week. the measure authorizes nearly $1 trillion in agricultural programs of which about $756 billion would go towards nutrition assistance. the senate will recess for their weekly party meetings from 12:30 to 2:15 this afternoon and when they return they will take a vote on final passage of the farm bill. that vote is scheduled for 2:35 p.m. eastern. now live to the senate floor on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain retired admiral barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, the fountain of every blessing, we lift our hearts in praise to you, for you have done marvelous things. you direct our steps each day,

guiding us with your powerful providence and showering us with undeserved mercies. you hear our prayers and speedily supply our needs. bless today the work of our lawmakers, empowering them with unceasing awareness and openness of heart. give them wisdom and courage to glorify you through their work. may their thoughts, words and actions be acceptable to you, for you are our rock and our redeemer.

amen. the president pro tempore: 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 president pro tempore: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 297. the president pro tempore: 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, the senate will resume consideration of the conference report to accompany h.r. 2642, the farm bill. the time until 12:30 will be

equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. today for the weekly caucus meetings. at approximately 2:35, there will be a roll call vote on adoption of the farm conference report. mr. president, before the presiding officer -- while the presiding officer is here, i want to make a brief comment. the headlines the last couple of days have been the death of -- in my opinion, one of the great actors of our time, phillip seymour hoffman. he died obviously of a drug overdose of heroin. the reason i wanted to say a word while the presiding officer is presiding is that the governor of vermont was very, very visionary in directing his state of the state remarks this year to the scourge that's sweeping the nation of heroin addiction.

it's a -- really a scourge. we have people who -- it's kind of a unique thing, according to everything that i have been able to learn. we have people who start off with some kind of prescription drugs and then wind up with this stuff that's been prepared by purveyors of evil. not knowing what's in it. there are some who believe that they put baby laxative in this, they put all kinds of stuff that looks like heroin. it's a terrible shame. and so i say to my friend from vermont make sure that -- and i will send him a letter, but i want to make sure that you personally tell the governor how how -- i can't find a better word -- visionary he was in the

remarks he gave a few weeks ago. mr. leahy: mr. president, will the senator from nevada yield? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, as the record will indicate, while i was -- while i opened the senate, my role as president pro tempore, now the distinguished senator from new jersey is in the chair, because i wanted to be able to, one, respond, and two, thank the distinguished senior senator from nevada for what he said. i was in montpelier, which is our capital on friday, and i spent some time with governor shumlin, governor peter shumlin who did his state of the state message on this subject, as the distinguished senator from nevada has said, and i talked to him about it. i will call him later this morning and tell him what the leader has said. i'm also going to, wearing my

hat as chair of the judiciary committee, do a hearing on this. ours is a very special and very precious state, but i think it points out that every state in the union can face this problem. on the national news this morning, governor shumlin was great to focus the attention of many states. i will just close with saying to my dear friend from nevada i appreciate his comments. he knows how precious vermont is to me and to governor shumlin, and i will make sure the governor knows what he said. and i yield. mr. reid: mr. president, on one other matter, -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i had a meeting of a number of senators this morning, and one of the topics of conversation was the presiding officer's first speech, the

so-called maiden speech that he gave last night. it was stunningly good, substantive and it came from the heart, and that's what my senators told me this morning, and i agree. as i told the presiding officer last night, i had to go to a quick meeting, so i watched most of it from my office, but it was a speech that was so important, dealing with people who are in need. this good man who is presiding over the senate now is a man of stature. academically, extremely talented, stanford, and decided he would do public service, and in the process of doing public service, he identified with the people who needed help. he moved into a neighborhood

that you wouldn't think the mayor of a city would live, but he did that because he wanted to feel the pulse of the people, and it's obvious from the speech given last night that the presiding officer does understand the pulse of the people of his state, and we all admired you before you got here and we admire you now even more. mr. president, i understand that there is a bill at the desk titled s. 1982, due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 1982, a bill to improve the provision of medical services and benefits to veterans, and for other purposes. mr. reid: i object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, last night, i had the good fortune to

spend some time with the president along with michael bennet and -- michael bennet and others, and it was worth commenting on that meeting with the president about his address that he gave a week ago to the congress and to the nation. he addressed congress and the nation and described the challenges facing families in america, wages that are far too low, cost of education far too high, and simply there are far too few jobs. each of these challenges places another stumbling block in front of americans striving to enter the middle class and also middle class trying to do their best to hang onto their status as part of the middle class. the middle class is being squeezed, mr. president. the rich are getting richer. the poor are getting poorer. the middle class is being

squeezed, squeezed really hard. unless we open the doors of opportunity, every child in this nation, our grandchildren will no longer be able to do what we expect our grandchildren to be able to accomplish. every child in this nation, our grandchildren, will have to work longer and harder than we did just to get by, let alone just to get ahead. yesterday i read with interest the story, a long, well-researched story in "the new york times." it was in the business section. that piece argued that the richest families, the most successful corporations in america should be just as worried about these trends of the shrinking middle class as i am and as the presiding officer. the article described the

widespread failure of businesses that cater to the middle class. i repeat that. widespread failure of businesses that cater to the middle class. why? because the middle class is going away. while high end retailers like barney's and north strom flourish, mid price retailers like jc penney and loehman's stumble. while posh restaurants like capital grill prosper, more modest eateries like red lobster are sinking. the "times" wrote yesterday and i'm quoting -- "as politicians and pundits in washington continue to spar over whether economic inequality is in fact deepening, in corporate america there really is no debate at all. the post-recession reality is that the customer base for businesses that appeal to the middle class is shrinking as the top tier pulls even farther away

industry analysts say businesses that sell luxury goods to the top 1% are booming." and remember, mr. president, during the past 30 years, the top 1%, their wealth has increased three times while during that same 30-year period of time, the earning capacity of the middle class has been cut by 10%. so the top 1% are booming. and sadly, businesses like family dollar that cater to the growing ranks of the poor are barely scraping by. that is, the people who use those stores. but dollar stores, family dollar, the business, they are thriving. why? because, mr. president, nordstrom's, great place, i love them.

they have a great return policy. i'm glad they are doing well. but family dollar, they're thriving because many people who were middle class are now poor. families aren't going out for spaghetti and meatballs. they aren't even going out for hamburgers like they used to. they aren't buying their kids new jeans or backpacks. they pass them down. from child to child. mr. president, -- they pass them down from child to child. mr. president, i can remember -- it's been over a year ago. i went to this program in north las vegas, nevada. a lot of poor people in north las vegas. they were giving away backpacks with some pencils in it. it was before school started. some pencils and some paper. mr. president, those backpacks

were so -- i don't want to denigrate the wonderful things that people do. they were so cheap. they were backpacks that had names of businesses on them. and these children lined up with their parents for as far as you could see. they were desperate for a backpack. not a very good one, but they didn't have one. so they weren't buying their kids backpacks like they used to. purchases that once seemed like modest treats have become unaffordable luckaries -- luxuries. while the economy is growing despite of this trend, economists worry this growth is unsustainable. one economist told the "times" -- quote -- "it's going to be hard to maintain strong economic growth with such a large proportion of the population falling behind. we might be able to muddle along, but can we really

recover." " that's a question. in other words, our fortunes are bound together. the shrinking middle class isn't just a problem for families in the middle. it's a problem for businesses large and small. it's a problem that should worry the top 1% of wealth in america as much as it worries the 99% who are under that 1%. can we really recover when so many are falling behind? it's a fair question and an extremely troubling question, mr. president. our entire economy is at risk and as we act to grow and protect the middle class whose purchase power is the backbone of our economy and how do we do that, create jobs, which we as a crong have not done because every time we try there's obstruction from the republicans. but to achieve and protect and grow the middle class, president obama called for commonsense investments in our future.

