Amendment Text: S.Amdt.1079 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

Shown Here:
Amendment as Proposed (06/03/2013)

This Amendment appears on page S3901 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages S3895-S3902]
             AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2013

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 954, which the clerk will 
report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 954) to reauthorize agricultural programs 
     through 2018.

  Pending:

       Stabenow (for Leahy) amendment No. 998, to establish a 
     pilot program for gigabit Internet projects in rural areas.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before the distinguished chair of the 
Judiciary Committee--and former chair of the Agriculture Committee--
leaves the floor, I just want to thank him not only for being a 
wonderful role model for me in chairing the Agriculture Committee, but 
also for the way in which he conducts the Judiciary Committee. He is 
evenhanded, fair, and gives every member the opportunity to make their 
case, whether it is legislation coming through on gun violence, 
immigration, or judicial nominations. I just want to thank the Senator 
for being the model of a statesman in all he does.
  I agree that we need to move forward in a fair and open bipartisan 
way in filling the nominations of our judiciary. I just wanted to thank 
the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. President, we are resuming the consideration of the farm bill, 
the agriculture reform, food, and jobs bill. Before I address that, I 
want to take a moment--as many colleagues have already done, and many 
more will do--to pay a very special tribute to a dear friend and 
colleague, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.


                    Remembering Frank R. Lautenberg

  I was deeply saddened, as we all were today, to learn Senator 
Lautenberg had passed away during the night. My thoughts and prayers 
are with Bonnie and the whole family, as I know they are grieving 
because of the special loss they feel and we will all feel.
  He was the kind of Senator we will not see again--a World War II 
veteran. We have lost our World War II veterans. He defended freedom 
against

[[Page S3896]]

some of the most evil forces of the 20th century, and he was truly a 
member of the ``greatest generation'' of Americans.
  We saw him battle cancer and survive. We have seen him come to the 
floor time after time on behalf of the people of New Jersey and our 
country to fight with tremendous courage for what he believed was 
right.
  I daresay he was one of the lions of the Senate. He served for nearly 
30 years, casting over 9,000 votes on behalf of the State and the 
people he loved.
  What makes Congress special is that we all come from all walks of 
life, and as we know that is what makes a great democracy. That is what 
gives us our strength, not weakness.
  Senator Lautenberg was the son of Jewish immigrants. He went to 
school on the GI bill--as my dad did--after defending our country. He 
went on to become a successful businessman by developing one of the 
most successful payroll companies in the world.
  We were proud to have Senator Lautenberg speak on what it meant to be 
a success in creating jobs. He has been a wonderful voice in that 
regard.
  He found his true calling in public service, and we all know that. 
During his five terms in the Senate he was one of the most fearless 
fighters on a whole range of issues. He has made a permanent mark on 
the quality of life of Americans. Among other things, he helped to 
strengthen drunk driving laws, pass the ban on smoking, prevent those 
convicted of domestic violence from possessing guns, to author 
legislation to help the public discover what pollutants were being 
released into neighborhoods, and to cowrite the new GI bill for the 
21st century. I could go on and on with so many other examples.
  I am proud to have worked with him to champion cleaning our beaches 
all along our coasts and Great Lakes, working to increase the awareness 
and treatment of autism, and fighting to make sure women have access to 
the health care we need and deserve.
  He was a true fighter for the rights of all Americans, and he will be 
greatly missed.
  Once again, I send my thoughts and prayers to his wife Bonnie, who is 
an amazing woman in her own right, his children, and his grandchildren 
during this very difficult time.
  Mr. President, as we return to the debate on the farm bill today, it 
is important to note that what we do this week will reflect just how 
committed we are to 16 million Americans who depend on agriculture for 
their livelihood. All Americans depend on its success for the safest, 
most affordable, and abundant food supply in the world.
  We have to lead by example. We cannot kick the can down the road. We, 
in the Senate, have already worked hard together on this farm bill 
which passed out of the Agriculture Committee with broad bipartisan 
support. We have had a good debate on the Senate floor and a number of 
votes. We are close to finishing the bill, and we need to get it done 
this week.
  I will note that it was just a year ago when we were also working on 
this bill. At that time, after coming out of committee on a strong 
bipartisan vote as well, we had 73 record rollcall votes. Every one of 
the substantive amendments that passed on the floor is already in this 
bill.
  So we started with the work we did a year ago and the amendments of 
colleagues that were passed on the floor of the Senate, and now we are 
building on that with additional ideas. We know it is time to bring 
this work to a close and get it done.
  We need to move forward in order to take care of the people who rely 
on agricultural policy, conservation policy, nutrition, energy policy, 
and rural development. Every community outside of our major cities 
depends on rural development funds in order to be able to provide 
economic development, build the water and sewer project, build the 
road, and provide a loan for a small business. They are all counting on 
us to get this bill done so they have some long-term certainty.
  This is a jobs bill, and the 5-year bill in front of us needs to get 
passed so they have certainty about how to plan for the future and how 
to continue to create jobs.
  We also need to pass this bill because we need to stop unnecessary 
spending, and we do that in this bill. We need to also ensure that 
consumers will continue to have a safe, healthy, and affordable food 
supply. We need to come together to show that, once again, we can work 
together across party lines as we have done on this legislation. It is 
important to get this bill done this week.
  I am very proud of the fact that last year we were the only committee 
that produced a voluntary deficit reduction plan. We went through every 
single page of the policy under the farm bill, and I asked: Does it 
duplicate something else? Does it work? Is it needed anymore? Is it 
worthy of taxpayer dollars?
  At the end we had eliminated 100 different programs or 
authorizations. Some programs were consolidated or strengthened, such 
as conservation. Others were eliminated because they did not make 
sense. Things such as direct payment subsidies did not make sense. Last 
year we were able to produce $23 billion in savings.
  This year we were back at it again and looked at a couple of other 
ideas, and it is $24 billion in savings to reduce the deficit. To put 
that in some kind of context, under the across-the-board cuts we have 
all known to be called the sequester--the across-the-board cuts over 
the next 10 years for every agency--agriculture's across-the-board cut 
is $6 billion.
  We could have said: Well, the sequester is $6 billion, so we will 
find $6 billion in savings. We didn't do that. We found four times as 
much in savings. We wanted to come to the floor of the Senate to tell 
every colleague that there is integrity in every program; that we have 
done everything we could to cut duplication, create accountability, and 
provide policies that make sense for the American taxpayer.
  We don't do subsidies anymore, we do insurance. We partnered with 
farmers to buy insurance so they have skin in the game. They don't 
receive a check, they get a bill for the insurance. But just like any 
other insurance, there is no payout unless there is a loss. So that is 
the basic structure.
  We have done a tremendous amount to also hone in on areas of, 
frankly, misuse or abuse in policy as it relates to the commodity title 
as well. For instance, this bill caps payments in the commodity program 
to half of what they currently are. So we cut in half the current limit 
on what may be received by an individual farmer.
  Senator Grassley and Senator Tim Johnson deserve tremendous credit. 
Senator Grassley, as a member of our committee, has championed these 
reforms in payments for years, and this is the first farm bill that has 
that in the base bill. We are cutting the payments in half.
  We closed something called the manager's loophole to ensure that so-
called farm managers actually have to be farming. They have to actually 
be farming to get a farm payment.
  Today the Washington Post has an article that I would encourage folks 
to read. It talks about folks who are in Manhattan and Georgetown, 
living in multimillion-dollar homes, receiving these payments, and they 
are not farmers. Because of the current structure and lack of 
accountability and focus, they are actually getting paid. They do not 
get that anymore under this bill. We have important reforms.
  This bill saves money by tightening rules to prevent fraud and misuse 
in our nutrition programs. Our nutrition programs are critical and 
essential. Just as crop insurance is there when a farmer has a 
disaster, food programs are there when a family has a disaster.
  We know, as in anything else, there are areas where there can be 
abuse or waste. In my own home State, much to my chagrin, we have seen 
lottery winners continue to receive food assistance. We stop that. We 
crack down on retailers engaged in trafficking of benefits, and we 
prevent States from allowing some individuals to claim expenses they 
don't really have in order to increase their benefits.

