[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3637-S3648]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       AGRICULTURE REFORM, FOOD, AND JOBS ACT OF 2013--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                            Cost of Gasoline

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I will hold off asking that the pending 
amendment be set aside until the manager is here. At this time I will 
address an enormously important national issue, an issue even more 
important to rural America; that is, the skyrocketing cost of gasoline 
at the pump, and oil in general, which is causing enormous hardship for 
the American consumer, small businesses, truckers, airlines, and fuel 
dealers.
  The bottom line is in Vermont and all over this country people are 
paying an arm and a leg for a gallon of gas and for home heating oil, 
and it is a very serious economic problem for the individual consumer 
and for the entire economy at large. In fact, as we continue to 
struggle to get out of this terrible recession, high oil and gas prices 
are enormously detrimental to the entire economic recovery process.
  These rapidly increasing prices are particularly harmful to rural 
America where working people often are forced to travel 50 to 100 miles 
to their jobs and back. If people are paying $3.80 for a gallon of gas, 
that adds up, and it is money coming right out of their wallets.
  Over the last 5 months the national average price for a gallon of 
gasoline

[[Page S3638]]

has gone up by more than 41 cents at the pump, even--and this is the 
important point to make--as U.S. oil inventories reach a three-decade 
high, and demand for gasoline is lower than it was 4 years ago when 
prices averaged less than $2.30 a gallon. In other words, what we 
learned in elementary school about supply and demand and pricing--the 
foundation of capitalism, if you like--is when there is a lot of supply 
and limited demand, prices should go down. Right now, there is a lot of 
supply, less demand, and prices are going up, and I think we need to 
know why because this impacts our entire economy and millions and 
millions of consumers.
  Our goal must be to do everything we can to make sure oil and gas 
prices are transparent and free from fraud, manipulation, abuse, and 
excessive speculation. Let the principles of supply and demand work. 
Let's eliminate fraud, manipulation, abuse, and excessive speculation, 
which is exactly what we are experiencing right now.
  That is why I will be offering two important amendments that deal 
with these issues. Both of these amendments are within the jurisdiction 
of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, which is 
obviously why I am offering them on this bill.
  The first amendment, No. 963, requires the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, CFTC, and the Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working Group to 
conduct a 6-month investigation to determine whether any company or 
individual in the United States has manipulated the price of gasoline, 
crude oil, heating oil, diesel fuel, or jet fuel. Such an investigation 
is already taking place by regulators in Europe.
  On May 14, 2013, just 1 week ago, the European Commission announced 
it was investigating allegations that several companies--including BP, 
Shell and Statoil--``may have colluded in reporting distorted prices to 
a Price Reporting Agency to manipulate the published prices for a 
number of oil and biofuel products.''
  I know Ron Wyden, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, is also looking at this issue--perhaps in a slightly 
different way--and I applaud him for doing that. But this amendment 
basically says right now the European Commission believes there may be 
fraud among the major oil companies. If that is true in Europe, it may 
well be true in the United States. So I want the CFTC to investigate 
that as well.
  Amendment No. 963 requires the CFTC to work with European regulators 
to determine if any company or individual in the United States provided 
inaccurate information to a price reporting agency for the purpose of 
manipulating the published prices of gasoline or oil; secondly, to 
refer any illegal activities to the proper authorities for prosecution; 
third, to report its findings within 6 months; and lastly, to publish 
recommendations on its Web site on how to make sure the pricing of 
gasoline, crude oil, heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel becomes 
more transparent, open, and free from manipulation, fraud, abuse, or 
excessive speculation.
  The third largest oil company in Europe has estimated that as much as 
80 percent of all crude oil product transactions are linked to prices 
published by Platts, a private price reporting agency, while just 20 
percent are linked to trades on the New York Mercantile Exchange or ICE 
Futures in Europe. In order to calculate prices, Platts depends on oil 
companies and Wall Street speculators to voluntarily provide details on 
bids, offers, and transactions for various crude oil and petroleum 
commodities.
  So that is one of the issues we want to take a hard look at to make 
sure we end those manipulations. The other issue I want to take a hard 
look at is the issue of speculation on the oil futures market. What we 
know right now is, according to the CFTC, approximately 80 percent of 
the oil futures market is controlled not by end users--not by fuel 
dealers, not by airline companies, not by people who actually use 
fuel--but by Wall Street speculators. So that is the issue my second 
amendment deals with.
  This amendment addresses an issue that was not satisfactorily 
addressed in Dodd-Frank, where we attempted to deal with the issue of 
excessive speculation on the oil futures market. Amendment No. 964 
requires the CFTC to use all of its authority, including its emergency 
powers, within 30 days to address this very important issue.
  Once again the American people are at their wits end in trying to 
understand why oil prices go up despite the fact we have sufficient 
supply and lack of demand. I am not just speaking for myself but many 
economists also when I say I believe one of the major reasons for this 
significantly high price has to do with speculation--speculation on 
Wall Street.
  This amendment requires the CFTC to use all its authority--again, 
including its emergency powers, which is not what we have done in the 
past--within 30 days to do the following: to implement position limits 
to eliminate, prevent, or diminish excessive oil speculation as 
required by the Dodd-Frank Act, and to immediately curb excessive oil 
speculation to ensure that oil and gas prices are based on the 
fundamentals of supply and demand.
  As I mentioned earlier, price is supposed to be determined by the 
amount of supply and the amount of demand. Supply now is very high, 
demand is relatively low, and so we should be seeing a decline in oil 
prices rather than an increase. Further, the International Energy 
Agency recently projected the global supply of oil will surge by 8.4 
million barrels a day over the next 5 years, significantly faster than 
demand, and nearly two-thirds of the increase in oil supply will be in 
North America. So if you are looking at an abundance of supply and 
limited demand, we have every reason in the world to believe gas prices 
at the pump, oil prices in general, should go down. If they are not 
going down, we have to ask why. Many of us believe this has to do with 
excessive Wall Street speculation on the oil futures market.

  While we cannot ignore the fact that big oil companies have been 
gouging consumers at the pump for years and have made over $1 trillion 
in profit over the past decade, there is mounting evidence that high 
gasoline prices have less to do with supply and demand and more to do 
with Wall Street speculation jacking up oil and gas prices in the 
energy futures market. Ten years ago--and this is a very important 
point for people to understand--10 years ago speculators only 
controlled--``only'' is probably the wrong word, but they controlled 
about 30 to 40 percent of the oil futures market. Today Wall Street 
speculators control at least 80 percent of the market. In a 10-year 
period, we have seen Wall Street speculation double on the energy 
futures market.
  What does this mean in terms of oil prices? Everything in the world. 
The function of Wall Street speculation has nothing to do with using 
oil, everything to do with making a profit, driving prices higher. This 
is not just Bernie Sanders talking. There is now a growing consensus 
that excessive speculation on the oil futures market is driving up oil 
prices. ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, the IMF, the St. Louis Federal 
Reserve, the American Trucking Association, Delta Airlines, the 
Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the New England Fuel 
Institute and many other groups--the Consumer Federation of America--
have all agreed that excessive oil speculation significantly increases 
oil and gas prices.
  Interestingly enough, Goldman Sachs--not one of my favorite 
institutions but perhaps the largest speculator on Wall Street--came 
out with a report indicating that excessive oil speculation is costing 
Americans 56 cents a gallon at the pump. Goldman Sachs, speculator, 
they themselves estimating that excessive speculation is costing 56 
cents a gallon at the pump for the average consumer, and that may be a 
conservative estimate.
  A few years ago the CEO of ExxonMobil, again not one of my favorite 
companies, testified at a Senate hearing that excessive speculation 
contributed as much as 40 percent to the cost of a barrel of oil.
  Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter of oil in the world, told the Bush 
administration back in 2008 during the last major spike in oil prices 
that speculation has contributed as much as 40 percent to a barrel of 
oil.
  Gary Gensler, the chairman of the CFTC, has stated publicly that oil 
speculators now control between 80 to

