Jerry Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, we talk about plans and budgets. The reality is these bigger concepts that we discuss in our Nation's capital have real consequences on the everyday lives of Americans. I spoke a few weeks ago to a Rotary club in Junction City, KS, and the local CPA was in the audience. We got to questions and answers, and he said: Senator, I have a question for you. This is a softball. What is the estate tax rate going to be next year? It is embarrassing not to be able to answer the simple questions about what is going to happen in people's lives. People are having to make decisions. That certified public accountant, that lawyer, that financial planner needs to be able to explain to that farmer in Kansas, to that rancher, to that small business owner what the Tax Code is going to look like. We are facing a point in time in which we have no opportunities to tell someone what the Tax Code is going to be in 3 months. That is embarrassing. When people ask me what is necessary to get Washington, DC, to work together for us to solve the country's problems and move forward, the answer is we desperately need leadership, someone who shows us the way, encourages us to come together. It has been lacking. It is embarrassing to me for the nearly 2 years I have been a Member of the Senate not to see that leadership exhibited in the United States of America.

Mr. MORAN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. MORAN. Back home in Kansas, we are spending our time down on our knees and then looking up to the sky. We are praying and hoping for rain. Our State, along with much of the country, is in a very serious drought. Crops are dying. Cattle are hungry and are being sold off and water is in scarce supply. Every county in Kansas, all 105, have now been declared disaster communities. Half of the continental United States is in the worst drought since 1956, and the situation is expected only to get worse. In this photograph, my friend Ken Grecian from Palco, KS--it is a little town in northwest Kansas--is pictured here with dry grass and hungry cattle. Over the past few weeks, Ken has had to reduce his herd at lower prices than before because there is not enough feed to feed the cattle. Ken is similar to many producers who have been diligently building their herds of cattle over many years and are now seeing those cattle sold due to the drought, undermining their efforts, year after year, to develop a herd. Paul and Tommie Westfahl from Haven, KS, just a little bit north and west of Wichita, and their two daughters Jenna and Raegan are pictured standing next to their failed crops. South central Kansas has been hard hit this year by the drought. The corn on the right never got above chest high and dried up months before it was time to harvest. Paul swathed and will soon bale his failed beans on the left of the photo and try to save some of that for feed for cattle this winter. Hard times are there and they are not over. The United States has a long history of drought and recovery. From the Dust Bowl to today, we have faced periods of drought. The thirties were often called the worst of hard times. Don Hartwell, a farmer on the Kansas and Nebraska border, captured how hard it was when he wrote this in his diary on May 21, 1936: 15 years ago, the Republican River bottom was a vast expanse of alfa and corn fields. Now, it is practically a desert of wasted, shifting sand, washed-out ditches, cockle burs, and devastation. I doubt very much if it ever can be reclaimed. A few weeks later he wrote in his diary, ``I wonder where we will be a year from now?'' In the 1930s, folks were faced with severe drought which resulted in the Dust Bowl. People were forced to abandon their farms and ranches and give up the only way of life they knew. Crops, livestock, and livelihoods vanished with the dust. They were unimaginable times. Thankfully, those unimaginable times passed and the rains came and the Republican River bottom was reclaimed. This happened with the help of the good Lord and by individual efforts by those who refused to give in to those bad times, to give in to nature. If we look at the drought now and compare it to that of the 1930s, we will notice a huge difference. There is no Dust Bowl. The programs and conservation management tools that were used have worked. The forward-thinking American farmers and ranchers, the landowners who adopted new land and livestock management practices have made conservation the most effective drought mitigation effort available today. But conservation programs are in danger. While many conservation practices can be planned and executed by individual farmers and ranchers, certain programs administered by the Department of Agriculture deserve our attention so these important initiatives do not expire on September 30. In just about 60 days, farm programs will expire, and that means more uncertainty, compounding an already disastrous drought situation. Right now, farmers and ranchers are wondering the same thing Don Hartwell wondered in 1936: Where am I going to be 1 year from now? As Congress debates the future of domestic agricultural policy, it is critical risk mitigation tools are included for farmers and ranchers. Most important among these tools is crop insurance. With the absence of direct payments in both the House and Senate versions of a new farm bill, crop insurance is and will remain the last protective tool available to those producers. Viable crop insurance ensures that a farm operation can survive difficult times, when there is drought or hail or flood, in hopes that they can experience a successful yield the following year. Farmers always have hope: Tough times now? Come back next year. But crop insurance, as valuable as it is, does not cover all the problems agriculture producers face, and particularly livestock producers are not usually generally eligible for crop insurance coverage. These producers require risk mitigation and a safety net just like producers covered by crop insurance. Disaster programs for livestock, along with crop insurance for cultivation agriculture, give producers the security they need to plan and invest for the future. Currently, ranchers and cattlemen are left with few disaster programs. The 2008 farm bill disaster farm programs expired this year, leaving producers across our drought-stricken country with less protection from Mother Nature. These programs are an important safety net for farmers and ranchers. Farmers and ranchers such as Ken and Paul deserve to know what the future of these programs will be. We should not expect producers to plant crops or to buy and sell livestock if they do not know what the rules are. Putting these programs back in place and ensuring a sound safety net is vital for drought recovery, continued conservation work, and for the affordable food supply for the people of our country. Kansas farmers and ranchers should not have to keep guessing. It is too important to their families, their industry, and their Nation for more delay. We must give agricultural producers the long-term certainty and support they deserve. While we wait for Washington, we will continue to hope and pray. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, just to conclude my remarks, I would indicate that my family and I will be eating more beef, not less. I would urge Americans to respond in that way. It is an opportunity for us to support the cattlemen and the livestock producers of our country at a time when they are selling their herds because the drought is so severe that there is no grass and no feed to feed the cattle. As a result, the market is depressed and prices are lower because there are so many sales occurring. We can help our livestock producers, our farm and ranch families in the country, by having a hamburger or steak. Let's go back to that traditional American meal of ``let's eat beef.'' The front of my truck at home says ``Eat Beef,'' and I would encourage Kansans and Americans to do so at this time when our livestock producers, due to the drought, are struggling so greatly. I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN. Madam President, yesterday I was on the Senate floor, and I had the opportunity to highlight a development at the Department of Agriculture. We learned yesterday afternoon that the Department of Agriculture, in an employee newsletter, was promoting something called Meatless Mondays. The Department of Agriculture newsletter offered encouragement for its employees and I assume others who might see the newsletter--even tourists who visit Washington, DC, and eat at the Department of Agriculture cafeteria--to participate in Meatless Monday. It indicates the desirability of reducing the consumption of meat and dairy products. I found that very startling and surprising. Never in my life would I expect the Department of Agriculture, which I always presumed is the farmers' and ranchers' friend, to be promoting the idea that it is a bad idea to eat the products of farms and ranches across Kansas and our Nation. Yet that is what we saw and read yesterday. The Department of Agriculture newsletter said that ``beef production requires a lot of water, fertilizer, fossil fuels, and pesticides. In addition, there