investments in 21st century infrastructure. you know, those old fashioned thriengs roads and bridges and dams. and the new -- renewable energy projects. solar, wind, geothermal, create lots and lots of jobs. cutting-edge technology. like the news theler vehicle -- tessler vehicle, all-electric vect. elon, he's talking about building another big factory someplace in the west. investments in universal preschool. so important. other countries are doing it. why don't we have it mant mandatory for every 4-year-old? and affordable college. mr. president, seated next to me is the assistant leader. he has identified a problem

years ago that kids are being burdened with debt, trying to go to college. and, frankly, a lot of the money that these young men and women borrow goes to schools that don't produce anything. investments in medical research. you heard my cough -- me cough. i for the first time in my life a couple weeks ago got the flu. i'd never had the flu before. i wasn't nearly as sympathetic with people who missed work because of flu and i am now sympathetic. the flu is devastating. i was so, so sick. and my home in searchlight we didn't have a thermometer. by the time we had someone bring one over from vegas, my fever was very high. and i started the medication,

tamiflu not as early as i should and it went into bronchitis. the reason i mention that, mr. president, again talking about my friend, the the senator from illinois, went yesterday to n.i.h., the national institutes of health. i went there a number of months ago. what we have done as a congress to n.i.h. we should be embarrassed. we've cut them. and the reason i mention my flu is because when i went there, they are so close to having a flu shot that covers all flu. everything. they're so close. what do they need to go the extra mile? more money. that devastation of sequestration has hurt the national institutes of health significantly. chairman murray did some things to help the the future but that

money that we've lost because of sequestration is gone. we not have been fair to the national institutes of health. and, mr. president, those are life saving things they're doing there. and other countries are trying to match what we have done with the national institutes of health. they can't, we're way ahead but we're not going to remain ahead unless we put some money into the national institutes of health. we need to help companies that build their products here in america. i go out of my way, mr. president, to buy new balance shoes. running shoes. why? they're made in america. the suit that i'm wearing, made in america. i'm proud of that. the president also called on congress to increase the federal

minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. a huge step toward guaranteeing no american working full time lives in poverty as they now do and as the presiding officer so well illustrated last night. this proposal raising the minimum wage has been endoardz by seven nobel prize winning economists. i don't know the political persuasion of these nobel prize winning economists but they're all persuaded that we have done to the working poor is wrong and we have to do something about it. the proposal would raise millions of families out of poverty and give tens of millions of children a shot at graduating from college, securing a high-paying job and joining the middle class. there's something else congress should do this week to prevent hundreds of thousands of americans from descending into poverty. extend the unemployment benefits.

in the month that we have cut off these benefits because of obstruction by my republican colleagues, opportunity has lost more than $2 billion in purchasing. the state of nevada, $30 million. so we could do something now to prevent hundreds of thousands of americans from descending into poverty. a 57-year-old woman, i read part of her letter here yesterday, she said how do you think i feel? going from friend to friend to sleep on their couch. couch surfing, we call it. she said that only lasts so long. i'm selling everything i have, i don't have a home, i'm trying to sell everything i have so if i get an opportunity for a job interview i can buy gas for my car. we must extend unemployment

benefits, 1.6 million people have been out of work for months. these are -- bessments will ensure more than 2.3 million children have nutritious meals and a safe place to sleep while their parents hunt for job. it will prevent americans who worked hard to get ahead are from losing their grip on the ladder of success. restoring unemployment benefits are not enough to secure our shrinking middle class but it certainly a good first step.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: over the past several years i've often come to the floor of the senate to talk attention to the obama administration's radical environmental agenda, and the deeply harmful effects it is having on the people of kentucky. the environmental protection agency's war on coal is the most obvious and tragic example. today i'd like to highlight this administration's environmental agenda at perhaps its most absurd. and at the heart of our story is a two and a half inch minnow, two and a half inch minnow. called the dusky tailed darter. a two and a half inch minnow called the dusky tail darter.

last week the obama administration sided with this minnow over the economic well-being of thousands of people in southeastern kentucky who live near or depend on lake cumberland as a major driver of commerce, tourism, and recreation. obama administration the obama administration did this by determining that the presence of the darter in the lake's tributaries meant that the raising of the lake's water level must be further delayed. now, lake cumberland is a signature tourist destination in my state and one of the economic pillars of mccrery, clinton, russell and pulaski counties. the water level of the lake was lowered back in january of 2007 due to problems with the dam which feeds the lake. the past seven years have

reduced water levels have not only hurt small businesses that rely on tourism but have also strained local governments as local towns have had to lower their water intake. marinas have had to spend valuable dollars on boat ramp upgrades and dock relocations. dollars that could have been spent on growing businesses, hiring new workers, and enhancing local commerce. in addition, to the drawdown of water has deterred tourism as a misperception has been created among potential visitors that the lake is no longer suitable for boating, fishing, and water sports. every year lake cumberland brings to the local community $200 million in economic activity and employs on average 6,000 people. understandably those in the local community have been anxious to see the water levels return back to their normal

level after seven years of reduced water level. 2014 was supposed to be a great year for lake cumberland. as kentuckians would mark the end of seven years' of repairs to the dam and therefore reduced water levels and fewer visitors. now suddenly the obama administration has announced that the water level cannot be raised because it could -- could -- potentially -- have a harmful effect on this minnow the dusky tailed darter which is on the endangered species endan. mr. president, the absurdity of the obama administration's posture on this issue is manifest. first, the administration is protecting a fish from water? let me get this straight. protecting a fish from water?

the radical environmentalists in the obama administration don't want this fish to be exposed to too much water? what's next? protecting birds from too much sky? second, the administration took this action because raising the water could -- could, not would -- potentially -- potentially -- have an adverse effect on this poor little minnow. of course, anything in the universe could have an adverse effect on this minnow. but to the people of southeastern kentucky, the president's year of action is apparently beneficial only if have you gills. so, mr. president, the story of the darter would be humorous if it weren't so harmful to the economic well-being of thousands

of southeastern kentuckians. this misguided policy will have deeply harmful consequences for this region of kentucky. carolyn mounts, who is responsible for promoting tourism at lake cumberland at the summer set pulaski county visitor bureau put it best when she said bureaucracy run amok. bureaucracy run amok, said carolyn mounts. she just returned from attending tourism and travel shows in cincinnati and louisville two weeks ago. she says the shows were crowded, people wanted to talk about lake cumberland, they were excited about the lake returning to normal operation, and now this. j.d. hamilton, who operates lee's ford resort marina in nancy, kentucky, was also disappointed to learn of this

announcement. disappointed is an understatement as his business has been stifled by the lowering of water over the last seven years. in response to this announcement he said the corps is keeping its word to the fish but not to the economy. so yesterday my friend and colleague senator rand paul and i along with our colleagues in the house, congressman rogers and congressman whitefield, wrote the administration calling for an end to this intolerable further delay. i hope the obama administration will take heed and concern itself more with enendangered jobs and livelihoods of actual kentuckians and americans than with the possible endangerment of this apparently water-averse minnow.

now, mr. president, on another subject, mr. mcconnell: i want to speak about a young man from my state to gave his life while serving this nation in uniform. lance corporal adam d. peak of florence, kentucky, was tragically killed by an improvised explosive device in helmand province on february 21, 2010. a member of the u.s. marine corps, he was 25 years old. for his service in uniform, lance corporal peak received many medals, awards and

decorations, including the afghanistan campaign medal, the iraq campaign medal, the national defense service medal, the global war on terrorism service medal and the nato international security assistance force medal. born on august 30, 1985, adam was a native of florence where he grew up with a reputation as a performer who made his friends and family laugh with his quick wit. he and his older sister sara would quote movie lines back and forth to each other in the blink of an eye, and adam especially liked to entertain his younger sister angela. adam was sarcastic with a dry sense of humor and could get people to laugh all the time, says adam's mother diana. i guess what i loved most about him was his love for his sister who was born with down syndrome. he had unlimited patience with her, and i knew that when his

dad and i were gone, he would take care of angela. although adam did not get a chance to have a family of his own, he loved kids. he was like a second father to a lot of other marines' kids, says his sister sara. adam's mother certainly agrees. he loved kids and thought that someday he would have a large family, she says. he played santa every year for his friend's family, and the kids loved him. adam attended boone county high school where he graduated in 2002. he then attended thomas moore college in crestview hills, kentucky. in school, he was active in a fraternity, the saints club and the players theater club. his mother diana particularly remembers adam's interest in theater. he developed a love for the stage while in college at thomas moore, she says. he started out behind the scenes

but his friends got him on stage for a play and he loved it. he appeared in many productions while at school. richard shuey, a business administration professor at thomas moore, taught adam in three classes. adam was one of those real nice, clean-cut northern kentucky kids, richard says. always polite, interested in doing well, obviously a true patriot. one of adam's fraternity brothers remembered him as a big-hearted, free-spirited, fun-loving guy who would do anything for anybody. after graduation from thomas moore, adam enlisted in the marine corps in july of 2007. by december of that year, he had been promoted to the rank of lance corporal. adam's younger brother sean enlisted in the marines as well, and the two brothers served together in the same unit in iraq in 2008.

