Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I appreciate the confidence my friend from Oklahoma has about what business decisions will be made. Let's assume they don't walk away from crop insurance; they will be walking away from conservation compliance if they are not required to do that. If this agreement falls apart--and it is an agreement that was delicately put together with over 30 different farm organizations, as well as conservation and environmental folks, to work together to support crop insurance. But to require environmental compliance--they may or may not make decisions about crop insurance. I do know if they do leave, the folks in the program, which are small- and medium-sized programs--as a matter of economics, like any other kind of insurance-- will see their costs go up. We do know that. We also have this broader question that relates to the large farmers the Senators are talking about where the benefit to having comprehensive conservation compliance for our country is a benefit we want to make sure we keep intact. It would be undermined with the passage of this amendment.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, while I very much appreciate the amendment of Senator Durbin and Senator Coburn, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Crop insurance is insurance, and the farmer gets a bill not a check. They get a bill. The question is whether we are going to provide a discount so it is an affordable policy. We ended subsidies through direct payments. We want them to move to a voluntary system of crop insurance. The bill they get has to be a bill they can afford to be able to provide the coverage, and then there is no payout unless they have a loss, such as a flood, drought, or whatever has happened. It is insurance. There are several reasons this is not the same vote the Senate took last year on this amendment. With the historic agreement to attach conservation compliance to crop insurance--potentially reducing the acres and numbers of producers covered by crop insurance--will only reduce the environmental benefits and could lead to draining wetlands and plowing highly erodable land. Let me say this another way: Of course most of the crop insurance goes to the largest farmers because they have the most land to insure. Just by definition, the larger the insurance policy, the more they are trying to cover. The question is--and the reason conservationists and environmentalists have come together--is because they want the large tracts to become conservation compliant. There is even more environmental impact on the large tracts than on the small tracts, which is why we saw this historic agreement between 30-some different farm, environmental, and conservation groups to say: We will support crop insurance, but you have to do conservation compliance on all of the land. Limiting crop insurance support to producers will cause producers with large pieces of land to leave the insurance system, losing the conservation benefits and possibly increasing the costs, again, to smaller providers. If everybody is not in, then the cost goes up for who is in. In fact, we know if we take the largest purchasers out, it is estimated we could see premiums go up nearly 40 percent for those who are currently in the system, and we are more likely to go back to ad hoc disaster assistance. In the drought of 2012, one of the worst on record for U.S. farmers, there were no calls for our crops to receive ad hoc disaster assistance. The corn, wheat, soybean growers, and others across the country were able to survive. Why? Because of crop insurance, and it worked. I urge colleagues to take a second look at this. We are talking about preserving a historic agreement that came together around conservation compliance. We want to make sure all of the land that is in crop insurance is covered, and we are protecting our soil and water. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

Ms. STABENOW

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

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I would be happy to.

Ms. STABENOW. First, to my friend from Oklahoma, I would say the budget office has indicated it will not only not go up another 100 percent, it is going down. So they have projected about an $11.5 billion reduction which we have put into our farm bill. It is going down because the economy is getting better. We know that with food assistance, as the unemployment rate goes up, one of the lagging indicators, the things that aren't affected as quickly in coming down, is food assistance for families. So it is now coming down. In my judgment, it is coming down the way it should come down, which is the fact that people are going back to work; that is why it is coming down. Again, to arbitrarily cap something as basic as food going on the table for a family is something that I, with all due respect, can't support.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we need to make sure our colleagues in the House, as well as in the Senate, stand with all of these groups who worked hard to compromise and forge this very historic constructive agreement. If we want to preserve conservation wins we have in this farm bill, we need to support the farmers, the environmentalists, and the conservationists who have made it very clear this agreement is something they stand behind. We should not be weakening crop insurance or making it harder for large producers, who have the majority of the land we want to conserve, to have less of an incentive to participate in the program. Let me just say--and I know my colleague from Vermont is here to speak as well--that I want to thank again the 34 organizations-- everyone from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, National Cotton Council-- and right on down the line--the National Farmers Union, Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and USA Rice Federation. This is an incredible coalition, and it speaks very loudly both to the fact we need to keep in place the No. 1 risk management tool for our growers but that we need to also make sure they are providing the conservation practices to protect our soil and our water which is so critical for the future--for our children and grandchildren. I yield the floor.

