believe at this point has expired. i don't know if we have others that wish to speak at this poi point. i would ask for the yeas and nays, madam president, on the amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their votes? the presiding officer: are there any other senators in the chamber wishing to change their

vote? if not, the yeas are 36, the nays are 60. the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered and agreed to -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. stabenow: i would ask suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered and agreed to -- franken 992 and vitter 1056. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. scien: madam president, i rise to speak briefly about the senate budget. at the close of my comments, i will make another motion to cut the senate in a conference with the house. we were here until 5:00 in the morning in march to pass the first regular budgetary order in four years. it was a full, open process both in committee with numerous amendments and then on the floor with over 100 amendments voted on and over 70 passed. mr. kaine: it is many days past time to begin a budget conference process. this will enable the senate to return to normal budgetary order. it is what our voters, both democratic and republican, in all of our states expect us to to do to have a meaningful conference about this budget with the house. good news, we're seeing some recent examples of normal order

and compromise in this body that i think are worthy of some attention. the appropriations bill that we passed through a regular order process for the remainder of 2013 in march, the marketplace fairness bill that we passed, a problem that had been searching for a solution for 15-20 years, the wrda bill that we passed last week, the debates that we're having about the farm bill today, all have involved significant open processes in the committee, significant open processes here on the floor, senate action that then moves in a regular order into discussion with the house. and i think it is up to this body to show the public that we don't just embrace regular order and normal processes on these important issues but that we also embrace them on something as critically important as the federal budget. and so for that reason, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to consideration of calendar item 33, which is h. con. res.

25, that the amendment which is on the desk that has the text of the senate resolution 8, the budget resolution passed by the senate, be inserted in lieu thereof, that h. con. res. 25 as amended be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the senate insist upon its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreeing votes of the two houses, and that the chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the senate, and that following the authorization two motions to instruct conferees be in order. first, a motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and second a motion to instruct relative to taxes and revenue, that there be two hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relations to those two motions, and further that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes, all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate. i make that motion, madam president. the presiding officer: is there

objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: madam president, thank you, and reserving the right to object, i would ask the senator from virginia if he would consider adding -- asking consent -- i would ask consent that the senator modify his request that it not be in order for the senate to consider a conference report that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit. and the reason why i make that is as follows. first of all, i do respect regular order tremendously. in fact, i want to take this brief opportunity to congratulate the judiciary committee on the lengthy process with regard to the immigration bill which i think will give us -- help us in the process of having a better product. obviously, i also -- although we disagree with the outcome because of the way it was constructed, i also disagree with the way this budget was constructed, but this issue of the debt limit is an extraordinary measure. that's why i would ask the senator from virginia to modify his request. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. kaine: i do not agree to the modification because i think

that would be modifying the budget that was passed by this body on march 23. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: is there objection to the original request? mr. rubio: madam president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: madam president, i rise again to regret that the normal regular order of this body after both sides of the capitol have agreed on a budget is to meet and that we have a proper process to instruct conferees, to have a budget -- a motion to appoint conferees to be bound by a requirement no matter how worthy it is is not the way the regular order functions in this body, and that's a fact. for four years, i sat here and

beat up on the majority leader for his failure to bring a budget to the floor of this senate. we brought a budget to the floor. we spent many, many hours on all kinds of amendments. and now we can't go to conference unless we agree not to raise the debt limit. does my colleague from florida believe that the house of representatives dominated by republicans are going to raise the debt limit? does the -- does the -- my colleague from florida believe that any conferees that are appointed, that we have to place certain restrictions on those conferees that would apply to the other body as well? i don't think so. i don't think that's the way that this body is supposed to function. we're in a gridlock. here we are, four years without a budget. we finally get a budget. we stay up all night. and because somebody doesn't want to raise the debt limit, we are not going to go to conference. that's not how this body should

function. the american people deserve better. they deserve a budget. every family in america has to live on a budget. and here we are objecting because there is a concern about raising the debt limit. so all i can say to my friend from florida is that the american people don't like it, and i don't like it, and most of his colleagues and the republicans here in the senate don't like it that we are blocking from budget conferees -- budget conferees from going forward and doing what conferees are supposed to do. so i would imagine that the majority leader will continue to raise up -- raise this motion to move forward. and by the way, it is the regular order to have motions to instruct the conferees. a motion to instruct the conferees on the debt limit should be in order. a motion to instruct relative to

taxes and revenue should be in order. that's the regular order to do it. it is not the regular order to demand certain conditions on the conferees. we instruct the conferees. the conferees are appointed by both majority and republican leader, and we placed our confidence in those conferees to reflect the will of the majority. and so i have to say i am disappointed in the senator from florida and his objection and his demand that we do something that is not in the regular order. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. rubio: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. and to the senator from arizona for whom i have great respect, i would point out two things, that the first is in your argument. you stated that this issue of the debt limit is a nonissue. hence, i don't understand the objection to having language in this motion that says that there won't be a raising of the debt limit. there should be a discussion of the debt limit in the context of the broader issues that this country's facing, and as a

result i don't understand why we can't just put it in that we're not going to raise the debt limit. i would also further say that i do respect this institution tremendously, and i do believe in regular order to the extent that we're talking about procedure. the problem is that the regular order of washington has given us a $17 trillion debt. in fact, that's one of the reasons why i ran for the u.s. senate. and i would submit to you with all due respect to all of my colleagues who serve here i don't think you can run up a $17 trillion debt without some bipartisan cooperation. so to some extent what i am concerned about is the regular order of doing things in this city where the debt limit has been raised consistently without any conversation about the fact that this government borrows 40 cents out of every dollar that it spends, 40 cents out of every dollar. never in the history of this country and of this republic has a generation of leadership robbed a future generation like this generation of leadership has done. so that is my concern. my concern is is i do not have trust in washington, d.c., and i do not have trust. i don't care who is in charge, that we will not recklessly once

again raise the debt limit of the greatest country on earth without any consideration for limiting the way we spend money in the future so that we do not bankrupt this extraordinary nation and the implications that could have on our children. thank you, madam president. mr. mccain: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i will yield to the senator from tennessee in just one second. so what the senator from florida is saying is that if he has an issue that he feels strongly about, then that has to be included in any conference that is convened over any bill that is passed by the senate and the house and goes to conference. that is not a precedent that is -- i believe should be established here in the united states senate. maybe i i think i -- i think i share the senator from florida's concern about the debt and the deficit. i'll match my record against anybody's as far as trying to eliminate the debt and the deficit, including that of the senator from florida, but now we are about to establish a precedent that in any conferees are appointed on bills that are passed by the house and the senate, that we are free then to put certain restrictions on

those conferees. if the senator from florida believes that's the right way this body should function, then i would suggest to him that i -- most people would disagree with this kind of violation of the regular order. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, i am reluctant to break up this conversation among my fellow republican senators here because they seem to be at odds, but i do want to remind all of the senators -- and i think the senator from arizona has alluded to this -- we were slapped around unmercifully for not passing a budget resolution. mr. mccain: deservedly so. mr. durbin: i expected that. and i would say to the senator from arizona there were answers, and we had i thought good answers but not good enough. we passed a budget resolution. you were here. it passed by one vote. we stayed until early in the vote hours to get it done. senator patty murray did a masterful job in putting this together. but of course our passing a resolution is only half the

story. the way this is supposed to work, the so-called regular order, is if it differs between the senate and the house, we come together in a conference to work out differences. how long haven't we been trying? how many weeks have we been trying? 61 days we have been begging the republicans -- not all of them. we have been begging the republicans to give us an opportunity to go to conference and work out our differences if we can. that is the regular order of things. and each time we have asked, as senator mccain of virginia did this -- as senator kaine of virginia did this morning, each time there have been differences. no, you can't sit down and work out your differences unless you agree ahead of time to take certain things off the table. that is just not reasonable. it's not reasonable if you're serious about the deficit. if you're serious about the debt of the united states. i could dream up a half a dozen things. all right, i won't allow us to go to conference if it in any way is going to touch social security benefits?

all right? i think i'd get a lot of support for that and we wouldn't go to conference. but at the end of the day, if we're serious, we're supposed to sit down and work out our differences, house and senate, democrats and republicans. and when senator kaine makes this unanimous con set request to -- consent request to go to a conference committee, he is asking for the regular order of business around here. mr. mccain: and could i ask my friend from illinois, isn't that what the regular order is -- makes it perfectly applicable if we instruct the conferees, which is what we are asking for in this unanimous consent agreement? mr. durbin: yes. and what the senate -- the majority leader is on the floor. and he has said if there's to be a motion to instruct conferees on debt ceiling, for example, then we can have a vote on the floor of the senate. that is the regular order of things. but to condition the -- the granting of unanimous consent to go to conference on whichever senator comes to the floor, his concern de jure, is unproductive. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee.

mr. durbin: madam president, i haven't yielded the floor yet and i think the senator from texas had a question for me. mr. cruz: i thank my friend from illinois. and i would ask my friend from illinois that if the position that -- that you are championing is the regular order, then why is it that the democrats are asking unanimous consent to set aside the regular order and to go to conference? the only reason unanimous consent is needed is because you are endeavoring to circumvent the regular order, and by doing so, opening the door for a procedural trick to raise the debt ceiling with 50 votes rather than 60. mr. durbin: well, just to make -- i just checked with the majority leader to make sure my memory was correct on this. the senator from texas will learn that when we go to a conference committee, we are subjected to a possibility of a filibuster. does that ring a note of -- of familiarity on your side of the aisle? and if we are going to face a filibuster and 60 votes, it's not going to happen. so what we're trying to do is to

establish ahead of time we're going to a conference. so if we go through the so-called regular order to conference, we'll reach the same impasse, with the republicans okay and the republicans potentially raising the issue of a filibuster. that's why we are trying for this unanimous consent, which i would think from the republican side -- from the republican side, that we would have bipartisan agreement that we move to a conference committee. mr. cruz: will the senator yield for another question? mr. durbin: i'm sorry. i'm mistaken and thankfully have been corrected. it is not a filibuster. but it would call for using the house resolution, 50 hours of debate and another vote-a-rama to go through the regular order of things. it is not a filibuster. i stand corrected on that. but the net result of it is to drag out as long if not longer than the earlier debate on the senate budget resolution. that's why the unanimous consent agreement. mr. cruz: will the senator yield for an additional question?

mr. durbin: happy to yield. mr. cruz cruz: so if i understa, we're grady now, that this is -- agreed now, that this is not the regular order, if the senate would have followed the regular order, we would have taken up the house budget resolution and voting on that. but that's not what's being pursued here. mr. durbin: no. mr. cruz: which is why the majority is seeking unanimous consent to set aside the rules. but let me -- let me -- the question i'd like to ask, if i might -- mr. durbin: i yielded for a question. i'll respond to it. then you may ask another if you wish. it is the regular order of things to ask for unanimous consent and it is the usual and customary way the senate works so that we don't have to repeat all over again the debate on the budget resolution to take up the house version. so it's not unusual, it is the regular order. mr. cruz: i would suggest that unanimous consent is used to circumvent the regular order. and in particular, the debt ceiling -- mr. durbin: in response to that -- the debt ceiling was not debated in the budget, it is not part of the budget. mr. cruz: the debt ceiling was not debated in the budget. it is not part of the budget.

we could have gone to conference 60 days ago if the democrats had simply agreed not to use reconciliation as a backdoor trick to raise the debt ceiling, which has happened three times in the past. so this is not a hypothetical risk. this is, i believe, the intention of the majority and it is why we are objecting to raising the debt ceiling, to issuing an unlimited credit ca card, digging the hole deeper without actually fixing the problem. mr. durbin: spo t durbin: to ree senator from texas, we've been through this before. and the house of representativ representatives, they threatened not to extend the debt ceiling of the united states and cause severe damage to our economy. business leaders, labor leaders, families across america said, how could the congress do something so irresponsible as to not extend the debt ceiling of the united states? the president has said he's not going to get into a political bargain over the debt ceiling of the united states. he's right. this ought to be something that both parties take very seriously as to whether we would jeopardize the full faith and credit of the united states of america, whether we would --

mr. mccain: locality senator yield for a further question -- mr. the senator yield for a further question? mr. dloir durbin: i will in a m. so the notion that the debt ceiling is something that we say whether it's approved and extended makes no difference? it makes a big difference. and whether it's included in this, in terms of the budget resolution remains to be seen. but we could have a motion to instruct the conferees relative to the debt ceiling. i think that's already been discussed. what i'm saying is, why in the world aren't we sitting at a table this day, democrats and republicans, house and senate, trying to work out our differences? i think most of the american people would say, isn't that why we sent to you washington? yet we run into these objections to unanimous consent requests. i would yield to my friend for a question. mr. mccain: i would ask my friend, isn't it a little bi gla this whole -- bizarre, this whole exercise we're going through, when we're asking -- some of us are asking to go to conference with a body that is dominated by the members of our party? we don't have apparently enough confidence that the majority of the conference appointed by the

other side of the capitol will be a majority of republicans and not democrats? isn't that a little bit bizarre? and really what we're talking about here, i will be very honest with my colleague from -- from illinois, we're talking about a minority within a minority. because the majority of my colleagues in the united states senate on this side of the ais aisle, with motions to instruct the conferees, want to move forward and appoint these conferees and do what every american family has to do in america and that's to have a budget. mr. durbin: i yield the floor because others wish to speak. but i will tell you, at this point in time, we have passed a senate budget resolution. we were challenged by the republicans to do so it and we did it. it wasn't easy. it was a close vote. we did it. and now we want to move to the next logical step and sit down with the house, resolve our differences and move on so that we can reduce the debt of this united states in a responsible, orderly way. the objection on the other side of the aisle for 61 days should

come to an end. i want to salute my friend from arizona. mr. mccain: i'd ask my friend again, basically what we're saying here on this side of the aisle is we don't trust our colleagues on the other side of the capitol who are in the majority of republicans. i guess that's what the -- the lesson that can be learned here. but far more importantly than that, far more importantly than that, the american people -- recently a poll i saw, 16% of the american people approve of congress. when i go home and have a town hall meeting, when the senator does, when we say, you know what, my friends, we don't even have a budget. we can't even agree, republicans and democrats, republicans and republicans in this case, we can't even agree to have a budget. like every american family does. does that contribute to the approval and the respect that the people of this country have for us? the answer is obviously no. so i urge my colleagues again, let's put some confidence in -- if not in the conferees

appointed here but in the conferees that will be appointed on the other side of the capit capitol, who are of our party, who are fiscal conservatives just like we are. instead of blocking what i assure my colleagues, all three of them here, that as a minority of the -- of the minority of republicans in the united states senate that want to move forward with a budget which we spent so many hours and so much effort into achieving and not to block it from going forward. mr. durbin: madam president, i salute the senator from arizona for his intuitive, wise analysis of the situation and i'm sorry that we still have objection from the republican side of the aisle to go to a conference committee with republican house members dominating that conference on their side, that they don't have confidence that those house members can speak for them. i think it's important -- i think it's important that we do move to this conference committee as quickly as possible. and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia.

mr. kaine: i rise to just associate myself briefly with both the comments of senators mccain and senator durbin. this is not primarily about the budget. this is not primarily about senate rules. what this is about is about compromise. in congress, a b bicameral body that the framers established, where compromise is necessary to take action, will we allow processes to go forward so we can listen to each other, dialogue and find compromise? or will we use procedural mechanisms to block processes of dialogue and compromise even from starting? the senate budget is a very different budget than the house budget. we're all free to have our preferred option. but the way we get to a final budget is to have senate and house conferees sit down together in what no doubt will be a difficult discussion and to compare budgets and debate and dialogue and find compromise. the senate acted on the 23rd

of march by a majority vote in accord with the rules of this body to pass a senate budget after four years. the effort to object to the beginning of a conference, make no mistake about it is, fundamentally an effort to block processes of compromise. in the living organism of government that was established by our framers, compromise is the blood that keeps the organism alive and efforts to block compromise are fundamentally efforts that are destructive of this institution. and so i stand by the motion i've made. i ask my colleagues to allow processes of compromise to go forward. thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? mr. cruz: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: madam president, the senior senator from arizona urged this body to trust the republicans. let me be clear, i don't trust the republicans. and i don't trust the democrats. and i think a whole lot of americans likewise don't trust

the republicans and the democrats because it is leadership in both parties that has gotten us in this mess. you know, my wife and i have two little girls at home. they're five and two. when caroline was born, our national debt was $10 trillion. today it's nearly $17 trillion:in her short five years of life, the national debt has grown by over 60%. madam president, what we are doing to our kids and grandkids i think is immoral. now, i commend the democrats in this body for their candor. the democrats and president obama have been very explicit that it is their intention to raise the debt ceiling and to do so with no conditions whatsoever just to keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing money without any structural reforms to fix the problems. that is an intellectually consistent position. i think it is a dangerous position but it is at least candid.