their personalities were night and day, says robin peak, adam's sister-in-law, but they always had each other's backs and were there together. in october, 2009, adam and sean were deployed to afghanistan, both as members of the second battalion, second marine division, two marine expeditionary force based out of camp le jeune, north carolina. sean accompanied his brother back home for burial, and adam was laid to rest with full military honors in tailor mill, kentucky. mr. president, we're thinking of adam's loved ones today, including his parents, bruce and diana, his brother sean, his sisters sara and angela, his sister-in-law robin and many other beloved family members and friends. the loss of lance corporal adam d. peak is tragic, and indeed it

is only appropriate that this united states senate pause to honor his service and recognize his sacrifice. i hope that his family can take some comfort from the fact that both the commonwealth of kentucky and the country as a whole are grateful for and honored by the heroism and courage adam displayed in his entirely too short life, and the example he set for his loved ones and his country will not be forgotten. i yield the floor. 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 of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, before i address the farm bill, i would like to make two other points, and the first is i would like to commend the presiding officer. yesterday, he gave his first speech on the floor of the united states senate. about 20 of us were here and listened carefully, and i'm glad i did. it was time well spent. it was a speech which the presiding officer clearly not only worked on but believed in, and it showed. you addressed the plight of

working americans and particularly those who have lost their jobs and the responsibility of this congress and this nation to stand by these families while they are in transition looking for new opportunities. as i sat here and listened and watched as you spoke to this subject addressing specific people that you have met in your state who told you their stories, and i thought to myself i have met quite a few in illinois in like circumstances, and i wish that every member of the senate would do what you have done -- visit the towns, the restaurants, the veterans' centers and other places where unemployed people gather and listen to them. the point that you made so convincingly was those who dismiss the unemployed as just lazy people have never met them. they're not lazy. they were workers who want to work again. what they're asking for is a

helping hand, and you made that point so eloquently yesterday. what was particularly good for me, having served in the senate for a number of years, was to hear a new member of the senate in his first speech really reach back to the values which inspired many of us to run for this position. it's easy to become jaded after you have been here for a while and engaged in the petty political fights that take place here with some frequency. it's easy to forget why you asked your family to stand behind you when you ran and why you sacrificed to try to come to this place and why each of us some 1,200 or so who have had this distinct honor to serve in the senate, should not miss the opportunity to bring our values and passions to the floor every single day. so i thank the senator from missouri, our presiding officer, for an extraordinary maiden first speech on the floor of the senate. it was one of the best. secondly, i'd like to address the issue that was raised by my

colleague from the state of kentucky. the state of kentucky is just south of illinois. we have coalfields, too. almost 75% of our state has coal under the ground. we mine that coal, not like we used to, but still mine it and use it, and we have coal miners and coal companies and coal is an important part of the illinois economy. the senator from kentucky came to the floor today to really take exception to a decision by the environmental protection agency as it affected coal country in kentucky. i don't know anything about the thrix of his complaint involving the cumberland lake and the endangered species act, so i won't address that, but i do want to address one more general topic. to argue that the environmental protection agency is the enemy of coal country is to completely ignore what's been in the newspapers for the last several weeks. there are 300,000 people in the state of west virginia who are

afraid to drink the water because of a leak from a tank that had a chemical solution used for cleaning coal. these people worry that drinking this water, cooking with this water, even bathing in this water is a danger to them, and where did they turn for some indication of safety for their families? this part of america, west virginia, coal country, just like kentucky and illinois, turn to the environmental protection agency. of course they did. is it safe? can my child drink this water safely? can i use it for cooking? so to argue that the environmental protection agency agency is the enemy of coal country is to ignore the obvious. they could make wrong decisions, we all do, agencies do, but time and again, when we're in trouble, when it comes to something as basic as the safety

of our drinking water, we turn to the environmental protection agency and the center for disease control and ask them to help us determine whether that water is safe. and let me add parenthetically, mr. president, your predecessor, senator frank lautenberg of new jersey, was a leader and i was happy to be his partner in trying to get to the bottom of the danger of many of these chemicals. most americans mistakenly believe that this government reviews the toxicity ordaining of all the chemicals in use in this country. in fact, only a small sernlg are ever reviewed by -- small percentage are ever reviewed by the government. we in fact trust those who make and sell these chemicals to do the right thing, and many times they betray that trust and sell something dangerous on the market which we discover later after the damage has been done. so again, the role of the

environmental protection agency, the center for disease control, the role of the federal government in monitoring these chemicals for the safety of businesses and families and individuals across america is essential, whether you live in the city of newark or chicago or coal country, u.s.a. so if we're going to go to war against the environmental protection agency, let us at least be honest about the critical role they play, and i hope that that is remembered as we reflect on some of the things said on the floor this morning. mr. president, this is the conference report for the agricultural act of 2014, and senator stabenow was on the floor earlier. she stepped off now. she has poured her heart and soul into this document and into this work. two years ago, we passed the farm bill on the floor of the senate, two years ago. she did it with senator roberts of kansas. i voted for it. i thought it was an exceptional effort on her part. it went to the u.s. house of

representatives, as is the custom under the constitution, to wither and die two years ago. and then a year ago, they said let's try again. let's pass the farm bill again in the united states senate in the hopes that the u.s. house of representatives will take it up, a year ago. mr. president, i ask to -- if you restore order in the senate chamber. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. durbin: so a year ago, senator stabenow and senator roberts sent this measure to the house of representatives for consideration, and again it languished. it may have been one of the longest running conference committees in the history of congress. but thank goodness for the perseverance of senator stabenow and many others. they have produced this document. now, for those who don't live in farm country, this may seem like a foreign text, but for those of us who do live, just reading the table of contents will tell you

the important elements of this bill and why it is so critically important to illinois, virtually every state in the union. and i commend her. i commend senator stabenow. she really, as i said, poured her heart and soul into this document. there are things in here which many of us may never really appreciate that she fought for over a long, long period of time, and i'm going to acknowledge a few of those during the course of my former remarks, but while she is here on the floor, let me give special credit to my colleague. she really took on this task and did it in an extraordinary way. after years of expirations and teamster extensions, primarily due to the problems and inaction in the house of representatives, this bill finally is going to provide farmers in illinois and across the nation with some guarantee of certainty on their future. compared to presequestration budget levels -- that's budget talk around here for past

budgets -- this bill is going to save $23 billion over the next ten years. this conference report before us really works to do four things -- invest in energy and research, help our rural communities grow. those of us who represent small town america know how important that is. ensure stability for our farmers who face the necessary is tiewdz of -- face weather and market and provide food assistance for those both here and overseas. these are amazing and important goals. i'm glad senator stabenow and all the conferees really applied themselves to make this happen. i'm disappointed by one thing and i know senator stabenow will not be surprised. despite modest reforms we still provide extraordinary outsized support for farmers who buy crop insurance. in fairness, this bill eliminates a price support program that was no longer

defensible, a program that paid farmers in good times as well as bad. so it really wasn't what it was designed to be, emergency help for farmers in need. and she eliminated the direct payment program by and large and that to me is a step forward. instead, this bill moves farmers toward crop insurance. and most of us stepping back say, well, that sounds like the responsible thing to do. a farmer buys an insurance policy so if things goback bad on the farm, a flood, a drought, some other problem, or the prices happen to be disastrous when the farmer goes to market, the insurance policy will make sure that they can live to plant again. that is a good thing. but as i've said several times, any time you put the two words "federal" and" insurance" in the same sentence i advise my colleagues step back and ask some questions. this is not insurance as you envision it. it isn't a matter of automobile

