands requirements. so important. we are reforming the system to stop subsidy payments to millionaires, and we've imposed a new overall cap, first time overall cap of $125,000 for the first-time covering both crop support and marketing loans, all parts of the commodity title. this is the over all commodity title cap passed by the senate, even though underneath the cap there were differences. we are requesting the usda to close what's called the management loophole by you

wanting its definition of management and giving the secretary for the first time the authority to put limits on the numbers of managers on a farm who can qualify for payments. by end direct payments once and for all, by asking farmers to take responsibility for managing their own risk and by partnering with them so they can do it, and by capping farm payments and stopping payments to millionaires, we are putting in place the most significant reforms in agricultural policy in decades. this is a bill our colleagues can be proud to vote for. mr. president, i think in hearing some of the opposition folks are debating the old farm bills, not understanding what we have done here. every farmer we've talked in writing this bill said crop insurance was their top priority so we strengthened crop insurance and gave more crops access to this kind of insurance. with this bill we are taking

significant steps to change the paradigm of farm programs. with crop insurance farmers don't get a check. they get a bill. they may pay tens of thousands of dollars in premiums and never get a check in a year. because it's a good year. and there's no disaster. just like any other kind of insurance. this bill also includes a very important permanent livestock disaster assistance program for ranchers who lose livestock due to a severe weather, disease or other acts of nature. in the past, congress had to pass ad hoc disaster assistance for livestock producers. adding to the cost and the complexity of the program. these have been some very tough years for ranchers. in fact, livestock herds are down to their lowest levels since 1951. imagine that. because of what we've seen.

that's why this bill for the first time has a permanent funding baseline and a system that will ensure our ranchers don't go bankrupt because of a freak blizzard in october or a scorching drought that wipes out a rancher's food supply. this disaster assistance is applied retroactively to october 1, 2011 and makes the program permanent. one of the worst agriculture disasters happened in 2009 to our american dairy farmers. that's why we worked very hard in this bill to strengthen the dairy safety net by replacing the existing dairy supports with two new programs. the dairy margin insurance program, another insurance program, protects producer margins equal to the difference between the all milk price and the national feed cost. we're taking special care to

make sure that these insurance premiums are affordable for small and mediumized -- sized dairy farms. making sure especially that we focus on any farm with fewer than 200 cows. the dairy product purchase program, which is new and is a part of this, gives the department of agriculture the flexibility to purchase dairy products, milk, other products when margins fall below $4 and those dairy products will be donated for the first time to families in need, through public and private organizations, including food banks, homeless shelters, soup kitchens. thi -- this was a hard-fought compromise on dairy. and, mr. president, i have to say, my preference what have been what we passed twice in the senate, as a strong dairy

policy. but given the resistance of the speaker and the leadership in the house and the need to be able to find something that we could move forward on and pass that would work for dairy farmers, we worked very, very hard to find a way to move forward to get the votes and support and make sure that we were helping farm operations in every region of the country. we know that the pressures on new england dairy farmers are very different from the pressures on our own producers in michigan or in the midwest or on the west coast, and we have worked hard to find something that works. while title 1 of the farley bill reforms programs so -- the farm about reforms programs so farmers and ranchers are taking priority for their own risk, title 2 is about risk management for the whole country. this is the conserve a bill in this farm bill.

and in all the discussions of the farm bill, it too often gets overlooked. in fact, it is our nation's largest and most enduring investment in conservation on private lands, which are the majority of our lands in america. this farm bill includes an historic agreement between supporters of traditional commodities and environmental and conservation groups to link conservation compliance to crop insurance. critically important as we eliminate direct payments and ask farmers to manage their risk through crop insurance, we do not want to create unintended consequences of risk for our land and our water resources. at the start of this farm bill process, commodity groups, conservation groups were on very different sides on this issue, but they sat down together, they listened and they found common ground. and it turned out their

differences weren't as great as they thought they were. in fact, mr. president, no one has a bigger stake in protecting our land and our water than our farmers. with a little compromise and a lot of hard work -- which is the story of this entire bill -- they brought us a plan that curves soil and water resources for generations to come and protects the safety net for farmers to rely on. this has been called the greatest -- greatest advancement in conservation in three decades. i want to underscore for my colleagues, this is an important and historic agreement and thank everyone who has been involved in the hard work of putting it together. we've also created a new sod saver provision to prevent farmers from plowing up native prairie lands. saving money for taxpayers and saving absolutely critical wildlife habitat. we need to manage land to