and it is the reason why for every day for 60 days the democrats have opposed taking the debt ceiling off the table in this discussion. but unfortunately one of the reasons we got into this mess is because a lot of republicans were complicit in this spending spree and that's why so many americans are disgusted with both sides of this house. because we need leaders on both sides to do as my friend from virginia said, to roll up our sleeves, to compromise, to work together and fix the problem, fix the enormous fiscal and economic problems, stop bankrupting our country. what this issue is all about is very simple: will we allow the debt ceiling to be raised in an unlimited amount, with just a 50-vote threshold? and if the answer to that is yes, we have in effect just voted to raise the debt ceiling, because the democrats hold a majority of this body, 55 seats, and the democrats are explicit, they want to raise the debt ceiling. mr. cruz: if we go to conference

without the debt ceiling being taken off the plate, it is 100% certainty the debt ceiling will be raised i believe. it's been done three times in recent history. and every republican who stands against holding the line here is really saying, let's give the democrats a blank check to borrow any money they want with no reforms, no leadership to fix the problem. i don't think that's consistent with any of our responsibilities. a final point. much has been said about the budget was debated, the budget was considered that. is surely true. -- the budget was considered. that is surely true. but the budget contains nothing about the debt ceiling. the budget did not consider the debt ceiling. when all of us were here all night debating the budget, we didn't debate the debt ceiling. the question here is whether the majority of this senate will be allowed to bootstrap the debt ceiling -- a totally different issue -- on to the budget.

and the reason for doing it is to use a political trick. it -- it will -- it would allow the majority to pass a debt ceiling increase on just 50 votes and i think it would be profoundly irresponsible for this body to raise the debt ceiling without fixing the problem, without getting the economy going, without getting jobs back, without stopping the path we're on of bankrupting this country. that's what this fight is about. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, i'd like to follow up on some of the comments made by my friend and my colleague, the junior senator from virginia. i agree whole heart think -- wholeheartedly, we need a budget. the american people want it. they want it, they deserve it, they've been without it for four years. it's because we want this debate and because we want this issue debated in public that we have this concern.

in other words, as the senator from texas pointed out just a moment ago there were a lot of issues that were discussed and debated and voted on when we were addressing the budget resolution a couple of months ago. we were here until 5:00 in the morning making sure we could get through all the amendments. at no point during that very lengthy discussion in connection with the budget resolution did we discuss or address or vote on or in any way make a decision regarding the debt ceiling. that is a separate debate, one that did not come up in connection with the budget resolution. it's a debate that needs to happen. just as the discussion of the budget resolution needs to move forward, we do need to have a public debate and ultimately a vote with regard to the debt ceiling. the american people expect us to have this debate. they expect us to have it under the light of day and not under cover of darkness, behind closed doors, resulting in one of those infamous back-room

deals that has given washington its often much-deserved bad name. so the debt ceiling was not in the bill. it was not in the budget resolution. we haven't debated it, and all we're asking for is that the other side agree that they will not use budget reconciliation as a mechanism for working a back-room deal to raise the debt limit. the american people expect us to debate this, not in secret but in public. that's what we're trying to do, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: since i raised the objection today i wanted to close my comments by accurately describing to the people at home or in the gallery or elsewhere what's happening here. maybe folks are wondering what this is all about and it's pretty straightforward. over a thousand days the senate did not pass a budget under the leadership of the current majority and we did complain about that. that was problematic.

and this year they passed a budget, one which doesn't goal diehl with our debt and doesn't grow the economy and the has house passed a budget and the way it works both sides are supposed to sit down and negotiate. so what's happening here is a motion is being made to start those negotiations. which nobody here is objecting to these negotiations. that can begin today. this process they want can happen right this very moment. the only thing we're asking is that it be clear that as part of that negotiation an increase of the debt limit not be part of it. here's why it's so fort it not be part of it. we haven't discussed it. as the senator from texas pointed out, when we debated the budget we didn't debate the debt limit. the debt limit is the credit line of the united states, how much money the government is allowed to borrow. this is not a trivial matter. i heard my fellow senators say you raise any objection to any issue you want, we can stop the process. this is not a trivial objection. i'm not asking the key lime pie be made the official pie of the

united states. i'm not asking for some ridiculous thing. this is the debt limit. it's something called the greatest national security problem facing the united states of america by a national security official. and all we are saying is you can't come back from that conference report with an increase in the debt limit. because if that happens, it will be a 51-vote voter here to do it. as a matter of routine. frankly, that's the problem. the debt limit increases have become a matter of routine. that's how you get from $10 trillion to $16.5 trillion in such a short period of time. ultimately you're right, we shouldn't treat the debt limit casually. that means we shouldn't cavaliery i lir say -- cavalierly say we wohl riz it as a matter of routine. that's the fundamental problem. the impact this is having on our economy is serious. i deeply respect this institution. by the way, one of the reasons i ran for the senate because i thought i could make a difference here. because in this estimate even a

minority within the minority can make a difference. and let me tell you one day i won't serve here anymore and someday in the future my children who are today yes very young will have to deal with the consequences of the decisions we make or fail to make in my time in the senate. if they inherit an economy crippled by the horrifying decisions made here now and in the past i'm going to have to answerer that and explain to them what did you do or what did you not do when you were in the senate? how could you have allowed this debt to move forward, what did you do to do something about this debt issue? my answer cannot be i followed the regular order. i played along to get along, i went ahead and acquiesced to my colleagues wanted. that won't be my answer. my bottom line is we can move to conference right now, begin negotiating with the house this very day. all we are asking for, all we are asking for is part of that negotiation they cannot come back here with a debt limit as part of it. the debt limit is an important issue, it should be discussed

on its own. as it relates to the entire economy. not simply the one-year budget of the united states of america and that's the basis of our objection. if the majority would reconsider their position and come to the floor and offer the same motion but with language that clearly says it cannot clue include reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit we will be in conference with the house this very day. but if they fail to do that, we can't move forward. because what we cannot do is continue to routinely raise the debt limit of this country without any serious conversation about how we're going to begin to put our fiscal house in order because the impact it's having on our economy is disastrous. our economy is not growing. there are people in america right now who are unemployed or underemployed because the debt is scaring people away from investing in our economy and in our future. and if we do nothing about that, then my colleagues, we will be the first generation of americans to leave the next generation worse off. that has never happened in our

history. and i hope that we can come together here to prevent that from happening. because i think if we do some simple but important things for our country, including bring our debt under control, i believe if we do that, this new century, this 21st century, can also be an american century. my hope is that at some point today or tomorrow or in the next few days we can come to the floor and make a motion to go to conference with a simple and straightforward language that says that the conference report cannot include reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i'd like to speak as if we were in morning hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: i want to talk about the tragedies this week in oklahoma. this is the two-year anniversary of job joplin tornado -- the joplin tornado we had 90 miles from my home, a district that i

represented for a long time before i came to the senate and still get to represent now as part of our state, but i just want to be sure that we take time yet again today to let people in oklahoma know that our thoughts are with them, our prayers are with them. first responders are continuing to search and rescue, their recovery efforts are happening. words clearly can't describe the loss that these communities and the community particularly of moore, oklahoma, have had in the last few days. i know the nation is praying for them, and i am, too, for the people who lost children at the local elementary school, the thought of sending somebody to school in the morning and then not coming home that day is a tragedy that will affect people's lives forever.

the friends that are lost, the family members that are lost will always be part of the ongoing impact that they have on that family and that community. in joplin, missouri, two years ago we had 161 people died. and the community has come back in incredible ways but you never want to minimize in any way the loss of those 161 lives. and every one of them had a story to tell just as every one of the people lost in moore, oklahoma, and in other places in oklahoma in recent days have a story to tell. big storm, affected people, pretty quickly figure out that while you regret the property you lost, the property you lost is not really all that important, but the lives that were lost were.

in addition, 161 people killed in joplin, missouri on may 22, 2011, 7,000 homes were gone, and i was there the next day or the day after, and they were gone. it was like a nuclear blast and the pictures from moore, oklahoma, remind me of that. 500 businesses were gone. i will say that for the people in joplin, they immediately began to think about joplin tomorrow instead of joplin yesterday, and two years later, they're still a community dealing with loss but a community building new schools and new businesses and houses under construction. i talked to someone just yesterday moves -- who was, their family member was about to get into a house that habitat had helped them build. one of the things i found out,

madam president, that i had never really thought even though i'd had a lot of experience with storm loss, never anything like 7,000 homes at one time, the people that are the least likely to have insurance are the people that have the house paid for. and the people -- in that group that are the least likely are the people that may have inherited the house from their parents. because there's no banker to tell you you've got to have an insurance policy, maybe it was just kind of a seamless moving back home or staying home and suddenly that house is gone. and, by the way, this is something that the federal government really probably rightly doesn't have a role in. if you don't have insurance you've made that choice not to have insurance. we talk about federal aid, we're almost always talking about cleaning up the streets, the water systems, the power facilities, getting the community back in order. there are some things for public buildings that are available. it's not we're going to go in and help you rebuild your house

if you chose not to have insurance. that's not what happens. but volunteers immediately show up. now, the first volunteers are your neighbors. the first responders are your neighbors. and this happens -- this is happening, it happened this week in oklahoma, it happened two years ago in joplin where as soon as people had brushed themselves off and found their own family members, they began to look up and down the street for who they can help and who they can help dig out of rubble or help secure something that they're concerned about. so those are the first responders, and then your neighbors from not too far away, in fact, oklahoma is right on -- right on the edge of our state. they're our neighbors, and there were people from are -- public officials, fire and water and police from joplin that were there within 12

hours, and they'll be back when they're needed to be back. there's a lot to be done, by the way, but the one thing i'd advise people who want to know what they can personally do to help, there are places to send money, charities to help, all those things are important and good. if you personally want to help, if you can at all, find out before you go what it is you're going to be doing. the last thing that communities in this kind of situation need is a lot of people wandering around wondering what they can do to help just to be managed. there are plenty of people wandering around already. if you can through your church, through your civic club, through some organization that you've helped in the past, through habitat for humanity, through a group that you've worked with before that does this, link up with them and go, that's probably the better thing to do. there is a lot to be done. first responders, as i said,

are your neighbors and those are, by the way, also the last responders. the people still there two years later helping build the habitat for humanity house are probably by that point your neighbors. they're probably not from a thousand miles away. they're local people who have finally found another family that yet needs help and is helping them. this disaster, madam president, by all recent standards deserves federal assistance. fema is there, but beyond that, the federal assistance that we give when a disaster is too big for a community to handle on its own and too big for the community and the state they're in to handle on their own, that's when the federal government should step in, and does, and will. there are people all over the country who want to help but they also are going to be helping as taxpayers, and it appears the resources to do that are in the current pipeline.

as i said, fema is there, we're going to be there, and i'm sure working in this body with our colleagues, senator coburn and senator inhofe, to do our best to reach out to our fellow americans who have a real tragedy. and this is a tragedy where all the american people can step up and help by doing what we do when these disasters strike. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. franken: madam president, i'd like to associate myself with the wise words from my colleague from missouri, whose state has experienced tragedy last year so much like the one in oklahoma, and our hearts in minnesota our thoughts are with the people of oklahoma. i'd also like to thank senator

blunt for cosponsoring an amendment in the farm bill which will make it easier for seniors and those with disabilities to receive food, groceries, in their homes delivered by volunteers and they can pay for it with their snap dollars, and i'm grateful for the whole senate for adopting that into the package, the farm bill package. by unanimous consent. very grateful for that. and, madam president, i'm very pleased that the senate has taken up the farm bill. i hope that we can pass this in the senate and the house so that our nation's farmers have the certainty that they need to provide food for the rest of us. there are so many important pieces to this bill, madam president, and it will be

great for minnesota and for wisconsin. it contains, for example, provisions to support beginning and young farmers to help them start farming operations. i think the average age of a farmer now in minnesota is about 58. we need young and beginning farmers. it contains important conservation measures so farmers can better protect their land, and it contains a comprehensive energy title that i helped to write in order to make our agriculture sector and our nation more energy independent. but above all, madam president, the farm bill provides a safety net for farmers. that safety net is the centerpiece of this bill. the reason it's there is that agriculture is inherently risky. just last year, we witnessed an historic drought that devastated the nation's corn and soybean

crops and forced ranchers to cull their livestock. agriculture is prone to weather disruptions, to drought, to floods, to hail, to pests and disease and to global market forces that can drastically disrupt prices. that's why the farm bill's safety net is so central, so important. it provides disaster assurances for livestock producers. it contains crop insurance so that farmers have certainty over their planting decisions. the farm bill contains a dairy program to make sure that we have a healthy dairy economy in wisconsin, in minnesota, in vermont, in new york and other states. and that's why we have a sugar program to help protect our sugar growers. the program is important to

minnesota's sugar growers and to growers across the nation. in addition to protecting farmers, these programs enhance the domestic supply of food that is so important to our nation. unfortunately, madam president, some of my colleagues don't support a strong farm safety net and they have decided to go after the sugar program in the farm bill this year. let's be clear about one thing. by attacking the sugar program, or any other farm safety net, they are helping to send jobs overseas. ironically, this -- this attack comes just a week after 60 senators supported a provision to make sure that some of the funds used in water infrastructure projects are used to purchase u.s. iron and u.s. steel. some of the very same senators who are fighting for a domestic

steel industry are now turning their backs on our farmers by pulling the plug on -- on our sugar program. i also heard some argue that we should just let the free market work. madam president, did you know that the government of mexico is mexico's biggest producer and exporter of sugar? that's -- that's not much of a free market. and brazil, the world's largest sugar cane producer, spends billions of dollars to subsidize its sugar program. so let's be clear here. removing the protections that we have for our domestic sugar producers will do nothing but kill an american industry and outsource jobs to other countries, to our competitors. some have depicted senator shaheen and toomey's amendment as nothing more than a rollback

of u.s. policy to the pre-2008 policy, but let's be clear here. the reason congress modified u.s. sugar policy in the 2008 farm bill was primarily because the provision in nafta which allows subsidized mexican sugar unfettered access to u.s. markets, that kicked in in 2008. that's the reason it changed, the bill changed in 2008, the sugar program changed. so let's be clear, madam president. eliminating or weakening the sugar program is going to kill rural jobs in america. so i urge my colleagues to stand up for agriculture. i ask them to stand up for american jobs. i ask them to oppose senator shaheen and senator toomey's amendment. i thank the president and i

would thank -- thank you. and i see the senator from illinois is here about to join us on the floor. mr. durbin durbin: madam presid? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i thank the senator from minnesota for yielding the floor. madam president, the tragedy that hit oklahoma earlier this beathis -- this week, killing innocent people, children, destroying homes and businesses and schools just reminds us how vulnerable we are to the forces of nature. it wasn't the first time the wind blew in oklahoma. in fact, that same community had been victimized by a tornado years ago. but if you go back in history to the 1920's, the state of oklahoma faced what we have now characterized as the dust bowl. i didn't know much about that. i'd read about it. i kind of knew that it destroyed lives and destroyed farms and many picked up and had to leave

and moved west, some to california and other places. until i ran across an excellent book written by a man named tim eagen. tim is from seattle, washington. i don't know him personally though senator murray budget exprai senator cantwell know him. he writes for "the new york times" and writes excellent books. and he wrote one called "the worst times" and it was a story of the dust bowl. what happened, as i understand it, was there was speculation on wheat during world war i. there was a scarcity of wheat because of the war in europe. people in the united states saw the prices of wheat going high so they started planting. they planted on fragile ground. as a consequence, they were churning up the ground to plant the wheat and weren't mindful of some serious possibilities that that topsoil would blow away. one thing led to another and it became a natural disaster, the dust bowl. and as a consequence of it, many people left oklahoma and many

people saw their lives change forever. tim eagen's book, "the worst hard time" tells that in detail. as a result of that experience in the 1920's, a couple things happened. first, we started taking conservation seriously, how to conserve the topsoil of our land so that it doesn't blow away. because ultimately this gift from god is what gives us such -- such fertile soil. and secondly, because we know that a farmer is at the mercy of nature, we started thinking of ways under president franklin roosevelt to make sure those farmers could get through hard times, a bad year, a bad crop, low prices. starting in the 1930's with the new deal, we started dreaming up farm programs, and there were many of them. i can recall being elected to congress back in 1982 representing an agricultural district and knowing little or nothing about farming, trying to

learn as fast as i could what the options were and the history of these programs. i learned some. i'm certainly not an expert. but over the years, we've tried a lot of different things when it comes to protecting farmers from the vagaries of nature and the market. we had a situation not that long ago, 10 or 15 years ago, where we were seeing these natural disasters, floods and droughts and disease that would claim crops and many of the farmers affected by those would come to congress and ask for help. and we were giving them disaster payments, we called them, to get them through to another year. well, the decision was made about 10 years ago that it would be better for us to deal with that unpredictability of nature and move away for disaster payments to a program which is known as the crop insurance program. and it speaks for itself. it's a program where a farmer

can buy insurance and with that insurance protect that farm wi with -- with a bad productive season or low prices in the market. and so more and more farmers were looking for that protection but they weren't that happy with crop insurance. it was too expensive. and so what we did was make a calculation that if we subsidized the crop insurance premiums to federal taxpayers, kept them low, more farmers would buy it and we would pay less in natural disaster payments, as the insurance program would take care of that exposure. that is basically what we decided 10 years ago, and since then there's been a decrease in the cost of premiums and an increase in farmer participation in crop insurance. that is a good thing. i might also say that during that same period of time, we had some income protection for farmers in what was known as

direct support payments. unfortunately, those payments were guaranteed even in good times and they became indefensible. we had some farmers with record profits on their farms still getting a federal direct support payment check. pending on the floor is the farm bill. senator stabenow of michigan has done a remarkable job again, for the second time, in writing a farm bill. she wrote one two years ago. we sent it to the house of representatives, after we passed it with a strong bipartisan vote, and they basically ignored it. they didn't want to call it to be considered on the floor of the house and they couldn't come up with their own farm bill. well, we're hoping for a better outcome this time, and senator stabenow once again sat down with the agriculture committee here in the senate and produced this farm bill that is before us. i come today to describe an amendment which senator tom coburn of oklahoma and i are offering. senator coburn, a very

conservative, fiscally conservative republican, and i have come to an agreement on an amendment which we're offering to the senate. air republican and a democrat -- a republican and a democrat. and here's what it comes down to. our amendment would reduce the level of premium subsidy for crop insurance policies by 15 percentage points for farmers with an adjusted gross income over $750,000. let me tell you what's behind this. crop insurance is not a real insurance program by private-sector standards. in other words, the premiums being paid in by the farmers do not create a reserve large enough to cover the amounts that are paid off or paid out for losses each year. the federal government makes up the difference. currently, on average, when it comes to crop insurance

policies, the federal taxpayers -- not the farmers -- pay 62% of the premiums; the farmers, 38%. so it is a heavily subsidized program. that's understandable because we want to keep the premium costs low and more participation, but it's also the reality. so we are dealing with a program important to farmers, important to our nation, with a heavy federal subsidy. last year, farmers put in $4 billion in the purchase of crop insurance across america. the federal taxpayers put in $7.1 billion. in subsidies to the same crop insurance program. so this is not a traditional insurance program. it is one that is heavily subsidized and heavily leveraged by the federal treasury.