insurance where the automobile owners pay enough in premiums to create a reserve to cover the exposure of accidents. different. under the crop insurance program like many federal insurance programs, there is a massive federal subsidy. 62% of the reserves that are necessary to make the program function are provided by the federal treasury, not by premiums paid by farmers. so it's a good program, it's a valuable program, it is critically important, but let's keep our mind on the reality here. it is heavily subsidized by the federal government. senator tom coburn of oklahoma, a very conservative republican, and i decided to offer an amendment which said if you are a farmer whose income is over $750,000 a year, we will reduce

slightly the government's subsidy of your crop insurance. over $750,000 in income, we will reduce slightly the 62% federal subsidy on your crop insurance. you will pay slightly more in premiums because you're able to. you're better off than most. this passed not once but twice on the floor of the united states senate and it turned out the conferees primarily from the house hay hated this provision like the devil hates holy water so they struck this provision from the bill and that's unfortunate. not only did we pass it twice, the house had passed an instruction to conferees to include it on the floor. members wanted to be on record saying they liked this idea and when the conferees got their hands on it, they lopped it right out of the bill. let me ask you to hold on to that thought for a moment while i get into another section of the bill. the area where the house

conferees really worked up an appetite was when it came to the supplemental nutrition assistance program, the so-called food stamp program. and, again, let me commend senator stabenow as chairman of the agriculture committee. she called me several times to tell me about the battles that she had to wage to protect the food stamp snap program. let's talk about the program for a minute. almost 15% of households across america have trouble keeping food on the table. snap or the food program, provides 47 million americans with essential food assistance. 83% of the households that receive food stamps include a child or a person with disability or a senior citizen. nearly one million veterans use the food stamp program each year in america. in illinois over two million

people, almost one in seven residents rely on snap benefits to buy the food they need. who are these people? who in world needs food stamps in a great state like the state of illinois? let me tell you about two or three of them. one of them was the elderly lady that i met at the irving park methodist church food pantry. she was on a walker, she had a very short haircut suggesting perhaps she had been through some chemotherapy or radiation and she soldiered her way up the there to get a bag of groceries and i sat down and i talked to her and i said can you tell me a little bit about how you're doing? i'm doing okay. i get $800 a month in social security, she said. i said how in the world do you live in chicago on $800 a month? ain't easy, senator. got to pay the rent, the utility bills and the basics and, she says, i come to this food pantry and one other one, each one of them gives me three days' worth of food.

i get about one month, six days out of the two food pantries and i get food stamps worth about $130 a month. that's it, folks. that's what she lives on. an elderly person. and when the house republicans said what we need to do is cut $40 billion, that was their original recommendation, $40 billion out of food stamps, they apparently had never met this lady and what she was up against. or they might have met a couple workers i had a press conference with on sunday in chicago. working full time and qualifying for food stamps. one was a fellow who works on the west side of chicago at a used car lot, does it all, he says, cleans the cars, shovels the lots, sells the cars and gets paid $8.25 an hour which is our state minimum wage. four kids. his wife's sick and can't work. he gets food stamps. and needs them. for food on the table for kids

for a full-time worker at a minimum wage job. then on the other side was a lady who is a waitress. and she told the story of being a single mom, her son's now 19, she's heading off to the city college of chicago, that's a great deal. but she works a job which has a guaranteed minimum wage in illinois of about $4.50 an hour, that's what waitresses are guaranteed, tip wage. nationally, the tip wage is $2.13 an hour. she says i don't work in a fancy restaurant. and i'm lucky to come home with $10 or $20 of tips on a day. do the math. and she said some days they doantsd call me into work. i get nothing. she relies on food stamps, too. a woman who is ready to work, standing up all day waiting tables, so in come the house republicans and say we really need to come down hard on these people, these lazy people on food stamps. i wish they would meet some of

these folks who use food stamps to get by, to survive. these people are our neighbors, they're hardworking people who lost their jobs or got sick, they're seniors living on a limited fixed income. now, this bill does cut 8 dlst billion dollars out of the -- $8 billion out of the snap program. i understand the cut that were made and i think senator stabenow and others have done these carefully. i don't want any fraud in this program, she doesn't either. and we think we have tightened it up so it will not affect the payments to those who are truly eligible and those who need the help and yet it will make sure that taxpayers are treated fairly as well. but look at the contrast. some of the conferees walked into this hearing and said that farmers who make almost a million dollars a year should not have any reduction in their subsidy for crop insurance, but people like the lady at the

irving park methodist church food pantry being paid $8 a month, we ought to be -- take a hard, hard look at the $130 a month we give this lady. that's upside down. that doesn't reflect the values of this country or the priorities that we need to face. and i thank the senator from michigan. she worked long and hard, was a real champion when it came to the snap program, the food stamp program. incidentally, mr. president, the good news is as the economy improves and people get back to work the number of people on food stamps is going down which is what we want to see. but doesn't it say something about us as a nation, a caring, compassionate nation that we're going to be there to help those families living in our towns and our state going to our churches when they're struggling to put food on the table? why was that such an inviting target for some of the house conferees? i don't understand that. there's a lot of money that can be saved in government.

we don't want to waste a penny of it but let's focus primarily on those who can afford to pay and are getting a federal subsidy as opposed to those struggling to get by and are asking for a helping hand. this bill does so things i couldn't even start to describe all the different areas dealing with risk on the farm, key investments in energy and research, ag research, programs to help rural communities grow, and helping those in need. most importantly, this reauthorization gives illinois farmers certainty about farm programs and they need it, something they haven't had for the last three years. i'm going to support this bill. i wish that we'd been able to preserve that provision that senator coburn and i included but i believe on balance it is an important step forward in farm country across america and i yield the floor.

mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: as the senate turns its attention this week to the farm bill conference report, my thoughts turn to the wild west to put its provisions in context. frankly, it's 950 pages lend themselves to talking about the good, the bad, and the just plain ugly. i mention the good because while this farm bill falls far short of gaining my support, it's not entirely without provisions worth highlighting. conferees included a one-term extension of the payment in lou of taxes or pilt program. that gives temporary predictability at least for counties with low tax bases due to federal landownership and provides congress with time to chart a long-term solution in this regard. in addition the bill authorizes permanently the stewardship contracting authority, this is a critical land management tool that allows us to proactively reduce the risk of catastrophic

wildfires, one i've long called for while reforms to the liability requirements are included, the report fails fails to include next flexibility on cancellation seetion ceilingses and that's something i'll work on in the future. when it comes to the bad there's not enough time to list all the items that should make any lawmaker cringe who is concerned about our crushing national debt or those of us trying to reform agriculture policy. rather than truthfully trimming the generous agricultural safety net taxpayers should prepare for another round of entirely new alphabet soup subsidy programs. the senator from illinois explained very well the crop insurance program that is so heavily subsidized. 62%, i think all of us with ato insurance or other insurance would love to have that contribution from the federal government. this report doesn't even provide commonsense reforms that limit waste and largess to sustain --

two sustained hallmarks of agriculture subsidies. it fails to limit payments to those who are actually involved in farming. it can't even provide a reasonable income limit, as was discussed by the senator from illinois, for those who already receive crop insurance subsidies. incomprehensibly, any recognition of the arrangement between crop insurers and the federal government would be required to be revenue neutral despite billions of dollars in taxpayer savings having been found in previous renegotiations. this bill is purported to be fiscally conservative because it saves $16 billion or so in tax dollars. before we pat each other on the back in this regard we need to remember that congress has a dismal record of knowing how much farm bills are going to cost. according to taxpayers for sequence commonsense "the last two farm bills shall are on pace to exceed their congressional

budget office score by $400 billion. there is no assurance this farm bill will be any different." now let's get to the ugly. for years direct payments have been one of the clearest signs of what needs to be changed in federal spending. the federal government has been handing out $5 billion a year regardless whether they are farming the land. i pay tribute to the senator from michigan who has fought to end these direct payments and the senate did a pregdz job there but the house did not. i myself have long sought to end these direct payments. i was encouraged with the senate action to end these payments outright. but despite our fiscal situation the best we can get in the house was allowing direct payments to continue albeit slightly reduced for cotton for 2014 and 2015. this conference report purports to end direct payments but ends them in name only for cotton. let's be clear, it simply renames direct payments for cotton for two years.