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

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

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, the Senate begin consideration of S. Res. 65 at 3:45 p.m.; that there be 50 minutes for debate, that the Republicans control 30 minutes and the majority control 20 minutes, and that of the majority's time, Senator Menendez control 15 minutes and Senator Blumenthal control 5 minutes; that all other provisions under the previous order remain in effect; and that upon disposition of S. Res. 65 the Senate resume consideration of S. 954; that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form and the Senate immediately proceed to vote in relation to the Shaheen amendment No. 925; and that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, as we continue debate on the Agricultural Reform, Food and Jobs Act, I want to remind my colleagues how important this bill is for our economy and for the 16 million people whose jobs rely on agriculture. When we go home at night and sit down at the dinner table, it is because those 16 million people have worked hard to make sure we had safe, affordable food on the table. They are the men and women who farmed the land. They are also the people who manufacture and sell the farm equipment, the people who ship the crops from one place to another, the people who own the farmers markets and the local food hubs, the people who work in processing and crop fertility, not to mention the researchers and the scientists who work hard every day to fight pests and diseases that threaten our food supply. I want to talk specifically for a few moments about the work we are doing in the conservation title of the farm bill. Our farm bill improves 1.9 million acres for fish and wildlife habitat. This is about jobs as well. Healthy wildlife habitats, clean fishable waters, are not only good for our environment, but they also support hunting, fishing, and all of our other outdoor recreation that benefits our economy and creates jobs. In fact, outdoor recreation supports over 6 million jobs in our United States. In this farm bill we are including a new historic agreement around conservation--the most powerful conservation work in decades. It is truly amazing what can happen when people actually sit down and listen to one another and work together. If farmers want to participate in title I commodity programs, including the current Direct Payments Program, they must take steps to use best conservation practices on their land when it comes to highly eroded soil and wetlands. This has been the case for many years. Of course, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act we are debating now eliminates those subsidies. Instead, we are strengthening crop insurance, which farmers need to purchase, and we are making market-oriented reforms to the commodity programs. But here is the issue: If we eliminate direct payment subsidies, we don't want to create unintended consequences by not having that link any longer. It is important for all of us that sensitive lands be managed in the best possible way. That is how we avoided having a dust bowl during the droughts. It is important for us to continue protecting wetlands, which help prevent flooding and are important to wildlife habitats for ducks and other waterfowl. Commodity groups and conservation groups were on different sides of this issue for a long time. They looked at the issue from vastly different viewpoints, and they didn't agree on the best approach. They could have followed the very typical Washington playbook. They could have gone to their corners, fired off e-mails and press releases, brought the lobbyists in and demonized each other. But that is not what happened. Like farmers and families across the country, they sat down together around a table and did something we don't do enough. They listened to each other. They listened and tried to see the other's viewpoint and they came to understand one another. It turned out their differences weren't so great after all. With a little compromise and a lot of hard work these groups were able to come together with a plan that conserves soil and water resources for generations to come and protects the safety net on which our farmers rely. This has been called the greatest advancement in conservation in three decades. I want to underscore for my colleagues that this is an important historic agreement, and others deserve credit. As much as I certainly would like to take credit for this, or I am sure Senator Cochran would--and we certainly were very supportive in encouraging this--the agreement came about from a group of people working together. I know a number of my colleagues are planning to talk about amendments on crop insurance. Some have already been on the floor talking about amendments. I know a number of colleagues voted for some of those amendments the last time around, but this conservation agreement puts us in a very different situation this year. For one thing, we want to make sure the biggest landowners who control the most acres are using crop insurance. Crop insurance is voluntary. Prior to crop insurance, there were subsidies and then ad hoc disaster assistance. Now we are encouraging them to purchase crop insurance, and we want them to have it, which means now they would need to use conservation practices to preserve sensitive lands and wetlands on those largest tracts as well as small tracts. So amendments that weaken crop insurance would reduce the number of farmers participating in crop insurance, raising premiums for family farmers and reducing the environmental impact and the environmental benefits of this historic conservation agreement. With this new agreement, the math is very simple: The more acres that are in crop insurance, the more we have environmental and conservation benefits. My dear friend from Illinois came to the floor a while ago and said: The majority of crop insurance is with a small number of farmers. Well, that is true. The larger the farm, the more one would use crop insurance. It is just like saying anybody who buys insurance for a bigger home has more insurance than the smaller home. Bigger businesses--manufacturers--probably buy the biggest part of insurance rather than small businesses. I am not sure what the point is of saying that. Of course, we have large farmers buying more crop insurance than small farmers. We want to make sure we have the environmental and conservation benefits on those large farms just as on smaller farms. Here is another reason my colleagues should reevaluate these amendments, and I would encourage, as they come before us, that we vote no. This chart shows the counties that were declared disaster areas last year. An awful lot of red. And 2012 was one of the worst droughts on record ever in the United States. In the past, in situations such as this we would have passed ad hoc disaster assistance for the corn growers, the wheat growers, the soybean growers, and the other crop farmers. But we didn't have to do that because crop insurance works. Crop insurance is not a subsidy. When people have crop insurance they get a bill to pay. We share in that cost to make sure there is a discount so they can afford the bill, but they get a bill. They do not get a check. The only farmers last year who needed disaster assistance were the ones who can't participate in crop insurance, which we fix in this farm bill. We address permanent livestock disaster assistance. They do not have access to the same crop insurance. We address farmers, such as my cherry growers, who were wiped out when it got warm in the spring and then froze again and completely wiped out the cherries. They do not have crop insurance now. They need some extra help. In this farm bill we are giving them access to crop insurance, which is the primary risk management tool for farmers. Producers purchase crop insurance so they are protected when there is a disaster, but if we weaken crop insurance, resulting in premium hikes of as much as 40 percent on small farmers, we are going to be going back to the days of ad hoc disaster assistance, something we cannot afford in today's tight budget climate. Finally, we need to keep this historic agreement in place through the conference committee. We owe that to the folks who sat down and worked out this agreement. So I ask colleagues to stand with the 34 different organizations that came together--and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the groups in the coalition that put this together.