i might also add that the taxpayers are on the line for the cost of administering the program which recently was $1.3 billion in a year. so $7.1 billion in premium subsidy, $1.3 billion in administrative expenses, and we are basically saying the taxpayers by a margin of 2 life 12-1,you're putting more money e crop insurance program than are the farmers who are protected. now, going back to the dust bowl story, remember that one of the things we decided to do was to protect fragile lands from wind and water and the type of erosion reduces their value. over the years, we had these conservation perhaps saying to farmers if you have a wetland or land that is particularly fragile or vulnerable, set it aside, don't plant on it. this bill that senator stabenow

brings to the floor makes this conservation practice a condition for buying crop insurance. i think that's a good thing. i totally support that. and from the viewpoint of the federal taxpayers, i don't think it's too much to ask that the farmers participating in the crop insurance program also participate in conservation practices to protect farm land across this country. that is included. 4% of the most profitable farmers in america account for nearly 33% of all the premium support by the federal government. in other words, there are a lot of small farmers with crop insurance that don't have much in exposure, don't pay much in premiums, but there are a lot of large operations that are quite different. this is a g.a.o. study that was put out in march of 2012. they analyzed the crop insurance

program. interesting reading. savings would result from program changes and greater use of data mining. that was their conclusion after investigating this program just last year. what they're talking about data mining is taking a look at the farmers who are buying crop insurance. who are these people? well, they came up with some interesting examples, if i can find them. in the year 2010, according to the g.a.o., the average value of the premium subsidy received by participating farmers was $5,339. 37 participating farmers each received more than $500,000 in premium subsidies. that's subsidies from the taxpayers, 37. the participating farmer receiving the most in premium subsidies, a total of $1.8 million in federal subsidies for one farmer was a farming operation organized as a

corporation that insured cotton, tomatoes and wheat across two counties in one state. there was another farmer here that they found. another of the 37 participating farmers was an individual who insured corn, forage, potatoes, soybeans, sugar beets and wheat across 23 counties in six states for a total of $1.6 million in taxpayer subsidies for his crop insurance. in addition, the cost of the administrative expense subsidies the government spent on behalf of this farmer, one farmer, administrative expenses, $443,000. this is a farmer farming in 23 counties across six states. the point i'm trying to get to is this. when we think of farmers and the struggles they face, we shouldn't ignore the obvious. for 4% of the farmers in america, they are doing quite well. and i think, senator coburn agrees, that the federal subsidy

in crop insurance to those farmers should be diminished some to save money for the program and to reduce the deficit. that's what our amendment is all about. what we are suggesting, as i said at the outset, is that instead of 62% of the premium being paid by taxpayers for the richest farmers in america, it would be 47% of the premium. that is still pretty generous, is it not? for someone who is getting $1.8 million in subsidies already and $400,000-plus in administrative expense. we're helping that farmer in 23 counties over six states with over $2 million in federal subsidies. i think he can afford to pay a little more. that's what this amendment says. this farm bill is a good bill. it eliminates direct payments. i salute senator stabenow for doing that. eliminating direct payments made

regardless of need saves about $4.5 billion a year, $40.8 billion over ten years. hats off to senator stabenow. she is reducing the deficit with this farm bill. i think crop insurance is a much better safety net than direct support payments and much more defensible. but senators who are concerned about the growth of government and its costs ignore the fact that this heavily subsidized crop insurance program costs the federal government more than $14 billion last year. and while this growth is mostly due to costs associated with the drought, we have got to find commonsense ways for savings in the program. that's why we have suggested that farmers with an adjusted gross income of over $750,000 pay 15% more when it comes to their premiums for crop insurance. let me add something which is not very well kept secret, and that is that many of these

farmers that are so large divide up their farms and their income between husband and wife. so when we're saying $750,000, adjusted gross income, it's actually from a couple that's making over $1.5 million in adjusted gross income in many instances. our amendment says if your adjusted gross income, that's after you deduct business expenses, health care costs and other deductions, is at $750,000 premium supports reduced by 15 percentage points. the amendment is roughly estimated to impact the wealthiest 1% of farmers. who is going to pay this? who is going to pay the extra premium? 20,000 farmers across america will pay the extra premium. i just described a couple of them. 20,000 out of two million. 20,000. well, what's it worth? that those 20,000 farmers paid 15% more? a billion dollars a year. a billion dollars a year coming into our treasury. when i think of the ways that we

are cutting spending to reduce our deficit, which include taking 70,000 children out of schart as an example, how can we possibly justify for the wealthiest multimillionaire farmers in america not asking them to pay a little more when it comes to their crop insurance premium? how can we excuse them and say no, no, no, these very rich farmers deserve, absolutely deserve the maximum when it comes to the federal taxpayer subsidy. i don't think that's acceptable. the amendment may sound familiar to some of my colleagues. it was adopted before by a vote of 66-33 in the senate. of the 33 that voted against the amendment, 29 voted for a nearly identical amendment that only varied in the scope of the study. there is a study associated with our amendment. some may come to the floor and say following last year's drought, we shouldn't change crop insurance at all. last year was the worst drought in over a decade.

80% of structural production ground felt it. my state of illinois certainly did. the usda declared 2,245 counties and 39 states disaster areas. crop insurance worked for those covered and has allowed those producers to plant again this year without missing a beat. our change in the law would not change that circumstance at all. i recognize the importance of crop insurance. it's far preferrable to -- preferrable to disaster payments. but for goodness sakes, if we can't say to 1% of farmers, the wealthiest in this country, that you're going to take a slightly diminished federal tax subsidy for your crop insurance, then we aren't very good as budget cutters. we say to a lot of people who have a lot less to work with in life you're just going to have to face up to the reality of the deficit. capital we say to 1% of the farmers that they're going to have to face up to the same

basic reality? that's what this amendment is all about. i asked my staff to come up with a couple of examples here of farmers and the premiums they pay for the record, and one example, an illinois corn and soybean grower hdtv $740,000 in premium subsidies to cover the crops he had planted in 18 counties in illinois. this is no small mom and pop farmer. this is a big operator. and while i love my illinois farmers, i can't justify this kind of a subsidy of $740,000 to one farmer in my state. his exact additional costs are impossible to calculate without knowing all the circumstances. even if he's caught by this amendment and purchased the same policy, instead of a $740,000 taxpayer subsidy, he would have a $639,000 federal taxpayer subsidy. while he farms in 18 different counties planting corn and

soybeans. another example, south dakota corn and soybean farmer received $1.4 million in premium in subsidies to cover crops in eight different counties. $1.4 million federal taxpayer subsidy for his crop insurance. he would end up -- this producer would only receive $1.19 million in premium support. would he stop participating in the program? of course not. if he's that large a producer, he needs this program and the subsidy is still very, very generous. so, madam president, this is an issue which i know is a little complex, but when i listen to the speeches on the floor about the deficit, we heard plenty of them today, you will hear plenty of them tomorrow, i have to ask myself, will senators on both sides of the aisle stand with senator coburn and myself and say that the wealthiest 1% of farmers in america should have their federal subsidy for crop insurance reduced by 15%? not unreasonable. they will still make a lot of money and the taxpayers will see

a billion dollars more coming into the treasury. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. chambliss: madam president, would the senator allow me to speak for ten minutes as if in morning business following the senator from connecticut? mr. blumenthal: i have absolutely no objection. mr. chambliss: madam president, i make that unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, madam president. in the past couple of weeks, we have seen some major encouraging efforts in the united states senate to rid our military of sexual assault, to punish it more aggressively and effectively, to deter it and to

aid victims who may suffer from sexual assault. victims of both sexes who may be survivors of this spreading scourge. last year alone, 29,000 cases. only about 3,300 of them reported. so the key to more effective prosecution and deterrence is more reporting as well as swifter, surer punishment and a better program within the military to deal with it, and i will be proposing over the next few weeks additional measures. i have already cosponsored the military justice improvement act , a very important measure sponsored by our colleagues, senator gillibrand and collins, that would transfer prosecuting and charging authority from military commanders to a separate, trained, experienced

cadre of prosecutors in the military. i have also cosponsored the combating sexual assault in the military act proposed by my colleague, senator murray, and senator ayotte. again, very important in providing special victims counsel to every survivor or victim of sexual assault. and the ruth moore act sponsored by my colleague, senator tester, that provides aid for disabled veterans who suffer from this problem. and today, i rise to praise secretary of defense hagel for his decision and his leadership in avoiding furloughs of any of the victims' advocates as a result of the sequester. as we know, the sequester has

caused furloughs of many civilian employees in the department of defense, as well as some similar personnel decisions across the federal government, and i want to say that all of us who are advocating this cause should express appreciation to our secretary of defense for his leadership, as well as to the military leadership at all levels for their focus on this issue. these measures are good, their attention is commendable, but it is not yet enough, as many of them would acknowledge very candidly and have done so to all of us in the senate who are interested in this issue. we need to hire more civilians, trained and qualified to help victims, not just avoid the furloughs of the advocates and

sexual assault response coordinators that we have in place right now but to hire more of them. i raise this issue because -- and here is the statistic that everyone should keep in mind -- the united states army has hired only 63 out of the 446 that it should have in place right now among the sexual assault response coordinators and victims' advocates. 63 out out of 146. at the end of 2011, congress said in public law 112-81 that new requirements should be expanded in the provision of victims' advocates and that they either be in uniform or civilian employees who have the proper training and qualifications to perform this important service.

the army announced in june of last year, almost a year ago, that it would have 829 victims' advocates. of those 446 would be civilians. as a result, each brigade and equivalent sized unit would be covered by a full-time victims' advocate and have the role of civilians victims' advocate perform below that level as a collateral duty. so i was troubled to hear in april of this year just a couple months ago when secretary mchugh testified before the senate a ampledz committee that the army's sexual harassment response and prevention program, known as sharp, had hired only 63 of that number, in

other words, 63 out of 446. these victims' advocates very simply are needed today. the military and our leadership knows that this problem is a scourge, that is a direct threat to the good order and discipline of our military personnel. it has confronted this problem in many commendable ways, but hiring victims' advocates and sexual assault response coordinators is vital to the effort. it is vital to encouraging both men and women victims to come forward and have the courage and strength to report these incidents when they occur. these incidents are more than just disciplinary infractions. they are vicious, predatory,

criminal acts. they should be punished as vicious, predatory, criminal acts. victims of them need advocates and counselors to have that strength and courage to come forward and participate in the grueling and often painful process of supporting a successful prosecution. without successful prosecutions, there can be no punishment, and successful prosecutions require witnesses and cooperation and support from the victims. so my hope is that the army will swiftly stand up this force, that it will do more than just avoid furloughs, that it will, in fact, recruit actively and successfully. other branches of our military service should also be asked how

are you doing in this process? and if you're doing better, what are the keys to your success? all across the military, there must be a robust sharp program. sexual harassment assault response program. it's a mouthful, it's long term, but it stands for a program that must be successfully and carefully built and sustained. i will be introducing legislation tomorrow focusing on victims' rights and what can be done to bolster not only the substance of those rights but the remedies to make those rights real. for today, i say thank you to the secretary of defense for the step that you have taken and hope that we can count on additional steps to make these

rights real, to guarantee successful prosecution, make sure that our military rules and remedies against sexual assault and abuse are worthy of the greatest, strongest, best military in the world staffed by men and women second to none in their training and dedication, the system of military justice must be worthy of their service and sacrifice. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. mr. chambliss: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: madam president, i rise to speak on s. 954, the legislation to reauthorize agricultural programs. as a former chairman and ranking

member of the agriculture committee, i recognize how difficult it is to combine all the diverse interests into a single piece of legislation that meets the needs of all crops, all regions, and all rural and urban communities that the farm bill impacts. i want to thank chairwoman stabenow and ranking member cochran for the work they have done to craft a reform-minded bill that not only saves $24 billion with sequestration cuts included, but also provides an effective safety net for farmers and ranchers all across the country to rely on in times of need. this bill embodies reform, streamlining and consolidation and with the biggest issue facing our country today being our growing debt and deficit, i commend the members of the agriculture committee for stepping up and doing the work necessary to find savings. while we take these essential

steps, we must also do it in an acquitable and a fair manner. agriculture producers face a combination of challenges such as unpredictable weather, variable input costs and market volatility that all combine to determine profit or loss in any given year. the 2008 farm bill provided a strong safety net for producers and successor legislation must adhere to and honor the same commitment we made five years ago. it is also important to note that this bill must not only work to protect producers in times of need but it must responsibly serve as the nation's safety net for the nutritional well-being of low-income americans. last year when we went through this process, i was unable to support the bill. however, i appreciate the chairwoman and ranking member for making improvements to last year's bill. while the bill before us is not

perfect, i believe that everyone who is involved in agriculture understands that it addresses the needs of u.s. agriculture, which is what the policy coming out of this body should address. while i understand there are different ideas about what safety net is best, i urge my colleagues to recognize that one program doesn't work for all crops. the bill before us attempts to provide producers with options to find what works best for them and that is a step in the right direction. a new program known as the adverse market protection, seeks to serve the needs of those who are not protected by the agriculture risk coverage and crop insurance programs. it is imperative that the farm safety net provide protection for multiyear declines, especially for southern crops like rice and peanuts. since the protection provided by

arc in crop insurance is not sufficient. and the upland cotton policies contained in the chairwoman's mark represent fundamental reform in the support provided to cotton farmers, reforms that contribute $2.8 billion towards savings in the budget target. the legislation eliminates or changes all title 1 programs providing direct support to those involved in cotton production and puts us down the path to resolving our w.t.o. dispute with brazil. further, i would like to express my support for a provision in this bill that ties conservation compliance to crop insurance. my amendment last year on the floor relinked the two, and since then, 32 leading agriculture conservation and crop insurance croops have -- groups have come to support this provision and have come together with ideas to form a compromise on details of this linchgage.