they'll now be called transition payments. cotton growers will continue to receive payments until -- wait for it -- the other new subsidy programs created in this report come on line. perhaps instead of western movies i should have conjured up images of shakespeare to describe this fiscal tragedies. a government funded handout by another name is still a government handout. it's worth recalling that when originally created in 1996, in the 1996 farm bill, direct payments went by the name amta payments or agricultural market transition payments. it would appear for some comopts there will always be a transition for something -- from something to something else that will result in a taxpayer funded handyout. according to the c.b.o. score, it will take a zero cost from the senate proposal and the $443 billion cost from the house

proposal and compromises at a higher cost of $556 billion in 2015. that's some compromise to go well above both the house and the senate numbers. while the ten-year score for the transition payments in the report is lower than the house proposal, the first-year costs are actually higher. it is at this point that one can simply stop being surprised at what will happen when it comes to farm subsidies. sadly, rather than a blockbuster of fiscal sanity, taxpayers are going to be saddled with what looks like to be another rerun of missed opportunities to reform federal agriculture policy. although livestock groups have decried the absence of fixes and ongoing regulatory problems and fiscal conservatives are chafing at the continued waste of spending in this report, this report is still likely to be adopted. there are other issues addressed that i'm pleased -- i'm pleased that some of this will end up on

the president's desk, but i cannot support this conference report and i'll continue to push for real fiscal discipline in federal agriculture policy. i should note i remember when i first got to congress or just about a year after i came to the floor of the house to rail against the -- the farm bill at that time in 2002, the reauthorization. we had gone in the 1990's from the freedom to farm act to the farm security act. now, for those of us conservatives who talk about moving from freedom to security and all that means, that was actually in the title of the bill, and we haven't improved much since that time. that was more than a decade ago. and i have to say that we should have made progress that is simply not made in this bill. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss legislation i think that benefits all americans, and that is the -- particularly my home

state of ohio, the farm bill. i appreciate senator flake's comments. i have admired his integrity and his focus on waste in government for the decade or so that i have known him, longer than that. i think he makes some good points in this legislation. we come down on different sides in the end. some of the things he talked about, eliminating a lot of the direct payments, were especially important, came out of legislation that senator thune and i did. i think this is an ongoing process to improve this bill every year, and i hope that every five years i'm hopeful we can do that, but i thank senator flake for his comments. this bill is bipartisan. it reduces the deficit. it helps farms, it helps families, it helps our economy, it helps our environment. it saves $23 billion, taxpayer dollars. it provides certainty and support to one of the nation's largest job creators, agriculture. agriculture-related businesses like food processing equipment, fertilizer feed sales, constitute ohio's largest

industry. food and agriculture together are about one in seven jobs in ohio. i want to thank senator cochran, senator stabenow for getting us to this point. they have been dogged in their support for our nation's farmers for rural communities. i thank them. i have spoken with ohio's corn and soybean growers as well as members of the ohio farm bureau. i spoke on friday and met with a group of 300 farmers, union members in columbus on friday. they have told me the importance of passing a five-year farm bill. they especially emphasize the certainty finally of this bill that people can make the planning decisions that business people, -- planning and planting decisions that business people and farmers need. i have traveled across ohio's 88 counties and listened to farmers from minster to millersburg who have told me they want a leader, more efficient, market-oriented farm safety net. taxpayers deserve that, too. this bill is a reform bill. it eliminates direct payments. it links crop insurance to

conservation compliance. it has all important things in agriculture policy. ohio farmers are clear they wanted a farm bill that eliminated those direct payments and provided the risk management tools they needed when times are bad without the market-distorting policies that ensure farmers are planning for the program and not the market. unfortunately, that was happening far too often. in the last six or seven years in the senate leading up to the 2007-2008 farm bill on the 2014 -- 2013 and 2014 farm bill, if you will, i had roundtables with farmers and rural development people around my state. working with colleagues senator thune and senator durbin, we were able to streamline the farm safety net and make it more market oriented. it's the basis for the agricultural risk coverage program which was included in the commodity title by reforming commodity programs to better align with the market instead of simply sending out checks even when times are good.

in many cases to farmers who don't need them. this bill will provide farmers with improved risk management tools while improving the integrity of these programs. the bill incorporates many portions of the local farms, food and jobs act that i introduced. we know too many farmers struggle to find local products for their markets and too many ohioans struggle to access fresh and affordable food. this legislation helps to put them together. we know what -- we know what's happened in rural america in terms of development while agriculture prices have been such and farmers have been prosperous enough that while many in rural america are doing okay, rural development is still an issue as people move out of these communities looking for jobs. whether it's bringing broadband to southeast ohio or water and sewer project to henry county or low interest loan to buckeye power, this bill will make sure rural communities have the tools and the program and the capital they need.

my state's home to approximately 130 companies that use agricultural crops to make new products ranging from natural pet foods to biobased paint to soy ink to toner to plastics. last week, secretary vilsack and i toured a plastics factory where they are working to make more of their products with biobased feed stocks instead of oil. we know what that means for renewable energy in our state. we also know the importance of helping young farmers. you go to any farm organization meeting, farmers are typically in their 50's, 60's and 70's. we don't see enough in their 20's, 30's and 40's. in this legislation, we will help to recruit and train and retrain the next generation of farmers. that's part of this. usda needs to redouble its efforts, particularly in making capital available to ensure that new farmers are able to succeed. the bill streamlines usda's conservation programs. that is so important to the

western language eerie basin of the great lakes. we have seen what's happened with algae blooms sort of east of toledo along places like port clinton and sandusky and reaching as far east as lorain and the problems that causes to water quality and recreation and to development along the lake that's so important. the house wanted -- on the snap issue, the house wanted to slash food stamps by $40 billion. we fought back. our conference committee rejected every proposal passed by the house to cut off assistance to workers and their families who have fallen on very hard times. this legislation -- when you couple what some in this body want to do with cutting unemployment -- failing to extend unemployment insurance to failing to raise the minimum wage to cutting, making huge cuts in food stamp programs, this was a huge victory in our

conference committee. this bill needs to pass. i urge my colleagues to pass it and send it to president obama so he can sign this bill at the end of this week -- this week or the beginning of next week. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, it's my understanding that senator bennet is going to be due here shortly. i should be through by that time so i ask unanimous consent that i take senator cornyn's time, about 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president, in january of 2014 may go down in record as the coldest of the months in united states history. between the polar vortex storms of last we're freezing temperatures much of the nation experienced cold weather and records, at least once or twice. and this has been going on now for the last three years. so while we won't have official

nationwide temperature data for january for a few more weeks, we do have preliminary figures. throughout the entire month over 2,387 daily cold temperature records were set around opportunity, many of those were in my state of oklahoma. at least 49 of these daily records occurred on january 6 and 7 when the first round of the pole har vortex hit. polar vortex hit. yesterday in tulsa it went down to two below zero. that was a record breaker that had held since 1912 was the last time it got that cold. the same day in enid, oklahoma, down to minus three and bartlesville, maybe this is wrong but the figures show it was actually minus 14 making it even colder than the south pole where it was only minus 11. the cold weather is continuing into february. many schools canceled classes today around the state of

oklahoma because of the cold weather. it snowed more than two and a half inches in tulsa yesterday, 5.2 inches in lynettea just south of tulsa and yesterday it was so cold -- there's an article in the daily oklahoman that said -- they have a great zoo but the grizzly bears refused he refused to go outside of their habitat yesterday because it was too cold. many in the media cry foul when i talk about global warming when it gets cold outside but is this really any different than what the president said, was talking about global warming on a hot day in june last year when he announced his climate action plan. no one seemed to mind that but it seems to be a different set of rules when we talk about how cold it's been, which it's been for the last -- the last three years. when we experience extreme cold like the last few weeks, i think everyone in their right rite mind systems back and wonders is global warming really happening. when you look at the facts you