  By ending the misuse but making sure we keep the standard benefit for 
every man, woman, and child who deserves some temporary help, we are 
putting more integrity into the food program. I would argue we need to 
make sure we stand strong against the cuts coming from the House of 
Representatives when we talk about food assistance for folks who have 
paid taxes all of their lives, who never

[[Page S3897]]

thought in their wildest dreams they would ever need help, who are 
mortified and who suddenly find themselves out of work and need to know 
somebody will be there to help them put food on the table, help them 
get back on their feet. Our bill does that while creating 
accountability. I am very proud of the work our committee has done.
  We also have streamlined programs not only to save dollars but to 
create more flexibility.
  We have done a tremendous amount of work in the area of conservation. 
We have over 650 conservation and environmental groups across the 
country endorsing our work in conservation. We took 23 conservation 
programs and cut them down to 14 and then put them in 4 very different 
and flexible areas. These conservation groups see that as an 
improvement because we are cutting down the paperwork and making it 
more flexible for farmers and community groups to be able to access 
conservation programs, and we are actually saving money as we are doing 
that.
  In this bill, as the Presiding Officer knows, we have also codified a 
very important agreement that environmentalists, conservation groups, 
and farm commodity group leaders have come to in supporting crop 
insurance and making sure those who receive crop insurance are 
compliant with conservation. It is a very important policy, and I 
commend everybody who worked so hard on it.
  Once again, as we go into this week, I wish to remind colleagues this 
is a jobs bill. Agriculture is a bright spot in our economy. It is the 
only area in which we actually have a trade surplus. The farm bill 
invests in a number of areas to boost exports and to help family 
farmers sell more goods locally. We make some changes. While we are 
cutting in certain areas, we actually increase in others. That is what 
we ought to do when we make good policy decisions. So we have increased 
funding for farmers markets, local food hubs, the ability for schools 
to be able to purchase more fresh foods and vegetables locally--things 
that create jobs locally.
  We have spurred innovations in new biobased manufacturing--not just 
bioenergy, but we can replace chemicals and petroleum with things such 
as soybean oil and other agricultural byproducts that are actually 
cleaner, biodegradable, create jobs, and get us off foreign oil. So 
there are new initiatives in the farm bill that allow us to do that as 
well.
  It really is a time for reform of the policies that fall under what 
we dub the ``farm bill.'' This bill, I believe and I think it is safe 
to say, is the most reform we have seen in decades. We have done it on 
a bipartisan basis. We have had tough votes and made tough decisions, 
but I believe they are the right decisions in terms of reform. This is 
a bipartisan effort, coming out of committee 15 to 5, and I hope for 
and expect a strong bipartisan vote as we had a year ago.
  This really is a jobs bill. It really is a jobs bill, and in order to 
keep it a set of jobs policies, our farmers and ranchers need to have 
the economic certainty of getting this work done and having a 5-year 
policy that will allow them to plan and to continue to create the 
safest, most affordable food supply for Americans of anyone in the 
world. So it is time to get it done. We are anxious to work with 
colleagues this week to do that.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business 
for such time as I may consume.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Sexual Assault