prevent erosion. that's how we avoid having another dust bowl during droughts. it's equally important to continue preserving wetlands that help prevent flooding and create important wildlife habitats for ducks and birds, other water fowl. what else does the conservation title do? well, it directly preserves millions of acres of wildlife habitat, which, in turn, has helped rebuild populations of duck, quail, pheasants, among others. that's why the bill has the strong support of ducks unlimited, quail forever, pheasants forever, the audubon society, and the world wildlife fund, who are only a handful of the more than 250 conservation groups who have endorsed this bill. to strengthen conservation, we went through every program and focused on making it more flexible, easier to use, and we were able to take 23 different

programs, cut it down to 13 and put it into four different areas with a lot of flexibility. it also allowed us to save dollars in this bill. the first is working lands, giving farmers the tools they need to be the best steward of their natural resources. the centerpiece of this function is called equip, the environmental quality incentives program, one of the most important conservation programs out there for farmersment eqip gives technical and financial assistance to farmers, ranchers and private forest owners to help them conserve soil and water. working lands conservation also includes the conservation stewardship program, which encourages higher levels of conservation, and the adoption of new conservation technologi technologies. we continued the conservation innovation grants and the voluntary public access and habitat incentive program, which

allows landowners to get value-added benefits from their land by opening them up to hunting and fishing and bird watching. we made these programs even more flexible and added a focus on wildlife habitats, making them easier for farmers to use. the second area o, conservation reserve program, removes highly erodable land from frowks produo benefit voil an soil and water , and wildlife habitats. despite record droughts over the last few years, droughts that in many ways were worst than in the dust bowl, the soil stayed on the ground. we don't have -- we haven't had a dust bowl. the soil has stayed on the ground. c.r.p. was a big part of that, protecting not only the soil but air quality as well. we also continue an important incentive program to help older

farmers transition their land to beginning farmers. one of the parts of the conservation title that i'm most proud of is a new focus on regional partnerships that will make a big impact on my own great lakes that we in the great lakes love so much, the chesapeake bay and other critical areas where there are large-scale regional conservation challenges. we consolidated several programs into one that will offer competitive, merit-based grants to regional partnerships made up of conservation groups, universities, farmers, ranchers, other private landowners to support improved soil health, water quality and quantity and habitat for wildlife. the final area includes conservation easements which lets landowners voluntarily enter into agreements to preserve wetlands and farmland

and protect them against development and sprawl. we consolidated and streamlined existing easement programs to protect important land for generations to come. the farmland is also an export bill, mr. president. in fact, agriculture's one of the few areas where our nation maintains a healthy trade surplus. that's why this farm bill continues efforts to expand opportunities for american exports, including the market access program to promote u.s. agricultural products in overseas markets and develop programs to open new markets for american agricultural products. the farm bill is also a humanitarian bill that speaks to the best about us in our american -- us and our american values. across the world, millions of people get their only meals as a result of the generosity of the

american people through the food for peace and the mcgovern-dole program. i saw this last year firsthand in haiti, where schools would open up bags stamped with the american fla flag and provide a modest meal to students every day, very likely their own meal that day. i met one little boy who saved part of his lunch to take it home in a bag to his parents so they could have something to eat that night. in fact, in the lifetime of this program, more than 3 billion people -- billion people -- in over 150 countries have gotten a meal thanks to the generosity of the american people and the american farmer. the american -- the farm bill makes major reforms to our food aid programs, speeding up emergency food aid response and giving flexibility to organizations on the ground to supply local food to people in

need. and these reforms mean that because of this farm bill, we will feed another 500,000 people around the world. that's why this bill has earned the endorsements of many hugh man dispairn religious groups -- humanitarian and religious groups, including feed the chirp, the one campaign -- feed the children, the one campaign, church u.s.a., catholic relief services, presbyterian church u.s.a., the united methodist church, and the american jewish world service, among many, many others. of course, we know that hunger and poverty strike families all around the globe, including right here at home, and i believe in the richest country in the world, it is a disgrace for any child to go to bed hungry at night. or go to school hungry in the morning. crop insurance is disaster assistance for farmers who have been hit by a natural disaster.

the nutrition title of the farm bill is disaster assistance for families who've been hit by an economic disaster. most families who need food assistance only need it for a few months and the vast majority of people receiving food help are children, the elderly, the disabled, including our disabled veterans. when the house of representatives passed their nutrition bill, they included many provisions that would have seriously hurt americans, like many in michigan who have paid taxes all their lives, lost their job because of no fault of their own, and are mortified that they need help to put food on the table for their families while they're getting back on their feet. this conference report rejects every single one of those harmful provisions. instead, this final conference

report before us today strengthens the integrity and accountability of the supplemental nutrition assistance program, or snap, ensuring that every dollar is spent responsibly so that those who need help can get it. the bill stops lottery winners from being able to get snap benefits and stops the use of snap funds at liquor stores. it also includes an important provision that addresses what "the washington post" called -- quote -- "a black eye on the program." we have streamlined eligibility requirements to cut down on wasteful duplication, but a number of states discovered a way to use that streamline to give some families additional snap benefits by counting utility bills they do not have. by sending out as little as $1 in home heating assistance, states have been able to qualify families for a utility deduction even if they do not pay any

