occasionally and firing weapons. but we can take steps to make sure that it doesn't happen as often. we can take steps to make sure that the carnage isn't as bad or as significant when someone decides to walk into a crowded place and do that kind of damage. that is within our power. that is something that republicans and democrats should be able to agree on. and so, mr. president, i'll continue to come down to the floor to tell the stories of the voices of victims until we can find the ability to reach across party lines and do something to at least send a message that the united states senate stands against the developing awful, terrible trend of mass violence in this country. i yield back the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i want to talk a little about the farm bill that will be on the floor, that is on the floor, that we

will vote on sometime next week. i also predict, mr. president, that this is the last farm bill that won't be driven by the new realities of people who want their food needs met in new ways. those food needs are going to be greater, but we're going to be less concerned, i would expect, five years from now about farm surpluses and what happens if we grow too much than we are about how we meet the growing food needs of the world, partly because of the population, partly because people once they get better food just want better food. once you have the variety of food, once you have the experience of better food, nobody wants to go back to the food that they used to have. and we're going to see that driving this debate over more over the next few years than we have up until now. agriculture in many states, including my state of missouri, the number one industry in the

state, 16% of our work force is directly involved in agriculture. it continues in state after state. you and i have both heard, it said that every senator represents an agricultural state, and they do. every senator represents a state where agriculture is a significant part of what we do as it's always been part of what we do. fewer people participate directly on the production end of agriculture, but of course everybody participates on the consumption end of agriculture. in america, agriculture directly supports 16 million jobs just involved in how we grow and process what we have. farm families in missouri, farm families nationwide work each and every day to feed the country, and more and more are focused on what it takes to also feed the world. for two years now, we have been in a temporary farm bill, and in

some cases the assistance that government has given and will give again with the passage of this bill hasn't even been there for the last two years. when i talk in a few minutes about livestock disaster, that program went away in 2011 as we were facing some of the most difficult times in a long time. the drought has been worse in many states than any time since the 1950's. programs that would deal with that haven't dealt with that, but the investment in this bill really will reaffirm our commitment to being at the forefront of productive agriculture. it will provide rural communities the ability to compete both here and abroad and certainly, mr. president, it's not perfect. i think while it may not be the best possible bill, i'd say as i said two years ago when i voted

for that interim bill, it's the best bill possible right now. and as we all know, the leaders on the agricultural committee in the house and the senate have spent a long time trying to bring this bill together. if it was easy, they would have done it quicker. they didn't come back earlier than everybody else did after the recent break because they wanted to be back early. they came back because that discussion had not brought itself to a final bill yet, but this is the bill and it does some good things. it provides a certainty and a safety net for farm families. very few farm families at some point in the productive cycle of a year don't have to go to the banker and say we need to borrow some money to make something possible in this -- this planning year that we couldn't do without borrowed money, and here's how we're going to pay it back. well, here's how we're going to pay it back is a whole lot

better if you say -- and here is the safety net. here's what happens if things that we don't expect to go wrong go wrong. here's what happens if we have to actually use the crop insurance, and here's how we will pledge to you that we will, of course, have crop insurance when you make this loan. so this bill provides that and gives you a five-year place to look. my mom and dad were dairy farmers. i have some sense of understanding how farm families work and think. and knowing how you can look at the rules and regulations five years in advance is a whole lot better than looking five months in advance or two years in advance. and we have gone through a period where farm families have known for a long time now what the long-term government commitment to agriculture is, and when we pass this bill, we're going to have that longer commitment for the first time in a while.

this supports our export opportunities. it finds ways that allow us to get more easily into markets that the people in those countries want us to be in, because what we produce is something that they need, they want, they know they would like to have it. u.s.a. stamped on a -- a truck, on a bin, on a container is a seal of approval all over the world. this expands bioenergy production, not for the bioenergy things that are out there already in a proven way but expanding bioenergy in places we know it needs to be expanded. this is the bill that we invest in rural communities in. 80% of this bill is now in nutrition programs that affect people in the most urban parts of our country and in rural parts of our country, but the 20% that includes the crop insurance and other programs --