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate Armed Services 
Committee is going to hold a hearing on the pending legislation 
regarding sexual assault in the military.
  Lately, we have been bombarded, we have been inundated with news 
reports about sexual assault in the military in our Nation. We can't 
lose sight of the fact that we have the finest military in the world. 
The presence of sexual predators in our force does not take away from 
the overwhelming good that is done around the world by our members in 
uniform, but the presence of these sexual predators in the ranks needs 
to be addressed, and that is what the military is doing now with or 
without our interference.
  Last year's NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--signed into 
law in January of this year, included 10 new provisions dealing with 
sexual assault that commanders have barely had time to begin 
implementing, let alone to assess the effectiveness of them. Yet some 
want to provide still more changes in the law this year. These 
commanders need time to act. We can't keep piling new demands on our 
commanders until they have had time to meet the previous demands. That 
is what the hearing tomorrow is really all about. We are going to be 
talking about more demands along these lines.
  Today, sexual assault has not been eliminated, but we are working on 
it. The battle is not lost. More needs to be done. We understand that, 
and more is going to be done. But we have to preserve the leadership 
tools that make our forces the finest in the world. One such tool has 
been to give commanders authority to identify and correct problems 
firmly and fairly and dispose of disciplinary offenses that destroy 
morale and readiness. That is why I oppose the proposals to eliminate 
the role of the commander in this process.
  To take the commander out of the process would invite failure. These 
commanders have to make decisions to send our brave troops into battle. 
How ludicrous is it that we would say to our commanders: You have to 
make a decision to send one of our kids into battle where they may end 
up losing their lives; however, you can't participate in the justice 
system of the troops. It doesn't make any sense at all.
  As we consider the many proposals to combat sexual assault in the 
military, we can't lose sight of the importance to do three things. The 
three things are protect, prevent, and preserve. We have to protect the 
critical role of the commander in driving cultural changes and 
accountability. We have to prevent case disposition authority from 
being transferred outside the chain of command. Those of us who have 
been in the service know what that is. Thirdly, we have to preserve the 
integrity of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as an integrated, 
functional system of justice.
  First, we have to protect the critical role of the commander. The 
military is a hierarchy. The most junior recruit quickly learns there 
is always someone above him in the military organization. I have been 
there. I understand that. The need to follow the chain of command has 
been instilled in our troops. That is what they do. It is not a social 
system; this is a chain of command. Our military is both an 
organization of leaders and of followers who are in training to become 
leaders. In peacetime or in war, leaders establish clear expectations 
and insist on meeting objectives. Every job in the military is 
important, and every job needs to be done correctly because lives 
depend on it. The security of our Nation also depends on it. To ensure 
that the tough jobs get done, the military has a justice system that 
sets the expectation that decisions have consequences and, I might add, 
bad decisions have consequences also.
  Today there are four major bills that have been introduced to address 
perceived deficiencies in how the armed services address sexual 
assault. I think these will very likely be discussed--maybe not all 
four of them, but some of them are going to be discussed in tomorrow's 
hearing. I believe that before we make significant, substantive, and 
procedural changes to the law, including the UCMJ, we need the benefit 
of adequate review. We need to think before we act.
  We have to prevent case disposition authority from being transferred 
outside the chain of command. It is a terrible idea to remove the 
authority of commanders to dispose of the military justice offenses. If 
commanders will be held responsible for abolishing sexual

[[Page S3898]]