are many health concerns related to excessive consumption of meat.'' Those are the words of the Department of Agriculture newsletter. I am pleased to report that in asking Secretary Vilsack to reconsider what the Department had said and was promoting, they have done that and they have apparently removed the promotion from their newsletter and from their Web site. That is a positive development, and so I appreciate that happening. It is amazing to me, unfortunately, that this is just one of many circumstances in which we see administration agencies and departments on the side of something that those of us who believe strongly in traditional family agriculture across the country believe is very important. One would expect in this case that the Department of Agriculture would promote the consumption of meat. In fact, within the Department of Agriculture, we have the Secretary saying in his mission statement that he is about increasing and expanding domestic and foreign markets for beef and meat products. We have the U.S. beef board, organized and monitored by the Department of Agriculture, whose job it is to promote agricultural products. Many of us in Congress try to encourage the sale of agricultural products, particularly meat and beef products, to South Korea and China. We have debated on the Senate floor the value of trade agreements, most recently with Colombia, South Korea, and Panama, because we believe in the opportunity for American producers to sell their products around the globe. Yet we saw at least some at USDA who have the view that we need to discourage the consumption of meat for environmental and health reasons. Particularly troublesome is the fact that the Department of Agriculture was citing the United Nations as a reason that we ought to discourage the consumption of beef for environmental reasons. Our Department of Agriculture positions ought to be based upon sound science, not some U.N. study. Beef is an important and vital component of the Kansas economy. We are the second largest beef-producing State in the country. The economic impact to our country is around $44 billion. Beef exports in 2011 were over $4.08 billion. This matters to us greatly. This is happening at a time in which to the cattle producers across the Midwest, including in the State of the President today, the drought is so damaging. It is also happening at a time in which we have been having the debate about the farm bill. My farmers in Kansas will often say: I know we need to do something about reducing spending. We have to get the deficit under control. In fact, the farm bill we passed in the Senate has a reduction in the farm bill spending of $23 billion. No one likes to see something that is important to them go away, but if this farm bill becomes legislation and direct payments leave, the safety net for producers across our country will be less. Yet farmers and ranchers say: We have a responsibility as American citizens to give these things up, to reduce the spending that comes our way, but please don't do anything that is damaging to us as far as our ability to earn a living in the free market, in the real world. So when we see something like this from the Department of Agriculture discouraging the use of meat products--and, again, at a time in which the temperatures across my State have been over 100 degrees for more than a month. We had a record high of 118 degrees. Perhaps that is a record high on the globe. It certainly is in the United States. In Norton, KS, it was 118 degrees. Rain is so scarce, we spend a lot of time in our State down on our knees praying for moisture and we spend a lot of time looking up to the skies hoping for moisture. We need to make sure that what we do in this Congress and what the Obama administration does is not something that diminishes the chances for the survival of family farms in the United States, certainly at home in Kansas and around rural America. If this was just an isolated instance, perhaps the point has been made and the words have been withdrawn, but I remember we started a year ago with a Department of Labor that concluded that we need to regulate the use of 14- and 15-year-olds on family farms. That was a real misunderstanding of how production agriculture and family farms work. Agriculture is a family operation, and yet we had the Department of Labor suggesting that someone 15 years old should perhaps not be able to work on their own family's farm. I remember just 6 months or so ago, I was on the Senate floor worried about a Department of Agriculture forum on animal safety that was being organized by the Humane Society. Again, my farmers and ranchers would say--particularly in a time of drought and where the safety net provided by the farm bill is going to become less--please don't do anything that is harmful to us, that reduces the chance for us to succeed. In this regulatory environment in which we find ourselves, we need to take the steps that promote agriculture, not do things that diminish the opportunity for a farmer or rancher to earn a living in the free market. Yesterday we had a debate about estate taxes and the consequences to family agriculture across the country, and again, at a time in which the drought is so prevalent, circumstances so difficult, the Tax Code matters greatly and the ability to pass a family farm from one generation to the next is critical. It is so much about agriculture in States such as mine that when our farmers and ranchers don't succeed, the success of the communities in which they live and raise their kids greatly diminishes. This is a way of life for us, and we need to make certain we have a Department of Agriculture that is promoting our farmers and ranchers and their success. I was on the Senate floor yesterday with the Senator from Wyoming. We had a conversation about the drought, the estate taxes, and the farm bill. I am interested if the Senator from Wyoming has any further thoughts. I know he is a leader in the Western Caucus. As Members of the Senate, we are in the process of writing Secretary Vilsack in regard to the promotion of Meatless Monday. There are those who have a different view about what their menus should be and what they want to see on the menu, and that is fine with me. That is a personal decision. But the Department of Agriculture ought to be supportive of the people who produce the food, fiber, and energy for our country each and every day. They get up at sunrise and go to bed after sunset because they are out there trying to make a living on family farms across the country. I yield for the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. MORAN. Madame President, I ask that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I may speak as in morning business.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senator from North Dakota joined us, because I think he made a very valid point, something I should have explained better. It is not just the fear of having to pay more taxes, but it is the reality you don't have the income to pay the tax, therefore requiring the sale of the assets--the sale of the farm machinery and equipment, the sale of the land, the sale of the cattle. While no one wants to pay more taxes, in this case it is even more onerous in that you have value to assets. You have some wealth in the land and the equipment and the cattle, but never the sufficient income to pay the tax. Therefore, the sale of those assets is required to pay the tax man; and, therefore, you don't have those assets I was talking about earlier to pass on to your children and grandchildren. This is not just about: I already pay enough taxes; I don't want to pay any more; I can't afford any more. This is the reality: I don't have the ability at all to come up with the income, unless, as the Senator from North Dakota says, I go to the bank and borrow the money. But then I don't have the cashflow to repay the loan, and therefore I sell the property. This comes at a time when many Kansans--farmers and others--would complain about how business and agriculture keep getting bigger and bigger. The reality is we would love to have those farming operations, that family-sized farming scale that is so important to the cultural and economic vitality of communities across Kansas and across America. But because we have laws such as the estate tax, we sell those assets to bigger entities that can better afford it, and we reduce the number of family farms that most of us believe are so important to who we are as Americans, and certainly so important to the economy and the cultural nature of rural America. I have heard the discussion here on the floor today about the farm bill. I know my colleagues, the Senator from South Dakota and the Senator from North Dakota, have encouraged passage of a farm bill by the entire Congress. But this farm bill, let me remind you, is a reduction in farm bill spending only on the side of production agriculture, of family farms across Kansas--a reduction in the amount of money available under the farm bill of $23 billion. Farmers in Kansas tell me they are willing to take their so-called hit to help reduce the country's fiscal condition. We are willing to take the $23 billion out of farm programs, but don't do other things to us