the compromise will provide a strong safety net for our farmers and natural resources while allowing them to be wise stewards of the taxpayer resources. for those of us who enjoy hunting and fishing and the outdoors, this provision will provide for future generations of americans the same opportunity that we have to hunt and fish today. there's another provision that did not come up in the discussion in the ag committee that i want to just briefly comment on and that's the dairy program. the dairy program is always an integral part of every farm bill, and i'm not anywhere near an expert on the dairy program. in fact, i kind of leave that to states that have a more significant -- where it has a more significant impact. but in my state, when i came to

congress almost 20 years ago, we had an excess of 700 dairies in georgia. today we have less than 300. in fact, it's closer to 250. and i don't know what the problem is, but i do think as we move this bill off the floor and into conference, particularly with what's been going on in the house relative to dairy and the discussion over there, that we need to be mindful of the fact that we need to address this program long term. if the way it's designed now is the best we can do, so be it. but i do think that it's going to merit a significant discussion on dairy once we get to conference, and have our ideas shared with the house and the house's ideas shared with us. this will be my fourth and final farm bill as a member of congress. and as a member of the ag committee and as a strong supporter of georgia agriculture for my nearly 20 years in congress, i've witnessed

several disputes especially regional disputes. however, i am confident we can balance the needs and interests between commodities and regions to reach our common goal of getting a farm bill across the line. ultimately, the reason we are here is to represent those who work the land each and every day to provide the highest quality agricultural products and the safest agricultural products of any country in the world. we have the opportunity to write a bill that is equal to their commitment to provide food, feed and fiber that allows america to be the greatest nation on earth. madam president, i thank you and i look forward to the forthcoming debate on the remaining amendments, and i would yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i came here today first of all to talk about the farm bill. i'm a member of the agriculture committee, we're very proud of

this bill, it's a strong bill, and as senator chambliss just pointed out, it enjoys broad bipartisan support, of particular importance to the state of minnesota is the safety net that's in that bill, the focus on ag research which as you know from the state of wisconsin is very important with your great universities. the work that we have done with dairy in trying to improve the dairy program, the dairy farmers have been the hardest hit in our state of any of the agriculture groups. i've done some new things for new and beginning farmers and then of course the sugar program, something that's been a topic today as there are some of our colleagues are trying to strip the sugar program out of the bill. i would argue this is 30,000 jobs in the red river valley of minnesota and north dakota, american sugar is actually much less expensive than you see as a price on the global marketplace, the sugar program works. it works for workers, it works for america. and we need to continue it. so with that i'd like to turn to

the focus of my remarks today, which is first of all on the budget. i want to thank senator murray for her leadership on the budget committee and for all her hard work in advancing a smart, balanced budget to meet our country's fiscal challenges. this is not the first time i've come to the senate floor in the last year or in the last several years to stress the critical need for democrats and republicans to come together and focus on smart solutions to reducing our debt. i think it's a good sign that both the house and the senate have passed budgets and that the president introduced his budget last month. i see this time as a real opportunity to come together to work through this budget process and get a deal done. that's why we must take the next step in the process, which is to move forward under regular order and have the house and senate conference on a budget deal. for years we've been hearing from our colleagues across the aisle about how the senate doesn't have the budget.

well, the senate passed a budget, and all we want to do is move this into conference committee committee so the house and senate can work together so that we can get a budget for this country. there's growing bipartisan support for going to conference and starting the conversation so that we can come to an agreement on a long-term budget. senators mccain and collins last night came to the floor and talked about how we need to return to regular order in the senate and regular order means going to conference to come to a budget deal. doing so will allow us to stop lurching from crisis to crisis and address our fiscal challenges in an open, bipartisan way. i believe this is what folks outside of washington especially the people i talk to in minnesota, want. for us to put politics aside for the good of the country and come together on a budget deal that reduces our deficit in a balanced way, but also lays a foundation for sustained economic growth. in the past two years, congress has made some progress in

reducing the deficit. we've already achieved $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction with a goal of $4.000000000000 reduction within within our grasp. last week the congressional budget office reported that the deficit will fall to $642 billion this year. $200 billion less than what the c.b.o. projected just three months ago. the better numbers reflect good news in housing and larger than expected increases in tax revenues. but i believe that resting on those numbers would be a mistake and if we are to get closer to reaching a new deficit agreement, it's only going to happen if we work in a bipartisan way through regular order to get a deal done. along with addressing our fiscal challenges, working through the budget process and coming to agreement will create a stronger, more resilient framework for economic renewal. we certainly see how we can get a major bill done through the judiciary committee last night when we were able to get the immigration bill done.

there is no reason that what conference committee shouldn't be at work right now taking the senate budget that we've heard for years needs to be done and pairing it up with the house budget and coming together. in the bigger picture, this presents an opportunity for us to reinforce our role as a world leader in innovation, entrepreneurship, exporting and education, in other words, the things we've always prided in this country. we need to to be a nation that makes things again, that exports to the world and part of that is showing the world that we have our fiscal house in order. i believe the senate proposal is right the right blueprint for moving us forward on the most immediate front it will allow us to build on the progress we're already seeing in the economy. last month, the national unemployment rate dropped to 7.5%, the lowest level in four years. our housing market is turning around. consumer spending has picked up in the first month of this year, as has private business. he investment.

the unemployment rate in minnesota is 5.4% but even with this progress, our economy remains vulnerable to headwinds. mr. president, we should keep this good economic momentum going, but only if we are willing to find common ground on a budget plan that also moves our economy forward. we need to take a balanced approach to deficit reduction, but you don't have to take my word for it. nearly every commission that has offered ideas for reducing our debt has stressed the importance of balance. this includes the original bowles-simpson plan, the rivlin-mccain chi plan and even the revised bowls bowles-simpson plan a quarter of which would come from new revenues total. we don't need just a balanced budget, we need a budget that is in balance. i believe the senate's budget achieves that goal. it includes an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue from closing loopholes and ending wasteful

spending in the tax code. our budget builds on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction we have already achieved in the last two years with an additional $975 billion in targeted cuts and $975 billion in new revenue. surpassing the bipartisan goal of $4 trillion. just this morning, i was at the joint economic committee on the -- i am the senate chair of that committee, as were you, mr. president, where chairman bernanke testified, and he warned us about the negative impact that with cuts that solely focus in the short term and what that would do with economic growth. he noted that policies like sequestration are creating headwinds against short-term economic growth and that congress needs to take a broader long-term view toward our debt and deficit. that's what this conference committee is about. that's what regular order is about. we have a senate budget. we have a house budget, and we have that opportunity to bring those budgets together in a conference committee. some of the most important points in the senate budget

include the fact that it replaces sequestration with smart, targeted cuts while also making critical investments in areas like education, work force training and infrastructure. it produces savings in medicare and medicaid by eliminating waste and fraud, promoting efficiency and emphasizing cost alignment. our budget also recognizes that there is a massive amount of spending that takes place through the tax code, to the tune of over $1 trillion per year in tax expenditures. the senate budget eliminates wasteful tax loopholes and subsidies. all told, the senate budget cuts the deficit by approximately $2 trillion. this continues us on a downward path where our debt to g.d.p. ratio will be about 70% by 2023. getting the federal budget on a sustainable path will only promote growth and stability. the american people want us to get this done, mr. president. they want us to compromise, and

they want us to work together to get the economy on the right track. i urge my colleagues to support moving to conference so that we can begin the work of finding solutions to a very important matter. i want to speak briefly with the chairwoman of the agriculture committee wouldn't mind, on one other topic, and that is the important economic issues for families and businesses in minnesota, and that's the recent spike in gas prices. now, we do have some good things in the farm bill that will help with this, including the promotion of energy and biofuels, but our talk today here to discuss the recent spike in gas prices in minnesota, a problem that is disrupting commerce and hurting consumers, small businesses and farmers across the state and throughout our region. in minnesota, the average gas price is 4.25 cents. 40 cents higher than a week ago and only 80 cents more than a month ago. it was in fact a few days ago the highest in the country,

higher than honolulu, and it happened all of a sudden in literally a two-week period. that's a significant increase which puts family budgets under severe pressure. i'm focused on immediate relief and i'm taking actions now so we can avoid similar gas price spikes in the future. with memorial day around the corner, the start of the summer driving season is upon us, and this kind of price spike is simply outrageous. the cutback on costs -- to cut back on costs, some families are putting off family trips and scaling back family vacations. i have already heard from families who have canceled or scaled back their plans, but there are some things you can't put off, like driving to work, like going to the doctor's office. more money to fill up the tank means less money for food, housing and everything else that families need. families in minnesota just can't afford an 80-cent spike in the price of a gallon of gas. neither can business owners who need to ship their goods to market or farmers who rely on diesel fuel to keep their equipment running.

now, we know what's causing the price increase. supply shortages resulting from the simultaneously closure of several oil refineries in the midwest. we also know what is not causing the price increase. the price of crude oil hasn't moved. we're at about $96 a barrel, similar to where prices were a month ago. in fact, the national trend in gas prices which tracks the price of crude hasn't moved much either. opec hasn't been jacking up their prices. we didn't have a hurricane or even a blizzard that would affect supply or prices, and the increase hasn't been caused by a pipeline rupture or geopolitical threat. rather, the price spike has resulted largely from the combination of a number of refineries going offline for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance that serve the upper midwest to prepare for summer fuel blends. i understand that refiners need to adjust their plants and occasionally perform upgrades to protect workers' safety and repair equipment, but scheduled

routine maintenance should not be an excuse for major gasoline shortages and price spikes. three refineries, mr. president, in indiana, illinois and flint hills, minnesota, currently shut down for maintenance or upgrades. a fourth in wisconsin is currently offline as they turn their production over to summer fuel blend. at this refinery in st. paul park, minnesota, remains down longer than expected, but i understand that that refinery is again operational. the result of all these closures, minute and other parts of the upper midwest simply don't have enough refined gasoline to make it to the market right now. in this day and age where we have a surplus of fuel, where we're drilling record amounts in north dakota, where we don't see a huge increase in the price of oil, this just shouldn't be happening. that's why last thursday, i called on the department of energy to thoroughly review the timing of scheduled maintenance operations and to take action to address future supply problems that are preventable. i have also spoken with the department of energy about ways to resolve the issue quickly and

prevent disruptions down the road. i'm talking with d.o.e. and industry partners on legislation that addresses known scheduled closures for refineries for maintenance. having improved information could serve as an early warning system to protect consumers from production problems within the refinery industry. with more transparency and more lead time, fewer retail letters have the opportunity to purchase fuel at prices that better reflect the underlying costs of crude oil and better reflect supply and demand across the country. i also believe that refineries should give immediate notification of any unplanned outages, and i'm working to address this as well. i'm also working with the secretary of energy to look at the potential for additional refined fuel storage capacity in our region. minnesota has less storage capacity for refined products than other parts of the country, making us more vulnerable to the kinds of refinery outages we have experienced this year, both

planned and unplanned. if we had additional storage in place, we could better insure fair and consistent prices for our consumers. this week, i talked to all the major oil companies that owned these refineries, and it looks as though additional shipments from a pipeline are helping to increase supplies. this should provide some relief. petroleum marketers in minnesota have reported that spot prices in the wholesale market were down by 30 cents, but that drop has not yet reached our consumers, mr. president. i believe that we need an all or above plan to get serious about building a new energy agenda for america. this, of course, means less dependence on foreign oil, more domestic of production like we are seeing in north dakota, natural gas and of course biofuels. it also means tougher vehicle efficiency standards that help cars to go further on a tank of gas. but my focus today, mr. president, is on our immediate problem. we need to get refineries up and running and get gas prices down

so that we can all begin to enjoy this summer. i look forward to continuing to work with the department of energy and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the recent and unnecessary spike in gas prices and to prevent this from happening again. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. on behalf of senator shaheen, i would like to call up her amendment 925. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from michigan, ms. stabenow, for mrs. shaheen and others, proposes an amendment numbered 925. in title 1 -- ms. stabenow: i would ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. stabenow: and just for the information of the members who are working to set up a vote later this afternoon on this particular amendment, i'm working with senator cochran and republican colleagues in order to set up that vote. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the senate floor to discuss a very important topic and one that itself is coming to the senate floor soon, and that's the problem of illegal immigration and proposals or so-called -- for so-called comprehensive immigration reform. specifically, of course, the gang of eight bill as it's been dubbed is being reported out of the judiciary committee and we will be debating that bill and hopefully a lot of important amendments to it soon in june

here on the senate floor. now, mr. president, let me say at the outset, i think there are at least a couple of things we can all agree about. number one, i think we can all agree that the united states is an immigrant nation with a proud history of immigration, legal immigration, and absolutely one of the core features of our nation that makes us unique and that makes us strong. and so i want to say that up front, very proudly, very strongly i support that tradition, that history of our being an immigrant nation. every one of us, you know, are the children of immigrants. not a question of if. just a question of when, because that's the nature of america, and that goes to the core of our strength. number two, mr. president, the other thing i think we can all

agree about, is that our present immigration system is broken. in fact, it's badly, badly broken, and we need to fix the system. as i said a minute ago, we have a proud history of immigration, legal immigration, and that's the tradition, that's the history we need to get back to. unfortunately, right now, we have a system of wide-open illegal immigration. almost open borders in some cases in some areas, and that desperately needs to be fixed. now, having said that, mr. president, i have real and fundamental concerns with the so-called gang of eight bill, and they fall into five or six big categories, and i want to talk about each of those important categories in turn. first and foremost, mr. president, really my biggest and most fundamental concern, i

think this so-called gang of eight bill repeats mistakes of the past because at its core, it's amnesty now and enforcement later. and maybe never. we have tried that model before. we've tried it several times before and it's never worked. the most clear example is the 1986 immigration overhaul. that bill at its core was the same model. amnesty now and enforcement later. and maybe never. and, in fact, much of that enforcement was never. and that's why it didn't work. the amnesty kicked in immediately, the mill asecond the bill was signed into law and that was a powerful message to invite more and more illegal crossings across the border, more illegal immigrants into our country. that part of the bill, that part of the message was heard loud and clear.

the promises of enforcement never fully materialized. many of them never materialized at all. and so what happened when you had that combination of an immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement that never materialized? well, again, you attracted more illegal crossings. had you no capability or will to do anything about them. and so, mr. president, the promise then was we're just going to have to do this once, the system will be fixed, we'll never have to look back, we'll never have to look in the rear view mirror, the problem will be solved. and what happens? -- what happened? we all know the problem wasn't solved. in fact, the problem wasn't simply continued. the problem was quadrupled. what was three million illegal immigrants then, they were mostly made legal but that quadrupled and today we have 11

million, 12 million illegal immigrants, some think more. that at its core is the gang of eight bill. an immediate amnesty, promises of enforcement, and that's not good enough, particularly when we have decades, decades of the federal government, republicans and democrats, who have promised this before and have never -- have never delivered. the american people say we'll trust but we want to verify. trust but verify. we need to see this enforcement in action before we move on to anything else. in fact, to in some ways this gang of eight bill is worse in terms of that basic model than previous versions like 1986 because if you look at page 70 of the bill, it actually has a period of an enforcement

holiday. so two and a half years of a pure enforcement holiday, so not only is this amnesty now and enforcement later, maybe never, applied to folks illegally in the country now, but they can keep coming. the message will be sent out and they can come the day after the bill passes, the week after the bill passes, a year after the bill passes, two years after the bill passes, and it's part of the same amnesty. they will get the benefits of that amnesty as well. that enforcement holiday, 2 1/2 years, makes that combination of a big amnesty now with only promises of enforcement later, even more potentially disastrous. mr. president, the second bil -e second big problem i have with the bill as it's currently put together is it doesn't enforce the law and it doesn't enforce the border, particularly the troublesome southern border with

mexico, and it doesn't enforce other enforcement provisions, doesn't actually guarantee that those are put into place and executed in an effective way. the proponents of the bill talk about so-called triggers in the bill before the amnesty, before the new legal status is granted. but when you look hard at what the triggers are, they're triggers are a toy, plastic gun, not real triggers in any real meaningful sense of the term. the triggers basically narrow down to two things. first of all, the secretary has to submit two reports, two pla plans. the secretary of homeland security has to submit plans or reports, a so-called -- quote -- "comprehensive southern border security strategy," so she has to submit a strategy. great. this was promised for three decades but now she has to submit a strategy, a piece of

paper. and a -- quote -- "southern border fencing strategy." so that's one trigger. the other triggers are certification is that the border security strategy is -- quote -- "substantially deployed and substantially operational." now, what's the problem with that? well, two things. who the heck knows what "substantially deployed" means? and, number two, even more troublesome, you know who has to certify that? the secretary of homeland security, who has not been effective at enforcement to date in any way, shape or formmen fo- form. so those so-called triggers are absolutely meaningless. the bill doesn't require a fence, as is actually required under present law, so we're weakening that, we're walking away with that. it weakens current law regarding border security. operational control is the standard now and that's being

weakened, changed to "effective control." and it doesn't require a biometric data system for entry and exit screening. that has been pushed by congress since 1996. congress started mandating this in 1996 and it was one of the prime recommendations of the 9/11 commission, full deployment of the u.s. visit system. the 9/11 commission said that needs to be a high priority. that's exactly how the 9/11 terrorists got into our country and overstayed their visas. doesn't do any of that. so again, enforcement holiday for 2 1/2 years and no border security now before the amnesty kicks in. number three, i'm very concerned that we will continue the present status quo which is significant benefits being available to these immigrants

which act as a magnet to -- to insent other illegal immigrants to come into the country. now, the so-called gang of eight makes all sorts of promises about certain benefits not kicking in until full citizenship is granted down the road. but many benefits would kick in immediately. certainly participation in the social security system. certainly all those social security benefits. and there are loopholes about these benefits. i think many illegal immigrants will clearly gain access to public benefits far sooner than any 13 years as advertised. so that is another serious weakness of the bill. fourth, mr. president, i'm very concerned about the costs of this bill. now, the authors of this bill have been very, very clever. they saw that cost issue coming

and they devised a bill so that the big costs of the bill are outside the ten-year budget window. now, why is that important? well, not to get into the weeds, but it's very important because c.b.o. scores legislation primarily on its impact on taxes and spending in the first ten years. and so the authors of the bill were very careful, very clever in devising a bill that would look okay in the first ten years with regard to cost. but after that first ten-year window, the costs explode, and none of that will be reflected by this c.b.o. score. we've seen this movie before, mr. president, because this is exactly the same approach to c.b.o. scoring and costs of legislation, exactly the same approach that the proponents of

obamacare put forward. they were very, very clever to push many of the costs in the out-years beyond the first initial scoring window, and that's why they were able to waive c.b.o. scores around to somehow suggest this would help lessen the deficit. it's perfectly clear now, mr. president, obamacare is not going to make our fiscal situation better. it's going to make it far, far worse and far more onerous. i believe exactly the same thing is true with this bill in terms of the costs and i believe the proponents of the bill, quite frankly, have gamed the system in the same way, to hide those costs, given the way c.b.o. scores legislation. now, in contrast to that, there is an objective study of the full costs of the bill and that is a study by robert rector of the heritage foundation. and he went into extreme detail

tracking the full costs and fiscal benefits of the bill. and his conclusion was that the full costs of the bill are $6.3 trillion over the full life and the full impact of the bill. $6.3 trillion, with a "t." he concluded that the bill, because of all the folks that would legalize, would kick in $9.4 trillion in government benefits. so more government benefits we're going to have to pay out, $9.4 trillion. now, these folks being legalized would pay some taxes into the system which they do not pay now and that would be $3.1 trillion. but when you subtract $3.1 trillion from $9.4 trillion, that obviously doesn't net out to zero. that's a net increase in the deficit, increased costs to the

government, to society, to the taxpayer of $ 6.3 trillion net. that's a serious impact on these budget and fiscal issues we're already very, very concerned about. the robert rector study is very credible, it's very detailed. i've seen no comparable study in terms of the detail of the analysis. and i would challenge anyone who cares about this issue, wherever they're coming from, to put up any other study that can compete with the rector study in terms of detail and analysis. i think currently that is the last and final word on costs of the bill. two final points, mr. president. fifth big concern i have about the bill is i believe this bill is very unfair to legal immigrants and folks who are

waiting in line in the legal immigration system now. it puts some people, not everybody who would be made legal, but some people ahead of them in line and really dishonors the fact that these would-be legal immigrants are following the rules now and following the law now. and sixth and finally -- and this is no trivial matter -- i am very concerned that this would depress wages in the united states for many, many hardworking americans, legal immigrants, others who have followed the law, who are working hard in a very, very tough economy now. i think it would depress the general wage situation and make that more difficult for them to deal with. so in closing, mr. president, i urge all of my colleagues to look carefully at these and other concerns and try to address them fully, directly, completely on the senate floor. thank you, mr. president.

i yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. as we continue debate on the agricultural reform, food and jobs act, i want to remind my colleagues how important this bill is for our economy and for the 16 million people whose jobs rely on agriculture. when we go home at night and sit down at the dinner table, it's because those 16 million people have worked hard to make sure that we had safe, affordable food on our terrible. they are the men and women who farm the land. they are also the people who manufacture and sell the farm equipment. they're people who ship the crops from one place to another. the people who own the farmer's markets and the local food house. the people who work in process and crop fertility. not to mention the researchers and the scientists who work hard every day to fight pests and diseases that threaten our food

supply. and i want to talk specifically for a few moamentsz about the work we're doing in the conservation title of the farm bill -- few moments about the work we're doing in the conservation title of the farm bill. our farm bill approve approves 1.9 million acres for fish and wildlife habitat. and this is about jobs as well. healthy wildlife habitat, clean, fishable waters are not only gad for our environment but they also support hunting and fishing and outdoor recreation that benefits our economy and creates jobs. outdoor recreation supports over 6 million jobs in our united states. and in this farm bill, we are including a new, historic agreement around conservation. the most powerful conservation work in decades. it's truly amazing what can happen when people actually sit down, mr. president, and listen to one another and work

together. if farmers want to participate in title 1 commodity programs, including the current direct-payments subsidy program, they must take steps to use best conservation practices on their land when it comes to highly erodible soil and wetlands. this has been the case for many years. of course, the agriculture reform, food, and jobs act that we're debating now eliminates those subsidies. instead we're strengthening job insurance, which farmers immediate to purchase, and we're making market-oriented reforms to the commodity programs. but here's the issue: if we eliminate direct-payment subsidies, we don't want to create unintended consequences by not having that link any longer. it's important for all of us that sensitive lands be managed in the best possible way. that's how we avoided having a

dust bowl during the droughts. it's important for us to continue protecting wetlands, which help prevent flooding and are important to wildlife habitats for ducks and other waterfowl. now commodity groups and conservation groups were on different sides muc sides of the for a long time but they didn't agree on the best approach and could have followed a very typical washington playbook, mr. president. they could have gone to their corners, fired off e-mails, and press releases and brought the lobbyistists on and demonize eah other, but that's not what happened. they sat down together around a table and they did something we don't do enough: they listened to each other. they listened and tried to see the other viewpoint and they came to understand one another and it turned out their

differences weren't so great. with a lot of compromise and hard work, they were able to come together with a plan that conserves soil and water resources for generations to come and it protects the safety net our farmers rely on. this has been called the greatest advancement in conservation in three decades. i want to underscore for my colleagues, this is an important, historic agreement, and others deserve credit as much as i certainly would like to take credit for this or senator cochran would -- and we're certainly encouraged in it -- this came from a group of people working together. i know a lot of my colleagues are planning to talk about amendments -- some have already talked on amendments -- on crop insurance. a lot of colleagues votes for amendments the last time around. but this conservation agreement puts us in a very different situation this year.

for one thing, we want to make sure the biggest landowners who control the most acres are using compromisusingcrop insurance. crop insurance is voluntary. prior to volume insurance, there were subsidies and then ad hoc disaster assistance. now we're encouraging them to purchase crop insurance and we want them to have it, which means now they would need to use conservation practices to preserve sensitive lands and wetlands on those largest tracts as well as small tracts. amendmentamendments that weakenp insurance would reduce the number of farmers participating in crop insurance, raising premiums for family farmers and reducing the environmental impacts and the environmental benefits of this historic conservation agreement. with a new agreement, the math is very simple.

the more acres that's in crop insurance, the more we have environmental and conservation benefits. my dear friend from illinois came to the floor a while ago and said that the majority of crop insurance was in a small number of farmers. well, it's true. the larger the farther the more you use crap -- the larger the farm, the more you use crop insurance. the bigger the business manufacturers probably buy the biggest part of the insurance rather than small businesses. i'm not sure what the point is of that. of course we have large farmers buying more crop insurance than small farmers. what we want to make sure of is that there are the environmental and conservation benefits on those large farms, just like on smaller farms.

there's another reason my colleagues should reevaluate these amendments, and i would encourage, as they come before us, that we vote "no." this chart shows the counties that were declared disaster areas last year. an awful lot of red, mr. president. 2012 was one of the worst droughts on record ever in the united states. and in the past, in situations like this, we would have passed ad hoc disaster assistance for the corn growers and wheat growers and soybean growers and other farmers. but we didn't have to do that because crop insurance works. crop insurance, which is not a subsidy -- when you have crop insurance, you get a bill, mr. president -- a bill to pay. now, we share in that cost to make sure there is a discount to make sure they can afford the bill. but they get a bill. they don't get a check. and the only farmers last year who needed disaster assistance

were the ones who can't participate in crop insurance, which we fix in this farm bill. we address permanent livestock disaster assistance. they don't have access to the same crop insurance. we address farmers like mine, my cherry growers, who were wiped out when it got warm in the spring and then froze again and completely wiped out the cherries. they don't have crop insurance now. they need some extra help. but we are in this farm bill giving them access to crop insurance, which is the primary risk management tool for farmers. producers purchase crop insurance so they are protected when there is a disaster. but if we weaken crop insurance, resulting in premium hikes of as much as 40% on small farewells, we're going to be going -- on small farmers, we're going to be going to the days of ad hoc disaster assistance, something

we cannot afford in today's title budget climate. finally -, we need to keep this historic agreement if place through the conference committee. we owe it to the folks who sat down and worked out this agreement, and i would ask colleagues to stand with the 36 -- or 34 different organizations that came together. and i would ask for the record that i be able to submit along with my testimony today the number of groups in the coalition that put this together. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. stabenow: we need to make sure that our colleagues in the house as well as here in the senate stand with all of these groups who've worked hard to compromise and forge this very historic, constructive agreement. if we want to preserve conservation in the farm bill, we need to support the farmers,

the environmentalists, the conservationists who have made it clear that this agreement is something they stand behind. we should not be weakening crop insurance or making it harder for large producers, who have the majority of land we want to conserve, to have less of an incentive to participate in the program. mr. president, let me just say -- and i know my colleague from vermont is here to speak as well -- but i want to thank again the 34 organizations, everyone from the american farm bureau and the soybean association, the audubon association, the environmental defense fund, the national cotton council, right on down the line, world wildlife fund, u.s. rice federation -- this is an incredible coalition, and it speaks very loudly both to the fact that we need to keep in place the number-one risk management tool for our growers,

but we need to make sure that they are providing the conservation practices to protect our soil and our water, so critical for the future for our children and grandchildren. thank you, mr. president. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, let me begin by congratulating senators stabenow and cochran for their hard work on this very important piece of legislation, especially for rural states like vermont. but i guess for everybody who eats, which is the majority of people in our country. mr. president, i want to spend a few minutes talking about some important amendments that i am offering. i think one of them -- the amendment i'll talk about first -- will be coming up for a vote either later tonight or tomorrow. and that deals with the right of states to label genetically

engineered food. that is amendment number 965. mr. president, this year the vermont state house of representatives passed a bill by a vote of 99-42 requiring the genetically engineered food be labeled. i can tell you with absolute certainty that the people of vermont want to know what is in their food and are extremely supportive of what the state legislature has done. but this is an issue certainly not just limited to vermont. yesterday, as i understand it, the connecticut state senate, by an overwhelming vote of 35-1 also passed legislation to require labeling of genetically engineered food. in california, our largest state, where the issue is o wasn

the ballot last november, 47% of the people there e voted for labeling, despite the biotech industry spending over $47 million in a campaign in opposition to that proposition. that's an enormous sum of money, and yet 47% of the people voted for labeling of g.m.o.'s. in the state of washington, some 350,000 people signed a petition in support of initiative 522 to label genetically engineered foods in that state. in fact, according to a recent poll done earlier this year, approximately 82% of the american people believe that labeling should take place with regard to genetically engineered ingredients. all over this country increasingly people are concerned about the quality of the food they are ingesting and

the food that they are giving to their kids. people want to know what is in their food, and i believe that is a very reasonable request. mr. president, what i am proposing today -- the amendment i am offering -- is certainly not a radical concept. the requirement of labeling genetically modified food exists today in dozens and dozens of countries throughout the world, including our closest allies in the european union, including russia, australia, south korea, japan, brazil, new zealand, and other countries. so this is not some kind of new and crazy idea. in fact, it exists all over the world. at a time when many of my colleagues express their strong conviction about states' rights and that states should be allowed to have increased

responsibilities, this amendment should be supported by those people who in fact believe in states' rights. and the reason for that is that when the state of vermont and other states go forward in passing legislation to label genetically modified food, they have been threatened by monsanto and other large biotech companies with costly lawsuits. so states are going forward, doing what they think is proper for their own people, and then you have monsanto and other very large biotech companies coming forward and saying, we're going to sue you of the and what are e you. and what are the grounds for that lawsuit? monsanto is arguing that states do not have the right to pass legislation like this, that it is in fact a federal prerogative and not something that a state

can legally do. i believe very strongly ma -- strongly that monsanto is wrong. but that is exactly what this amendment clarifies. today we have an opportunity with that amendment to affirm once and for all that states do have the right to label food that contains genetically engineered ingredients. let me briefly tell you what's in the amendment. the amendment finds that the 10th amendment to the constitution of the united states clearly reserves powers in the system of federalism to the states or to the people. this amendment finds that states have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetically engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered. furthermore, this amendment requires that one year after the enactment of this act the commissioner of the f.d.a. and the secretary of agriculture

shall undertake the necessary regulations to carry out this amendment. mr. president, there is strong precedent for labeling g.m.o.'s. the f.d.a. already requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients and additives. if you want to know if your food contains. gluten, as per tame, high fructose corn sir rumor m.s.g., you simply read the ingredient label. millions and millions of people every day look at labels, how many calories are in the food, what other ingredients are in the food. this is simply what we have been doing as a nation for many, many years. only right now americans are not afforded the same right for g.e. foods. mr. president, monsanto and other companies claim that there's nothing to be concerned about with genetically engineered food, but yet f.d.a.

scientists and doctors have warned us that g.e. foods could have new and different risks, such as hidden allegerens, increased plant toxin levels and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic rhesusant disease -- resistant disease. this is a pretty simple amendment. it basically says that the american people have a right to know what they are eating. this is legislation i know that the people of vermont, i gather the people of connecticut and i think people all over this country would like to see passed. and skilled for its support. -- and i would ask for its support. mr. president, there are a couple of other amendments that i would like to briefly discuss having to do with the snap program. and one of them deals with the need for seniors to be better

able to access the snap program. it is no secret that in our country today millions and millions of seniors are struggling to get by on limited income. and the result of that is that after they pay their prescription drug costs or their rent or their utilities, they do not have enough money to spend on food. and it is estimated today that some one million seniors are going hungry in the united states of america. that is something that we should be embarrassed about and an issue that we should address as soon as possible. clearly the toll that inadequate nutrition has for seniors impacts their overall health, and my strong guess is that this amendment will end up saving us money because when seniors get good nutrition, they're less likely to fall, break their hips, end up in the emergency room, end up in the hospital.

i think from a moral perspective, from a cost perspective, we want to see and make sure that all seniors in this country regardless of their income have the nutrition that they need. snap plays a crucial role in our country in reducing hunger. in 2011, snap raised nearly five million people out of poverty. but here's the main point that i want to make. only 35% of eligible individuals over age 60 participated in snap in 2010. in other words, there are many, many seniors out there who could benefit from snap, but for a variety of reasons, one of which i'm addressing right now, they do not participate. mr. president, as you may well know, the snap application process can be confusing and cumbersome for many households, especially for seniors. individuals apply for snap either by visiting an

application center, which is a challenge for people with mobility issues. if you are not able to get out of your home, if you can't afford transportation, getting to that center can be very, very difficult. it is also challenging when taking -- dealing with an application over the telephone if you are hard of hearing, which clearly many seniors are. at the same time the complicated interview process costs local, state, tribal and federal governments additional administrative dollars. the snap amendment that i am offering here is pretty simple. it will help alleviate hunger by allowing seniors to more easily apply for and access snap benefits in order to reduce barriers for seniors applying to snap, this amendment proposes to do the following: it allows states to deputize, which in this case means to certify, nonprofit organizations and area

agencies on aging that are meeting with seniors directly and helping them with their snap application to conduct the interview on the state's behalf. the state agency would still determine eligibility. further, states would have the flexibility to deputize only the agencies that have the capacity to fulfill the state's interview requirements on their behalf. this amendment does not waive any documentation requirements or ease any other requirements. eligibility for the benefits must still be verified. what it does do is reduce duplication of efforts and ease the burden on vulnerable families and seniors for whom it is a challenge to travel to a state office or wait for days at a friend's house who has a phone to make a call. so, in other words, all that this is doing is saying if we want to make sure that seniors stay healthy, get the nutrition they need, stay out of the emergency room, stay out of the

hospital, let us make it easier for them to take advantage of the programs that are currently available. and in this case, the snap program eligibility process for seniors is pretty complicated and sometimes people who want to be in the program simply are unable to do that. so i would hope that we could have support for that amendment. and the other snap amendment deals with an equally important issue of people who are wrongfully dropped from the program, often due to an administrative error. the current system is inefficient. we are spending government money that should be going to help people buy food and instead we're spending it on paperwork and bureaucracy. the improvements i'm proposing will help alleviate hunger as fewer people will go without the benefits they need, and state and federal administrative resources will be used more effectively. my amendment requires the usda to track information from states

on the problem of -- quote unquote -- churn, and that's the turn used when eligible people are dropped from the program and then must reapply. the usda and advocacy groups have identified churn as a key problem in the administration of snap benefits. having people reapply who never should have been dropped from the benefit in the first place adds to the caseload burden. tracking the information is only a first step. then we must find solutions to reduce the problem so that people don't lose their benefits, whether that be improved training, clearer forms and notices or simpler recertification processes. these improvements will reduce hunger by making sure the people get the benefits for which they are eligible and so desperately need. mr. president, the last issue that i briefly want to touch on

deals with the need for the usda to help us understand through a study the impact that global warming is having on agriculture. we all know that we are looking at record-setting droughts in australia, brazil and locations in america. record-setting droughts. u.s. cities matched or broke at least 29,000 high-temperature records last year. ice-free arctic summers will be with us within a couple of years. and that is the reality of the moment. the impacts of global warming clearly will be felt far and wide, but farmers across the country are among those who will suffer the most. warmer temperatures, water shortages and droughts and other extreme weather disturbances will force producers to alter

practices, change crops and spend more money to sustain their operations. so what this amendment simply does is that it asks the usda to do a study to provide us with a better understanding of how our changing climate will impact agriculture across the country and help farmers plan and adapt to those changes. it will help local communities and states make critical adjustments now and it will reduce the vulnerability of the entire agricultural sector to the damaging consequences of climate change. so we think this is an important amendment. states' farmers need to have the information about what scientists believe will be happening to the work that they're doing in years to come. and i would ask for support of that amendment. last, very briefly, we in the past have successfully offered an amendment on community

gardens in vermont. in our schools, communities are working on gardens all over the state. we had a national program passed last year as well. this would simply expand that program to allow schools and communities to engage with limited help from the federal government, in community gardens. teach kids about the foods that they are eating and about agriculture. very inexpensive concept which has been working very successfully and i think needs to be expanded. so with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. coats: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i rise today to offer my support for the sugar reform amendment being offered on the farm bill by senator shaheen. this important amendment would begin a reform process that deals with a complicated and burdensome program and artificially raises sugar prices

in the united states. for nearly three-quarters of a century now american businesses and consumers have paid a premium price for sugar. this inflated price is due to a tangled web of price manipulation, stringent import quotas and tariffs. and the net effect has been that americans are paying as much as twice the market-based, world market-based price for sugar. now, i think we all realize the amount of sugar that's used in a number of products across the united states, but let me bring this down specifically to what impact it has on some of the confectioners in my home state. a baness confectioner's group, inc. is a renowned manufacturer of a number of products that use a lot of sugar. chocolates, gummi bears.