assault, then they must have the tools they need.
  Some propose establishing colonel-level JAGs--judge advocate 
generals--instead of commanders as disposition authorities who would 
decide what cases should go to courts-martial. The awesome authority of 
a commander is the foundation for discipline within the organization. 
The most junior servicemember in the organization knows, under the 
current law, their commander has the ability to decide if misconduct 
should be disposed of through administrative measures, by nonjudicial 
punishment, or by a court-martial. Others within the command watch how 
the commander deals with misconduct. All of this stuff doesn't happen 
in a vacuum. People are watching. Those individuals who are going to be 
under the control and command and jurisdiction of a commander have to 
know how they are doing it. If the commander is not allowed to exercise 
that authority, it will destroy discipline within the command. When 
discipline declines, the military's ability to deflect threats declines 
with it.
  Another proposal would create two separate disciplinary systems: one 
in which commanders retain limited ability to dispose of minor, 
uniquely military offenses; another where a judge advocate, far removed 
from the commander, decides what offenses go to trial by court-martial. 
Now, how can two systems possibly be more efficient and effective than 
one system in the hands of commanders who are fully vested in the 
wellness and the readiness of their commands?
  Another proposal would revoke designation of certain senior officers 
who are currently authorized by Federal law to convene general courts-
martial. This has broad implications beyond military justice. This 
would require the services to revise literally hundreds of service 
regulations.
  Another proposal that I think is worthy of careful review would 
establish a special victims counsel. The proposal would assign an 
attorney to the victim of sexual assault to provide advice throughout 
the process, from initial complaint of sexual assault through final 
disposition. The Air Force has already developed a pilot program. We 
are doing it now. So I think the suggestion is good, but it is simply 
what we are currently doing. Wouldn't it be better to wait and get the 
results of what the Air Force is doing in their program to determine 
whether this is something we want to continue?
  I am willing to consider appropriate changes to the UCMJ in a 
thoughtful bipartisan approach that is consistent with the longstanding 
traditions of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. In the fiscal 
year 2013 NDAA--the National Defense Authorization Act--we created an 
independent panel to review the UCMJ and judicial proceedings of sexual 
assault cases. The panel is tasked with assessing the response systems 
used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate sexual assault and 
related offenses and to recommend how to improve effectiveness. The 
commission has only just begun, and we must allow it the opportunity to 
do what it was created to do. So we established this. It was just last 
January when we established this, and they are busy doing what we have 
asked them to do.
  Sexual assault cannot be abolished by legislation alone. While we 
should not wait to provide additional tools that could make a 
difference immediately, we have to be deliberate in making fundamental 
changes that could undermine the UCMJ. I said we should do three 
things, and this is the third thing.

  The third thing is to preserve the integrity of the UCMJ as an 
integrated, functional system of justice. Since 1951, the UCMJ has 
backed up commanders' authority and their best leadership skills with 
the force of law. The UCMJ is a deployable justice system that has 
proved to be effective throughout our Nation's conflicts.
  Some believe military justice under the UCMJ and the Manual for 
Courts-Martial is an informal, undisciplined system. Nothing could be 
further from the truth. The UCMJ is a highly developed and codified 
legal system. The Rules of Court Martial are the military counterpart 
to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and provide detailed and 
structured procedural rules. The Military Rules of Evidence are based 
on the Federal Rules of Evidence.
  The UCMJ has been at the forefront of changes in the civil criminal 
justice system. In fact, it has been ahead of the civil system. They 
are doing things in advance of what the civil system actually does.
  A rights warning statement similar to the now-familiar Miranda 
warnings was required by article 31 of the UCMJ a decade and a half 
before the Supreme Court decision of Miranda v. Arizona. The UCMJ was 
offering these protections long before the civil courts did--the same 
thing with article 38(b). It continued the 1948 Articles of War 
guarantee of qualified defense counsel--in other words, you get a 
defense counsel--to be provided to all accused and at earlier stages 
than required in civilian jurisdictions. So the military was providing 
counsel long before the civil system was. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court 
only guaranteed counsel to the poorest criminal defendants in 1963. 
Again, UCMJ was way ahead of the game.
  Our Nation has 238 years of investment in our military justice 
system, a system of Federal law, rules of procedure and evidence, and 
case history interpreting those rules that form the foundation for one 
of the most comprehensive and sophisticated justice systems the world 
has ever known.
  The UCMJ is not static and unchanging. It has continuously been 
updated. Article 146 of the UCMJ requires an annual comprehensive 
update. The Joint Service Committee reviews recommendations to modify 
the UCMJ on a regular basis.
  Some remain committed to yet another round of changes to the law and, 
in fact, the recently passed fiscal year 2013 NDAA included some 10 
legislative changes addressing sexual assault in the military.
  The services need adequate time to implement recent legal changes 
that give them the tools to fight these assaults. Stop and think about 
it. Just last January we gave 10 new rules for them to absorb and put 
into play. They have not had time to do that yet. Yet we are talking 
about having a meeting and putting together something that would be 
maybe even contradicting what we have already told them to do.
  Some would criticize our commanders and the entire military justice 
system because of a recent case in which a court-martial conviction was 
set aside. If we take time to look at the statistics, we will see 
commanders have only set aside findings of guilty in about 1 percent of 
the cases.
  The Marine commanders only set aside findings in 7 out of 1,768 cases 
from 2010 to 2012. That is 0.4 percent of the cases--less than 1 
percent.
  The Air Force commanders only set aside findings in 40 of 3,713 cases 
over 5 years. That is 1 percent.
  The Army commanders set aside findings in only 68 of 4,603 cases 
since 2008.
  The Navy says its commanders only set aside findings in 4 of the 
16,056 cases they have tried from 2002 to 2012. That is 0.0001 percent 
in a 10-year period.
  Clearly, the commanders have been doing a good job. The Defense Legal 
Policy Board released a subcommittee report on military justice in 
combat zones just last week. This Defense Legal Policy Board was put 
together and they have experts to study this matter. We all agreed this 
was a good move. They came out with their report last week. This is not 
something that might have happened 2 or 3 years ago. It happened just 
last week.
  The subcommittee began its work on July 30, 2012, to assess the 
application of military justice in combat zones in Afghanistan and 
Iraq. This report states, since the beginning of 2001, the Army 
conducted over 800 courts-martial in deployed environments, the Navy 
and Marine Corps conducted 8 courts-martial in Afghanistan and 34 in 
Iraq, and the Air Force conducted 3 courts-martial in Iraq and 3 in 
Afghanistan.
  The main theme of the Defense Legal Policy Board's subcommittee 
hearings and their 208-page report is the need for the joint commander 
to have a central role in the administration of justice in deployed 
theaters of operations. This is the opposite of what some people are 
saying now. They are saying take the commander out of it.
  I am going to read this quote. This report came out just 1 week ago.