[[Page S3639]]

87 percent of the energy futures market, a figure that has more than 
doubled over the past decade. In other words, the vast majority of oil 
on the futures market is not controlled by people who actually use the 
product but people whose only function in life being in the oil futures 
market is to make as much quick profit as they possibly can.
  Let me give just a list of a few of the oil speculators and how much 
oil they were trading on June 30, 2008, when the price of oil was over 
$140 a barrel and gas prices were over $4 a gallon. Goldman Sachs 
bought and sold over 863 million barrels of oil, Morgan Stanley bought 
and sold over 632 million barrels of oil, Bank of America bought and 
sold over 112 million barrels of oil, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, 
et cetera.
  What we have to understand is that to a very significant degree, 
pricing of oil has nothing to do with supply and demand, nothing to do 
with end users who actually buy the product, and everything to do with 
Wall Street speculation. Sadly, the spike in oil and gasoline prices 
was totally avoidable. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act required the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to 
impose strict limits on the amount of oil that Wall Street speculators 
could trade in the energy futures market by January 17, 2011, 2\1/2\ 
years ago.
  Unfortunately, the CFTC has been unable to implement position limits 
due to opposition on Wall Street and a ruling of the DC district court 
which is now under appeal.
  This amendment directs the CFTC to utilize all its authority, 
including its emergency powers, to curb excessive oil speculation 
within 30 days. We are not going to drag this on for another 5 years. 
The emergency directive in this amendment is virtually identical to 
bipartisan legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 402 to 19, during a similar crisis in 
2008.
  Let me conclude by saying that millions of consumers are hurting as a 
result of excessive speculation. People are paying much more at the 
pump than they should for gasoline. This issue impacts our entire 
economy. It is time that we did something to that. I say to my 
colleagues: I call up amendments numbers 963 and 964, and ask for their 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. STABENOW. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first, I thank the Senator from 
Vermont for raising all these issues that are so important for the 
American people. At this point in time, we do have an amendment that is 
pending, the amendment of Senator Gillibrand. We do not have unanimous 
consent in order to set that aside so I would have to, at the moment, 
object to setting it aside, but I assure the Senator I wish to have an 
opportunity to talk to him about these issues.
  Mr. SANDERS. I look forward to talking to the Senator from Michigan, 
but I do want her to know this is an enormously important amendment for 
the people of Vermont and the people of America. We want action. I 
think we have brought forth an amendment which, in fact, can end up 
substantially lowering the price of oil and gas at the pump and I will 
pursue this vigorously.
  Ms. STABENOW. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I rise to speak on the farm bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. HOEVEN. I rise to speak on behalf of the Agriculture Reform, 
Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, a 5-year farm bill. This bill saves more 
than $24 billion to help reduce our deficit and our debt, it 
streamlines farm programs to make them more efficient, and it ensures 
that our farmers and ranchers continue to have good risk management 
tools, particularly crop insurance.
  It is vitally important to so many facets of our national interests. 
It is important to food, of course, but also to fuel, to fiber, to 
rural development, agriculture research, and many other areas. It 
touches the life of every single American in some of the most basic 
ways.
  This year the farm bill is moving through the Senate because we have 
already debated and passed more than 90 percent of this bill in the 
last session. A lot of this bill we worked on very hard in the last 
session and passed it through this body with a big bipartisan vote.
  Unfortunately, the House was not able to pass their version so we 
were not able to go to conference and finish the job. This year we need 
to do that.
  This farm bill, again, 90 percent-plus we voted on in this body last 
session. We had a big bipartisan vote to pass it. We need to do that 
again. We need to get into conference with the House, and we need to 
get this done for farmers and ranchers and for the benefit of all 
Americans.
  Last week we passed a bill out of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 
on which I serve, where I had the opportunity to help craft it--again, 
building on the product that we put together last year when we voted it 
out of committee with a big bipartisan vote. The House also passed its 
version of a farm bill out of their Agriculture Committee last week. 
They are looking to bring their bill to the House floor in June. We are 
hopeful they will pass it in June, but we need to be ready. We need to 
have ours done. I think we can show real leadership on this issue and 
be ready to get into conference with the House and get this important 
work done.
  The Senate version we passed supports our farmers and ranchers in 
substantive and sensible ways. It gives them the necessary risk 
management tools and ensures that Americans, all Americans, continue to 
enjoy the highest quality, lowest cost food supply, not just in the 
world but in the history of the world.
  Among the provisions of the commodity title is the no-cost Sugar 
Program. I wish to take just a few minutes to talk about the Sugar 
Program and its importance in the context of this farm bill. The Sugar 
Program warrants discussion because some Members--I believe certainly 
with the best of intentions--want to actually weaken this vitally 
important program. But weakening our current sugar policy would 
accomplish nothing. In fact, it would subject our producers, consumers, 
and industries to a distorted world market. Further, it would threaten 
more than 140,000 jobs in 22 States that depend on a vibrant, 
competitive sugar industry.
  The world's sugar market is not a free market. Make no mistake, it is 
not a free market in any conventional sense of the term. I can tell you 
now, foreign governments heavily protect and subsidize their sugar 
producers. For example, Brazil spends between $2 and $3 billion per 
year to subsidize its producers. Mexico literally owns one-fifth of its 
industry and subsidizes the rest.
  Our sugar farmers, along with the rest of America's farmers and 
ranchers, have told foreign competitors, time and again, we are ready 
to compete in a truly freely market, but we will not and must not 
unilaterally disarm, nor will dismantling the Sugar Program result in 
lower costs to consumers and American businesses. Once you factor in 
transportation costs, the world price of sugar is higher than the price 
in the United States.
  Sugar prices are not only higher in Brazil and Mexico, they are 
higher worldwide. If we do away with sugar policy altogether and 
subject producers strictly to a distorted global market, what we will 
see is not lower prices but rather extreme volatility in the global 
sugar market.
  Not only are sugar prices lower in the United States and elsewhere, 
but the cost of sugar in most products is tiny. For example, in a 
Hershey's chocolate bar it is less than 2 percent of the cost. Further, 
it should be noted that sugar prices have fallen by more than 50 
percent in the last 2 years, but candy prices at the store are not 
seeing the same level of reduction at all.
  The truth is, if consumers are paying higher costs, it is because of 
labor and health care costs in the United States, not because of the 
cost of sugar.
  For 10 years now, sugar policy has operated at zero cost to the 
American taxpayer because our farmers are efficient and competitive and 
because American sugar policy has always made sure they were playing on 
a level playing field. As a result, consumers in

[[Page S3640]]