i think crop insurance is about 4% of the entire bill. we see people who are critical of how government is doing too much to help farm families, although they usually say -- they usually assume that all farm families are somehow big corporate farmers. but this 4% or so of the bill is that. and the 20% that deals with rural america, it's things like economic development that allow people to continue to compete and be in rural america. this gives our colleges and universities, in the land grants principally but the nonland grants who have an agriculture mission, the things they need, the tools they need and research. i think research as we're trying to figure out how to be sure that our products are as healthy and helpful to the people who consumer these products as a

good thing. this bill does that by securing at the same time some real cost savings. about $23 billion of deficit reduction because of the reforms in this bill, things that we have done in the past that we no longer believe we have to do for farm families to be competitive. i think five years from now we can look at this again and assume that the world marketplace allows us to look at farm legislation in a new way. i'd like to discuss a couple of important issues that are addressed in this bill. one is research. the other is livestock disaster assistance. in 2012, about 80% of the agricultural land in america experienced a drought. it was the most extensive drought in our country since the 1950's. in missouri, all 114 counties were declared disaster areas because of that drought. many with those persistent dry

conditions were ranked among the very worst in the country. and we grow lots of livestock in our state. lots of livestock of all kinds, and particularly in cattle, beef and kerry cattle, -- dairy cattle, we have livestock. we have other livestock that is a little easier to both categorize and contain and know everything you would want to know about that, but these industries didn't have the kind of risk management programs they needed, and for whatever reason, in the last farm bill, the livestock assistance programs, the livestock disaster programs -- and that's all they are. they are not to help you in good times. they are purely to help you in bad times. those programs expired in 2011 just at the time when we had some of the worst livestock conditions that we have had in over 50 years. and so there was nothing there

for those livestock producers. they were forced to liquidate their herds, resulting in the lowest cattle numbers since 1952. now, what does that mean? the lowest cattle numbers since 1952? that just mean -- it means we have fewer cattle, obviously, but it also means the replacement of the herd is going to be harder to do. not as many mother cows, not as many calves. beef prices on shelves in grocery stores will reflect these cattle numbers for a long time because people had to sell their herds and our state alone, there are 300,000 fewer cattle in missouri than there were just a couple of years ago. it's the lowest number of cattle, in fact single year decline, since the mid 1980's, and it takes a long time to come back from that decline and have the numbers of cattle available for feed lots and for buyers and

for eventually the grocery store shelves that we would have had otherwise. i'm pleased that the farm bill makes these programs permanent programs, but again they are permanent programs that only occur if you have extraordinarily disastrous circumstances that make them occur. research, thanks to smart investment in research, we have the safest, most affordable and abundant food supply in the world. smart investment in research. this goes back to -- this was not a new commitment by the federal government. it goes back to 1862 when president lincoln signed the bill that created the department of agriculture, one of the principal purposes for the department of agriculture was research that could be shared so that every farmer or every state or every community didn't have to do their own research but research would be shared by the

department of agriculture, encouraged by the department of agriculture, not in -- done in a way that it met the needs of the whole country, and research continues to produce great results. in 1940, one farmer fed 19 people. this year, one farmer feeds about 155 people. by 2050, a global food demand is expected to increase by about 70%, and to double shortly after that. the american farmer is the best farmer in the world at producing quality products that are desired to meet that growing food need. if world food needs double between now and some date shortly after 1950, mr. president, that means we need to produce as much food in the second half of this century in any given year as we have produced 10,000 years of

agricultural research has brought us to what we produce today, we need to double that in about the next 50 years. it's incumbent upon us to make sure we have the tools available to do that. as the ranking member of the agriculture appropriations committee, certainly research has been a critical thing that our committee has worked on, and i'm glad that the farm bill authorizes these research programs and allows us to continue to encourage research that allows us to do what we need to do to meet our own food needs and world food needs. agriculture research lets us have more efficient production, ways to eradicate pest and disease and addresses the adverse weather conditions that the crops grow in. africa is a continent -- africa as a continent is not in the food production role that they need to be in if by 2050 the

projection is half of the people in the world will live in africa. it's in our best interests to see them produce more food as well, and of course it's in our best interests to maintain a safe food supply. agriculture research can aid small farmers. we can see ag research that adds value to staple crops and adds nutrients to staple crops in countries that grow a crop that have a lot of it, but frankly it may not have much food value, even though it may be most of what people eat. the danforth plant science center in st. louis conducts critical research to do just that, to look at a staple crop in developing -- in a developing country and figure out what that crop could -- how that crop could be changed in a way that was beneficial to people that are used to it, that can grow