       While good order and discipline is important and essential 
     in any military environment, it is especially vital in the 
     deployed

[[Page S3899]]

     environment. The military justice system is the definitive 
     commanders' tool to preserve good order and discipline, and 
     nowhere--I repeat--nowhere is this more important than in a 
     combat zone. A breakdown of good order and discipline while 
     deployed can have a devastating effect on mission 
     effectiveness.

  Continuing to quote the report that came out last week:

       The Joint Commander is ultimately responsible for the 
     conduct of his forces. As such the Subcommittee has 
     determined that the Joint Commander MUST have the authority 
     and apparatus necessary to preserve good order and discipline 
     through the military justice system.

  Let me repeat the last line.

       As such the Subcommittee--

  The experts who were looking at this and came out with the report 
last week--

     has determined that the Joint Commander MUST have the 
     authority and apparatus necessary to preserve good order and 
     discipline through the military justice system.

  The services can do better, and they will. But the record clearly 
demonstrates these commanders take their responsibility very seriously, 
and we should continue to let them lead the men and women of our Armed 
Forces into battle, bring them home safely, and to use all the tools in 
the military justice system to enforce their authority.
  At the very least, let's give the commanders a chance to implement 
the changes we ordered them to make as recently as last January before 
we go imposing more systems on them.
  I know it is popular to do this and say we have all these sexual 
harassments and all that, but these figures speak for themselves. These 
are facts, and I think we cannot expect our people--our commanders in 
the field, the ones who are responsible for the lives and deaths of the 
troops they send into harm's way--to continue to spend all of their 
time making these changes and not even have time to make the changes we 
ordered them to do last January.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Tribute to Max Baucus

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in a few minutes Senators will cast votes on 
two amendments to the farm bill that is now pending before this body. 
Before we do, I wish to take a minute to acknowledge that the senior 
Senator from Montana, Max Baucus, has cast more than 12,000 votes over 
the past three decades in this institution, the Senate. This is a 
remarkable accomplishment, and it speaks to his dedication to the 
Senate and to the people of Montana.
  He is a hard-working Senator. He learned the value of hard work on a 
ranch outside of Helena, the capital, in the State of Montana. From the 
time he was a boy, he was noted as being extremely smart. That is why 
he was able to obtain both his bachelor's degree and his law degree 
from one of the most prestigious universities in the world, Stanford 
University.
  I have worked with him the many years I have been here in the Senate. 
I worked with him when he was chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee during a massive highway bill. He has been a member of 
the Agriculture Committee for many years.
  His mark in this body, though, has been as a member of the Finance 
Committee. He has done many things. He was involved over the course of 
the 1982 bill that reformed the Tax Code significantly, called Bradley-
Gephardt. Max Baucus was in there working on what he thought was 
important to Montana and the country.
  He became chairman of this very important committee, and he has been 
instrumental in developing many massive pieces of legislation but 
nothing more significant than the months and months and months he spent 
managing the health reform bill, the ObamaCare bill. He has long been 
an advocate for children's health. He was an advocate for the 
Children's Health Insurance Program and has fought to strengthen 
Medicare for seniors all over America and, of course, in his State of 
Montana.
  As I mentioned, he served on the Agriculture Committee, the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Joint Committee on 
Taxation. His legislative record is open for everyone to see. It is 
massive, it is important, and he has done a remarkably good job.
  The one thing Senator Baucus and I have spent a lot of time talking 
about is running--not running for office but running with your feet. He 
is an avid runner. I used to feel and always felt pretty cocky that I 
have run quite a few marathons, but they pale in comparison to the 
running Max Baucus has done. No. 1, he is faster than I am, and, No. 2, 
he can run longer than I can. He has completed a 50-mile race in less 
than 12 hours. That is remarkable, and he did that less than 10 years 
ago. This is just one way Max has gone the distance. Anyone willing to 
spend half a day running must love the outdoors. I am speaking about 
half a day. That is 12 hours. This is especially true for Max, who 
enjoys hunting and fishing and has been an important advocate for 
public lands in Montana and the Nation. He was the author of one the 
largest conservation bills I know of in American history, except for 
perhaps some Alaska lands bills, which preserved more than 310,000 
acres of forest land in northwestern Montana.
  I congratulate Senator Baucus on reaching this impressive milestone 
of 12,000 votes and recognize the contributions he has made to this 
country are significant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                    Remembering Frank r. Lautenberg

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, today I come to the floor shaken and 
deeply saddened, as we all are, by the loss of our colleague, my good 
friend and ally, the senior Senator from New Jersey, Senator Frank 
Lautenberg. When I think of Senator Lautenberg, I think of the word 
``tenacity.'' Frank Lautenberg was tenacious. When he had a setback, he 
always got right back into the game. He was as tenacious in life as he 
was here in the Senate, where that tenacity paid off for the people of 
New Jersey and for the Nation.
  When he had a setback with cancer, he did not let himself take 1 
minute more than he had to before he got back up and went right back at 
it. I will always remember his tenacity, a strength of will, and an 
unshakable resolve that helped him in his own life and in making life 
better for others.
  Frank Lautenberg loved the Senate. He loved his job and the people 
who elected him time and time again--five times, in fact; the longest 
serving Senator for the State of New Jersey--people he cared deeply 
about: working families, seniors, single moms, and the hard-working 
folks who trusted him always to be on their side, and he was. He was a 
man for New Jersey, a man for his time--one of the ``greatest 
generation,'' the last in the Senate to have served in World War II.