this country enjoy more affordable sugar than elsewhere in the world 
and American consumers enjoy a safe and reliable homegrown source. The 
bottom line is that sugar policy is cost-effective and fair and it 
should be retained in the commodity title of the farm bill.
  But I would like to turn, again, to the broader legislation. Good 
farm policy benefits every single American. As I said, we have the 
lowest cost, highest quality food supply in the world thanks to our 
farmers and ranchers and thanks to good farm policy. How do we put a 
value on our safe, abundant, nutritious, dependable food supply? It is 
invaluable. By any standard it is invaluable. Just consider the 
benefits that this farm bill provides.
  The farm bill is a job creator and it helps our economy. Agriculture 
supports 16 million jobs in the United States and contributes billions 
of dollars to the national economy. Year in and year out we sell more 
food and fiber than we buy from abroad. Further, American agriculture 
produces a financial surplus. Through relentless innovation, best 
practices, and good stewardship of the land, American agriculture 
creates a positive balance of trade.
  The farm bill saves money to help reduce the deficit and the debt. 
Think how important that is.
  The 2013 farm bill, like the farm bill we passed last year, provides 
more than $24 billion in savings--more than is required by 
sequestration--to help address the Nation's deficit and debt. Farmers 
and ranchers are stepping up and doing their part.
  The farm bill also provides a strong market-based safety net for the 
producers. The safety net in the 2013 farm bill focuses on enhanced 
crop insurance; that is what they have asked for and that is the 
focus--not direct payments. Direct payments are limited. It enhances 
crop insurance with the inclusion of a new product called the 
supplemental coverage option, SCO. The SCO enables purchasers to 
purchase a supplemental policy beyond their individual farm-based 
policy, thereby creating an additional level of risk management.
  The bill also includes the Agriculture Risk Coverage or ARC Program 
that provides assistance for shallow loss or multiple-year losses, 
which again helps our farmers to better manage risk. They are business 
people and they need to manage their risks.
  Let's not forget the farm bill strengthens our national security. Our 
country doesn't have to depend on other countries for our food supply--
countries that don't necessarily share our interests or values--and 
that makes us safer. The fact is we are secure in that most basic, 
vital necessity--our food supply.
  The farm bill is about so many things that are important to the 
people of America. This is about all Americans. Again, I say good farm 
policy benefits every single American. We have the highest quality, 
lowest cost food supply in the world thanks to our farmers, ranchers, 
and good farm policy.
  This is about 16 million jobs in this country which are supported by 
agriculture. This is about a positive balance of trade which helps 
build our economy. This is about $24 billion in savings where 
agriculture is stepping up and not only doing its share but more than 
its share to help with the deficit and debt. In the most fundamental 
ways, a good farm bill makes America stronger, safer, and more secure. 
We need to pass this farm bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I am pleased to congratulate my friend 
from North Dakota for his statement and his discussion of the content 
of this farm bill. He was one of the active members of our committee 
who participated in the markup sessions, attended the hearings in 
preparation for writing a farm bill, and helped to shape the consensus 
that is reflected in the final work product. Senator Hoeven is a very 
valuable member of our committee, and I commend and thank my colleague 
from North Dakota for his contributions to this process.
  He very accurately describes that this is a consensus product. It is 
not a partisan bill; it is not meant to make anybody or any section or 
any commodity group look good or feel good because of favors done in 
this bill. This is truly to serve the interests of our good and great 
country and help improve our trading opportunities in agricultural 
commodities that are produced on our farms throughout the United 
States.
  I think it is going to serve the interests of not only agriculture 
but the American citizen and, broadly speaking, much of this success is 
due to the contributions made by the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi for his kind comments and also for his leadership on the 
Agriculture Committee as our ranking member. I wanted to express my 
appreciation.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, it should come as no surprise that two 
Senators from the great State of North Dakota stand today and talk 
about the importance of American agriculture. Ninety percent of the 
land we have in North Dakota is engaged in production agriculture. As 
much as we have heard--and it is all true--about this great economic 
renaissance we are having in our State, agriculture is still No. 1.
  Every year American farmers--North Dakota farmers--bet. They bet on 
good weather, good prices, that the crop will grow, and they spend 
millions of dollars on that bet. They are the biggest gamblers in the 
history of the world, and they are asking for a farm bill that gives 
them a little bit of risk help and makes sure when they plant, they 
know that maybe they have a chance to get cost of production back out.
  Why is that important? It is important because who is going to take 
that risk on behalf of the American people, on behalf of a global and 
worldwide supply of food? Who is going to take that risk if we don't 
help a little bit?
  Today in America almost every State which has an agricultural base is 
doing a little bit better because agriculture has led the way. 
Agriculture has aided this economy. States with an agriculture base 
have a much lower rate of unemployment, and they have been leading the 
way on our trade deficit.
  It cannot be overstated how significant this farm bill is not only to 
States such as North Dakota but to every State and every economy in 
this Union. There are 16 million jobs which hang in the balance. They 
are waiting for this body--the Congress--to give some assurance, to 
pass a farm bill.
  I applaud both the ranking member and the committee chair for their 
excellent work. No bill which comes out of a committee with diverse 
opinions is absolutely perfect where everyone will agree on everything 
in the bill, but it is part of the great American compromise we have 
been talking about and striving for in this body. We are working to 
move the issues forward and do what Americans sent us here to do. We 
are here to deliberate, discuss, debate, and compromise, and that is 
what this bill is about.
  Every piece of this bill is important. Every piece is a linchpin to 
make sure we pass a farm bill. We are going to hear a lot in the next 
couple of days about the Sugar Program. I will talk broadly about the 
other provisions of the bill tomorrow on this floor, but I want to 
spend today talking a little bit about the Sugar Program within the 
farm bill because it is absolutely significant and important.

  I know Senator Hoeven outlined some of the statistics we talk about 
when we talk about sugar. The U.S. sugar policy defends more than 
142,000 jobs--not just in North Dakota, Minnesota, Florida, and Hawaii, 
but in 22 States. It defends those jobs from unfair foreign 
competition, and it results in nearly $20 billion in annual economic 
activity in the United States.
  Of course, many of these jobs are in North Dakota. We grow a lot of 
sugar beets in the Red River Valley, we process a lot of sugar beets in 
the Red River Valley, and those processing jobs are the value-added 
jobs that led the way to a value-added economy in our State. We are 
pretty protective of our sugar economy.
  In many rural communities sugar is the linchpin of the local economy. 
Make no mistake that if we bend to the

[[Page S3641]]

reforms we will hear talked about or bend to the ideas some have today 
about the Sugar Program, we will lose our domestic sugar industry. Why? 
Because we cannot compete. Make no mistake about that.
  I am not saying our producers cannot produce or compete with 
producers from other parts of the world if the playing field is level. 
In fact, not only can we compete, we can best them. However, the sugar 
playing field is not level. Other countries have subsidized their sugar 
programs for years. More than 120 countries actually produce sugar. 
Every one of them intervenes to defend their producers from global 
crisis where surplus sugar is dumped. No one could survive at historic 
world-level prices without these government interventions. If our 
farmers could go head to head with their foreign counterparts, they 
would robustly compete and, I believe, capture much of the market. 
Unfortunately, with Federal subsidization and protections in place, a 
fair fight is not available to our American sugar beet and sugar cane 
growers. Opponents of the Sugar Program would have us do one thing: 
Unilaterally disarm and surrender our market to foreign producers.
  For over two decades, from 1989 to 2008--and I want everyone to 
remember the date of 2008--the average world cost of sugar production 
averaged about 51 percent more than the world price.
  Let me say that again: The world average cost of sugar production 
averaged 51 percent more than the sugar price. How does that happen? 
How does anyone produce a product that costs more than they sell it 
for? They are subsidized, which means sugar producers have received 
support from governments that allow them to stay in business even when 
their production costs exceed the price.
  In order for those sugar industries to survive, governments in 
foreign countries provide some buffer to the world market with a wide 
variety of import tariffs, nontariff import barriers, price and income 
supports, and direct and indirect subsidies.
  We have heard that sugar prices are too high, and if we eliminate the 
Sugar Program--the risk program for our sugar growers--that sugar 
prices would drop. Food corporation opponents say the U.S. sugar price 
is too high. They further argue that high sugar prices threaten their 
competitiveness given foreign competition for processed foods.
  The truth is that sugar prices have held relatively stable over the 
course of the last three decades. This cannot be said about most other 
agricultural commodities. Imagine if we were debating today about $2-a-
bushel corn.
  U.S. raw sugar prices have dropped by more than half since the fall 
of 2011. Prices are now below the average price of the 1980s, below the 
average of the 1990s, and below the average of the decade of 2000.
  Our sugar farmers have struggled for decades and many have not have 
survived. Since 1985, more than half of the sugar beet and sugar cane 
operations shut down. It is hard to survive in 2013 when the price they 
get for their product is the same price they would have received in 
1980.
  The amendment we are going to be debating here will drive the U.S. 
sugar price down even further, which will allow more subsidized sugar 
to flow into our market and put our sugar farmers out of business.
  If we look at all of the commodities that are in the farm bill--look 
at every piece of that compromised bill--and start singling out one 
commodity for special treatment--let's forget for a minute we are 
talking about sugar. Let's talk about dairy. Would a sugar bill survive 
if we were to eliminate the dairy program? Would a farm bill survive if 
we were to eliminate the dairy program?
  Our concern today is that this industry is critical to our food 
security but also, importantly, it is critical to the compromise of the 
farm bill itself. This is a farm bill that supports over 16 million 
jobs in an economy that struggles except on the farm. These programs 
have worked.
  As someone who is from North Dakota, I have lived through bad farm 
bills. My producers have lived through bad farm bills. The last 5 to 6 
years have been an enormous improvement, not only to market-driven 
techniques but it has been an enormous improvement in allowing our 
producers to make the market decisions they are going to make, but also 
get the help that is going to give them surety.
  When a small North Dakota producer--and I am not exaggerating--spends 
$1 million putting a crop in the ground, they do that for their family, 
they do that for their State, but they also do it for the country and 
for the world because they know the American farmer feeds the world and 
it is a pretty important job.
  So I say, let the compromise stay. Let the bill stay intact. Let's 
move this bill forward, let's get it into conference with the House, 
and for once let's tell the American people we can get something done 
in Congress. Let's tell them we can respond to the needs of this 
country and move our country forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we appreciate the comments of the 
distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Also, it is a pleasure to 
welcome her as a new member of our committee. She took an active part 
in the development of this bill, and we appreciate her contributions.
  I see no other Senators seeking recognition at this time, and I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROBERTS. 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. 948