it, but need to figure out how to collect the best of those plants to replant the next year. the research into nutrient fortification, drought resistance and disease and other things are important. the farm bill takes that step. the chairwoman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee, our friends, the senators from michigan and mississippi, have worked hard to bring this bill forward. i would close by predict as world food needs and 21st century opportunities for agriculture change that's going to define the debate five years from now, well below what we are likely to anticipate right now. it's no longer going to be a world driven by -- how do we sell the crops we grow. i think it's going to be much more driven by how company we grow the crops the world needs and americans need and how do we connect that result to the marketplace that needs it. american farmers for a long time

have struggled with how productive they were in a world that maybe didn't need everything we could grow. i think that's not going to be the case in the very near future and i believe by the time we get to the end of this five-year farm bill we're going to have a very different discussion about how we meet our own food needs and world food needs and the great opportunity in agriculture and agriculture business and competition that nobody is better at than the american farmer and i intend to support this bill next week. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president, i attended like all of my colleagues the president's state of the union message the night before last, and obviously as

always, the president delivers an excellent speech. i must say that in the years that i have attended the president's state of the union message, i have never seen a message on national security and foreign policy as disconnected from reality as the president's speech was. obviously it had minor importance by the amount of time that was taken in the speech, but what was most interesting was that the president portrayed a middle east in particular that has little relation to the reality today and the ongoing strategies and -- tragedies and deaths and sacrifice because of a failure of american leadership.

interesting polling data today, the pew research poll today that indicates, says -- quote -- "more now see failure than success in iraq, in afghanistan. little partisan gap in views of whether u.s. has reached goals. it goes on to say after more than a decade of war in iraq and afghanistan, the public does not think the united states has achieved its goals in either country. about half of americans say the u.s. has mostly failed to acheech its goals in afghanistan, while 38% say it has mostly succeeded. opinions about the u.s. war in iraq are virtually the same, 52% say the united states has mostly failed in reaching its goals there, while 37% say it has mostly succeeded. in both cases evaluations of the wars has turned more negative in

recent years. in november, 2011, as the u.s. was completing its military withdrawal from iraq a majority thought the u.s. had achieved its goals there. so the american people despite the rhetoric from the administration, some of it incredibly bizarre, has figured out that after many years of sacrifice, expenditure of american blood and treasure, that we have -- looking and staring failure in the face. i'd like to quote from the president's speech the night before last, and i quote, on iraq, "when i took office nearly 180,000 troops were serving in iraq and afghanistan. today, all our troops are out of iraq." yes, that is a correct

statement. but what the president didn't go on to say was that iraq is now collapsing under the weight of sectarian violence that now has exceeded that of 2008, the most -- one of the most dangerous years of the war. what the president didn't say was that there is sectarian violence, sunni and shia, initiated largely by president malai can --, maliki, which is causing attacks throughout iraq. bomb detonations, i.e.d.'s, attacks on various institutions. president maliki has driven his own vice president out of the country. the list goes on and on. but i say to my colleagues, there is no greater example of

our failure in iraq than fallujah today. in the second battle of fiewja --, fallujah, in 2007, the united states of america lost 96 marines and soldiers killed, over 600 wounded. today, today, vehicles are driving through the streets of fallujah flying al qaeda flags. al qaeda is now in charge in fallujah. i wonder what we tell the families of those brave soldiers and marines that were killed and wounded in the first and second battle of fallujah, because in the words of general petraeus, who was the architect of the surge, which most of my colleagues, including the president of the united states said would fail, when actually there are many of us who knew

that it would and did succeed, in the words of general petraeus, we won the war and lost the peace. and we lost the peace because the united states of america did not leave a residual force behind, and thereby allowing the situation to deteriorate to where it is today, with al qaeda now in charge of the city of fallujah, ramadi, syria-iraq border now being the headquarters and staging areas of al qaeda in both syria and iraq. and their black flags, black flags now fly over cities where brave american marines and soldiers sacrificed their lives