  His story was a quintessential American story. His father Sam worked 
in the silk mills of Paterson, NJ. He sold coal, he farmed, and he once 
ran a tavern. Frank lost his father to cancer when he was 19 and he 
learned the lesson of hard work, having to take on a job nights and 
weekends until he graduated from Nutley High School, when he joined the 
Army and went to Europe. When he came back, he went to Columbia 
University on the GI bill, and he got a degree in economics. He 
understood the value of that opportunity given to him as a veteran and 
he extended that forward when he later coauthored the new 21st century 
GI bill.
  Anyone who knew Frank Lautenberg knew he was destined to make 
something of himself, and he did. He joined two of his boyhood friends 
to found a very successful business, ADP, and he did it well. But if 
losing his father, working his way through high school, going to war, 
starting a business and making a success of himself wasn't enough, 
Frank wanted to give something back. He was very comfortable in life 
and he could have said: I am going to enjoy this hard work and 
sacrifice that has brought me to this comfortable stage in life, but he 
considered himself lucky and he wanted to help others. That is why he 
ran for office. It is why he served and it is why the people of New 
Jersey kept electing him.
  New Jerseyans loved and admired Frank for what he did for the Nation

[[Page S3900]]

and what he did to help them and every American build a better life for 
themselves and their families. In death, those accomplishments and the 
love and admiration New Jerseyans have always had for Frank Lautenberg 
will not diminish, whether it was his landmark drunk driving law, 
coauthoring the 21st century GI bill, or introducing the toxic right to 
know law that empowered the public to know what pollutants were being 
released into their neighborhood, Frank gave something back to all of 
us.
  We can talk about how hard he fought for the victims of Superstorm 
Sandy this year. Even in illness he came back to the Senate to try to 
make sure New Jerseyans and all those who suffered from Superstorm 
Sandy were taken care of. Or we can talk about how he worked to make 
the Paterson Great Falls--his hometown he loved so dearly--a national 
park. But above all, he was Mr. Transportation here in the Senate. 
Whether it was roads or bridges, airlines or the rail system, he 
believed in having the best and safest transportation system in the 
world. And when it comes to air travel, he was way ahead of his time 
when it came to safety. Let's not forget it was Frank Lautenberg who 
ended the dangers of smoking on airlines so none of us would be 
subjected to sitting in a smoke-filled aircraft and with the dangers of 
smoking on a plane. Today, when I took the Amtrak from Newark to Union 
Station, I thought through most of that ride of Frank. I remembered how 
many times he came to this floor to fight for America's railways, how 
much he believed in the importance of rail travel and what it meant to 
keeping this Nation's transportation system competitive.
  Given all those accomplishments, it still would not adequately 
reflect the gift of governing he gave this Nation in the 9,000 votes he 
cast in this Chamber. Maybe not all of them made the headlines, but 
they made a difference for every American family. With each of those 
votes, Frank Lautenberg helped shape the history of America, and not 
just for his time but for all generations to come.
  When I think of Frank I also certainly not only look back to the fact 
he was part of that ``greatest generation'' of World War II veterans, 
but I also think Frank may have left us too soon at the age of 89 
because he never missed a beat. He lived in the moment. I remember 
about 3 years ago, in January, he and his wife Bonnie celebrated his 
86th birthday in what some might say was an unusual way. Frank wanted 
to spend his birthday with his favorite singer. He was a fan of Lady 
Gaga, and so to celebrate his birthday, he and Bonnie went to Radio 
City Music Hall for Lady Gaga's Monster Ball Tour.
  No, Frank was not yesterday's news. He was always about today's news, 
and he lived in the moment. But that moment is gone now. We remember 
well, and we were lucky to share that moment with him. Time goes by all 
too quickly, but the memories last forever. His accomplishments will 
last forever. They will touch the lives of people well beyond his 
death, and our image of what it means to learn to live, to learn, to 
earn, and then give something back will never be forgotten because it 
lives in Frank Lautenberg's legacy to this Chamber, this Nation, and to 
the people of my home State.
  There is a quote from the Old Testament, from Daniel, chapter 12, and 
it says:

       Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall 
     awake . . . and the wise shall shine brightly like the 
     splendor of the firmament . . . And those who lead the many 
     to justice shall be like the stars forever.

  Frank Lautenberg stood for justice in all of its forms for every 
American every day he served in this Chamber, and his memory shall be 
like a constellation showing us the way.
  Today we say: Thank you, Senator Lautenberg, for a life well lived 
and a job well done. Thank you, on behalf of a grateful State and 
Nation.
  Our deepest thoughts and prayers are with his wife Bonnie and his 
entire family. I know we will miss him as they will miss him, as the 
Nation will miss his incredible work.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT OFFICER (Mr. Cowan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 987

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set 
aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment No. 987, 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Moran] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 987.

  Mr. MORAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to carry 
  out research and development regarding a crop insurance program for 
                                alfalfa)

       After section 11024, insert the following:

     SEC. 110__. ALFALFA CROP INSURANCE POLICY.

