Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

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

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, 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, 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

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

Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, we have made great progress today. I thank colleagues for their work today bringing forth amendments. We will continue to work with Members as we go forward tomorrow, putting together a number of votes to bring before the body. We are working hard to do everything possible to complete this legislation by the end of the week. I think we are on a good track. I announce on behalf of the two leaders that there will be no more votes this evening.

Ms. STABENOW. I call for regular order.

Ms. STABENOW. On behalf of Senator Leahy, I call up amendment No. 998.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I reluctantly rise in opposition. I am a full supporter of this program to make sure families who find themselves in a situation beyond their control because of the economy, because of what has been happening to so many around the country, get the temporary help they need. What we have done in the farm bill is focus on those areas where there has been fraud or abuse or, in this case, misuse of actually a very good program to be able to provide assistance in terms of heat and food. But there are a few States--mine is one of them--that have gone beyond and are misusing a well-intended program. I believe in fighting for the integrity of these programs so we can continue to fight for increased help for people who truly need it, and I believe what we have done in the bill meets the test of integrity and is defensible and addresses legitimate concerns raised about the misuse and fraud of programs. So I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Let me indicate that this amendment would require tribes to be included in the development of Resource Conservation Act appraisals. It is something that is supported by Senator Cochran and me. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent that following a moment of silence at noon today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to Cantwell amendment No. 919; that upon disposition of the Cantwell amendment, Senator Gillibrand be recognized.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, I would I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon today the Senate observe a moment of silence for the victims of the tornado in Oklahoma.

Ms. STABENOW. We are now going to resume discussion on the farm bill, but before doing that I see one of the distinguished members of our committee on the floor who I know would like to make some other comments. But I just wish to thank her in advance for her leadership. We are so excited and pleased to have the Senator from North Dakota on the Agriculture Committee. Having had a chance to be in North Dakota--and she has said it to me a thousand times, so it is burned into my memory--90 percent of the land in North Dakota is in agriculture, and so she reminds me of that every day. She has been a key person in helping us bring this farm bill to the floor. So before proceeding on the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act, I would ask that Senator Heitkamp be recognized.

Ms. STABENOW. Before proceeding with Senator Gillibrand's amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the Sessions amendment No. 945, with the changes at the desk, as modified, be agreed to.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator. Madam President, we have a great start here with our first vote. Amendment No. 945, As Modified

Ms. STABENOW. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion upon the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 931

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 6:30, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2013, at 10:15 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Financial Stability Oversight Council Annual Report to Congress.''

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Offshore Profit Shifting and the U.S. Tax Code--Part 2.''

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.