they call it the world's best. and we'll have is to put that in competition with some of the others and a lot of other confections. their estimate is they would save $3 million annually if they were able to buy sugar at the world price. lewis bakeries, headquartered in evansville, inn, -- indiana is one of the few bakeries in our state. high prices contribute directly to high food and beverage costs that weigh down family budgets. even larger companies like kraft foods which has a marshmallow and carmel plant in indiana knows phasing out the sugar program would enhance the competitiveness of u.s. manufacturers. why is that important? because these sugar prices for those in this business of using

large quantities of sugar is driving them offshore. they're moving to canada. they're moving to mexico. they're moving to other places simply because they then can buy the most important ingredient for their product, which contributes to a significant percentage of their product, they can buy that at world market prices and save a great deal of money. so i encourage my colleagues to support the shaheen amendment. it promotes jobs, it reduces the level of government interference in private markets, and i think we should be pursuing policies that allow the free market to determine the cost of sugar rather than this complicated web of tariffs and the regulations and others that protect that price. this amendment doesn't accomplish all of that, but it goes a long way toward beginning the process of unwinding this and making our companies more competitive around the world. i'd like to take a moment to

also address another issue with the farm bill here. senator donnelly and you are cosponsors of the bill -- and i are cosponsors of the bill called planting flexibility. we hope this will be included in the managers amendment and i appreciate the work done behind the scenes to address this important issue. planting flexibility allows farmers flexibility when making planting decisions rather than following requirements to grow a particular crop to participate in government programs. for example, hoosier tomato farmers used to be significantly restricted on where they could plant their crop. red gold, a family owned and operated tomato business in elwood, indiana estimates 50% of its tomatoes are now grown on flexible acres. red gold produces a whole number of tomato products sold all over

the united states and, in fact, all over the world. so just allowing this flexibility, again, is a free market based choice that producers can follow based on supply, based on demand, and gives them the flexibility that they need to address crops that are outside the coverage of this particular bill. i think both these amendments -- both these measures are commonsense, market-driven reforms that i hope will be included in the farm bill and i would ask my colleagues to support these two amendments. mr. president, unless the ranking member of the agriculture committee needs the time, and since no one else is on the floor, i would be remiss in not speaking a little longer. and without objection if i could speak as if in morning business, mr. president, i would like to

do so. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, the first thing i want to do is extend what i believe to be the sincere regrets over the tragedy that occurred in oklahoma just yesterday, and extend the sincere thoughts and prayers that are coming from many, many hoosiers for those people than have suffered greatly. just last year, we had a serious tornado roar through southern indiana along a 50-mile path. fortunately, it was in a more rural area and we didn't begin to have the level of destruction they had in oklahoma city, but having been there and viewed the destruction of that tornado in indiana, and the impact that it had on the lives of so many people, and then comparing it

with what happened in oklahoma, it certainly brings home the nature of this tragedy. whenever mother nature's vicious wrath strikes, it tears apart not only homes, but families. and during these times of tragedy, however, what i witnessed in southern indiana and what we're witnessing on the television as we watch what's happening in oklahoma is the extraordinary heroism, generosity, volunteerism and resolve of the american people to pitch in and help. so i'm asking all hoosiers to keep our friends in oklahoma in our hearts and prayers and to help wherever we can. mr. president, we have been experiencing here in the last few weeks scandal after scandal unfolding in washington. and this is a difficult period, obviously, for the current administration but more

importantly, it has resulted in a difficult time for our nation. what we saw last week is further justification for the american people's disstrus, deeply disturbing distrust, of government. under this current administration, there's been a pattern of misleading the american people and a culture of intimidation on those who disagree with their policies. we saw it when the administration misled the american people over the events in benghazi, we saw it when the administration misled the american people on knowing about the i.r.s. targeting of conservative groups, and whether it's the i.r.s. scandal, benghazi, or other issues that have come -- we've become aware of in the last few weeks and months, they call into question the integrity of this administration. and the american people deserve the straight talk and the straight truth as to what has happened rather than the

mischaracterization or lack of revelation of what has happened. through calls and emails and letters i'm hearing from concerned hoosiers who are outraged at what they see taking place in washington, and given the headlines that they've seen in the last few weeks, they have every right to be concerned. now, the only way to eliminate this current trust deficit in washington is to hold people accountable, get complete answers and make changes to ensure that this abuse of power and misinformation that's coming out of this administration will not continue. so we need to continue these through ongoing investigations until we get answers, until we determine what is the responsible thing to do and the right thing to do. but in the midst of these let me just state there is another scandal that we must not overlook, and that is the

ongoing chronic debt and deficit and unemployment crisis. four and a half years after the end of an admittedly deep recession, 22 million americans unemployed or underemployed, that's a scandal. more than $16.8 trillion of debt with its impact on future generations is a scandal. borrowing $40,000 per second and saddling each child born today in america with over $50,000 of debt is a scandal. now, these numbers are not partisan or political. they are the facts. and these are the facts that this body, this administration, has to deal with. because we're careening on an unstable fiscal path that will bankrupt the critical programs our seniors and retirees depend on robbing them of the benefits they've been promised.

we are seeing meager gains in jobs only to find out more and more americans are being forced from full-time employment to part-time employment. in april alone, nearly 280,000 americans involuntarily entered part-time employment. at the same time, the average workweek and weekly take-home pay continues to decline. this issue, our debt crisis and our jobs crisis, should consume the work of this congress and this administration. but instead, we careen from drama to drama, fiscal cliff to debt limit deadlines and then we enact far short of what is needed legislation, often flawed, like the across-the-board sequestration policy. and yet none of this remotely solves the problem that we face. in a recent gallup poll when asked what they'd like congress and the president to address,

86% named creating jobs and growing the economy. from fort wayne to evansville, hoosiers tell me they want growth and certainty to our economy and create meaningful jobs for the underemployment and the unemployment. so as we address the issues before us, let's not forget about this major debt crisis that faces our country and impacts every american. let's not forget about those americans that are looking for work and can't find it. or those who have been forced into part-time jobs that won't begin to be enough to support a family. let's not become distracted and drop the ball on tackling these issues because the daily headlines are simply pointing to something else. the best way we can restore the trust deficit in this country is to do our job here, to make the tough decisions we know weaned

to -- we need to make to address our greatest challenge. we must come together on a credible, long-term plan to reduce our debt and put our country back on a path toward growth and job creation. the future of our country depends upon it. and each of us, starting with the president, has a moral obligation to address this most critical issue. i hope we will be willing to stand up and do this. yes, we have other issues. we have the farm bill which we need to address, we'll be talking about immigration the week after we come back from a break. we will be holding investigations and looking into some of these so-called scandals that we have been dealing with these last few weeks. but we are not focusing on the real problem here, and while we have to do these other tasks, let us not forget what the real challenge is before us.

we owe it to the american people. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i ask success speption of the quorum call. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you very much. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, the senate begin consideration of s. res. 65 at 3:45 p.m., that there be 50 minutes of debate, that the republicans control 30 minutes, the majority control 20 minutes. that the majority's time -- that of the majority's time, senator menendez control 15 minutes and senator blumenthal control five minutes. that all other provisions under the previous order remain in effect. that upon disposition of s. res.

65, the senate resume consideration of s. 954, there be two minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form and the senate immediately proceed to vote in relation to the shaheen amendment 925. that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. as a result of this agreement, all -- if all time is used, at approximately 4:35 p.m., there will be two roll call votes, the first on adoption of s. res. 65, the iran sanctions resolution; and then in relation to the shaheen amendment on the sugar programs. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. a senator: mr. president, i rise to address the shaheen amendment number 925 that the chairman of the committee just referred to. the presiding officer: the senator may proceed. mr. toomey: thank you very much, mr. president. i just want to urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i want to start by thanking senator shaheen for her leadership on this, senator kirk for his leadership, senator durbin for his support and leadership on this. we've all worked together on this. and i want to just briefly explain why i think this is important and why this amendment deserves the support of -- of this body. first of all, people ought to understand, we have an extensive and complicated system by which taxpayers and consumers are forced to prop up to an artificially high price the price of sugar in this country. we subsidize a handful of

wealthy sugar growers at the expense of everybody in america because i can't think of any consumer who doesn't consume sugar. everybody uses some amount of sugar. it's in virtually all processed food. it's in all -- obviously any kind of confectionary or any kind of sweets. but it's -- it's a staple, a fundamental staple. and, in fact, the poorest americans spend the highest percentage of their limited income on sugar because that is the nature of this food staple that we have. well, what do we do through our agricultural policy? one of the things we do is we put a limit on how much we can bring in from overseas. it just so happens that there are some places in the world that can grow sugar cheaper than we can. and rather than take of the -- take advantage of the opportunity to have a lower-cost staple for -- for all americans, including the poorest of americans, instead we establish a quota and we say, there's only so much that we're going to bring in without imposing a big, huge, expensive tariff on it.

and since we don't grow enough ourselves to meet the demands, when we hit that quota, we do, in fact, impose that huge tariff on the additional sugar that we need to buy. but that's not all we do. to subsidize these handful of growers at the expense of american taxpayers and consume consumers. another program that we have is an extensive loan program where ultimately the taxpayer lends money to sugar producers and it's a head's-i, win, tale's, you-lose program for the sugar producer. if the price drops too low on sugar, that the producer would actually have to reach into his own pocket to pay back the loan, guess what? he doesn't have to do that. he can say, never mind, i'm not going to pay back the loan. i'll just give you the sugar. this is, classic, i know, head's, they win, tail's, we all lose. and it goes beyond that. because in an effort to prop up the price at artificially high levels so that we're all paying more than we need to for sugar,

we have a program that's called the feed stock flexibility program. and this program is one in which the usda takes taxpayer money and buys up huge quantities of sugar in order to try to drive up the price for all of us. i know you -- it's hard to believe that this is true. i'm not making this up. i'm not creative enough to make this up. this is real. now, then, what does the usda do with the massive quantity of shiewg hear thasugar that it mi? by the way, front-page story in the "wall street journal" a few weeks ago about the huge purchase the usda is thinking about making, has the discretion to do, might very well make. well, what they do if they buy all this sugar, they don't have anything to do with it so they sell it at a huge loss. they -- they sell it to somebody's who's going to make ethanol or something with it. that's what we do. it's unbelievable all the ways in which taxpayers and consumers are forced to subsidize a handful of very wealthy sugar growers. so that's what we do as policy

under existing law. and what this amendment does is it tries to push that back a little bit. that's all we're trying to do here. what -- what senator shaheen and and i senator kirk and senator durbin have done in this amendment is we say, can we at least push back some of the most egregious features here? could we go back, for instance, to the policy we had prior to the 2008 farm bill because prior to 2008, oh, we -- we did subsidize sugar but at least not quite as much as we do today, and so that's what we're trying to do. let's just go back to the policies we had before 2008. and specifically, let's eliminate this feed stock program. this program, whereby the usda can go out and purchase huge quantities of sugar, driving up the price and then turn around and sell it at a huge loss. let's -- let's end that and let's have a little bit more flexibility on this quota so that american consumers can have the opportunity to buy more sugar at prices that are at

least a little closer to the world prices. here's a few facts we ought to keep in mind. the net effect of all these programs on all of our consumers, and, as i say, everybody consumes sugar, is that we pay on average about 30% more than the world market price for sugar. that's what we're doing to our consumers now. and by the way, that's separate and apart from the cost to taxpayers. that's just what consumers are forced to pay. now, does that have the effect of maybe protecting a handful of jobs among sugar growers? it probably does. and so the commerce department decided to take a look at this and they did a study on this, and they discovered, sure enough, there are a certain number of jobs among sugar producers that are protected by the fact that we don't allow a free market in sugar and we don't allow imports from more efficient producers. but here's what else they discovered. they discovered for every job

that we save among sugar producers, we lose three jobs among companies that manufacture with sugar, the companies that make cakes and deserts and candies and all the other kinds of things that we manufacture that require sugar as an input. and the reason we lose those jobs is because those companies can't compete with foreign imports that don't have this crazy sugar program. so, for instance, we have candy companies that have left america and they've moved to canada because canada doesn't do this. and so when they locate in canada, they can buy sugar at a normal world price, the same as anyone else anywhere in the world outside of america. maybe not anybody but lots of people outside of america can buy sugar. that's much, much cheaper than what they have to pay to buy sugar when they're an american citizen, an american company. and so they can make candy much cheaper. so we lose american jobs, which we have lost. they go to canada or somewhere else and how -- how can that

possibly be a good outcome, to lose three jobs for everyone you protect? it doesn't make any sense. this is a badly flawed policy. i -- i would advocate that we completely repeal all this. that would be my personal view. that is not what this legislation, that is not what this amendment does. all we do in this amendment is we say, let's just go back to where we were before the farm bill of 2008 expanded this program and created this new liability for taxpayers. so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to support the shaheen amendment number 925 for some good, commonsense improvements to our existing sugar policy. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: thank you. yesterday i came to the floor of the united states senate to talk not only about the farm bill but specifically about the importance of the sugar program to the compromise that is the farm bill.

and i talked about growers getting protections in terms of crop insurance. i talked about the dairy progr program. i talked about specialty crops. and i talked about the importance of protecting the domestic sugar industry and using a no-cost approach, which has been the approach that we've dealt with for years in the sugar program. today i don't want to repeat all of that discussion. what i would like to do, howev however, is respond directly to the shaheen amendment and some of the information that we've been hearing about the shaheen amendment going forward. because i think it's important as we have simply heard that the shaheen amendment would simply roll back the sugar program to the policies in place before the 2008 farm bill. in reality, this amendment would do far more than what was included in the program prior to 2008 and would, in fact, threaten 142,000 american sugar

producing jobs in 22 states. i want to be very specific about the uniqueness of this compared to pre-2008. so specifically, the amendment institutes two new policies beyond repealing the 2008 farm bill changes to the sugar program that are damaging to our farmers and sugar manufacture manufactures -- sugar manufacturers in the united states. first, the amendment would mandate for the first time a 15.5 stocks to use ratio. sugar suppliers in the united states already at historically high surplus levels, at stock to use ratios in the 18% to 20% range. this proposal would mandate artificiallartificially inflatid increasing inventories in order -- in order really realistically to push down prices for food processing companies. at a stocks to use ratio of less than 15.5%, earlier this year

sugar producer prices were collapsing below average levels of the 1980's and the 1990's. and you hear over and over again about how we have had this dramatic increase in sugar prices and that has led to the loss of american processing jo jobs. really nothing could be further from the truth. and, in fact, we've seen historic low prices and, in fact, the sugar prices today were -- earlier this year were collapsing below the levels of the 18ofthe 1980's and 1990 he'. second, it would make sugar tradable on the open market. and that would risk potential abuse of benefits to developing countries that count on the quotas so if a country could not, in fact, meet their quota, that quota could be traded on

the open market. i think that's a formula for interjecting a factor that has never been included before in the sugar bill. and i think u.s. policy provides access to developing world countries on our sugar market, one of the largest in the world, allowing governments of developing nations to trade their quotas does nothing to empower those farmers in developing countries. instead, the quota rights would be traded to subsidize industries and powerful sugar companies -- countries like brazil which would lead to further excess supply in the american market. i want to talk a little bit because everybody seems to believe that pre-2008 was a panacea for sugar, that if we just went back there, everything would once again be fine. i want to kind of set the stage for what -- what the world was before the 2008 farm bill. 2008 farm bill updated the sugar program in response to a change in the relationship between

united states and mexico regarding sugar. under nafta, agricultural trade was liberalized between our two countries, which removed barriers and allowed a more free flow of goods. the nafta provisions regarding sugar were fully realized in 2008. if dropping the trade barriers resulted in a level playing field, this would have been no problem, because our american farmers are the most efficient in the world and we can win in a free market condition. however, a level playing field was not the case. mexican sugar is highly subsidized. in fact, the government owns approximately 20% of their sugar industry. candy and major food producing companies are having some of their most successful years in memory. and i think that when -- when we hear the stories of lost jobs and -- and additional burden, i think we need to look at the

reality and i think the reality is that nothing has prevented -- the price of sugar has not prevented them from achieving record profits, strong profits and i think continued growth. another fact that doesn't get talked about much when we talk about the sugar program, today the price of sugar is roughly same as what it was in 1985. what product can you say that's true? sugar is the exact price as it was in 1985. additionally, the domestic price of sugar is often lower than the international price when factoring in transportation costs. to claim the sugar program is breaking the backs of american consumers again is not a fair or accurate statement. u.s. wholesale sugar price in april was 26 cents per pound.