that eliminate or reduce our ability to earn a living. So here comes Congress, a few weeks after we pass a farm bill reducing the amount of money available for farm programs by $23 billion, saying, Oh, let's do something else damaging to agriculture, to farmers and ranchers. Let's impose an estate tax in which the threshold is $1 million and the marginal rate is 55 percent. So it goes back, contrary to what farmers say, which is: We will take our hit; we will contribute to getting this country's fiscal house back in order, but let us have the opportunity under a free enterprise system to succeed. And now we have one more handicap, one more hurdle to accomplishing that. I was on the Senate floor yesterday talking about this issue and particularly talking about a tax system. We need dramatic reform in our Tax Code. The idea that we would be extending the current tax law for the foreseeable future, this Congress, this President ought to be serious about scrapping the Tax Code and starting over with something much different. I spoke yesterday in favor of the fair tax. But regardless of what the conclusion is, we ought to have a simpler, fairer, more understandable Tax Code. We ought to have the circumstance in which most taxpayers don't have to seek professional advice to figure out what it is they owe or to spend their whole time as a farmer or rancher or a business person trying to figure out, What do I do today that will have a positive or negative consequence upon the tax bill at the end of the year? We Americans spend a huge amount of time and a significant amount of money in which we pay professionals to advise us how to avoid paying taxes. We desperately need a whole new Tax Code that is fairer, simpler, much more straightforward and understandable, so that we spend our time growing the economy, as compared to spending our time trying to figure out how to manipulate the Tax Code and, in the process, lose our individual liberties and freedoms because we are all about trying to make certain that we comply with the Tax Code as compared to determining what is in the best interest of us as citizens, us as individuals, as family members, and us as business owners. So while it is important that we point out the onerous nature of the estate tax and what is about to happen here in a vote in about an hour, we ought to remind ourselves that there is a much more important goal than this Congress and this President have been willing to address, and that is, scrap this Code and get something that makes sense to the American people that is understandable, affordable, and that pays the necessary amounts to fund those programs required for us to be a successful country. I yield for the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Indiana for yielding. Yesterday, in Norton, KS, the temperature was 118. I read the story where they just watched the thermometer go up degree by degree, and it has now been more than a month in which the temperatures in our State have exceeded 100 degrees. Certainly, it has been more than a month in which we have had little or no rainfall in most places across the State. The drought is real, and it puts people in a different mood. There is always optimism on a farm, optimism on a ranch. My small business men and women in Kansas are optimistic that when they get up and go to work every day, it will be a better day at the end of the day, and tomorrow will be better than today, and next month will be better than this month. I can tell you, with the weather pattern we have had in the Midwest this summer the optimism begins to disappear. Today we have come to learn just one more thing that is now going to be oppressive to farmers and ranchers and small business men and women in Kansas and across the country. We started this year with a discussion about something the Department of Labor did--the proposed rules to prohibit restricting a young person from working on a family farm. We have had a series of regulations from the EPA and others that make it so difficult for a small businessperson or a farmer to succeed. Now we learn today the proposal that we are going to revert back to days gone by in which a $1 million estate will be subject to a marginal tax rate of 55 percent. It has been a series of things in the last year from this administration and this Congress that send a message to farmers and ranchers in Kansas and small business men and women in our State and across the country that their value, their work ethic, their efforts will not be rewarded. Not only will they not be rewarded, but we will discourage them. We will not reward the work they do each day, the work they are optimistic about. The Senator from Indiana is so correct in this sense. Every farmer and rancher I know, at the end of the day their goal is to see that they have done work that day not only to feed, clothe, and provide energy to the world, but to see that they have a farming operation, a ranching operation that is of the nature that it can be passed on to the next generation of Kansas farmers and ranchers. It is the sense of satisfaction that comes in a farmer's life when the son and daughter who follow them have that ability. Nothing is easy in agriculture, and there is not a thing any day that is easy on a farm or ranch across the country. With our weather patterns and soil conditions, it takes a lot of drive, effort, stamina, and discipline to survive. Much of the day is spent trying to survive. Here we see a series of things as we arrive today and discover that we want to increase the tax on those people who work hard every day and whose goal it is to tell their sons and daughters: I have a farm or ranch that can be yours someday, and you can take over where I left off. Why is that important? That is traditionally and historically how farming has occurred. It is passed down from great-grandparents to grandparents to parents to children to grandchildren, and there is pride and satisfaction that comes from that. We are here today to make certain the Federal Government doesn't create one more obstacle toward that goal of making certain the next generation of Kansans has the opportunity to work to earn a living and feed the world on their own family farm or ranch. It is so surprising to me that there would be anyone who believes these individuals, these business operations, farms or small businesses, ought to be singled out and treated in a way that discourages them from accomplishing that American dream of passing that farm and ranch on to their kids and grandkids. I hope our colleagues see the light and understand how important this is in rural America. And not only is it important in rural America, but what happens in our part of the country determines whether we have the ability to provide food and fiber for the country and the globe.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I certainly thank the Senator from Wyoming for his comments. Those of us who had the privilege of growing up in small town America know those names the Senator from Wyoming indicated. It is one of the advantages of that small town life. Every day we see those families who own a business or have a farm or ranch. We know who they are. We know who works there, we know what jobs are created by that business or that farm, and we have the understanding of how important that is in the community if there is going to be jobs in our town. It is that small businessperson who gets up early, works late, does whatever is necessary to make sure they are a success in that business. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not. Every day they fight the fight to make certain they put food on their family's table, they have the ability to save for their children's education, for that better life, and save for their own retirement. Again, just like we talked about the farmers and ranchers who are willing to forgo things from Washington, DC, to help contribute to getting our debt under control, get our fiscal house back in order, make America what we know it can be--they are willing to forgo those things that Washington seems to want to give us. All they ask is, Please don't put more burdens on us. Don't make it more difficult for us to succeed. We see the example today where the Democrats' tax proposal creates a huge burden on a huge sector of this economy and on people who are so important to us as to whether we are going to have jobs created and the opportunity for every American to pursue the American dream.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate my colleagues, Senator Leahy and Senator Lugar, for this achievement and thank them for their service to the country. I also appreciate the willingness of Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman to allow me to speak for a few minutes before we return to the business at hand--legislation regarding cybersecurity. USDA Employee Newsletter I want to point out to my colleagues--and perhaps to the Department of Agriculture--something I saw today that caught my attention. In fact, it is amazing to me, this development. This is the Department of Agriculture's--the USDA--employee newsletter I hold in my hand. In that newsletter, it says the following--it has a section in the newsletter that says ``Food Services Update.'' Well, the Department of Agriculture, which, in my view, has a serious and significant responsibility to promote agriculture, says this in their own newsletter: One simple way to reduce your environmental impact while dining at our cafeterias is to participate in the ``Meatless Monday''. . . . ``Meatless Monday.'' This effort . . . encourages people not to eat meat on Mondays. . . . How will going meatless one day of the week help the environment? The production of meat, especially beef (and dairy as well) has a large environmental impact. According to the U.N.