and well-being. general james conway, who commanded the marines in the first battle of fallujah in april, 2004, commenting on the failures of the administration's policies in iraq stated -- and i quote -- "in some ways, the al qaeda grand strategy is vindicated and deplored u.s. policies that appear weak and confused in the wake of how hard we fought to get those cities back in the first place." so what did the president of the united states say? did he mention fallujah? of course not. he said when i took office, nearly 180,000 troops were serving in iraq and afghanistan. today all our troops are out of iraq. yes, the troops are out of iraq, and the place is going to hell in a hand basket. and don't think that these people, that these al qaeda and

al-nusra are not intent on pursuing their goals of radical islam right to the united states the united states, and this should concern every one of my colleagues and every american citizen. yesterday, there was a hearing in the united states senate, intelligence committee, al qaeda faction in syria contemplating u.s. attack, intelligence officials warn. senate hears al-nusra front as -- quote -- "aspirations for attacks on the homeland amid concern over civil wars, terrorism implications. intelligence officials have claimed that a faction linked to al qaeda in syria has a desire to launch a domestic attack on the u.s., an assertion that underscored the growing importance of the syrian civil war to global terrorism.

the nusra front, one of the jihadist factions in syria that alliance itself with al qaeda -- quote -- "does have aoperations for attack on the -- aspirations for attacks on the homeland, james clapper, the director of national intelligence told the intelligence committee on wednesday. that's wednesday. yesterday. so now we know that with al-nusra, al qaeda, and other radical islamist organizations -- which, by the way, are attracting young men from all over the world, including europe -- is now one that is contemplating attacks on the united states of america. i want to again mention general

conway, who i happen to have known. he commanded the marines during the first battle of fallujah in 2004. we fought and died taking those cities, conway said wednesday at the heritage foundation. he became the marine corps commandant before retiring as a four-star general. a blunt talking officer who rarely speaks the spotlight, conway described his reaction to recent events in stark terms during brief remarks. it causes iraqi and u.s. policies to look a little weak and confused in the wake of how hard we fought to get those cities back in the first place, conway said. frustrations in some ways the al qaeda grand strategy is vindicated, conway said, referring to the organization's desire to wait out american forces. why did they wait out american forces? they waited out american forces

because as soon as president obama took office, he announced we were leaving. he didn't announce a strategy for success. he didn't say we have to reach certain goals before we leave. he told everybody we were leaving. now it's very clear when we look at electoral history that his vote for -- i mean against the resolution concerning military action in iraq was one of the factors that led him to the presidency. but for him -- but for him to stand before the american people and say when i took office, nearly 180,000 troops were serving in iraq and afghanistan today all our troops out of iraq, is at best a very incomplete depiction of what has happened since all of those troops are out of iraq. finally, general conway said

those who lost people, those wounded, i think are now stripped of a coping mechanism, conway said. if you have a young marine or soldier sitting with his legs missing he could at least previously say, well, what we did was the right thing. iraq is better for it, and we won. i'm not sure that same individual sitting in that chair is thinking those things these days. that's truly sad. and i have talked to and heard from so many of these brave young americans who feel exactly as general conway described. they don't know and they don't understand after the enormous sacrifices that they made that somehow now the black al qaeda flags are flying over fallujah.

on afghanistan, the president said more than 60,000 of our troops have already come home from afghanistan with afghan forces now in the lead for their own security, our troops have moved to a support role, after 2014 we will support a unified afghanistan as it takes responsibility for its own future, if the afghan government signs a security agreement we have negotiated, a small force of americans could remain in afghanistan with nato allies to carry out two narrow missions, training and assisting afghan forces in counterterrorism operations to pursue any remnants of al qaeda. for while our relationship with afghanistan will change one thing will not, our resolve that terrorists do not launch attacks against our country. on the one hand the president said there will be two narrow missions yet our goal is still that terrorists don't launch attacks against our country. again, he failed to put forward a true proposal for our strategy

in afghanistan and once again, avoided offering any specifics on troop numbers. why did we not leave a troop -- a presence behind in iraq? because they would never give a troop number and anybody who tells you that the problem was not getting it through the iraqi parliament is not telling you the truth. senator graham, senator -- senator gramm, senator lieberman and i were there when president barzany said i will go to baghdad. and we went with maliki and maliki said i will agree to have a force of troops in my country, how many? and we could not give him an answer, nor could the administration give him an answer. and in the words and testimony of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the words cascaded down to 3,500 and that