just have to wonder. consider this quote from the journal "nature" which stated over the last 15 years -- this is a quote -- the observed temperature trend is not significantly different from zero and suggests a temporary hiatus in global warming. we go back, and this is something that has been a pattern for a long period of time. i can recall and i'm going from memory now, from the time that they started keeping these temperatures, we started the first cold spell of recent history in 1895, that lasted to 1918, 1918 turned into another warming era, that went to 1945, 1945 to 1975 they -- again, they used -- that was another cooling spell and, of course, from 1975 to 2000. so we know what has been happening. now, the president has not

acknowledged this fact. in fact, on multiple occasions he has said -- this is a quote he's used over and over again -- the temperature -- the temperature around the global is increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago. unfortunately, for his talking points, the data has been reported in "nature" magazines, the economist and even in the united nations i.p.c.c. report show it's simply not true. two weeks ago in a hearing we had in the environment and public works committee, my friend senator sessions pressed the e.p.a. administrator, gina mccarthy on this point asking her whether or not the president's statement was true. and she ultimately said after running around the question for a few minutes i just can't answer that. and you may not think that this is important, but it is. the president's entire climate action plan and efforts to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouses is built on

that global warming is happening and we'll die if we don't do something about it. we need to be aware that the impact of the climate action plan when implemented will be stunning. it will completely adopt global warming policies and the implementation of regulations like cap-and-trade. the president has already done a stunning amount of this work already. we have been able to uncover that in the first four years that he was in office he actually had spent and people are not aware of this, $110 billion of taxpayers' money on the global warming-related activities. the cap-and-trade legislation that we debated for over the last ten years carries a price tag of $300 billion to $400 billion a year. it would have been the largest tax increase in american history. soundly defeated a bill in the senate but the climate action plan, the president is now trying to accomplish, is by

regulation what he couldn't achieve through legislation. you've heard the team used recently, the imperial president, and i think if you saw what was stated in the state of the union message was he's talking about, and these are the words he said, we're going to set new standards on carbon pollution from power plants. what he's saying is we soont pass it for 12 years, we had four bills to do that, can't get more than 25% of the people to vote for it, so we're going to do it through regulation. the first round of greenhouse regulations were first proposed in the first week in january. these regulations if finalized would impose strict regulations on now power plants that would make it impossible to 3weu8d a coal-fired power plant. and you may wonder do we really need coal anymore with all the new energy we have coming on the market? with the natural gas and the shale deposits and all that. the answer is yes. before i go into that

discussion, i think it's important to point out a problem with the timing of the new rules proposal. i have a chart here that i don't have with me right now but when i was ranking member of the environment and public works committee, this would have been way back in october of 2012, we released a report highlighting the administration's actions to delay the finalization of costly environmental regulations until after the 2012 presidential elections. whether it was the farm dust rule or the ozone standard, the president punted the regulation after regulation until after the election and -- to minimize the influence on voters. it appears that's exactly what's happening today with the first round of greenhouse regulations for the construction of new power plants as we know, under the clean air act, new rules for power plants must be

finalized within one year of the proposal's publication in the federal register. that's what kicks it off, when it's written in the federal register. or the proposal proposed rule is invalidated. this is important because after announcing his climate action plan the president ordered the e.p.a. to -- quote -- "issue a new proposal by no later than september 20, 2013. the e.p.a. proposed a new rule on september 20 but it did not publish in the federal register until january 8 of 2014. this past january. now, had the e.p.a. published this rule in the register on the same day proposed it on september 20 of 2014, it -- 2013, it would have been forced to finalize the rule by september 20, 2014 which would be six weeks before the 2014 elections. now, this reveals an astounding double standard and is consistent with the remarks at

the state of the union. on the one hand the president says we don't have time to delay action on global warming, we must act before it's too late but on the other hand it's okay to wait to finalize rules that will harm the economy until after the elections. ultimately this hypocrisy repeals that the administration is fully aware that the e.p.a.'s greenhouse regulations will put a drag on the economy and we're starting to see strains of our elect markets, the cost is becoming real to consumers. consider american electric power, one of the country's largest electric companies and they're the ones who supply the power for my state of oklahoma. last week during the recent cold weather they reported that they were running 89% of the coal generation it's scheduled to retire in 2015. but these coal-fired power

plants which are critical to keeping homes warm during cold temperatures are going to be shut down because of obama's environmental regulations. the american electric power said -- this is a quote -- he said what it should make -- what it should make everyone think about is what are we going to do when the generation is not available. we need to be thinking about reliability and resilience in extreme extreme times, not just the status quo. if this recent cold weather occurs in a year or two from now once these plants are shut down there will not being enough electricity available to keep homes and businesses warm. if cold weather pushes electricity demand up to the point where remaining power plants are overloaded, the ones that haven't been shut down by the president, it could result in massive blackouts and when americans need their electricity, it won't be there. it would be as if we were living in the 1600's and everyone would

be cold. again, the annual cost of this would be in excess of $300 billion to $400 billion that would be a hid on the gfd and not even begin to measure this effort -- g.d.p. and mr that we would be able to experience. the president like with obamacare may say the plants can stay open and won't enforce these rules he's created. but i don't think that's realistic. the american electric powers warning comes in the wake of regulations the president has already finalized. the new ones that are being developed will make things even worse by making coal-fired power plants impossible to build or keep open. what has been a steady source of cheap electricity will be gone in a few short years. i've long said that the clean air act was never intended to regulate greenhouse gases emissions, only ire

pollutants, not carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. even some democrats are starting to publicly agree with me. congressman john dingell from michigan, a staunch democrat said last week at an energy and commerce committee in the house --this is a quote from john dingell -- like most members of this committee i think the supreme court came up with a very much erroneous decision on whether the clean air act covers greenhouse gases. like many members of this committee --this is john dingell talking -- i was wrent prent when we wrote that legislation and we thought it was clear enough that we didn't have to clarify it. thinking that even the supreme court was not stupid enough to make that finding. that was john dingell. that's a direct quote that he made. so i wish the supreme court would have sided with congressman dingell as things stand the e.p.a. is poised to put the nation out of business with greenhouse gas regulations that would cost the entire

economy some $300 billion to $400 billion. you know, i put that -- i always calculate every year the number of people in my state of oklahoma that file federal income taxes. this $300 billion to $400 billion cost would mean about $3,000 for a -- per family family that files a federal income tax. it would be the largest tax increase in history. out of this concern i'm introducing a commonsense bill today, the electricity reliability and affordable care act act which will allow states to keep their power plants open if they believe it's necessary to maintain electricity reliability and affordability. in other words, the states can opt out. the american electric powers announcement should cause all of us a great concern but the e.p.a.'s not listening. states have long protected and conserved their environments

with great success, and state governments are in a much better position to determine which power plants should and should not remain open despite the regulations. the last thing i would say because i know my friend from colorado is is wanting to get the floor, is that in the state of the union message when he made the statement, the president made the statement he's going to go ahead and do it regardless of the fact that we have killed this legislation four times over the last 12 years, and i was talking about $300 billion to $400 billion is the cost. that would have been the cost if this has been legislation because legislation specifically talked about, as in the lieberman-warner act and some of the others that it would regulate source wes at least $10,000 tons of co2 emissions. however, if you do it by regulation and not legislation that would have to be under the clean air act which would

regulate systems of 250 tons of co2 a year. so while the legislation would have regulated the co2 emissions for power plants, refineries, and major factories, if he's able to do it through regulations, that would cover every school, every church, and every apartment house in the nation. so it's very significant and i know right now we're on the farm bill but we've got to remind people that this is something that has been just announced that they're going to be doing and this is something by their own admission will wind up with this, i can remember when lisa jackson was the director of the e.p.a. she was appointed by president obama and i asked her the question that if we even do this, if we were to regulate this -- and one of these bills would pass, which would mean we'd be regulating co2 emissions, would this have the effect of reducing co2 worldwide? she said no, because that would