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

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

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

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment No. 960; that the time until noon be equally divided between Senators Inhofe and Stabenow or their designees; further, that no second-degree amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, before speaking on the amendment, I wish to share--and I know everyone in the Senate wishes to share--their thoughts and prayers with the people of Oklahoma. As the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma knows, I have a strong connection with Oklahoma. My mom grew up on a farm picking cotton in Oklahoma, and we have talked before about my grandparents, until they passed away, being there. It was a wonderful trip for my family to go to Ponca City, OK, in later years to my grandparents to visit every summer. I will never forget that in the backyard my grandparents had a tornado shelter, basically. It was on a little mound of dirt. We opened the door and it was just like Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz, opening the door and going down into the cellar. A couple of times in the middle of the night we had to get up and go use the cellar, and I know how frightening it was for me as a child to experience that. I know the storms have gotten more and more intense with more and more devastation. We all hope for the very best in the recovery for all the families involved.

Ms. STABENOW. What I find objectionable is so many people lost their jobs. The reason it went up is because people were out of work. So I find that objectionable because a lot of those folks were in my State. I have worked very hard to do everything I can to support the private sector, and the good news is that manufacturing is coming back and agriculture is strong and moving forward. So in my judgment, yes, I find it very concerning that more people needed help putting food on their table. The good news is that less of them are going to in the next decade, and that is because people are going to be getting back to work. I believe our time has expired. I don't know if we have others who wish to speak at this point. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Ms. STABENOW

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

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