-- ``According to the U.N.''-- animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases and climate change. It also wastes resources. It takes 7,000 kg of grain to make 1,000 kg of beef. In addition, beef production requires a lot of water, fertilizer, fossil fuels, and pesticides. In addition there are many health concerns related to the excessive consumption of meat. While a vegetarian diet could have a beneficial impact on a person's health and the environment, many people are not ready to make that commitment. Because Meatless Monday involves only one day a week, it is a small change that could produce big results. Our own Department of Agriculture, again, at least from my perspective--and we ought to look at what the mission of the Department Agriculture is, and I think it will reflect what I am saying--is to promote agriculture, to help those who every day go to work to produce food, fiber, and fuel for this country and the world. Yet our own Department of Agriculture is encouraging people not to eat meat and indicates--from these statements, again, from their newsletter--that ``the USDA Headquarters Food Operations are a high profile opportunity to demonstrate USDA's commitment to USDA mission and initiatives.'' So it would not surprise me if what you see is that the Department of Agriculture somehow loses this newsletter. But it is posted on their Web site, and I would encourage Secretary Vilsack and the officials at the Department of Agriculture to rethink their role in discouraging something that is so vital to the U.S. economy and something so important to the Kansas economy. We are a beef-producing State, and it generates significant revenue for Kansas farmers and ranchers and is one of the items that improve our balance of trade, as we export meat and beef around the world. Yet our own Department of Agriculture encourages people not to consume meat. I think I will have more to say about this topic, but for the moment, in light of the kindness that was extended to me by the Senators, I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about the tax issues the Senate is facing this week. There is clearly a tremendous need for comprehensive tax reform. Americans worked from January 1 to April 17 this year, 107 days, to earn enough money to pay their share of Federal, State, and local taxes. Americans also spent nearly 8 billion hours preparing their tax returns this spring. This amounts to 1 million people working full time for an entire year. There is no reason that paying taxes should be so confusing and so complicated, so time- consuming. The burden this process places on individuals and small businesses must be relieved. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, the average American taxpayer will spend more on taxes in 2012 then they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined. It is time for tax freedom. We need to replace our deeply flawed tax system with a commonsense system that is simpler and more growth oriented. The Tax Code matters when it comes to growing the economy. It is for these reasons that I am a sponsor of S. 13 and a long time supporter of the Fair Tax, which I see as a step in the direction of liberty and prosperity. The Fair Tax eliminates payroll, estate, and many other taxes, to be replaced with a national sales tax levied on purchased goods, placing all Americans on equal footing. The Fair Tax allows our businesses to thrive while generating tax revenues to be similar to our current 3-million-word-long Tax Code. The process of tax reform has major consequences for every citizen of our country. But it is a process that must be started because the consequences of inaction are too costly. The truth remains that Americans want and need some sort of tax-filing relief. The need for commonsense reform becomes more obvious each and every tax season. Over the course of the last several years, American taxpayers have become much more attentive to what is and is not happening in the Nation's Capital, and they have made their choices clearly heard. They have a message Congress should be willing to listen to, and that message is: Simplify the Tax Code. In doing so, we will create an opportunity for economic growth and new prosperity while increasing personal freedom and liberty. By reforming this broken process, the Tax Code we have today, Americans will once again be more in charge of their lives and their money. This coming January, as we know, our Nation faces a fiscal cliff. On top of the tax increases included in President Obama's health care law, if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, a tax increase of $494 billion will strike the economy. For Kansans, that is an average tax increase of $3,000 per tax return, money they should be using to put food on their family's table, save for their children's education, and prepare for their own retirement. It is estimated that 70 percent of the looming tax increases will fall directly on low- and middle-income families. This week, Congress will consider a tax proposal from the majority leader that increases taxes, unfortunately, the exact opposite of what our economy needs. S. 3412 that we are debating this week raises the death tax on family farms, small businesses and ranches and estates to a level over a decade old, when they were brought down in a bipartisan basis. This proposal would increase the death tax from its current rate of 35 percent to 55 percent. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the number of estates hit by this tax will rise from 3,600 to nearly 47,000. Nothing hinders the transfer of a family farm to the next generation more than the estate tax. It is an unfair, unjust burden on our economy, and it punishes Kansans who want to continue their family business. I have long sought a permanent repeal of the estate tax and have pursued opportunities to increase the size of the estate tax exemption and lower the rates. Now we have a proposal to increase the burden of this tax. That will only create less certainty for farmers and small business owners as they plan for their future. Under this massive tax increase, 20 times more family farming estates will be hit by the death tax and 9 times more small businesses. This tax increase comes on top of significant small business tax increases already in the legislation. According to Ernst & Young, these tax increases on the top two marginal rates would shrink the economy by 1.3 percent and reduce by over 700,000--reduce by over 700,000--jobs from the American workforce. This tax increase legislation will only add more uncertainty to our Nation's convoluted, ever-changing tax system. Common sense tells us it does not have to be Republicans and Democrats, common sense tells us a simplified Tax Code will help boost the economy. The revenues we need to balance our books are not increases in taxes; in fact, the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Revenues we need to balance our books will come from a strong and growing economy, where more Americans are working and therefore paying taxes. Government must get out of the way and reduce the drag on the private sector so entrepreneurs and small business owners can put Americans back to work. Americans know that when our economy is strong, when our tax laws are fair, simple, and certain, they can provide for their families. We will have the opportunity to see once again our children and grandchildren pursuing the American dream. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, Koch Industries is a company which is headquartered in Wichita, KS, and is an American job creator that employs 2,600 citizens of my State. The corporation, a longstanding U.S. manufacturing company, employs around 50,000 people with good- paying jobs across the country, including around 15,000 employees who are represented by unions. Depending on the year, Koch Industries is either the first or second largest privately held company in America, with about $100 billion in revenues. I am pleased by its presence in our State, where the company and its owners are respected corporate citizens. The Koch family, the owners of Koch Industries, has made a statewide impact through foundations and charitable work which has given millions of dollars to help education of the poor, at-risk youth, the arts, and environmental causes. The investments they make primarily go to Kansas and to Kansas citizens. I am grateful this company has chosen to invest in our State's economy and its people. I am pleased they are a corporate citizen of Kansas. During the debate this week of the DISCLOSE Act, Koch Industries and its owners were mentioned numerous times. While I could come to the floor and complain about the lack of balance, if we are having a debate about the desirability of disclosing contributions to political causes, certainly the debate I heard on the Senate floor, the rhetoric, was about those who contribute to what are described as conservative causes, free-market causes. I could come to the floor and complain about the lack of balance in that discussion. But in my view, if we are going to have a discussion about the DISCLOSE Act, what we ought to all stand for is the opportunity for free speech, the opportunity for those of a variety of political points of view to be able to express those views in the political process. Those positions, the ability to do that--perhaps not the positions, but the ability to promote your position ought to be something defended by all. We need more participation in American democracy, not less. In my view, the discussion we had this week was a distraction from the real issues our country faces, mostly related to the economy and job creation. So rather than spending our time on the Senate floor discussing the DISCLOSE Act, in my view we should be on the Senate floor creating policies that put in place those that Koch Industries has shown in my State to create jobs rather than arguing about political contributions of those job creators. I come to the floor today to suggest that, one, Koch Industries is a great corporate citizen of the State of Kansas, contributing in many ways to the economy and to the well-being of our citizens; to suggest that if we are going to have a debate about the DISCLOSE Act there be some balance, and that those who believe in free speech and participation in democracy ought to always rise to the occasion to defend those who engage in the political process; and finally to suggest that rather than having a debate about the DISCLOSE Act, what we should be doing is finding ways to replicate what the Founders and shareholders of Koch Industries have done in Kansas, the United States, and around the globe: create jobs for Americans in our country's economy. We are off track here. It is time for us to get back on track and to focus on what matters, a growing economy, so we can help families across America put food on their family's table, save for their kids' education, save for their own retirement, and promote a free- market enterprise system that does just that. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, Kansas has a long and remarkable history of supporting our Nation's aviation industry both commercially and in support of our Nation's men and women in uniform. In Kansas, roughly 40,000 citizens support approximately 270 aviation and aerospace companies and generate nearly $2.9 billion in exports annually from our State. Many of those workers live in Wichita, which has long been known as the air capital of the world. Not only do these workers contribute to the vitality of our State's economy, but they also strengthen our Nation's economy, and they certainly contribute to our Nation's defense. At both McConnell Air Force Base and Forbes Field, in Topeka, members of the Active, Reserve, and the National Guard serve our country through a variety of missions. Since 1941, McConnell Air Force Base has been an instrumental part of the Wichita community, and Kansans have a proud history of standing behind the air men and women who have called McConnell home. McConnell Air Force Base employs more than 17,000 people, military and civilian, and last year it had an overall impact of more than $520 million on our local economy. I have come to the floor today to outline my support, strong support, for McConnell Air Force Base as the best choice for our Nation's new tanker fleet, the KC-46A. Currently, the Air Force is considering McConnell for the first home--or main operating base 1--for the new tanker, which will be put into service in 2016. McConnell Air Force Base is our Nation's best choice. McConnell already houses a total of 63 KC-135R tankers--48 assigned and manned, plus an additional 15 for global contingency purposes, making it by far the largest tanker presence in our country. In fact, McConnell is considered the supertanker base in the Air Force, with twice the number of tankers than any other base. Looking at the geography of the United States, it is clear McConnell serves our country well in terms of air mobility. Strategically located in the Nation's heartland--equidistant from both coasts--McConnell's location is a great asset. To this point, the 22nd Air Refueling Wing and the 931st Air Refueling Group at McConnell are frequently called upon for refueling missions, within a 1,000-mile ``service radius'' of the base, which further highlights the reliability of this location in the Midwest for domestic or overseas missions. One thousand nautical miles is a vast portion of the continental United States and includes hundreds of routes, military operating areas, and airspace reserved for various air missions. McConnell supports all branches of the military and allied partners, refueling off of either coast and around the world every day. The Air Force has long taken advantage of the expansive airspace available over and around Kansas, so it would be natural for McConnell Air Force Base to continue its important air mobility missions with the KC-46As. McConnell also has a clear advantage in personnel because it houses both Active and Reserve air men and women in the air mobility mission. The Air Force calls this arrangement a classic association, and McConnell is one of the only few bases in the country that can boast this level of coordination between the Active and Reserve in air mobility missions. The 22nd and 931st are prime examples of Active and Reserve components working together, sharing capabilities, collocating in various facilities, integrating crews and providing global support to operational needs. The 22nd and 931st have a tremendous history of conducting air mobility operations not only throughout the United States, but in places in Libya, Serbia, Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Air Force has indicated their strong preference for this arrangement as they choose the location for the first round of KC-46A tankers. Another advantage McConnell boasts is a surrounding community that fully supports and embraces the air men and women and their families. Since 1960, an organization of area business leaders and residents called Friends of McConnell has supported the men and women of McConnell Air Force Base through a wide range of programs and special events on and off the base each year. One of those programs, called the Honorary Commander Program, pairs up more than 30 squadron and group commanders with local civic leaders for 2 years to build meaningful relationships between civilian and military leadership. When I talk with the air men and women stationed at McConnell, they often tell me how much they have enjoyed the quality of life Wichita offers them and their families. When it comes to Air Force air mobility missions, there are four components that make a mission successful: airmen, command and control, infrastructure, and equipment. McConnell Air Force Base not only has the extremely capable airmen of the 22nd and 931st, but it also has the proven command and control to handle a myriad of operational needs and a sprawling infrastructure with enormous capacity. In fact, McConnell will soon have the newest runway in the Air Force at a length of 12,000 feet, which more than exceeds the requirements of the first round of tankers. By locating the new tankers at McConnell, the Air Force would have the strategic flexibility and capacity needed to carry out a variety of missions both at home and abroad. Now is the time for the Air Force to replace the aging KC-135Rs with the ``iron'' of KC-46As at McConnell Air Force Base. The Air Force has made clear that the acquisition and recapitalization of the KC-46A is their top priority. Air Force Chief of Staff GEN Norton Schwartz said it best when he stated: The KC-46A tanker is a critical force multiplier and essential to the way this Nation fights its wars and provides humanitarian support around the globe. I agree. I recently had the opportunity to speak with Air Force Secretary Michael Donley while at the Farnborough airshow, and I emphasized personally the need to base KC-46A tankers at McConnell Air Force Base in order to meet this need for global mobility. It is often said in the military that the difference between success and failure is logistics. McConnell Air Force Base offers the instrumental, logistical muscle that is vital to successful, strategic air power. Kansans have a long history of supporting air power and air mobility, and I know McConnell Air Force Base is the best choice for our Nation's new tanker fleet. I am hopeful that Kansas air men and women will have the opportunity to continue their tradition of service in defending our Nation with this first round of KC-46As. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, we have had a lot of news in Washington, DC, and across the country over the last few days. There was a decision from the Supreme Court regarding immigration laws in Arizona. We are expecting and anticipating a decision by the Supreme Court later this week regarding the Affordable Care Act. Front and center are issues that are important to the country. We were successful last week in approving on the Senate floor a so- called farm bill, an agricultural bill that, again, has an impact upon many in our Nation. I want to make certain we don't lose sight of what remains and, in my view, what should be front and center. All the things people ask government to do and all the things they want to accomplish in their own lives can only occur if there is a good and growing economy in the United States. So while I certainly would not call any of the other issues we are addressing here a distraction-- they are all important--I want to make certain my colleagues understand we have to come together to make certain that Americans, individuals across our country, can access a job, can feel secure in the job they already have, and can have a sense that they have a future where they are employed or that if there is a need for a change in job, that opportunity exists. Job creation is something the Federal Government cannot do in and of itself, but the decisions we make here affect very much whether the private sector can have a level of confidence in the general economy, a regulatory environment, and a Tax Code that is conducive toward the private sector, creating jobs in the United States economy. This matters, certainly from my point of view as a Member of the Senate, in that with job growth, with a growing economy, we are better able to pay down our national debt. In my view, if we are going to get what I consider the most serious circumstance our country faces today-- the deficit and the debt--under control, I don't foresee how that happens without a good growing economy, putting Americans to work. Of course, from an individual's point of view, it is important as a component of our lives--something that is important to us, which is that we figure out how to earn a living, put food on the table, save for our kids' education, and save for retirement. The issues being addressed in the Senate, across the country, and across the street at the U.S. Supreme Court matter so much. We must not and cannot lose sight of the fact that we have to create an environment where jobs are front and center. We know the economic statistics--the unemployment rate is 8.2 percent and has been above 8 percent now for a long time. The Presiding Officer in the Senate this morning and I have introduced legislation the primary function of which is to create an entrepreneurial environment where startup companies can grow and prosper, and, in the process, they can put people to work. It is growth that we need to continue to focus on. I appreciate the opportunity of working in that manner with the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons, and others, to see that we do that. The topic I want to specifically address this morning is this. I was reading the Wall Street Journal last week, and this article caught my attention. I am of the view that for economic growth to occur--and especially in communities across Kansas, the State I represent--we are going to have to have strong and viable community banks. There is a regulatory environment that makes that much more difficult. The headline of the article the Wall Street Journal included that I want to speak about--at least briefly--this morning is this: ``Small Banks Put Up `For Sale' Sign.'' The content of the article is very much about how small banks are now selling to other banks. The primary focus of this article is the reason that is happening--``a growing number of tiny community banks are deciding it's time to put out the `for sale' sign . . . many executives of these small lenders are frustrated by costly new regulations.'' It talks about banks in Iowa, in Ohio, in Texas, and it talks about a number of banks in which the bank or the individuals who own the bank never had an intention of selling. This was their livelihood and what they expected to pass on to the next generation, the next set of stockholders. Because of the regulatory environment, the article quotes them talking about how it is no longer any fun. A 66-year-old CEO is quoted as saying: I don't run a bank anymore. I run around trying to react to regulation and, frankly, that's no fun. This is certainly important for the people who own and run a bank, but it matters in communities in my State that there is access to a local lender, a relatively small financial institution that knows its customers, and that the farmer, rancher, and small business person have the opportunity to develop a personal relationship with the individuals from whom they are borrowing money. I know from my own circumstances of growing up and living in rural Kansas the likelihood of being able to get a loan from the community bank, the banker you know, who knows you, your ability, your creditworthiness, and your trustworthiness, is a pretty special relationship we have to be very careful we don't lose. If you are trying to borrow money from somebody you don't know, it is a different circumstance. I want to highlight again this regulatory environment not just for banks but for all businesses in which the decisions are being made that they are not expanding--in this case, they are selling. The reality is that has consequences to every American and every American family. Job creation is going to be improved whenever we have a regulatory environment that encourages economic growth, not discourages it, and a regulatory environment that is certain. So much, particularly in the financial services industry, with banks and other financial lenders, the uncertainty exists in large part because of the passage of Dodd- Frank, and now its implementation, the uncertainty of whether more regulations are coming and what they are going to say and do, and they certainly can drive up the costs. We certainly want to protect consumers, and we operate, in many instances, in a regulated environment. But these regulations need common sense and need to take into account the specific circumstances particularly of a small bank. My small banks in Kansas had virtually nothing to do with the financial debacle of 2008. Yet they are burdened with the responsibility of complying with a huge new set of regulations that resulted from the efforts to address the financial crisis of 2008. In fact, this article, again, points this out regarding the board meeting at this small bank: The binder of information delivered to the bank's board before the last monthly meeting included 419 pages of information to be reviewed. Banks more and more are having to put people on the payroll-- compliance officers--as compared to those kinds of circumstances in which the bank is making loans. The cost of doing business and the cost of credit increases, and access to credit has diminished, and that is diminishing the chance for job creation. One of the items under Dodd-Frank was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This hit me while I was visiting one of my banks in Kansas. They told me the CFPB called and said they were sending 12 examiners and lawyers to come spend more than a month in this small bank, examining the bank. Again, these are banks that had little to do with the financial collapse of 2008. Almost without exception our community banks--certainly in Kansas--didn't make loans to people who were unlikely to repay the loans, and they didn't make loans to people who had no ability to repay the loans or without getting proper documentation and seeking the necessary creditworthiness of that borrower before making that decision. Yet the burden of these regulations falls directly upon them. And while I guess I am speaking in support of trying to change this for the benefit of the bankers, who this is going to benefit, if we were to change the regulatory environment, is the person who wants to borrow money, who wants a buy an automobile or buy a home or who wants to buy a piece of commercial property. Yet they go to the banks in communities across Kansas and are told that because of the new regulatory environment, this is a loan we cannot make. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has 12 examiners and 2 lawyers, is soon to visit a small bank in Kansas and intends to be there for more than a month. The regulations the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--well, they haven't created their regulations yet. They are auditing a bank before their regulations are in place. My reaction, when the banker told me that, was I need to go back to Washington and see if I can do something, perhaps through the appropriations process. I am the ranking Republican member on the Appropriations subcommittee for financial institutions and financial services. I thought we need to rein in the CFPB through the appropriations process to get them kind of within their sphere of where they belong, in a much more commonsense, less intrusive way. It occurred to me that I don't have that ability. I can be a member of the Appropriations Committee and a Member of the Senate, and I can be the lead Republican on the subcommittee responsible for financial services, but because of the way the CFPB was created, its money is an automatic draft from the Federal Reserve. We, as Members of the Senate and Congress in general, have no input into the level of funding of an agency that will have a dramatic effect upon the financial institutions of this country and, therefore, the individuals, the consumers those financial institutions serve. In addition to that, there is only one person who administrates the program, who is the administrator of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Unlike the CFTC and the SEC, where there is a commission and a board in which there is a collective decision made, there is only an administrator. I have introduced legislation and we have had this conversation on the floor before. I encourage my colleagues to look at this legislation that would reformulate the way the CFPB is managed and directed and would once again give Congress the opportunity to have input into how the CFPB functions. I would never try to explain to Americans or to Kansans how great Congress does its job, but I do know the fact we are subject to election--the will of the people of America--every 6 years gives us the opportunity to have the input of the people into the administration and into the regulatory process that is so burdensome now upon so many businesses, including our financial institutions. So my effort today is to highlight once again what we do in Washington, DC, and in this case particularly what the administration does today--what the Obama administration does today and what administrations have done in the past in regard to regulations--very much has a consequence upon whether Americans are going to live in a country with a growing economy in which there is a sense of security and people know what to expect or whether they are going to live in a country in which a business owner--a small business man or woman in Kansas or across the country--is holding back from hiring employees because they do not know what next is going to come from their own government in regard to regulations which are costly, drive up the cost of being in business, and reduce the chances of expansion in our economy, which reduce the chances that Americans can have good, solid employment opportunities. I have two daughters graduating from college--one a couple of years ago and one this year--and the job market certainly is important to me as a parent and the ability for a young American to find a job and to pursue that job so they are able to pay back the cost of their education. That is something we need to seriously take into account. While I assume we are going to have a conversation again in the Senate this week on the cost of borrowing money for students and student loan interest rates, we ought not forget the most important thing we can do to help our students once they graduate, which is to make sure the economy is such that employment opportunities are available. It doesn't matter what the interest rate is if they can't find a job. So we need to make certain we fulfill our responsibilities to the American people to see that the economy and job creation is front and center for the benefit of every American and for the benefit of our country's deficit. It is so important we create a growing economy. I, again, would highlight how important it is for us to get the regulations under control and particularly criticize the circumstance in which legislation that does not pass Congress somehow takes effect because the executive branch concludes they can do by Executive order or by rule or regulation what we refuse to do. It is time for Congress to reassert its role, and it is time to make certain that in pursuing that role we create an environment in which jobs are front and center and the American people can all pursue the American dream. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to address the Senate today, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

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

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today I wish to remember a man who had significant impact on the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands of Kansans. Kansans very rarely live idle lives. We are an active hard-working State, always in motion, quick to rise to a challenge. The bigger the obstacle, the faster a Kansan will be there to remove it. Our Founders seemed to know that would be the case when they chose for our State motto, ``ad astra ad aspera''--``to the stars through difficulties.'' Kenneth Orville Dunlap, who grew up and lived in and around Wichita, KS, lived up to the motto. A little less than 40 years ago, this Nation made a commitment to disabled children--or ``differently able'' as Ken liked to say--that we were going to provide them the best possible education in the least restrictive environment. Some people saw that commitment as an obstacle. Ken saw that commitment as an opportunity to help people live fuller lives. Ken had been a teacher and coach in Kansas public schools for a couple of years when he decided to fully commit himself to special education. In the early 1970s, Ken established Wichita Public Schools' first Adaptive Physical Education curriculum at Levy Special Education Center. He went on to teach special education for 18 years at Wichita East High School, where he developed the first community-based instruction program, assisting special students with job readiness and placement. Some folks might have looked at those accomplishments and called themselves a success. Ken, however, wasn't done yet. He went on to serve as a special education coordinator for the Wichita School District for 5 years and as principal of three special education programs at Starkey, Ketch, and Heartspring. Still not finished, in 1996, Ken established one of the most innovative special education programs in the country--the Chisholm Life Skills Center. Ken had a vision for a school that would serve the community of Wichita, and at the same time teach its students the skills they would need to live independently. Chisholm students care for the yards of area seniors on their way to full-time paid jobs with landscaping companies. Students cook in the school cafeteria on their way to a career in food service. The school itself contracts with local businesses like Cessna/Textron Aviation, Intrust Bank and the United Way and students go on to work at several of those businesses. Chisholm is more than just a school; it is a bridge for ``differently able'' kids from education to the workforce and community. The staff, faculty and parents still strive for every student at Chisholm to be fully equipped with the skills needed upon graduation to live the most independent life possible in the local community. In 1999, a Kansas storm put a different obstacle in Ken's way, when a deadly tornado ripped the roof off of Chisholm. Again, Ken saw the opportunity, transitioning from his role as educator and administrator to foreman. While most educators were enjoying their summer vacation, Ken was overseeing the cleanup and rebuilding of the school. He rallied the whole community. Teachers, parents and alumni all pitched in, clearing debris, cleaning and rebuilding Chisholm. The school today stands as a testament to Ken's leadership and the whole community's persistence. And, just as Ken's commitment to his school didn't end with the school year, his commitment to special education didn't end in the schoolyard. Ken and his wife Jan devoted countless hours to volunteering with the Special Olympics. They took students on annual camping trips and chaperoned the Chisholm Prom each year. They went to students' weddings and attended their funerals. Even after he retired from his 37 years in public education, Ken continued to serve on the Sedgwick County Physical & Developmental Disabilities Advisory Board. For the last year, Ken has battled lung cancer and on Saturday, surrounded by his family, he took his last breath. This remarkable man's life was celebrated and remembered this week by family, friends, colleagues and former students. During the visitation on Tuesday at the funeral home, one of the last people to pay their respects to Ken was a former student. This young man shared with Ken's family that he had caused a lot of trouble to Ken when he was a student. Before he left, he walked over to the casket and put his hand on Ken's shoulder. He said simply, ``Thank you for everything, Mr. Dunlap,'' and turned to leave. Then he stopped. He asked Jan if he could leave something behind. Pulling a Special Olympics Medal from his pocket, he laid it on Ken's chest, thanked him again and left. We will never know how many lives Ken touched nor the full impact he made--but he leaves behind a great legacy and his life stands as an example to us all. His dedication to others is a powerful reminder of what is most important in life--the people around us. May we learn from Ken's example and make a lasting difference in the lives of others.