utility bills. now, i salute those who want to help people get additional fun funds. i would have very much supported adding additional help in this bill. but this, mr. president, cannot be justified, what it -- what is being done here. we addressed this loophole and protected the entire program for 47 million people. and here's what we've done and here's what it means to someone on snap. if you receive $20 or more a year in income and -- excuse me, in low-income heating assistance, you receive $20 a year in low-income heating assistance, nothing changes for you. if you receive less than $20 a year, you will need to go back to the old system of producing an actual utility bill in order

to receive credit for a utility bill. that is the sum total of where we have received and garnered the savings in this bill as it relates to closing loopholes. this is about strengthening the integrity of this program to ensure that food assistance is there for families who've fallen on hard times. this farm bill also includes a number of pilot programs to help people find work or receive job training so they don't need food assistance. the secretary of agriculture can approve these pilots, which include funding for child care and transportation to make sure individuals are able to succeed. the bill increases funding for food banks, continues an important effort that provides supplemental food for seniors as well as the senior farmers market program. i'm pleased this bill has the

support of the aarp and others who understand the importance of senior nutrition. the farm bill continues efforts to serve fresh fruits and vegetables at snacks in schools and includes a new national pilot based on something we do in michigan called double-up bucks. it essentially doubles the snap benefits for families when they shop for fresh producer at farmers markets. i also want to mention the healthy food financings initiative which addresses the lack of access to grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods. we have many places in michigan where there is a very serious issue. this financing initiative will help families put healthy food on the table while creating jobs in neighbor in neighborhoods across the country. it is also important, mr. president, to stress that the congressional budget office projects that this farm bill, in

addition to addressing fraud and misuse that this farm bill will spend $11.5 billion less on food assistance the right way, by the economy improving and people going back to work. and so when we look at the fact that the numbers are going down, it's because of the economy improving and, frankly, mr. president, that's where we need to be focusing our efforts is on supporting businesses to create jobs. and part of way to do that is by passing this jobs bill. called the farm bill. the farm bill is also a credit bill, increasing access to real estate sources that help -- resources that help farmers, especially beginning farmers and veteran farmers own and operate farms. this results in jobs. this title will make more

qualified farmers of all sizes eligible for usda farm loans and gives more flexibility to the usda so they can better research new types of farming, including local and regional producers. the $16 million working in agriculture across the country, the farm bill, as i've said, is a jobs bill, and nowhere is that more evident than in america's rural communities. the rural development title of the farm bill authorizes programs that are absolutely essential to small towns, rural communities, and those who work in those communities. we're continuing the important work of rural economic development and rural broadband. just as rural electrification brought opportunity to families across the country in the last century, rural broadband opens doors for increased commerce and

interconnectedness for the 21st century. 90% of community water systems serve 10,000 people or less. 90% of community water systems serve 10,000 people or less. we provide mandatory funding to address the backlog of rural water applications at usda, so rural communities have a safe supply of drinking water. and for the first time, we prioritize and reserve funding for rural development applications submitted by communities working together on long-term, sustainable community and economic development plans. because these regional strategies will be more effective at the local level, and we want to provide as much flexibility as possible. this farm bill's rural development title is about

entrepreneurialship, and it is the lasting strength of small towns across america that it invests in. as i mentioned earlier today, we're creating an innovative, new foundation for food and agricultural research in this bill, modeled after what we do with medical research. this is to tackle the difficult fight against pests and diseases, and it increases opportunities through innovation to create jobs. for too many years, agricultural research has suffered because of budget cuts over and over again. this new research foundation will bring together public and private funds to maintain a steady extrem stream for this it research. we provide $200 million in seed money and it can be matched by $200 million from the private

sector in an ongoing commitment. in addition to the new research fowption, wfoundation, we have w focus on research throughout this bill. we have a major focus on special crops research initiative to find solutions to pests and diseases that affect fruit and vegetable crops, and we have efforts in this title to support beginning farmers and ranchers as well. we are also continuing successful research and extension efforts including work done by our premier land grant ousts like my alma mater michigan state university. forestry title. healthy forests mean clean air, fresh water, wildlife habitats and recreational opportunities. coupled with the tools that we have in the conservation title, the forestry title of the farm bill helps foresters maintain the health of our private

forestlands. we are strengthening our efforts to fight invasive pests that have destroyed many thousands of trees, particularly in the west. and we worked hard to ensure that private landowners can continue to effectively manage their operations. as i mentioned earlier this afternoonan, the farm bill is an energy bill. i'm extremely pleased that during negotiations with the house, we kept the full funding from the senate's energy title. our rural communities have been at the forefront of the effort to achieve american energy independence. we are strengthening these efforts through the highly successful rural energy in america program -- reap -- which helps farmers improve energy efficiency to lower their utility bills.