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment to call up amendment No. 948.
  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. Roberts], for himself, Mr. 
     Thune, and Mr. Johanns, proposes an amendment numbered 948.

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

      (Purpose: To improve and extend certain nutrition programs)

       On page 355, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 40__. RESTORING PROGRAM INTEGRITY TO CATEGORICAL 
                   ELIGIBILITY FOR THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The second sentence of section 5(a) of the 
     Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(a)) is amended 
     by striking ``receives benefits under a State program'' and 
     inserting ``receives assistance (as defined in section 260.31 
     of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on 
     January 1, 2013) under a State program''.
       (b) Resources.--Section 5(j) of the Food and Nutrition Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(j)) is amended by striking ``receives 
     benefits under a State program'' and inserting ``receives 
     assistance (as defined in section 260.31 of title 45, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2013) under a 
     State program''.
       Beginning on page 355, strike line 8 and all that follows 
     through page 357, line 15, and insert the following:

     SEC. 4002. ELIMINATING THE LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE 
                   LOOPHOLE.

       (a) In General.--Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 
     2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(11)(A), by striking ``(other than'' 
     and all that follows through ``et seq.))'' and inserting 
     ``(other than payments or allowances made under part A of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
     or any payments under any other State program funded with 
     qualified State expenditures (as defined in section 
     409(a)(7)(B)(i) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(1))))'';
       (2) in subsection (e)(6)(C), by striking clause (iv); and
       (3) in subsection (k)--
       (A) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (G) as 
     subparagraphs (C) through (F), respectively; and
       (iii) by striking paragraph (4).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2605(f) of the Low-
     Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624(f)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1)''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).
       Beginning on page 379, strike line 15 and all that follows 
     through page 380, line 15, and insert the following:

[[Page S3642]]

     SEC. 4011. ELIMINATING STATE BONUSES.

       (a) In General.--Section 16 of the Food and Nutrition Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025) is amended by striking subsection 
     (d).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 16 of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the first sentence of paragraph (4), by striking 
     ``payment error rate'' and all that follows through 
     ``subsection (d)'' and inserting ``liability amount or new 
     investment amount under paragraph (1) or payment error 
     rate''; and
       (B) in the first sentence of paragraph (5), by striking 
     ``payment error rate'' and all that follows through 
     ``subsection (d)'' and inserting ``liability amount or new 
     investment amount under paragraph (1) or payment error 
     rate''; and
       (2) in subsection (i)(1), by striking ``subsection (d)(1)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (c)(2)''.

     SEC. 4012. ELIMINATING DUPLICATIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING.

       (a) Funding of Employment and Training Programs.--Section 
     16 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025) is 
     amended by striking subsection (h).
       (b) Administrative Cost-sharing.--
       (1) In general.--Section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition 
     Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2025(a)) is amended in the first 
     sentence, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``(other than a program carried out under section 6(d)(4))'' 
     after ``supplemental nutrition assistance program''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 17(b)(1)(B)(iv)(III)(hh) of the Food and 
     Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2026(b)(1)(B)(iv)(III)(hh)) 
     is amended by striking ``(g), (h)(2), or (h)(3)'' and 
     inserting ``or (g)''.
       (B) Section 22(d)(1)(B)(ii) of the Food and Nutrition Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2031(d)(1)(B)(ii)) is amended is amended by 
     striking ``, (g), (h)(2), and (h)(3)'' and inserting ``and 
     (g)''.
       (c) Workfare.--
       (1) In general.--Section 20 of the Food and Nutrition Act 
     of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2029) is amended by striking subsection 
     (g).
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 17(b)(1)(B)(iv)(III)(jj) 
     of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2026(b)(1)(B)(iv)(III)(jj)) is amended by striking ``or 
     (g)(1)''.
       On page 385, strike lines 19 through 22 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 4016. ELIMINATING THE NUTRITION EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 28 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 
     2036a) is repealed.
       On page 390, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 4019. TERMINATING AN INCREASE IN BENEFITS.

       Section 101(a) of division A of the American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 120; 
     124 Stat. 2394; 124 Stat. 3265) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Termination.--The authority provided by this 
     subsection shall terminate after September 1, 2013.''.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this is Roberts amendment No. 948. This 
amendment would help rein in the largest expenditure within the 
Department of Agriculture budget--the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program, SNAP, more commonly known as food stamps.
  The Senate Agriculture Committee included minimal savings under food 
stamps--around $4 billion over the 10-year budget window. I know people 
have different views, but I would say that it is certainly minimal. I 
think we could have done more in committee last week. I introduced an 
amendment at that time. I withdrew it to make sure we could get this to 
the floor. We must do much more in a responsible manner. Look at the 
House Agriculture Committee, which marked up a farm bill with over $20 
billion in savings from SNAP. That bill was marked up and passed with 
bipartisan support as of last week.
  We can restore integrity to the program while providing benefits to 
those truly in need and save approximately an additional $30 billion. 
Note that I say ``while providing benefits to those truly in need.'' I 
am not proposing a dramatic change in the policy of nutrition programs, 
such as block-granting programs to States. That would represent a 
dramatic change. Instead, this amendment enforces the principles of 
good government and restores SNAP and spending to much more responsible 
levels.
  Also, SNAP was exempted from the across-the-board cuts known as 
sequestration. However, it is clear there are several areas within the 
program that could provide significant savings that were left 
untouched.
  First, the amendment eliminates the LIHEAP loophole. Let me be clear. 
Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole does not affect SNAP eligibility for 
anyone using SNAP; it only decreases SNAP benefits for those who would 
not otherwise qualify for the higher SNAP benefit amounts.
  But at least 17 States, with all due respect, are gaming the system 
by designing their Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--LIHEAP--
to exploit SNAP. Let me explain. The LIHEAP loophole works like this: 
Participating State agencies annually issue extremely low LIHEAP 
benefits to qualify otherwise ineligible households for standard 
utility allowances, which result in increased monthly SNAP benefits. 
For example, today a State agency can issue $1--only $1--annually in 
LIHEAP benefits to increase monthly SNAP benefits an average of $90--
that is $1,080 per year--for households that do not otherwise pay out-
of-pocket utility bills.
  If you completely eliminate the LIHEAP loophole, as my legislation 
does, it will save taxpayers a total of $12 billion--$8 billion 
additional compared to the current version of the farm bill.
  We also tie categorical eligibility to cash assistance, eliminating a 
loophole that States are exploiting by offering TANF-provided 
informational brochures and informational 1-800 numbers to maximize 
SNAP enrollment and the corresponding increase in Federal food 
benefits.
  Categorical eligibility, simply known as Cat-El, was designed to help 
streamline the administration of SNAP by allowing households to be 
certified as eligible for SNAP food benefits without evaluating 
household assets or gross income. 42 States are exploiting an 
unintended loophole of the TANF-provided informational brochures and 
informational 1-800 numbers to maximize SNAP enrollment and the 
corresponding increase in Federal food benefits and the cost. These 
States, with all due respect, are also gaming the system to bring 
otherwise ineligible SNAP participants into the program.
  In an ongoing effort to streamline government programs, we should 
eliminate the duplicative SNAP Employment and Training Program and the 
SNAP Nutrition Education Grants Program. Combined, these two programs 
cost over $8 billion and do not represent any direct food benefits--any 
direct food benefits.
  This amendment also ends the Department of Agriculture practice of 
giving $48 million in awards every year to State agencies for basically 
doing their job. Currently, bonuses are given to States for best 
program access--signing up as many people for SNAP as possible; most 
improved program access--how many more people signed up for SNAP 
compared to the previous year; and best application processing 
timelines--handling applications within required guidelines. The 
bonuses are not even required to be used for SNAP administration. A 
recipient State may choose to use the funding for any State priority.
  Finally, the amendment terminates the ongoing stimulus, enacted by 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided 
extra funding to increase monthly SNAP food benefits. I really 
understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many 
hard-working Americans, including many Kansans. As chairman of the 
House Agriculture Committee some years ago, we worked very hard to save 
the Food Stamp Program and prevent any kinds of efforts to simply do 
away with it or send it back to States because of the very things I 
have talked about.
  My goal is simple: to restore integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program in a commonsense and comprehensive manner. Enacting 
this package of reforms will allow the Federal Government to continue 
to help those who truly need SNAP food benefits and assistance. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and these reforms for 
the benefit of all Americans.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I inquire of the chairwoman if I might be 
able to speak for about 5 or 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Certainly we want to hear from the distinguished Senator from 
Montana. I