the internationally traded sugar price in april was 22 cents per pound. the transportation costs of bringing sugar to the united states from brazil, the dominican republic or the philippines, three of the largest importers of sugar under the program, exceeds the four-cent per pound difference. so i think it's important that we at least have some response to this idea that, number one, things were good in 2008, so we should just roll back the program to 2008. if that were true, obviously, i don't think we would be standing here fighting this amendment, but i don't think it's true. plus i think that there are provisions in this amendment that have not yet been revealed as provisions that were not included in the pre-2008 sugar program, and that concerns me. that concerns me that this amendment has not had a discussion in committee.

this amendment has not been something that the experts on the ag committee have deliberated, and then i want to kind of pull back and look at a higher view, which is the american farmer, american agriculture, and what the farm bill attempts to do to guarantee a sure and steady supply of food for our country and arguably for the world. the farm bill is a compromise package. the farm bill represents in each one of those elements a different provision for different parts of our country. dairy important in wisconsin, dairy important in vermont. dairy not so important in north dakota. but sugar is critically important to the economy of north dakota. sugar is important to the economy of minnesota. of the economy of florida, the

economy of hawaii. and all of us have come together to fashion a farm bill that responds to the need for certainty in american agricultural policy. that farm bill is critical not only to our farmers but to the 16 million jobs that the farm bill supports, and we forget that. we forget that this is much bigger than a sugar program, it's much bigger than any one individual commodity. it is about food security combined with an effort to do what we need to do to provide certainty and surety to american producers. and so my concern is that when you single out one commodity, whether it's soybeans or corn or sugar or tobacco or rice, when you single out one commodity, you threaten the effective --

the effectiveness of the overall farm bill. and so i would urge my colleagues to work within the structure of the ag committee, understand that where you may have individual concerns about each piece of this, and i may have individual concerns about varying pieces of this farm bill, this ag bill, but it is critically important that we not single out one commodity to reduce our support. sugar is too important to our economy, it's too important to our food processing to risk simple -- simply that we are going to have enough sugar on the international market, that we are not going to have a domestic supply, because many of these provisions would drive the domestic producer out of the market, making us beholden to foreign sources of sugar. and i don't think that's why we have a farm bill.

i think we have a farm bill so that we can guarantee that farm commodities and farm products that -- that we are able to grow in this country are available and local. and so, mr. chairman, i urge a no vote on this amendment. i think that it is extreme. i think that this amendment which has been basically reported to be a simple rollback to 2008 is not exactly as it appears, and i think it's critically important that we keep the compromise that is the -- the farm bill, as reported out of the committee, essentially intact by recognizing the needs of all the commodity groups. mr. president, i yield the floor.

ms. stabenow: mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. hoeven: i rise to address the farm bill for several minutes. the presiding officer: we are currently in a quorum call. mr. hoeven: the discussion that we're having right now is -- the presiding officer: the senator is reminded that we're currently in a quorum call. mr. hoeven: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. i just with aens to take severat want to take several minutes to respond to several of the comments in regard to the farm bill and specifically the sugar program on the floor of the senate.

we've got a vote coming up, not the -- the presiding officer: we vently have an order to move to the consideration of s. res. 65 at 3:45 p.m. mr. graham: mr. president, that is my resolution with senator menendez. i don't mind yielding a couple minutes to the tho the senator e his point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: i thank my esteemed colleague. i do want to rye spon respond te comments that were made with regard to sugar. it is important to understand that the price of sugar in the united states is actually less than the international price, so because of the sugar program we have, american consumers benefit. i want to reiterate that point and also express how important it is to understand that we have low-cost producers in this country who are precluded from selling their sugar in markets like the european union because of tariffs and restrictions.

so, as an individual who strongly supports international commerce and trade, issue -- on many of these issues we're talking about how we we want to continue to expand our ability to export. but at the same time we've got to make sure that our farmers, ranchers, companies are treated fairly, and so we have a situation where they operate international and they are precluded from many markets throughout the world, even though they are low-cost producers. that's what our sugar program is designed to do, is to try to level that playing field. it does so effectively -- the shurl program has cost this -- the sugar program has cost this country nothing over the last decade. and consumers benefit from lower sugar prices than the international price, not higher prices. thank you, mr. president. again, i want to thank my esteemed colleague from south

carolina. i yield the floor. mr. graham: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate will proceed to the consideration of s. res. 65, which the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 65, strongly supporting the full implementation of united states -- and international sanctions on iran and urging the president to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation. the presiding officer: there will now be 50 minutes for debate with the republicans -- excuse me, with the republicans controlling 30 minutes and the majority controlling 20 minutes. the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you. this is a debate where it really doesn't matter who's speaking, republican or democrat, because we're speaking with one voice. and that very seldom happens in american politics today, unfortunately. but there will be 50 minutes divided but really there is no division here. is that the resolution 65 has 91 cosponsors. now, that is very difficult to do, and the president, senator

coons, was an original cosponsor of the legislation, and what does senate resolution e6 65 al about? on march 4, 2012, president obama stated, "whenever an effort is made to delegitimatize the state of israel, my administration has opposed them. so there should not be a shred of doubt by now when the chips are down, i have israel's back." this resolution is in support of the president's statement. when i heard that statement, it was music to my ears because the iranian nuclear program, the efforts of the iranians to develop a nuclear capability marches on as i speak. today, may 22, there are two articles, one in the associated press, one in reuters, talking about iaea reports a understand diplomats saying that iran -- and diplomats saying that iran is pressing forward with

research on a reactor that would add to their nuclear capability to make a bomb and that they've increased the number of senttory fuges since april -- centrifuges since april dramatically. we've been trying to press on very successfully, i might add. senator menendez, the original cosponsor, will be here around 4:00. as to bob men then ease did, there is a he no stronger -- as to bob menendez, there's no stronger supporter. the guts of this resolution basically is follows: it declares that the united states has a vital national interest in and an unbreakable commitment to ensuring the existence, survival, and security of the state of israel. it reaffirms the united states' support for israel's right for legitimate self-defense and in the last paragraph -- it is not an authorization to use force, but it says the following:

that if israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the united states will stand with israel and provide diplomatic, military, economic support in defense of its territory, people, and existence, and the whole resolution is about israel having to defend herself against a nuclear-capable iran. so when our president said in 2012 that we have israel's back, that his administration has israel's back, this is a chance for the united states senate to say, we also have israel's back. and from my point of view, you can't separate the threat that the nuclear program in iran creates from the united states and israel, they are eight same. the same threat that israel faces from a nuclear-armed iran, a nuclear-capable iran, we face as a nation. so people wonder, what will happen if that day ever comes? what would america do? well, this is a statement by every united states senator who

votes "yes," not an authorization to use force, but a statement that if that day comes and israel has to justifiably defend itself from a breakout by the iranian regime to build a nuclear weapon, which could be the end of the jewish state, we will have israel's back economically, militarily, and diplomatically. i cannot stress how important it is for that state to be made by the united states senate. time is running out. time is not on our side. and as to the threat from iran, since 1984, they have been characterized as the most active state-sponsored terrorist in the world. the amount of enriched uranium has grown. as we talk, they enrich. so we'll have several senators come down, voice their support for this resolution, and with that, senator hoeven, i would like to recognize for two minutes. he has been in support of the

u.s.-israel relationship. mr. hoeven: i appreciate the opportunity to join my esteemed colleague from the great state of south carolina in support of senate resolution 65 expressing our strong support for our close friend and ally, israel. this resolution, right up front, says -- and i want to read right from the subheadinheading in the resolution -- "strongly supports the full implementation of the united states and international sanctions on iran and urging the president to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation." this is very important, and i want to just buttress a comment made by the good senator from south carolina; and that is that through kirk-menendez, and other legislation, we have provided authority for the administration to put the strongest possible sanctions in place to prevent iran from developing a nuclear

weapon, and we need to do it. we need to stand with israel. we need to support our ally, and this isn't just about israel. ; this is about security for the united states. this is about preventing iran from et going a nuclear weapon. -- this is about preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. these sanctions provide that any country or company that buys oil from iran cannot do business with our banking system. now, an think about that. so companie countries that buy m iran would not be able to contract with iran or the companies that do business with iran. think about that. if iran can't sell its oil, it has no revenue. if it has no revenue, it is forced to stop its efforts to build a nuclear weapon. so the point is this: we can't have sanctions, and what we're trying to do in this legislation is not only express support for israel -- again, as the senator from south carolina

pointed out -- but encourage and support the administration in completely enforcing the strongest possible sanctions against iran so that we don't have to go to the option of a military strike to take out their nuclear weapon capability. and that's what this is all about. so this is on a bipartisan -- as you said, 91 cosponsors. this is about saying, hey, we can get this done, but we've got to impose these sanctions i sans strongly as we can, and we've got to do it now. mr. graham: i thank the senator from north dakota. and now i would like to recognize senator ayotte, if she would allow, for four minutes. we've go to a lot of speakers here. ms. ayotte: yes. mr. graham: -- to talk about senate resolution 65. and she's been there every step of the way. ms. ayotte: let me just thank senator graham, senator menendez for their leadership on this important senate resolution, senate resolution 65.

this is a resolution that's very straightforward. it says to our friend and ally israel, we have your back. and that means right now if you look at the dangers confronting israel, there are unprecedented dangers from the situation in syria to threats from hezbollah and hamas, ands to the situation in -- the greatest threat is iran acquiring nuclear weapon capability. it is a country that has threatened to wipe israel off the map. and rightly so, the israelis have said never again. as our country, we say never again. it is not just that the iranians could acquire nuclear weapons capability and launch a missile against our country, that is their the largest -- they are the largest state sponsor of terrorism and they could give that nuclear weapon to a terrorist and then i.t. not just a threat to -- it's not just a threat to israel; this is a

threat to the safety of the world. that's why i fully support this resolution and why it has so many cosponsors in the united states senate. to understand the deep friendship we have with israel, what we share in terms of democracy in the middle east, and that ultimately this threat is thought just a threa not juse safety of israel, that is threat to the united states of america. if israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense against iran's nuclear weapons program, it urges the united states government to stand with israel, diplomatically, militarily, and economically. it also reiterates what my friend from north dakota just talked about, which is the policy of the united states to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and reaffirms that we will continue to press for the toughest of economic sanctions to the leadersanction. to the leaders in iran:

understand there is much we do not agree upon in this body. when we pass this resolution today, you need to know that we're unified when it comes to stopping you from acquiring nuclear weapons capability and that we will stand with our friend and ally israel to make sure that you do not present that type of grave danger to the safety of the entire world. so i thank my colleague from south carolina. i thank my colleagues here who have supported this incredibly important resolution. think about it. how often do we come together with 91 senators to support something? and this is about the security of this country. i look forward to this body passing this important resolution. mr. graham: mr. president, at this time i'd like to recognize a member of the foreign relations committee, one of the strongest voices on national security in the body, a new member but somebody who really understands the world and a tremendous supporter of the u.s.-israel relationship.

senator marco rubio for four minutes. mr. rubio: i rise in support of the sanctions as well. americans are perhaps tempted these days to take a step back from the problems of the middle east and wonder why we need to be active in resolving these issues. yesterday in the foreign relations committee we discussed syria legislation and debated how to handle our -- we can't stand idly by and ignore the fallout from sear yavment americans need to remember that iran is thought just israel's problem. it is ours as well. iran has been killing americans for decades. most recently in places like iraq and afghanistan. iran has pursued and anti-american agenda in its foreign policy, it's undermined u.s. allies you through its terrorist proxies like hezbollah but they've even done it in our own hemisphere. iranian leaders have denied to the holocaust even happened and

they've threatened israel's very existence. so we do need to strengthen our sanctions and follow through with them. that's what this resolution calls on the administration to do. we also have to ensure that our international partners do that as well. i am pleased that this resolution calls on the administration to fully implement the sanctions that we've already passed and approved of. these sanctions have not changed iran's calculus. sanctions are not enough because as we've seen, iran has had its sentrcentrifuges. the approach of this administration to talk of iran trying what our european partners have attempted to do in the past has also been unsuccessful. for more than ten years we've tried to negotiate all with no results and iran has only gotten closer and closer to a nuclear capability. one avenue that has not been explored to release our greatest weapon, what ronald reagan called the will of men and women, this speaks for force

polyabout human rights in iran. this regime represses its own people. read the 2012 statement report. it talks about disappearance -gs, cruel and degrading treatment or punishment including amputations and flogging, politically motivated violence and repression such as beatings and rape, detention in prison facilities. this is not a comprehensive list of the abuses that exist in iran. there is an american pastor in iran serving eight years in prison because he is a christian and practices christianity. just yesterday the iranian government disqualified two presidential candidates. it is a sham election that's coming up in the coming months here. and so, as one state department official put it to the foreign relations committee, the green movement in iran today is virtually nonexistent. that's because of instead of denigrating freedom fighters in iran who suffered from inaction and lack of support, we need to be doing everything possible in the weeks to come to speak frankly about the lack of

fundamental freedoms in iran and reject the notion that this regime is a credible negotiating partner. we need to make clear a crackdown against the iranian people similar to the one that occurred in june of 2009 after a fraudulent presidential election will have consequences this time. we can't be everywhere. america can't be everywhere and do everything, but can't outsource solutions to our problems. israel faces unprecedent security environment. i saw this firsthand during my visit to the middle east in february. what israel sees is uncertainty and potential instability from all-out civil war to neighbors going through delicate political transitions. even with all these changes in its neighborhood, the greatest challenge facing israel today is the threat of a nuclear iran, and we need to stand with israel and provide diplomatic, military and economic support in defense of its territory, people and existence. we need to remind tehran that the united states will not allow iran to obtain nuclear weapons

as this resolution states, and that's why i'm supporting it. and i urge all my colleagues to support it as well. thank you. mr. graham: i thank the senator for a terrific speech. senator menendez, do you mind if senator mccain goes? mends i'm always -- mr. menendez: i'm always willing to allow senator mccain. mr. graham: senator mccain is recognized for five minutes. we'll do this by age. not quite a minute a decade. the presiding officer: the senior senator from arizona is recognized. mr. mccain: i thank the chair. and i hope the chair will note the disrespect being displayed for my age. this would never have happened in the coolidge administration in which i served. i would like to thank my dear friend lindsey graham for bringing this important resolution to the senate. resolutions happen all the time. this is a very important one and it wouldn't have happened without the leadership and support of the distinguished chairman of the foreign relations committee. i'd like to thank him for his

continued leadership, including the passage of the resolution that was passed through the foreign relations committee yesterday concerning the situation in syria. mr. president, i would ask inclusion in the record three articles that i think are of importance for our colleagues. one is entitled -- "washington post," "iran paves over suspected nuclear testing site despite u.n. protest." the second is another "washington post" associated press, "iran expands new technology for program that could be used to make weapons." and of course it's of interesting, another one, "iranian soldiers fighting for assad in syria." i would ask unanimous consent that they be made part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mccain: i join with 90 members of the senate to support this resolution. this resolution has extraordinary bipartisan support. the senate will send a clear and unequivocal message to the regime in tehran, and that is

this: the united states will not allow you to get a nuclear weapons capability. the dangers of a nuclear iran cannot be denied, diminished or dismissed. we must continue to ratchet up pressure through sanctions as this resolution suggests. but at the end of the day sanctions are a means to an end, not an end unto themselves. and unfortunately, despite the unprecedented international sanctions that have been put in place, iran is today closer to a nuclear weapons capacity than ever before, and the facts speak for themselves n. january 2009, according to the iaea, the iranians had approximately 1,000 kilograms of uranium enriched to 3.5%. today they have more than 8,000 kilograms. in january 2009, iran had not enriched at 20%. today the iaea reported that iran has produced 324 kilograms

of 20% enriched uranium. that's 44 kilograms more than three months ago. it means that they are moving unabated and unhindered towards the development of a nuclear weapon, and it continues to deny a.e. inspectors entry to nuclear facilities while the centrifuges continue to increase dramatically. a few hours ago the iaea issued a report that states tehran installed close to 700 high-tech centrifuges which will exponentially increase the speed with which iran will be able to enrich uranium. so, iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability cannot be divorced from its other destabilizing actions, and the threat from iran is comprehensive. it includes ongoing threats against israel and other allied arab governments across the region. it includes a decades-long

campaign of unconventional warfare and includes iran's ongoing role as the number-one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. let's not forget that iran has bolstered violent extremist groups such as hezbollah that are responsible for the murders of hundreds of americans, young american forces and innocent civilians. or that senior leaders of the quds force were implicated in a terrorist plot to assassinate saudi arabia's ambassador by the united states on u.s. soil. the iranian regime continues to undertake its campaign of brutality to keep bashar al-assad in syria. senior officials are advising and assisting the syrian military with intelligence support, weapons, and they have undertaken together with hezbollah a large-scale training effort of as many as 50,000

militia men. as today's "washington post" makes clear, iranian soldiers are fighting on the ground in syria, supporting the regime as it massacres innocent civilians. i ask you whether this is in america's national security interest. the threat from iran is more deadly and serious than nearly i have seen in my lifetime. i don't think this threat will be fully resolved until a very different set of leaders is in power in tehran, until we see an iranian government that reflects the will of the iranian people. i'm confident that the current regime that rules iran will not last forever for the simple reason the iranian people want the same freedoms and rights as people elsewhere. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. again, i want to thank the senator from south carolina, senator graham, for his hard work on this resolution, for a change.