thousands of farms across the country have lowered their input costs, thanks to the reap program. we're continuing our commitment to the development of the next generation of advanced biofuels. scientific advancements are allowing us to develop ethanol with food and agricultural waste products. with this farm bill, we will see even more biorefineries come online, producing home-grown fuels that bring competition and lower prices for consumers at the pump. this farm bill supports our growing biobased economy with my new grow-it-here-make-it-here initiative also. biobased fuels replace petroleum and other chemicals. these products are everywhere, from the cups in the senate

cafeteria, which are made by a michigan company, by the way; to cleaning products; industrial lubricants, and even the foam in the seats of your car, mr. president, which are like thraid, if it i--which are likes a new car, to be based on soy oil. it reduces our use of fossil fuels. as i've said before, this is a farm bill focused on the future and nowhere is that more evident than in the specialty crop title. this is essentially the produce aisle of the farm bill. specialty crops include fruits, vegetables, nuts and nursery crops. we're strengthening the specialty crop block grant program, expanding specialty crop research, expanding crop insurance to include specialty crops and continuing the highly

successful fresh fruits and vegetables snack program in our schools. we don't just want to grow more fruits and vegetables. we need to be able to get them to consumers. that's why this farm bill more than quadruples support for farmers markets. we're also strengthening local food hubs, which bring farmers together with local supermarkets and restaurants and schools to supply locally grown, healthy foods. the farm bill also recognizes an incredibly fast-growing segment of agriculture -- organics. we continue our efforts to support farmers to get certified as organic, expand crop insurance options to organic farmers, and provide funding for continued organic research. this bill reflects the diversity of crops, truly, that we grow in america, and nowhere is that

more evident than in the specialty and organic title. in every part of this farm bill, we worked on streamlining and consolidating programs. in fact, we ended over 100 different programs and authorizations in this process. i said to my staff at the very, very beginning of all of this, don't think about programs; think about principles, what should we be doing in agriculture and food policy, not what programs do we want to protect. and that's how we have moved afford throughout this entire process. mr. president, there is one thing we did add, though, and i'm very pleased with that, and that is a very veterans' agriculture liaison at usda to work with our men and women in uniform who are coming home and want to get involved in agriculture. we know the majority of of our

men and women are coming home to small towns like where i grew up in northern michigan, rural communities. and we need to to support them -- ant we want t and we want tom if they choose to go into agriculture. this is a new kind of farm bill designed to meet new challenges of a change world. we're also making major reforms, eliminating unnecessary, unjustified programs to cut government spending, and to increase the integrity of farm programs. this farm bill reflects critical steps, as i indicated earlier, in changing changing the paradie we are ending subsidies and giving farmers the tools to manage their own risks. we support them in doing that, but in doing that, as we know,

when we have insurance products -- and that's what we're looking at throughout this bill, whether it is a new insurance-type approach for cotton or for dairy or for our traditional commodities, with any other kind of insurance, as we know, you pay the premium, pay the premium, pay the premium, but you don't get any help unless there's a loss, disaster. that is a fundamental shift in this farm bill, managing risk, helping our farmers to do that in a fiscally responsible way. and after all of this work -- and i think my distinguished ranking member would admit, it was a lot of work -- after all of this work, mr. president, we offer the senate the only, to my

knowledge, effort where a group of people within their jurisdiction of authority have voluntarily -- voluntarily -- cut spending to reduce the deficit. if you coupled together the sequestration cuts, approximately $6 billion, and the cuts in this bill to agriculture, we are coming to you and offering a bill of reform, of cutting programs, cutting duplication, cutting spending that actually creates $23 billion in deficit reduction. i'm proud of that. this truly is not your father's farm bill. we are about to vote to bring

debate on this conference report to a close. but before we do, i want to once again thank my ranking member, the senior senator from mississippi, who's been a friend and a partner throughout this entire process. i have enjoyed very much having the opportunity to work with senator cochran and his very competent staff. i learned along the way that we have a great love of music in piano playing and the blues, which sometimes we were singing during this process, i think. but it has been my great honor to work with him and to our house colleagues as we have worked to bring this afford. -- worked to bring this forward. my ranking member had a different perspective thank i have, and we have written this bill together. i have learned a lot about the perspective of mississippi and the south. and i hope i have shared the

perspective of michigan and the north. and the east and the west as we have listened to our colleagues. i would urge our colleagues to support this conference report. the presiding officer: all time is expired. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: khroefrplt we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the conference report to ab-- accompany h.r. 2642. the presiding officer: by i ask unanimous consent the quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate to provide for a end to the conference report to h.r. 2642 shall be brought to