only aplay to the united states of america. that's not where the problem is. the problem is in india, china, mexico and other places. so i remind us -- my fellow members that this is something that's very serious that's going to be -- that's worthy of consideration at this time. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i would like to talk today briefly about the farm bill, a measure that, thanks to months and months, actually years of tireless work by chairman -- chairwoman stabenow, ranking member cochran, and the other conferees on the bill, democrats and republicans in both houses of congress, thanks to all of that work we're going to be able to pass this bill this afternoon. there's 16 million people, mr. president, working in agriculture in our country today. these workers in our rural communities are demanding the certainty that comes with a long-term bill, and i'll pleased

to say that we are patchin passa two-month extension, not a 10-minute extension, not a "i hope we get it done tomorrow before we leave tomorrow" sterntion but extension, but a e extension. this bill guarantees direct payments to farmers and friers what is working for producers, namely crop insurance. i've spoken about colorado's battle against historic drought conditionsment some oconditions. some of our farmers have lost half their corn yields in 2012. it's hard to imagine any business losing half its production in one year, but that's what's happened to many colorado corn producers. 2013 was a little better for corn in our state, but it's hard to celebrate when producers still face significant losses

fighting against this dry soil. the crop insurance program is what's keeping these farmers and rural economies in business in these tough times, and that's why it's a priority. that's why we should have passed it a year ago, two years ago. but today we finally have the chance to do it. beyond crop insurance, another key highlight of this bill is its conservation title. i spoke last week on the floor about the revamped easement programs and important linkage between conservation practices and crop insurance that has been preserved in this conference agreement. beyond those highlights, the bill places a new emphasis on water conservation, which is so important to the west. programs like equip and the regional partnership program are going to be critical as the west faces record drought conditions brought on by climate change. new conservation tools coupled with crop insurance to help hedge risk will help our producers as we move into a new normal of a drier american west.

the conservation title programs help producers, but they also help the fish in our rivers and the wildlife on our lands. here's a good illustration, mr. president -- here's a great illustration of why sportsmen groups support this bill. this is a photo taken of my friend john gale hunting if he is sons in yuma county, colorado. c.r.p., a program reauthorized through this farm bill, provides important habitat for pheasants and other upland birds all across the country. the land sur land surrounding to is all c.r.p. land. the program helps highly erodible soils in place, like the soil in bacca county, colorado, where over 250,000 acres are enrolled in c.r.p. as you may know, becket county was the epicenter of the dust

bowl in the 1930's. mr. president, healthy grasslands, hope landscapes, and abundant wildlife are a fundamental part of what it is to be in the west, to be a part of the west. and we need to preserve those grasslands, those open spaces, and our species. and that's what the conservation title of the farm bill does. a lot of people don't know about it. it is a very important part of the farm bill. as a result, this farm bill is supported by over 250 conservation and environmental organizations, groups like ducks unlimited, pheasants forever, national wildlife federation, rocky mountain elk foundation, and the national rifle association, among others. mr. president, this legislation not only ensures that we have healthy croplands and grasslands but also prioritizes the health of our forests, an issue of huge

importance to western states as we deal with our massive wildfires. here you can see the waldo canyon fire from 2012. i chair the agriculture subcommittee on forest century, and we did a hearing on wildfires not too long ago. we looked at the terrible fires that have raged across the west and the budgetary nightmare that they have caused and washington's inability to understand what we're actually facing out there. my clearest takeaway from this hearing is that when it comes to our forests, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. we prioritized the fuel mitigation work on the front end, we will save on fire suppression and recovery costs on the back end. and if we don't, we will break our budget and not preserve our forests. the congressional budget office has found that for every $1 we

invest in fortunat forest healte $5 in costs asoshte costs assoch wildfires. this gives the forest service new tools to treat areas in need of restoration and mitigation. this bill makes commonsense reforms, mr. president. this bill reduces the deficit. and it will bring certainty and continued prosperity to rural america. it passed the house last week with broad, bipartisan support. i strongly urge a "yes" vote when we get on to the farm bill conference report later today. with all the uncertainty that our farmers and ranchers are facing in these tough times, in these drought times, it's the least that we can do. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague and friend from colorado for his

words about the farm bill. he and i are an example of how this bill is important to every region of the country. his kind of farm something very different than our kind of farming, but they are a equally important -- but they're equally important to our states. i rise today to talk about the farm bill. mr. president, this bill is a long time in coming. there's been back and forth between the chambers, the two chambers, the house and senate, between various regions and probably most fam famously, souh versus southwest farming. it may be sugar or milk or soybeans or corn or who knows what it is going to be, but nonetheless, mr. president, i'm happy to report that finally this bill overcame the partisan gridlock we've seen here in washington. i'm sorry it took so long. i know that last year the house

basically blew up this bill on kind of the basis of my way or the highway politics. i thought that was very, very unfortunate. but here we are today with a bipartisan farm bill, one that got a huge vote in the house and i hope it'll get a huge vote in the senate. and i'm glad that this cut, cut, cut ideology did not prevail, because when you look at this bill and how important it is -- not just to my state but to every state in the union -- so important to the u.s. economy, this bill is very important to the nation's economy and to the future of our nation. agriculture is something, mr. president, that we do in this country better than anybody else in the world. we do a lot of things great in this country and we should be proud of those. but no one does agriculture better than the good ol' united states of america. our farmers, our producers, our agribusiness, they do incredible work. we literally are the envy of the world. it is a core strength of the

u.s. economy. it is critical to keep our nation's economy strong that we have a strong agriculture sector. it is crit krall t critical to n that we have strong rural communities bu and that is a lot of what this bill is about is helping rural communities. not everyone in this country lives in the big cities or lives in the suburbs. this bill will help every american, no matter where they live, whether in the biggest city in the country or the smallest town out in the countryside. this will help every single american in lots of ways. but it will also help millions and millions of hardworking people and their families in rural america. and why in the world would we want to let ideological fights and partisan bickering jeopardize this economic powerhouse that we've built for ourselves? but, nonetheless, today we've overcome that.

this legislation is a win-win for everyone. we've seen democrats and republicans, folks from all regions of the country come to the floor to talk about this farm bill and why it is important to thep an to them ans important that we pass it. there's market prediction proter our farmers and ranchers. the pilt program that is so critical to a lot of western states but a lot of counties in arkansas, there is the payment in lou of taxes. many we have counties where nearly half of their land or more is in federal land and they can't get any tax base off of that. so pilt helps to fix that. the catfish inspection program -- we don't subsidize catfish, but we do the inspection program here to make sure that the imported catfish meets u.s. standards. that's critical. we want that safe and good food supply here. there's a big emphasis here, mr. president, on exports the

and we all know that we have a terrible trade deficit. our trade deficit would be horrendous if if wasn't for agriculture. and of course there's nutritional assistance for hardworking families here in this country. and let me tell you, we have the richest, most bountiful, most blessed nation in the world, in the history of the world. and we have people here who are hungry, and those nutrition programs in many cases are the difference between life and death. this bill also focuses on conservation. not everyone is a farmer. but there are lots -- there are millions of people all over this country that love to enjoy the great outdoors. they like to go hunting, fishing, and all these other activities. those conservation programs are critical to keep that habitat where it is and critical for large sections of our economy. that hunting and fishing, that's a huge part of our economy, not just in arkansas but all over the country. and a couple of other things. the rural development programs are essential for rural america.

we know that there's everything from waste water programs in there to rural housing to all kinds of things. but those rural development programs are critical for the quality of life in rural america. mr. president, i stand here today, and i won't be the first to till, this bill isn't perfect. i think all of us agree that this is a series of compromises. there's probably things that each one of us could change if we could change a provision in the bill. but it is a good bill. it is going to provide and stablize good jobs and economic disiewrsecurity four for our co. our agriculture producers not only feed us and clothe us, but they feed and clothe the world. and we hear every day in the united states senate from the business community. they want more stability. this bill provides that in the agriculture economy. our farmers and our producers

and others, they deserve that same certainty and stability and this bill provides that. mr. president, in closing, i just want to do a quick passage from james 5:7. i will go ahead and read it in this kind of paraphrased editi edition. "be pisht my brothers. see how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth. being patient until it receives the early and late rains." our agriculture producers have been patient long enough. they have a waited and waited and waited on this legislation. i sincerely hope that all of us will give this bill strong consideration. this is a bill that's provided good common ground. it provides economic security. it continues the safe and abundant food supply that we have in this nation, and i hope that members of both sides of the aisle will join me in voting "yes" for this today. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i, too, rise today to speak on the farm bill. like many nebraskans, i am relieved in a final conference agreement has been reached which will provide much-needed certainty for both producers and consumers. this legislation accomplishes a great deal. it provides risk management and disaster assistance programs. it promotes environmental stewardship. it bolsters export opportunities. it encourages rural development, advances research, helps beginning farmers and ranchers, and delivers nutrition assistance to our needy families. while the bill is not perfect, it is the result of compromise and a long collaborative legislative process. one of the most challenging issues for lawmakers was addressing nutrition assistance programs.