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to address an issue related to hunger, a topic that is a significant component of the farm bill we are debating, and particularly to raise the topic associated with an amendment I have offered. It is amendment No. 2403. Most of us have heard the expression, since it is an old saying, that goes like this: Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life. By teaching someone how to fish or how to grow crops, we help them provide food for themselves and for their families. The bill we are considering has funds set aside for a program called Food for Peace, title II. They are intended to do just that, to help combat world hunger and malnutrition. We have a long history in Kansas, Senator Dole being a prime example of someone who has cared greatly about hunger not only in the United States but around the world. The funds used here in Food for Peace are very important to us, certainly as a matter of humanitarian issues, but also to the security of our country and its future. There are funds designated within that title II, some to be used for emergency aid and some to be used for developmental aid, the difference being the ability to respond to an immediate crisis or disaster, and other funds, the developmental aid, to be used to improve the chances that crisis never occurs. The question I want to raise with my colleagues here in the Senate is how do we allocate the amount between emergency food aid and the amount of money we use to teach folks the skills necessary to help them survive when disaster strikes? We are not talking about any new spending, any new money; we are simply trying to address the issue how do we allocate what amount has already been decided upon by the committee. I have been to Darfur, for example, spent time in Sudan, and saw the efforts by many to keep people from starving. Those are very important. I am thankful for the generosity of Americans, both as charitable organizations and as taxpayers, who provide emergency food assistance to these people. We never want to have the kind of suffering we see there and other places around the world. But I am concerned about the allocation that is included in this bill and I have introduced an amendment to ensure that at least 20 percent of Food for Peace, the title II funds, is available each year for prevention-based programs that reduce hunger in poor, crisis-prone communities. If we can prevent the need for emergency food assistance and help more people gain the skills needed for their lifetime, then we should do that. That is what this amendment is intended to do. The legislation we are considering significantly reduces the minimum amount of funding for developmental programs that equip vulnerable people around the world to feed themselves. The farm bill, this farm bill we are debating, reduces by nearly 40 percent the amount of funds that would be used for the important work of development aid. Instead, it directs those dollars to emergency food aid. The amendment I am offering would raise the minimum amount that would be spent on developmental programs by 5 percent so we can prevent circumstances where people are starving and need that emergency aid. This has been an issue we have worked on for a long period of time. This is my third farm bill as a Member of Congress. In the 2008 farm bill, we created a lockbox, an amendment I offered that was included in the 2008 farm bill, that set aside about $450 million for purposes of developmental aid, again trying to make certain we have the resources in place to reduce the chances we are going to need emergency aid. It is true that many countries have a high concentration of malnourished children, and subsistence farming usually goes hand in hand in those circumstances. Affected by droughts and crop failures, eroding soils, lack of sustainable income, these populations are short of food several months of the year and they oftentimes need emergency food aid as a result. As a consequence of that circumstance, even though title II emergency food aid programs are intended to be short-lived, lasting between a few months maybe up to a year, usually most emergency food aid is directed to the same areas, year after year, because of the continuing need. It is a reoccurring need, in fact, so year after year we are trying to provide emergency food aid to the same populations and the same areas and the same countries. My point is we would be wiser in spending our dollars by trying to reduce that reoccurring starvation, that recurring need, that lack of food, because of the amount and length of a food crisis and the need to stretch our taxpayer dollars as far as possible. Because using food aid more effectively is the key to success, the 2008 farm bill assured that a portion of that food aid would be combined with technical assistance, training, and business development to boost agricultural productivity, conserve natural resources, link farmers to markets, and improve child nutrition, incomes, and diets. That lockbox set aside about $450 million. It is expected, if this bill were fully funded, that these millions are nearly now $100 million less. So we are moving in the direction of providing a lot less developmental aid. In fact, in the 1970s when this program was amended and altered, 75 percent of title II money, of Food for Peace money, was set aside for developmental aid. Over time, that amount has been reduced, time and time again. Through economic empowerment, improved infrastructure, watershed innovations, these programs in developmental aid help protect and safeguard against the need for emergency aid. Providing a consistent and adequate level of funding for prevention- based programs has been proven to work. For example, in Haiti, World Vision has been implementing a 5-year multi-year assistance program, supported by developmental aid funding. The central plateau region of Haiti has historically suffered from lack of adequate food, causing extremely high levels of poverty and stunting among children under 2 years of age. World Vision has worked with clinic and community health workers through a mobile clinic strategy to provide nutritional and primary health care support to mothers and children. During their last national nutrition survey, large parts of that central plateau moved from red and yellow, crisis and severe insecurity areas, to green, indicating the investment in preventing malnutrition using the nonemergency programs is an effective and worthwhile investment in fighting ongoing hunger and preventing additional use of emergency funds down the road. In Haiti we see the example of using the prevention dollars to reduce the need for disaster or crisis dollars. Title II prevention-based programs are implemented by private, voluntary organizations and co- ops. They are supported, begun, by the American people. They have regular audits and oversight. We are talking about organizations such as World Vision, as I mentioned, Catholic Relief Services, Food for Hunger, Mercy Corps, Congressional Hunger, the United Methodist Committee. These are folks who are engaged day in, day out, year in, year out, in trying to prevent hunger from occurring or the circumstances which create hunger in a community from occurring. The inability to plan and predict the uncertainty of the amount of money that would be available by what we do each year in appropriations and what we do every few years in a farm bill makes their job much more difficult. So the consistency of having the resources available to fight and the need to fight the circumstances that create the need for crisis intervention is something that is important, as is the certainty that can come from knowing there will always be this certain amount of money available for prevention. Reasonable levels of food aid are important in both the urgent needs. There are going to be crises. Certain things happen--floods, natural disasters occur. We know we need to be able to respond quickly. But we also know we need to be able to reduce the incidence of hunger occurring time and time again in certain areas of the world. With this amendment, title II will still largely be used for emergencies but will increase by a modest amount the funding for developmental programs that helps eliminate the need for that emergency assistance down the road. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support this amendment. I know this has been a significant issue within the Senate Committee on Agriculture and I appreciate their consideration of this topic. I commend the chairperson, Senator Stabenow, and the ranking member, my colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, for their tremendous efforts trying to bring to the Senate a farm bill that meets both the needs of agricultural producers and the people they feed. I offer my sincere appreciation to both those Senators and other members of the Senate Agriculture Committee for their work. I particularly wish to express my gratitude for the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, for his continuing involvement in agriculture throughout his time as a Member of the House, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, now the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. His efforts on behalf of the folks back home as well as around the world are greatly appreciated by me. Again I ask my colleagues in the Senate to support an adequate portion of the Food for Peace resources being used to stave off reoccurring food crises, rather than just reacting to them. I yield the floor.

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