S.Amdt.1079 to S.954113th Congress (2013-2014)
Amendment Text: S.Amdt.1079 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
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. ____________________