[[Page S3643]]

know the Senator from South Dakota has been waiting for some time as 
well, and we had asked him to wait until Senator Roberts had offered 
his amendment. I am not sure of the time the Senator from South Dakota 
is requesting right now, but certainly we want to hear from both of the 
Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, does the Senator from Michigan want to lock 
in a time agreement on the votes?
  Ms. STABENOW. It appears at this moment we are going to have to have 
a little bit more time before we do that, but I thank the Senator.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Tragedy In Oklahoma

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I first want to start with just a word 
about the tragedy in Oklahoma. Our thoughts and prayers are with the 
families impacted by yesterday's devastating storms, as well as the 
first responders and volunteers who rushed to the scene. I hope all 
Americans will continue to keep them in their thoughts and prayers and 
be looking for ways in which they can pitch in and help in this very 
tragic situation.


                      Long-Term Budget Challenges

  Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about the long-term 
budget challenges facing the country and the impact those challenges 
are going to have on jobs, economic growth, and future generations if 
we do not control spending.
  Last week the Congressional Budget Office released its updated budget 
projections, and in conjunction with that they released an analysis of 
the President's 2014 budget.
  Once again, the CBO report underscores the long-term budget 
challenges facing this country. If you listen to many of the 
politicians here in Washington, DC, and commentators on the Democratic 
side reacting to the Congressional Budget Office report, you would have 
heard claims that the deficit and debt crisis facing this country is 
solved and that no further deficit reduction is needed. In fact, 
President Obama took to the airwaves recently in his radio address and 
boasted about the deficits ``shrinking at the fastest rate in 
decades.''
  These claims about last week's Congressional Budget Office report 
strike me as odd, particularly because the details of the report tell a 
different story. According to the CBO, the deficit for 2013 is 
projected to be $642 billion or 4 percent of the Nation's gross 
domestic product.
  While the deficit may be down from its record trillion dollar-plus 
levels, the national debt, which is already at $16.7 trillion, 
continues to grow at an alarming rate--$642 billion this year alone. 
While it is encouraging that the deficit this year will be smaller than 
it was originally projected, part of those savings are due to 
unexpected repayments from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the revenue 
increases from January's fiscal cliff agreement.
  The fact of the matter is a deficit 4 percent the size of the economy 
is nearly double the historic average. Over the next 10 years covered 
in the CBO's baseline projections, the national debt will grow by 
nearly $9 trillion to over $25 trillion.
  To put that number in perspective, the country is projected to rack 
up over $2 billion in debt every single day over the next decade, at 
which point our national debt will exceed $25 trillion. This assumes 
the sequester remains in place. Publicly held debt will remain above 70 
percent of GDP, which is much higher than the historic average of 39 
percent. CBO projects that publicly held debt will continue on an 
upward path beyond the next decade.
  This growth is driven by spending, not revenue. The CBO report 
confirms that revenues are projected to grow by 45.9 percent in the 8 
years after the year 2015, while overall spending will grow at 55 
percent during that time period, despite the fact that inflation will 
be 19.5 percent and economic growth 24.9 percent during that time 
period. Those are CBO estimates about economic growth, inflation, 
spending, and debt over the course of the next decade.
  In other words, revenues are going up but spending is projected to 
grow at nearly three times the rate of inflation, meaning we have a 
spending problem, not a revenue problem. In fact, revenues will reach 
19.1 percent of GDP by the year 2023, which is well above the historic 
average of 17.9 percent since the end of World War II. Spending, on the 
other hand, will continue to grow even with the sequester, driven 
largely by increases in mandatory spending. Mandatory spending on 
programs such as Medicare is projected to grow by 79 percent from 
today's level over the next 10 years. Federal health care programs, 
including ObamaCare, are driving the surge in mandatory spending. 
Federal health care spending is projected to double over the next 
decade as the health insurance exchange subsidies kick in beginning 
next year. Medicare and other programs continue to grow without needed 
reforms to save and strengthen them.
  Spending on mandatory programs and interest on the debt will consume 
nearly three-quarters of all Federal spending over the next 10 years, 
leaving little room to pay for all discretionary programs including, I 
might add, national defense.
  To slow the rapid rise in debt this country is experiencing, we have 
to control the largest driver of that debt, which is spending and, in 
particular, mandatory entitlement spending. The alternative is a 
crippling national debt that is bad for the economy, bad for jobs, bad 
for our national security, and bad for our children and grandchildren.
  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, ``Such high 
and rising debt later in the coming decade would have serious negative 
consequences.'' The report goes on to say: ``Moreover, because Federal 
borrowing reduces national saving, over time the capital stock would be 
smaller and total wages would be lower . . . ''
  The CBO also warns that such high levels of debt increase the risk of 
a fiscal crisis. The threat the rising national debt poses to our 
economy is real. It will impact the American people, and it will impact 
our economy in very real ways. It will slow economic growth, meaning 
fewer jobs. It will drive up interest rates, making it more expensive 
to borrow money to pay for a college education or to buy a home.
  It is inevitable that the national debt is going to have to be 
addressed at some point. The question is whether we address it directly 
or continue kicking the can down the road, which will only make our 
problems much more difficult to solve.
  The Congressional Budget Office also projected in their update last 
week that interest spending--the amount we spend to finance our debt--
is going to increase dramatically over the next several years. In fact, 
interest costs on prior deficit spending are going to grow from $223 
billion today to $823 billion in 2023, an increase of 369 percent. Net 
interest costs will surpass the base defense budget in 2019, 6 years 
from now. Think about that. We are going to spend more in interest on 
the debt 6 years from now than we spend on national security, on our 
national defense. That is how fast the interest is going to eat up 
every other area of the budget.
  I would hope we will be able to take this CBO report and not greet it 
with great fanfare and be slapping high fives because for 1 year the 
deficit was reduced by a couple of hundred billion over what it was 
supposed to be, but, rather, recognize that with $642 billion this year 
and a Federal debt that is going to be at $25 trillion at the end of 
this decade and interest payments that will exceed the amount we spend 
on national security, we have a serious debt crisis in this country 
that needs to be addressed.
  It is my wish that Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and 
our Democratic colleagues will work with us and that the President will 
step forward and acknowledge we have a debt crisis. It is not a debt 
crisis somewhere out there in the future, it is a debt crisis today 
that needs to be dealt with. The CBO update, rather than alleviating 
that concern, puts the fine point that we need to act, and we need to 
act now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson once said: ``Far and away 
the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work 
worth doing.''