       Section 522(c) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1522(c)) (as amended by section 11024) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(25) Alfalfa crop insurance policy.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Corporation shall offer to enter 
     into 1 or more contracts with qualified entities to carry out 
     research and development regarding a policy to insure 
     alfalfa.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Corporation shall submit to 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a report that describes the results of the study 
     conducted under subparagraph (A).''.

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I was on the floor earlier today describing 
this amendment, and I will do so very briefly.
  This is an amendment to the farm bill that deals with a crop called 
alfalfa, one that is grown and produced in most States but often not 
known a lot about, as we discovered in this farm bill discussion. What 
we know about this crop is that it is very important and used in many 
ways--to feed cattle and produce milk by feeding dairy cattle--and so 
it is a very important component in the livestock industry and valuable 
as feed for both cattle for meat consumption and cattle for dairy 
consumption.
  There is a real challenge in getting crop insurance available for 
this crop. So this amendment would require the Federal Crop Insurance 
Corporation to conduct research and development regarding an insurance 
policy to insure alfalfa and then provide us with a report from the 
results of that study. There is no cost to the taxpayer. As I 
understand, this is a noncontroversial amendment.
  I see the chairperson of the committee is on the Senate floor, and I 
would be happy to yield to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment. The 
Moran amendment follows the philosophy of this farm bill of moving from 
direct subsidies to crop insurance. It is an important crop, and it is 
important to make sure that we do have crop insurance tailored to 
alfalfa growers.
  I urge colleagues to support the amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The 
Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski),  the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Donnelly). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?

[[Page S3901]]

  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 18, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--18

     Ayotte
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cruz
     Durbin
     Flake
     Heller
     Kirk
     Manchin
     Paul
     Reed
     Risch
     Rubio
     Scott
     Shelby
     Toomey

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Boxer
     Johnson (WI)
     Klobuchar
     Lee
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Sessions
     Vitter
  The amendment (No. 987) was agreed to.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            vote explanation


  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I was unable to attend this roll 
call vote. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the Moran 
amendment No. 974 to require the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to 
carry out research and development regarding a crop insurance program 
for alfalfa.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 1079

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coons and Senator 
Johanns--I am not sure if Senator Johanns is here--I wish to call up 
amendment No. 1079 on their behalf. We intend to take this by voice 
vote this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for Mr. Coons and 
     Mr. Johanns, proposes an amendment numbered 1079.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to funding of local and 
                regional food aid procurement projects)

       On page 339, line 13, strike ``$40,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$60,000,000''.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this simply increases the authorization 
for the local and regional procurement program from $40 million per 
year to $60 million per year. It is based on a pilot project from the 
last farm bill to test various options on food aid for hungry 
populations, how to do it faster and more efficiently.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 1079 offered by the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would simply say that this is an 
amendment we are happy to accept on behalf of Senator Coons, Senator 
Johanns, Senator Durbin, Senator Isakson, and Senator Leahy. It would 
modestly increase the authorization for the local and regional food 
procurement program. I ask that we accept it on a voice vote.
  I yield back the remaining time on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1079) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask that I be recorded as voting no on 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Have we completed the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I see colleagues who wish to speak. I 
wish to thank colleagues for their diligence as we work through 
amendments on the farm bill. Our goal is to complete this by the end of 
the week. It is important that we complete this jobs bill. Sixteen 
million people work in agriculture and are depending on it, and they 
are depending on us to get it right, as we did a year ago. So I look 
forward to working with colleagues as we continue to work through the 
amendment process. I appreciate everybody's hard work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                Honoring Joel Campora and Cody Carpenter

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, Members of the Senate often come to the 
floor and talk about our men and women in uniform and their incredible 
bravery and the sacrifice they make for our country, and that is true. 
We certainly honor them and appreciate them for all they do for our 
country as they serve us overseas. However, there are other men and 
women in uniform who also serve our country by serving our citizens in 
our communities, and those are our policemen and policewomen and others 
in law enforcement as well as first responders and others who wear a 
uniform as well.
  I rise today to honor two heroes from Arkansas. Last week we lost a 
sheriff and a game warden who were trying to help victims of a flood in 
our State. These two first responders answered the call when there was 
an emergency, a dire situation. They jumped in their vehicles and 
headed to the danger. They got into a boat, and they went to a home of 
some victims who were stranded and very much in danger by the 
floodwaters. Unfortunately, all four lost their lives in this terrible 
incident in Arkansas.
  Arkansas game and fish wildlife officer Joel Campora and sheriff Cody 
Carpenter of Scott County both drowned while assisting victims in this 
overnight flash flood near Y City, AR. In times of distress such as 
these, we should come together to help others, which is exactly what 
they were doing as they sacrificed their lives for others. They put 
others' needs ahead of their own because of their sense of duty and 
honor and their belief in helping their fellow man.
  In closing, I wish to commend these men and offer condolences to 
their families for their sacrifice.
  I yield to my colleague from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, I also wish to take a pause. It seems as 
though for the last several weeks on a very regular basis storms have 
been ravaging the country and different events have been occurring 
where we have had cause to pause, and certainly this tragedy that 
struck Arkansas is one. So we would like for our colleagues to keep in 
their thoughts and prayers those in western Arkansas who have suffered 
this flood.
  As the Senator from Arkansas said, six people lost their lives to the 
terrible storm that brought significant flooding to western Arkansas 
late last week. Scott County sheriff Cody Carpenter and wildlife 
officer Joel Campora, two dedicated public servants, were among them. 
They gave their lives while responding to a 9-1-1 call at a home in Y 
City. The two arrived at a home to help two female victims trapped by 
the flooding. While they were there, the house exploded, killing all 
four of them. Additionally, a Grant County man was killed when a tree 
fell on him as a result of the storm.
  These are people who are true heroes not because of the way they died 
but because of the way they lived their lives.
  Sheriff Carpenter was a leader who was never content to sit behind 
the desk. He bravely put the safety of others before his own to protect 
those in harm's way. He rose from a dispatcher to deputy, chief deputy, 
and then finally sheriff. He was a man of faith who loved life, loved 
his family, loved his job, and loved the Lord.
  Officer Campora began his law enforcement career in Mena, AR. In 2007 
he became a wildlife officer for the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 
His desire to serve led him down this career path, but it also led him 
to serve