that compromises 80% of the farm bill's total spending. with one in every seven americans receiving supplemental nutrition assistance, it is important to strengthen the program's integrity and its accountability while better targeting programs to serve those in need. i'm also pleased that the bill empowers states to help capable adults enroll in work programs to reduce reliance on taxpayer assistance. the bill provides tools to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, including cracking down on trafficking through data mining, terminal i.d. and other measures. while these are all steps in the right direction, it is disappointing that the bill will not achieve additional savings from nutrition programs which are projected to cost more than

$756 billion over the next decade. true farm programs, the commodity programs and crop insurance only compromise about 14% of all the farm bill spending. but they account for more than half of the savings under this proposed bill. in fact, the commodity title contributes more savings than any other title in the entire farm bill. the legislation makes significant reforms to farm policy. direct payments are repealed and replaced with risk management. that offers protection only when warranted by significant price or revenue declines. in nebraska, agriculture is our number-one industry and it's one that we are very, very proud of. our farmers and ranchers take on an enormous amount of risk.

they endure the elements every day as they work to feed the world and responsibly take care of our natural resources. i'm pleased that this farm bill maintains and strengthens one of the most important risk management tools for our farmers, and that is crop insurance. this is a very successful public-private partnership that helps farmers invest in their own risk management by purchasing insurance policies so they are protected from adverse weather or market conditions. this legislation also provides needed disaster assistance to livestock producers. unfortunately, the livestock forage program and livestock indemnity program both expired in 2011 under the last farm bill. in 2012, livestock producers experienced the most devastating loss of pasture, rangeland and

forage in decades due to widespread drought, affecting approximately 80% of our country. and then in october of 2013, an unexpected early fall blizzard killed more than 20,000 cattle, sheep, horses and bison in the dakotas and in my state of nebraska. while those acted by these hardships have been without assistance for more than two years, this farm bill will now help producers to rebuild those herds and sustain their ranching operations. i also appreciate that this farm bill continues our commitment to strong conservation programs. the bill consolidates and it streamlines those programs, providing landowners with incentives and assistance to protect and improve our land,

our water and our air. agriculture continues to be a bright spot for u.s. trade, thanks in part to the successful export promotion programs, and those are reauthorized in this bill as well. an independent study conducted for usda in 2010 found that for every dollar expended by government and industry on market development, u.s. food and agricultural exports increased by $35. through the market access program and foreign market development program, we can expect increased demand for u.s.-grown agricultural products and commodities. this farm bill also continues development in rural development -- continues investment in rural development, providing assistance to communities to build that very,

very critical infrastructure and access to credit to help grow small businesses. also supported by this farm bill are critical agricultural research initiatives which allow american producers to innovate, to become more efficient and productive with fewer and fewer resources. moreover, the bill also provides support for developing technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil. finally, this bill provides some needed regulatory relief for the agricultural industry. i was very pleased that the bill includes an amendment that i offered to fix bureaucratic hurdles impacting farmers' access to seeds. this bipartisan amendment cosponsored by senator carper ensures that e.p.a. does not treat biotech seeds as pesticides when those shipments

are imported. i was disappointed, though, that the conference did not include language to address one of the worst regulatory challenges confronting farmers. e.p.a.'s overregulation of on-farm fuel storage under its spill prevention control and countermeasure program. the house farm bill included nspc relief provision and the senate unanimously passed a similar amendment that i cosponsored to reduce farmers spcc compliance burdens during consideration of the water resources development act. there's bipartisan agreement on both sides of the dome that this regulation needs to be fixed. the farm bill did provide, i think, the perfect opportunity that we could get this relief

enacted into law, but that chance was missed. however, i do stand ready to work with my colleagues to ensure that we don't miss another opportunity to address this issue, to fix this issue. and we can do that during the wrda conference. as i said, this bill is not perfect, but on balance this farm bill goes a long way in promoting opportunity and providing certainty for both producers and consumers. i encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the final passage of the farm bill. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i come to the floor for the third time to express my opposition to the farm bill, obviously not in its

tow tow but certain -- not in its toto but certain provisions of it, particularly provisions that i had a hand in writing, and to set the record straight once again. i come here because several of my colleagues have approached me indicating confusion on whether the payment limits provisions i fought for are in this bill or not in this bill. well, people are going to tell you there are payment limitations in this bill, but i'm here to set the record straight with facts that they don't accomplish what i tried to accomplish, and they're even much more liberal than in existing law in regard to my amendment. my original payment limit provisions included a $50,000

individual, $100,000 married couple cap for shallow loss programs known as price loss coverage, p.l.c., and agricultural risk coverage, a.r.c., programs. in this bill, farmers will have to pick one of those programs for the next five years. the conference report allows individual farmers to get $125,000 and married couples to get $250,000 from the p.l.c. and the a.r.c. program. now, this is where this has really exploded because what i just gave you is a 150% increase

over what my limits allowed, the limits that passed the senate without discussion and limits in the house of representatives on a 300 -- no, 230-194 vote. that is just a plain simple fact. 100% -- 150% increase over what my limits allowed. the conference report allows the p.l.c. and a.r.c. programs to pay out 150% more than my limits did. this intentional change by the conference committee allows each farmer to get significantly more from these new countercyclical programs that are not even world trade organization, or as we say around here, w.t.o. compliant. another way of looking at this, under the 2008 farm bill, an individual farmer could only get

$65,000 from the countercyclical program. under this bill, they can get $125,000 from the countercyclical program. that means they almost doubled what the countercyclical programs will pay out compared to current law. furthermore, some university analysis has already shown the high target prices for certain crops in this bill will likely have a 70% to 80% chance of triggering payments through the p.l.c. program any given year of this farm bill. so, colleagues, please don't buy what my opponents are selling on this issue, or at least trying to sell to you. my payment limits are not in this bill.

the result of that is going to be a countercyclical program that will be much more market distorted than the current ones for a few crops. how can it be -- how can it not be more distorting? the p.l.c. program is designed to trigger more often and pay out larger amounts than the old countercyclical program for certain crops in the 2008 farm bill. that is just a plain simple fact. i'm sorry if opponents are having a tough time acknowledging that publicly, but that is what this bill actually does. their bill does lots of things, but brilliantly reforming title 1 is not one of them. and i'm sure we've been told that this bill reforms. it's like some of the opponents

of payment limits still think that this is 1975 or some year back then. back then the national debt was still measured in billions and the w.t.o. didn't even exist. unfortunately for them, things are very different today. recently the w.t.o. declared our cotton program noncompliant, and we happen to have a $17 trillion national debt. but worse than this, ladies and gentlemen, is the fact that these amendments were adopted on the floor of the united states senate. they were adopted in the house of representatives by a 3 -- or a 230-194 vote. they should not even have been subject to negotiations. the moral authority of the people of the united states were behind what both houses did because we have a $17 trillion

national debt. we ought to be able to save these $387 billion -- or $387 million that this amendment would have saved. it had the mortgage authority of 0 majority of the house and senate, which moral authority should not have been overridden bay handful of people sitting in conference. and i stress this latter point for one simple reason: rule 28 of the united states senate says that if things are the same in both houses, they should not be conferencable. i say this to my friends, not that this bill is going to go down to defeat and we start over again and maybe accomplish what i want to accomplish but to make sure that other conferences don't abuse the senate rule like this confere