[[Page S3644]]

  I know many Montana farmers and ranchers who understand that exactly. 
They know what Jefferson meant. They work the soils and tend their 
herds month after month, often through natural disasters such as the 
drought we had in 2012. It is hard work, but they do it because it is 
work worth doing. The dirt under their nails and the sweat on their 
brow puts food on our tables every day. The farm bill supports that 
effort, the bill before us this afternoon. It is work worth doing.
  Make no mistake, the farm bill is a jobs bill. It supports 16 million 
American jobs every year. In my State of Montana, one in every five 
jobs is tied to agriculture. Those jobs are counting on us to get this 
bill done.
  As we work to tackle the debt, it is important to remember the farm 
bill cuts spending by $23 billion. The farm bill is part of the 
solution, not part of the problem. Under the leadership of Chairwoman 
Stabenow and Ranking Member Cochran, we have crafted a true reform farm 
bill. We worked with farmers and ranchers across the country to create 
a farm policy that works for producers and taxpayers both. It provides 
support that is needed when they actually experience a loss.
  As Will Rogers notably said: ``The farmer has to be an optimist or he 
wouldn't still be a farmer.''
  Farming is capital intensive. Farmers work with paper-thin profit 
margins. Even the best farmer is left at the mercy of weather and 
chance.
  The drought last year is an example of the risk farmers face. USDA 
predicts that 80 percent of agricultural land experienced drought in 
2012, making it one of the most expensive droughts in a generation. In 
Montana that means 48 of 56 counties with parched crops and empty 
fields. The revenue program in this bill, combined with the crop 
insurance products we have fine-tuned over the decades, will help 
farmers survive disasters such as this and prepare to put food on 
America's tables when weather or market conditions improve.
  Anyone who has been to Montana knows we have the best-tasting beef in 
the world too--or at least we think so. For the last year our ranchers 
have weathered this drought with no support. With hay and water in 
short supply, they have been forced to thin their herds. Thinning herds 
means lost jobs in Montana, because 50 percent of our economy is tied 
to agriculture, and about 35 percent of our total agriculture proceeds 
come from cattle and calf sales.
  Livestock disaster assistance keeps our ranchers in business until 
the rain starts falling again. That is why I created these programs in 
2008, and that is why I fought so hard to make them permanent in this 
bill--to finally provide our ranchers with certainty they can take to 
the bank. In the last farm bill they were not permanent and caused 
almost another disaster. I thank the chairman and ranking member for 
working with me to extend that livestock disaster with limited funds.
  We did not stop there. We did not stop with reforming the farm bill. 
We saved $6 billion from in the conservation title without compromising 
the policy. We did this by consolidating 23 existing programs, bringing 
a tight network of efficient and streamlined conservation programs.
  I made sure we protected the working lands programs, which contribute 
to substantial conservation improvements but still allow for productive 
use of the land.
  In the forestry title, we permanently authorized stewardship 
contracting. This is so important to the western one-third of our 
State. This will help the timber industry sustainably harvest more 
trees. Anyone in western Montana will tell you that means jobs.
  We also included support to combat the bark beetle epidemic that has 
killed over 6 million acres of Montana forests. Senator Bennet and I 
worked together to make sure those dead trees can be harvested more 
quickly before the wood wastes or burns. With fire season already well 
underway in Montana, this investment is more important than ever.
  I was also extremely proud of our work to help veterans find jobs in 
farming. Forty-five percent of our servicemembers come from rural 
areas. This is a national statistic, so farming is a natural fit for 
veterans looking to return home to a rural way of life.
  In the nutrition title, I am proud to say we kept the fundamentals of 
the food stamp program intact so low-income families have their safety 
net in place as the economy continues to improve. We even found a way 
to trump up spending for TEFAP, which provides emergency food for needy 
families.
  In Montana, agriculture is a way of life. It is our biggest industry. 
Our 29,300 farms produce billions of dollars worth of quality wheat, 
barley, peas, and lentils--to say nothing of our livestock. Our 
ranchers have 2.5 million head of cattle, which means there are more 
cows in Montana than people.
  The farm bill is not just for producers. It also provides funding for 
rural businesses, from Miles City, to Glendive, to Libby. The farm bill 
offers opportunities for Montanans of all walks of life.
  The same is true all across America. Our farm policy contributes to 
security in American agriculture, and that is why we spend less on food 
than any other country in the world. We spend less than any other 
developed country in the world. Americans spend less than 7 percent of 
their disposable income to feed their families. That compares with 
almost 25 percent in 1930.
  Our producers put food on tables around the world. In 2012, 
agricultural exports reached $136 billion, with a surplus of $32 
billion--literally growing wealth from our fertile soils.
  Like any small business owner, farmers and ranchers all across 
Montana tell me the No. 1 thing they want is certainty. Operating under 
short-term extensions leaves millions of Americans' agricultural jobs 
stuck in limbo. Farmers and ranchers need certainty they can take to 
the bank. That is why they need this 5-year farm bill. If we can get 
this bill passed, we are on the road to moving away from these short-
term extensions--which do no one any good--and moving to longer term 
legislation which does everybody a lot more good. I hope we can get 
this bill passed, it is so important.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I am going to proceed on my leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.


                           Burmese Sanctions

  Mr. McCONNELL. For the past two decades, I have been coming to the 
Senate floor to condemn acts of the Burmese regime against its own 
people. For the past decade, for these same reasons, I have sponsored 
legislation to impose sanctions on the Burmese Government.
  Beginning in 2003, import sanctions have been renewed annually 
through the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. This act was later 
enhanced in 2008 through the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act, a 
measure I also cosponsored.
  Today, however, I come to the floor with a different message. After 
having given the matter a great deal of thought and review, I do not 
believe Congress should reauthorize these import sanctions.
  Let me repeat that. I do not believe the Burma sanctions should be 
renewed for another year. There are several reasons why.
  First, the objective of the sanctions effort is to change the 
behavior of the Burmese Government. To a significant extent that has 
actually taken place. As a result of the new Burmese Government's 
actions in the past 2\1/2\ years, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace 
Prize Laureate, has been freed from house arrest, has been permitted to 
travel abroad, and has been elected to office as a member of 
Parliament.
  A free and fair by-election was held in Burma last year. Scores of 
political prisoners have been released. A freer form of government has 
begun to take root. I strongly believe the import sanctions we 
previously enacted were instrumental in promoting these reforms. They 
helped deny the previous military junta the legitimacy it had craved.
  These positive changes, many of which I saw for myself during my 
visit to Burma in January 2012, should be acknowledged, and we do 
acknowledge them. As Suu Kyi herself said last fall during her visit to 
the United States, ``the sanctions need to be removed.''
  Second, I believe renewing sanctions would be a slap in the face to 
Burmese reformers and would embolden those within Burma who want to 
slow or reverse the reform movement. We should