mr. graham: thank you, senator mccain for your voice on this topic and any other topic that keeps america safe. senator menendez, without which there would be no resolution. and senator reed is not here but i want to thank him for making the time available to have this vote. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: mr. president, is there a division of time here? the presiding officer: the majority controls 20 minutes. mr. menendez: okay. mr. president, i recognize myself for such time as i may consume. let me start off by thanking and congratulating my colleague, senator graham, for joining with me, for engaging me on this critical question. he knows my concern about iran's march towards nuclear weapons. and together we thought it was an important statement to make. i appreciate his leadership on this issue and bringing us to a

point that i think we will have a remarkably strong bipartisan vote today to send a very clear message. and the message, mr. president, is that we seek full implementation of u.s. and international sanctions on iran in urging the president to continue to strengthen enforcement of those sanctions. i cannot emphasize enough my strong concerns about iran's nuclear program and the extraordinary threat it poses, yes, to israel, but very importantly to the united states of america and to the entire international community. iran's provocative actions threaten to not just undo regional stability, but it poses an exist he thinks threat to our -- existential threat to israel. iran continues to export terrorist activity directly and

through proxies like hezbollah. it continues to actively support the assad regime in syria with fighters, arms and petroleum. it continues its unrelenting drive for a nuclear weapons, placing it at the top of our list of national security concerns. in my view, it remains the paramount national security challenge we face certainly in the middle east, if not the world. mr. president, we're at a crossroads in our iran policy, and the question today is what do we do next? the obama administration in concert with the congress has pursued a dual-track approach of diplomacy and sanctions twaofplt weeks ago -- two weeks ago members of the foreign relations committee met with lady ashton who met with the p-5 plus one with secretary sherman. talks have been central in demonstrating to the world that it is iran and not the united states that is acting in bad

faith, and it is iran that through its object city -- obstinence has worked to increase pressure. but it has failed to get iran to make concessions on their nuclear program. it is clear to me that we cannot allow the iranians to continue to drag their feet by talking while all -- they grow their nur program. today as has been mentioned the international atomic energy agency in its quarterly report said iran has installed almost 700 advanced ir-2-m centrifuges at nitanz, an increase of more than 500 centrifuges since february of this year. these are centrifuges that can more efficiently and more quickly enrich uranium. the iaea's report also again

expressed concern about the possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. we cannot allow iran to buy more time by talking, even as the centrifuges keep spinning. there is no doubt, and there has never been a doubt, certainly not in my mind, that a nuclear-armed iran is not an option for the united states national security. and that's why i have been fully dedicating to doing everything we can to stop iran from ever crossing that threshold. it's why i introduced along with senator graham this resolution that makes clear that a nuclear iran is not an option and that the united states has israel's back. and it's why i've come to this floor time after time as an author of some of the toughest sanctions that one country has ever levied against another -- the sanctions against iran.

working closely with my colleague, senator kirk, and with the senator obama we have complimented these sank -- implements thesing sanctions in a way that is strangling the iranian economy. iran's leaders must understand unless they change their course, their situation will only get worse and economic struggles will grow. they must understand at the end of the day their pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability will make them less -- not more -- secure. i also want to say something about iran's unacceptable and deplorable approach to the state of israel and its continued threats to the jewish state. as the president has made clear time and again, america's commitment to israel's security is unshakeable. i share the president's commitment to israel's security and i know my colleagues do as well. every time iran makes outrageous threats, it only succeeds in

further uniting the world against it and strengthening america's resolve. i strongly support the close and unprecedented security cooperation that the administration has pursued with israel, and i know that this cooperation will only continue and i am deeply committed to doing everything i can to assure that israel is able to defend itself. while this resolution makes absolutely clear that we are not authorizing the use of force, it does also make clear that we have israel's back, and specifically that if israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense against iran's nuclear program, that we should stand with israel using all the tools of our national power to assist israel in defense of its territory, its people, and its very existence. the bottom line is that israel should always understand that the united states has its back, that we will not allow iran to

obtain nuclear weapons capability, and if we are forced to, we will take whatever means necessary to prevent this outcome. as the president has reiterated on numerous occasions, all options -- all options -- are on the table. and that message along with the solidarity of this chamber, i intend to take with me in my visit to israel later this week. mr. president, the simple fact is we need to continue to apply pressure and we must bring along the international community in our effort. this has been incredibly important, because while we have led, we have had a multiplier effect by the multilateral support of the european union and others so that our sanctions really can bite. and they have been biting. iran's crude oil exports have been cut in half from 2.5 million barrels per day in 2011 to approximately

1.25 million barrels per day now. iran still had energy sector exports, however, of $83 billion in 2012, including $60 billion in oil and another $23 billion in natural gas, fuel oil and condensates. the sanctions are working but they aren't enough and they aren't working fast enough. so in my view we need to double down on four fronts. first, we need to encourage further reductions in energy sector purchases from iran, including purchases of petroleum, fuel oil and condensates and prevent iran from engaging in trade in precious metals to circumvent sanctions. second, we need to ensure that we've prohibited trade with iran with respect to all dual-use items that can be used in iran's nuclear program. that means adding additional industry sectors to the trade prohibition list. third, we need to ask the

international community to ramp up the pressure and change tehran's calculus. a nuclear iran, after all, isn't only an american problem. and fourth, the time may also have come to look more seriously at all options, and that would include increasing military presence and pressure against iran. i believe there still may be time for diplomacy to work, but increased military pressure could signal to the supreme leader that a nuclear program will undermine the security of his regime, not improve it. fundamentally, the challenge remains a difficult one, and we're walking a fine line. but this resolution says to the supreme leader in iran that we will not let up, we will continue to apply pressure, and that this continued pursuit of nuclear weapons is threatening the very existence of his regime. i urge my colleagues to support the graham-menendez resolution

and full implementation of u.s. international sanctions on iran. we are considering other options before the senate foreign relations committee as well as working with our colleagues on the senate banking committee to make it very clear that we will exercise and exhaust all options that are peaceful diplomacy to try to achieve our ultimate goal. but this resolution makes it very clear to the world, mr. president, we stand behind you as you stand behind israel. and israel, we continue to be your faithful ally, we recognize you as a clear democracy in a challenging part of the world, a major security partner of the united states, and the one country most likely to be voting with us in international organizations in common cause with common values. and that's what i think this vote will be about tonight.

mr. president, we reserve the balance of our time because i believe we have another colleague who wishes to speak and i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina is recognized. eight minutes on the republican side, nine minutes on the majority side. mr. graham: thank you. i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend from mississippi, senator wicker, a member of the armed services committee. mr. wicker: i rise in strong support of this resolution because iran represents the single largest threat to freedom and peace in the middle east. our state department classes iran as the most active state sponsor of terrorism. period. a troubling news account from reuters released yesterday reveals a united nations nuclear agency report due this week is expected to show iran further increasing its capacity to produce material that could

eventually be put to developing atomic bombs. the clock is ticking. this is a moment to be resolute, and the forceful words we just heard from the distinguished chairman of the foreign relations committee, and previously from the distinguished senior citizen -- senior senator from arizona, demonstrate our firm bipartisan position on this matter. the world can ill afford the prospect of a nuclear armed iran. that's why it is incumbent on the congress and the president to take every action necessary to prevent iran from acquiring a weapon of mass destruction. automatic options must be on the table to prevent a nuclear armed iran. israel is a nation under siege by terrorist organizations many of whom are being directly funded by the iranian regime.

the united states must not waiver in its -- waver in its support in obligation to our friends in israel. i'm pleased this reaffirms our commitment to israel particularly in the event israel is forced to exercise its sovereign right to defend itself. i urge my colleagues to take a firm stand against nuclear proliferation by voting for strengthened sanctions and for the adoption of this resolution. and i yield back whatever time i may have remaining. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. the senior senator from connecticut is recognized. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i rise to express my support, my strong support for this resolution and to thank our colleague, senator graham, senator menendez, for their leadership and to thank them also for giving me the privilege of working with them over the

last years on this vitally important national security issue. it is vital not just to the existence of israel, it is an existential issue for israel but to the national security of the united states. and i believe that israel is a crucial ally of the united states and a successful, democratic state in the middle east. recent turmoil in that region adds urgency and importance to ensuring that israel remains a secure, stable, independent state at peace with its neighbors. this resolution is a reaffirmation of the readiness of the united states of america to assist israel, our steadfast partner in the region, to thwart any measure of aggression made toward israel by iran. but it is also a reaffirmation of the policy long supported by this body, by our colleagues

here, by all of us in the very personal and direct way that we have the back of the president of the united states in his insisting on strong sanctions against iran as long as it continues its development of nuclear capability. in the coming days i'm going to be introducing with my colleague, the senior senator from north dakota, senator hoeven, a resolution that calls for free and fair elections in iran, but regardless of the outcome of these elections and they're likely to be sham elections, we can't avoid the sad fact that iran has maintained its course and its commitment to nuclear development. the centrifuges are spinning. they're going. and more are brought on line every day in this breakout toward nuclear capacity. so we have to be wary of false

signals of hope, and remain vigilant in our constant effort to secure against iran faithfully pursuing nuclear weapons. fruitless negotiations can't be our reason to call a halt to these sanctions. that can come only with compliance, verified compliance. we have to remain vigilant and remember that iran has threatened to attack not only israel but the united states. it has substantiated those words with attacks on our troops in iraq and on american civilians visiting or living in israel. it is israel who helps defuse those threats from hamas and hezbollah and all who have targeted americans. if iran chooses to declare war on israel, if it ignores the path of peace, the

international community has repeatedly laid down for it, they must know that they do it at their peril, the united states supports our strategic partner, israel, and that's why i support senate resolution 65, because it demonstrates our full, unyielding, unstinting support for israel if the unthinkable and the avoidable happens. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi is recognized. mr. wicker: i ask unanimous consent that ian mulkahy and donald rausch be granted floor privileges during the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from south carolina is recognized. mr. graham: thank you. i'd like to yield five minutes if to my good friend from

texas, senator cornyn. the presiding officer: the senior senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: back in october, 2012, two iran experts at the foundation for defense of democracies wrote a sobering article about the iranian nuclear program. they concluded despite years of international and unilateral sanctions, iran's economy had been allowed to remain healthy enough to leave a vanishingly short period of time for sanctions to do the work that might possibly head off military action. seven months have passed since that article was written, and over that period of time the iranians have upgraded their biggest uranium enrichment plant, the head of the international atomic energy agency has found credible evidence that tehran has secretly been pursuing nuclear weapons technology. the united states renewed sanctions waivers for countries that import substantial amounts of iranian oil, president obama

installed a harsh critic of iran sanctions as his secretary of defense and the iranians continue to prop up syria and its dictator, and transport weapons to hezbollah as well. in short, the iranians are feeling emboldened and america's credibility is being tested and time is running out. for these reasons i'm a proud cosponsor of senate resolution 65 that would send a clear message we are determined not just to contain iran but to prevent the iranians from acquiring a nuclear weapon. it would also send a clear message that the united states will stand with israel if our democratic allies -- ally is forced to take military action in legitimate self-defense. i would also add, mr. president, that i've joined my colleague from illinois, senator kirk, in introducing a separate bill, the iran export

embargo act, which would further spanned u.s. sanctions by prohibiting companies from doing business with any entity that is owned or controlled by the government of iran. more specifically, our bill would prohibit all export-related transactions conducted on behalf of iranian government entities and it would block their assets. one final point, mr. president. the iranians are not just waiting to see how we beef up sanctions. they're also waiting to see how we respond to syria's apparent use of poison gas. after all, president obama famously warned the assad regime that deploying chemical weapons would be tantamount to crossing a red line. and yet the white house is walking back its red line comments and issuing retroactive qualifiers. you can be sure the mullahs are taking notes and you can be sure the outcome of the syrian civil war will help determine the outcome of the iranian nuclear

crisis. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina is recognized. mr. graham: how much time is left? the presiding officer: the senator has two minutes remaining. mr. graham: i want to thank senator cornyn and every person who spoke today and thank senator reid for making the time available, senator menendez has been a terrific partner, the strongest voice one could hope for in having a partner on the democratic side to stand at a time when it matters. in conclusion, on march 4, 2012, the president said, obama, "when the chips are down, i have israel's back." mr. president, you were right then and today the senate will speak with one voice, echoing what you said. there's a lot of wonderment about what's going to happen with the iranian nuclear progr program. i hope and pray that they stop their nuclear ambitions because they don't want a nuclear reactor, they want a nuclear weapon. if they ever get one, we'll

never be safe, israel will be under the gun for the rest of its existence. they'll share the technology with the terrorists, every sunni arab state will want a nuclear weapon to county the she apersians and all hell will break out beyond what it is today in the mideast. how do you prevent that? sanctions, diplomacy. but the one thing you cannot have in doubt is what we would do if israel had to stop in her self-defense to stop the nuclear ambitions of an iranian regime who has promised to wipe the state of israel off the map. after today, in about 10 or 15 minutes, i believe every member of the united states senate will be telling the iranians, we're not going to allow you to get a nuclear weapon because if you do, you throw the world into chaos, it will threaten our very existence as well as the state of israel. but most importantly, we're going to tell everybody in the mideast and throughout the world and tehran, jerusalem and tel aviv that if there's a conflict where israel is justified in defending herself against a nuclear capable iran, we will be there for you, we will have your

back. and where i come from, when you tell somebody you have their back, that means if you get in a fight for your very life, you can count on me to be there. so in this case, you can count on the american people through the united states senate and our commander in chief to be there. if that day ever comes -- and i pray it does not -- if that day ever comes where israel has to take military action, to our friends in israel, we will be there with you at every step of the way diplomatically, economically, and, yes, militarily. and to the iranian people, we would love to have a better relationship with you. to the iranian regime, you're one of the biggest evils on the planet and we will stand up to you, we will stand by our friends and your desire to throw the world into chaos is never going to happen because we will be there when necessary to stop your ambitions. so to every colleague who's taken time out to sponsor this resolution, to have taken time out to speak on the floor, thank you. there is not much we agree on

100% but i think today will be a major milestone in our efforts to secure israel and the united states. i think today we will have 100% support for the united states senate to stand by our friends in israel and stand up to the thugs in iran. with that, i yield. mr. graham: anybody else got any? how much time is -- the presiding officer: the majority has 3 minutes and 45 seconds. mr. graham: going once? going twice? [laughter] i would see if our friends on the other side -- do you have -- see if we have a speaker? okay, if we could just wait for a second. senator coats, we'll recognize him for a minute.

the presiding officer: the senator from indiana is recognized. mr. coats coats: i want to thany colleague from south carolina for bringing this forward. we have implemented now a set of -- another set of sanctions and there's still some question as to whether sanctions will succeed and bring about the result that we want. but i particularly want to commend my colleague for his statement just a few moments ago relative to the commitment of the united states toward the security and the safety and the preservation of israel in the light of this threat that exists in iran. for years and years and years, the clock has been ticking as the iranians pursue nuclear weapons capability. we know that for a fact. and we need to exert everything -- every possible measure that we can to give them reason not to go forward and do this. and that involves everything from diplomacy to pressure

through multinational organizations, through sanctions and ever tightening, ever ratcheting sanctions against them. but also the commitment to use whatever force may be necessar necessary -- and i, along with my colleague, pray that this doesn't happen -- but iran absolutely has to know that the united states will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the nation of israel. and if they level their gun sites at israel, they're going to see us in the scope standing shoulder to shoulder. we are committed to that and we're committed to doing everything that we possibly can to prohibit and prevent iran from achieving these nuclear -- this nuclear capability. but we will take whatever steps are necessary if they use it -- if they gain that and they use it for inappropriate purposes or any purposes other than production of medical devices

and products as well as providing power, which they don't need to do. so i just trust also that we have 100% vote on this so that we send a very strong signal to the iranians that we will not tolerate their going forward with this. i thank my senator for yielding the time. mr. graham: if i don't see any other speakers, mr. president, i'd yield back all time. the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded back. the question is on adoption of s. res. 65. a senator: ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

mr. brown: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? the yeas are 99, the nays are zero. s. reserve 65, as amend, is agreed to. under the previous order, the preamble is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid on the table. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 954. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form