[[Page S3902]]

as a volunteer youth minister for the Salem Baptist Church and Pencil 
Bluff First Baptist Church.
  Again, these were ordinary people doing extraordinary deeds.
  Sheriff Carpenter left behind his wife Aime Beth and four children: 
Garren, Christian, Douglas, and Irelynn. Officer Campora left behind 
his wife Rebecca and two daughters: Dacie and Bethany.
  Again, we would very much like everyone to remember these families 
and keep them in their thoughts and prayers as time goes on.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    REMEMBERING FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening with a 
very sad heart to speak about one of our colleagues here in the Senate 
who gave tremendous service to his country and sadly passed away last 
night.
  Senator Frank Lautenberg was a true American. He earned a lot 
throughout his lifetime, but he came here to the Senate floor to fight 
for all of those people who didn't have the ability to fight for 
themselves. He was here in the Senate with us just a few weeks ago even 
though he himself was battling an extremely difficult illness.
  I think of Frank Lautenberg as a man of tremendous determination, an 
awful lot of grit, and someone who really embodies the term ``happy 
warrior.'' He wanted to be here to fight for those who didn't have what 
he did. Throughout his career, that is exactly what he did.
  Frank lived the American dream. He was the son of poor immigrants, 
and he rose to become a chief executive of a business that employed 
thousands of people around the world. He personally did very well, but 
he was never satisfied with just his own personal success. He 
understood, as so many other great Americans, that his success was 
based on the opportunities this country afforded him. So he chose over 
three decades to give back and to fight for people to make sure they 
had the opportunities he had.
  He started his career in the Senate back in 1982. As many of us who 
served with him know, he decided to retire, but he was not happy in 
retirement. He wanted to be here doing what he loved--being a Senator 
and fighting for the people of his home State of New Jersey and 
fighting for Americans all over to have the opportunities I just spoke 
about. He made it his mission to make sure the ladders that were there 
for him were there for the generations that came behind him.
  He was a proud World War II veteran--in fact, the last this body will 
know. He fought for the post-9/11 GI bill because, as did my dad, who 
was also a World War II veteran, he had used the GI bill after World 
War II. He knew it was the key to unlocking the knowledge that powered 
the ``greatest generation.'' He wanted that for those who came behind 
him.
  His desire to stand for the powerless is also why he championed 
legislation to protect families from gun violence, why he stood to 
safeguard families against dangerous chemicals time and time again, and 
why he took on the powerful to ban smoking on airplanes and to bring 
about tougher drunk driving protections.
  I personally will always remember Frank's passion for transportation. 
He chaired the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development 
Appropriations Subcommittee before I did, and I spent many years 
working with him to make sure we funded the infrastructure of this 
country--rail, highway, airline safety issues.
  Frank's legacy really is that his direct work saved lives. He saved 
lives. He helped to build transportation networks that brought 
families, businesses, and communities together. He wanted a better life 
for families in America. He was a champion for the underserved and 
underrepresented.
  How many times have I been on the floor feeling like a lonely voice--
fighting for women's health care issues or fighting for the protection 
of families against hazardous chemicals or fighting for victims of 
domestic violence--and time and time again Frank Lautenberg would come 
over here to stand beside and fight with me, no matter what the time of 
day or the late hour of the night, because that was his passion and his 
cause.
  He was a passionate public servant. He was not afraid to fight and 
vote for what he believed. He could never understand anyone who came 
here and tried to figure out which way the winds were blowing in order 
to take a vote. Frank came and was passionate about whom he cared for, 
and he did not care about the political consequences. He wanted to 
fight for the underserved.
  He loved the Senate. In fact, he loved it so much that one tour of 
duty was not enough and service called him back, as I said. Up until 
just a few days ago, nothing could stop Frank from taking Amtrak down 
here to fight for the issues he believed in and the people of New 
Jersey whom he represented so well.
  Frank Lautenberg gave everything he had to public service, and those 
who served with him, as I was so fortunate to do, know it gave him all 
the satisfaction in the world.
  He is going to be missed by all of us. He will be missed for his 
determination, for his passion, for always caring, and for fighting for 
what was right for all the people in this country.
  I just wish to say tonight that my thoughts and prayers are with 
Bonnie and all of his family as they struggle with this loss but to 
know that his legacy lives on in the safety and caring of so many 
families in this country for whom he worked so passionately and hard.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________