[[Page S3645]]

be strengthening the hand of these reformists to show the ``fence 
sitters'' that reform will be met with positive action by the United 
States. The administration has extended an olive branch to the new 
Burmese Government, and I believe it is time for Congress to do the 
same. Burmese citizens should not be made to feel that Congress will 
maintain sanctions no matter what they do.
  Third, after renewal of the import ban last year, the administration 
waived most of the sanctions in response to the recent reforms. So as a 
practical matter--as a practical matter--even if the ban were renewed, 
its effect would be largely nullified through an administration 
waiver--a waiver, by the way, I support.
  Let me emphasize a few points. By choosing not to renew the import 
ban, no one should fall under the misimpression that Congress would be 
giving up its leverage with respect to Burma. The current restrictions 
on importation of Burmese jade and rubies are likely to remain in place 
even without the renewal of sanctions. This is because the 
administration enjoys authority under other statutes to continue to 
limit the importation of Burmese gems. So, again, as a practical 
matter, the restrictions on Burma would be little different without the 
sanctions than they are right now under the sanctions we renewed last 
year, considering the fact the sanctions were waived last year anyway.
  Moreover, there are other sanctions, apart from the law I was just 
talking about, which would remain permanent. They include the authority 
to freeze assets and the authority to deny visas to bad Burmese actors. 
Even if the import ban is not reauthorized, these provisions remain on 
the books.
  In addition, a variety of other sanctions that expressly name Burma 
remain in effect and still require outright repeal or modification. 
They include provisions within the fiscal year 1997 foreign operations 
appropriations bill, the Customs and Trade Act of 1990, and the Foreign 
Assistance Act.
  If the Burmese Government continues to support political and economic 
reform, then at a later date Congress can consider whether these 
permanent restrictions warrant removal or modification.
  Beyond the realm of trade, there are other statutes of general 
application that sanction Burma due to concerns over human trafficking, 
counternarcotics, and religious freedom, to name just a few such 
issues. Burma must take positive action in order to no longer qualify 
for sanctions under those measures as well. So, again, legislative 
leverage would remain even without the renewal of this law.
  There also remains the annual appropriations process as Congress 
considers how much and what types of aid Burma should receive in the 
first place. For instance, there is some indication that Burma wants to 
improve its military-to-military relationship with us. Frankly, I think 
that is a good idea, and such programs and contacts provide additional 
tools for congressional oversight and action.
  The European Union and Australia have also removed most of their 
sanctions against Burma. Congress, in choosing not to renew trade 
sanctions, would ensure that American companies remain on equal footing 
with their western competitors and bring greater certainty to those 
U.S. firms which are considering investment in Burma.
  Finally, if Burma backslides, Congress can always reconsider the 
sanctions.
  As a Congress, we need to be realistic about the fundamental 
challenges facing Burma on its road to reform. The country faces major 
challenges on many fronts stemming from a half century of bad 
governance and economic mismanagement. In this post-junta period the 
Burmese people need our help, and bilateral trade can do just that. It 
can help improve Burmese lives and show the people of Burma that a move 
toward greater political openness under a new government brings with it 
tangible benefits in their daily lives.
  A Burmese Government that is more representative of its people and 
reforming economically will be positioned to contribute to ASEAN 
regional stability and grow increasingly independent within the region.
  While I am pleased with the progress we have already seen, I would 
note I am not--repeat, not--fully satisfied with the progress Burma has 
made so far. Much more needs to be done. The 2015 elections will be a 
vital indicator of how strong the reform movement is within Burma.
  In my view there are several other important benchmarks we will need 
to see achieved going forward. For example, all parties within Burma 
must work to reduce the clashes between the military and ethnic 
minority groups and begin political dialogue toward peaceful 
reconciliation. All parties within Burma need to work to diminish 
sectarian strife between Buddhists and Muslims. Any arms trade between 
North Korea and Burma needs to stop--now.
  The Burmese constitution also needs amending in several areas. For 
example, provisions specifically designed to exclude Suu Kyi from 
running for President need to be changed. Complete and unconditional 
release of political prisoners needs to be undertaken. The military 
should increasingly be brought under civilian control. Finally, other 
reforms in progress involving enhanced rule of law, protection of 
private property, and government accountability need to take place.

  I make this appeal to my colleagues in light of the visit of Burmese 
President Thein Sein to Washington this week. This is an important 
visit reflecting many of the dramatic changes that have taken place in 
Burma. It follows on the heels of Daw Aung Suu Kyi's landmark visit 
last fall and President Obama's visit to Burma last year.
  Many of us who have followed Burma for years--in my case, two 
decades--never thought we would see this reform come to this troubled 
country. This is an important moment. I believe it is time for Congress 
to take responsible action to continue to promote progress by 
encouraging those who are risking much--very much--within Burma while 
still leaving in place other sanctions in order to encourage further 
reform. A decision not to renew the sanctions is an important step in 
that direction. To do otherwise could send the wrong signal to the 
wrong people.
  So as a Congress, let's continue to vigorously support democracy and 
peaceful reconciliation in Burma, but let's do so by taking a positive 
step forward with regard to our sanctions policy.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I see my friend from Louisiana wishing 
to speak, but I have a unanimous consent request first.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 4:05--5 minutes after 4--the Senate 
proceed to a vote in relation to the Roberts amendment, No. 948; that 
there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to 
the vote; that the time until 4:05 be divided with 10 minutes for 
Senator Vitter and the remaining time to be equally divided on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to present two amendments I have 
filed on this farm bill, and I will be pushing hard for votes on them 
right now. I hope these get a full and extensive debate and a vote. 
They are relevant and related to the farm bill in significant ways.
  The first amendment is with regard to the free government cell phone 
program, and of course that uses as criteria for eligibility the food 
stamp program and other benefit programs, so it is directly related to 
that aspect of the farm bill.
  Mr. President, as you know, this program has been exploding almost 
without limit, and I have some fundamental concerns about it. My 
fundamental concerns are pretty simple and pretty basic. They come down 
to two things: First of all, I think the whole program is an 
entitlement mentality gone wild; that we have started the notion that 
folks are entitled to the government, the taxpayer, providing them 
almost everything under the sun; and, secondly, and not unrelated, 
there has been widespread fraud and abuse in this program, and I am 
convinced it is at the core of this program and can't be scrubbed out.

[[Page S3646]]

  What is the program we are talking about? Well, it is the free 
government cell phone program. It was started in 2008, and in just 
those few years since then it has grown from $143 million that year, 
which itself is a significant amount of money, to nearly $2 billion 
now--an elevenfold increase. This program is paid for by you and by me. 
It is paid for through our land line and cell phone bills. We all get a 
charge on our bills. So if you actually pay your phone bill, land line, 
and/or cell phone, you get a charge and you pay that charge and that is 
what funds this program. So ratepayers, taxpayers, citizens, millions 
upon millions around the country pay for this program.
  The FCC itself--and the FCC is in charge of the program--estimates 
that about 270,000 beneficiaries have more than one of these free 
government cell phones. That is interesting, that is important because 
that is completely against the law and against the rules--completely 
prohibited. The FCC also says the top five companies that benefit from 
the program could not confirm the eligibility of 41 percent of the 
folks they signed up. This is from a report in 2011. The FCC did some 
spot-checking and found that 41 percent of the folks these companies 
signed up couldn't be confirmed as eligible.
  This has led one of my colleagues, Claire McCaskill, Democrat of 
Missouri, to say the program is rife for fraud, with a ``history of 
extreme waste and abuse.'' That is what my objections are all about--
rampant waste and abuse and a general entitlement mentality that I 
think has gone too far.
  The amendment I offer on this bill, which is at the desk, would 
simply and completely end the program with regard to free government 
cell phones. Someone might argue: Oh, these programs are being fixed. 
We are making great strides.
  Well, I was interested in seeing how far we have come, so this very 
weekend I was talking to a friend of mine back in Louisiana, Clarence, 
and he was interested in that too. So Monday--yesterday--he decided to 
go to one of these outlets that advertises free government cell phones 
and just see what his experience was.
  So he walked in and simply told the truth; that he was interested in 
getting a free government cell phone. He was asked: Are you now on any 
government benefit program, such as food stamps?
  He answered truthfully: No. He said: I have a job. I don't make a lot 
of money. That was the truth.
  He was asked to produce two things: a driver's license and a pay 
stub. He showed the people at the counter both of those things. They 
looked at them. Interestingly, they certainly didn't make any copies. 
They certainly didn't create any documentation because that could 
potentially get them in trouble.
  They looked at his documents and gave him a form he had to sign once, 
and then they immediately gave him a free government cell phone. The 
phone was on, it worked immediately, it had minutes on it that he could 
immediately use. He walked out of that storefront in less than 10 
minutes with a free government cell phone.

  He then looked up the precise eligibility criteria of the program, 
which he did not know before. Guess what. Surprise, surprise. He did 
not qualify. He should never have gotten one. So he is returning it 
today. It will also be interesting to see how long that phone is kept 
on even after he returns it because the provider gets $9.25 from the 
ratepayer and the taxpayer and the FCC every month for that account.
  This is his, Clarence's, free government cell phone. This is his 
receipt. The charge is zero, absolutely free, and completely contrary 
to all of the rules of the program, which is why he is returning it 
today.
  We have serious spending and fiscal challenges in this country, but 
we have an even greater challenge, which is we have lost the faith and 
confidence of the American people. We have lost it because of this. We 
have lost it because there are tents popping out on every street 
corner. They are handing out these free government cell phones like 
candy. And why is that happening? Because the people handing out the 
phones have a vested interest in doing that, have a vested interest in 
not worrying about whether eligibility criteria are met because every 
time they hand out a phone they get $9.25 per phone per month as long 
as they can sustain that gravy train.
  They are the biggest welfare abusers of this--rich owners of 
companies who milk the system to get richer, whom I would call 
government welfare kings.
  This abuse needs to stop. We need to recapture the confidence of the 
American people. My amendment would help do that.
  I will also be presenting and pushing for a vote on an amendment to 
limit and bar certain people from receiving any food stamp benefits. 
Those are folks who have been convicted of violent and serious crimes 
such as violent rapists, pedophiles, and murderers. There is a 
misconception that ban is already in the law. In fact, it is not. In 
fact, the only ban that exists is for drug felons and in the law is an 
opt-out for States so the State can opt out of even that ban.
  My second amendment is simple and straightforward. It would establish 
a complete ban in the program for anyone who has committed a violent 
rape, a crime of pedophilia or a murder. There would be no opt-out for 
States.
  I hope we can form a bipartisan consensus around this basic idea and 
put that basic fundamental limitation in the law. I urge my colleagues 
to look at both of these amendments and support both of these 
amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute remaining. The Senator from 
Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the distinguished Presiding Officer 
please inform the Senator on how much time we have divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 40 seconds.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that 2 minutes be granted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this is an amendment I have worked on 
considerably, along with Senator Thune, Senator Johanns, others on the 
Agriculture Committee, and others as well. We can restore integrity to 
the SNAP program while providing benefits to those truly in need. Let 
me emphasize that--while providing benefits to those truly in need. We 
are not touching those while we will save an additional $31 billion; 
$31 billion as compared to what? Compared to $800 billion over 10 
years. If we cannot at least make those kinds of savings, $31 billion 
to $800 billion, we have problems. I am not proposing a dramatic change 
in the policy of nutrition programs, such as block granting programs to 
States would represent; instead, this amendment would enforce the 
principles of good government and return SNAP spending to more 
responsible levels.
  SNAP was exempted from across-the-board cuts known as sequestration. 
However, it is clear there are areas within the program that could 
provide significant savings that were left untouched. Enacting these 
reforms would allow the Federal Government to continue to help those 
who truly need Federal benefits and assistance but also enact needed 
reforms. Otherwise, food stamps and SNAP will continue to be a target. 
I don't want that. I think we can restore integrity to the program. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This goes way beyond what we have done in the committee, 
which is to focus on waste, fraud, and abuse and make sure there is 
integrity in the program, to make sure supplemental nutrition 
assistance goes to families who have been working hard all their lives, 
paying taxes, who fall on hard times and need some temporary help. 
This, in fact, would have a nine times higher cut than what we reported 
out of the committee on a bipartisan vote. It would undercut what we 
are trying to do in employment and training, which is so critical.
  We all want people to have the opportunity to get back to work. We 
are seeing now, in the area of nutrition, the costs are now going down 
the way they should be, which is people are getting back to work and no 
longer needing the help. That is the way we should reduce it, in 
addition to tackling waste, fraud, and abuse, as we do in this bill.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Roberts 
amendment.

[[Page S3647]]

  Ms. STABENOW. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be. There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 58, as follows;

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                               NAYS--- 58

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Coburn
     Inhofe
       
  The amendment (No. 948) was rejected.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 931

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now 
be 5 minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the 
Gillibrand amendment No. 931; that there be no second-degree amendments 
in order to the amendment prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment 
because when Congress proposes to cut the Food Stamp Program, it is not 
nameless, faceless people looking for a handout who suffer. It is 
children. It is veterans. It is Active-Duty servicemembers. It is hard-
working adults. We have to stand by them in the way they have stood by 
us. The reality of this amendment is that half of the recipients of 
food stamps are children, 8 percent are seniors, and 1.4 million 
veteran households receive food stamps.
  Some of my colleagues believe this is some loophole we are closing, 
but the fact is these programs were designed for efficiency as part of 
welfare reform. When we put this LIHEAP program in place--the ``heat 
and eat'' program--it was to say families living in cold weather States 
that have high heating bills need extra money to put food on the table. 
This particular provision is for people in rental apartments who do not 
have a heating bill but are also having their heat included in their 
rent. These Governors in ``heat and eat'' States have said we want to 
make sure our recipients of food stamps are eligible for this benefit 
because they need it. Children, seniors, veterans, Active-Duty 
servicemembers deserve to have food on their table.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer.
  No, no, no, no; we are not cutting anybody's benefits that the 
distinguished Senator from New York is talking about. This amendment 
would effectively shield over 80 percent of the farm bill from any 
deficit reduction and prevent the bill from addressing a serious breach 
in the nutrition program. The distinguished chairperson of the 
Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Michigan, already has included 
the provision in the bill. To say the chairperson is against food 
stamps for needy people is ridiculous.
  It is important to note this amendment does more than create in a 
State what is called the LIHEAP loophole which we don't want; this 
amendment also cuts crop insurance. That is the No. 1 priority of 
American farmers today. It is one of the great success stories. It was 
developed as a way to help farmers manage their own risks, have skin in 
the game, and head off the need for costly, inefficient, ad hoc 
disaster programs. These types of cuts can be difficult to absorb. When 
we are in the third year of drought is not the time to change them.
  I also wish to add the Senator from New York has been a champion of 
expanding crop insurance coverage for specialty crops, organic crops in 
her home State. I just think that perhaps she is misinformed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Is there time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 9 seconds remaining.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I reluctantly rise in opposition. I am a 
full supporter of this program to make sure families who find 
themselves in a situation beyond their control because of the economy, 
because of what has been happening to so many around the country, get 
the temporary help they need. What we have done in the farm bill is 
focus on those areas where there has been fraud or abuse or, in this 
case, misuse of actually a very good program to be able to provide 
assistance in terms of heat and food. But there are a few States--mine 
is one of them--that have gone beyond and are misusing a well-intended 
program.
  I believe in fighting for the integrity of these programs so we can 
continue to fight for increased help for people who truly need it, and 
I believe what we have done in the bill meets the test of integrity and 
is defensible and addresses legitimate concerns raised about the misuse 
and fraud of programs.
  So I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Whitehouse) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 26, nays 70, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

                                YEAS--26

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Cowan
     Gillibrand
     Hirono
     King
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Udall (NM)
     Warren
     Wyden

                                NAYS--70

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cardin
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Graham

[[Page S3648]]


     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Nelson
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Coburn
     Inhofe
     Murkowski
     Whitehouse
  The amendment (No. 931) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________