would have been a force who spent its time defending itself and, therefore, we did not leave a troop force behind in iraq and i have just described the consequences. the same thing is happening in afghanistan. the president will not say the force level that he wants left behind in afghanistan. why is it that he won't? now, i want to point out that president karzai of afghanistan is a paranoid individual and he's been incredibly unhelpful, and it's been terribly disappointing to me, who i have known him for 14 years, that he's behaving as he is. but president karzai's paranoia is somewhat understandable when he does not know whether the united states will remain and he doesn't know whether he can count on the united states and he knows that he has to stay in the neighborhood and accommodate

for the likelihood now that the united states leaves completely. so his paranoia to some degree is much more understandable. on our last trip to afghanistan in early january, we saw firsthand the progress that has been made by american and afghan forces and such progress is a true testament to the positive impact that our troops have had in the long-term -- and the long-term benefits of our partnership with the afghan people. the afghan people, though, and military will need our continued support. if we pull out, if we see the iraq movie again, you will see the same thing happen in afghanistan that is now happening in iraq. and it doesn't take a lot of smarts to know that. so now we turn to syria. on syria -- quote -- "in syria,

we'll support the opposition that rejects the agenda of terrorist networks." what does that mean? despite promise after promise, the administration has refused to provide aid to the moderate opposition forces in syria who are committed. my friends, it was two years ago when the president of the united states said, it's not a matter of whether bashir assad will leave office, it's a matter of when. it was over two years ago at the senate armed services committee that then-secretary of defense panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said in answer to my question, said, "sir, it is inevitable" "it is inevitable that bashir assad will leave office." does anybody believe that now? so our failure to help the free syrian army over time was negated and overwhelmed by the

presence of $5,000 hezbollah sent in by the iranians, the iranian revolutionary guard, plane is load after planeload of weapons that now land at the damascus airport from russia while they're loaded on to russian-built helicopters and barrel bombs, which are explosives packed with all kinds of nuts and bolts and other metal, are dropped out of those helicopters on men, women and children. but not to worry. not to worry. because the chemical weapons are leaving, apparently, according to the president, because he said, "american diplomacy backed by the threat of force is why syria's chemical weapons are being eliminated and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the syrian people deserve. a future free of dictator, terror and fear." the chemical weapons he's hailing as a success.

how much has been accomplished? the syrian government has delivered less than 5% of its deadliest chemical weapons agents to international authorities so far. ""l.a. times"" story -- i quote -- "syria unlikely to meet deadline on its deadliest chemical agents. president bashir assad's government has delivered less than 5% of its deadliest chemical weapons agents. the deadline is next week." so even -- even this claim about chemical weapons being removed does not bear scrutiny. but far, far, far important, far more important, i say, is that if we got rid of the chemical weapons that bashir assad had, that would not change the equation on the ground. i am sure that a syrian mother

cannot differentiate very well if their child is killed by a chemical weapon or a barrel bomb. or is starved to death, as 120,000 men, women and -- or starved to death, as 120,000 men, women and children have met that fate. it's unbelievable. and now we're watching a charade take place in geneva and that -- and that, of course, has turned into farce. and anybody that believes that bashar assad is going to willingly leave office when he is winning the battle on the ground obviously has no idea of the nature of bashar assad. so, again, the slaughter goes on and one of the huge aspects of this happens to be the fact that it is no longer a civil war.

i would remind my colleagues, this conflict began because in homes, there was some children that wrote graffiti, anti-assad graffiti on the wall. they were rounded up by assad's police, they were tortured and beaten, and that began an arab spring in syria. and -- and that spread throughout the country and now has spread throughout the region. as i just said, iraq-syria border is now al qaeda, is now controlled by them. the iranians are all in with 5,000 hezbollah. lebanon is destabilized. jordan is overwhelmed by refugees. turkey even is under strain. 100,000-and-some refugees are even in kyrgyzstan, and it has turned into a regional conflict and one which sooner or later

will -- will finally erupt into a major, major conflict which is going to affect the united states of america. the president of the united states may want to leave the middle east alone but i can assure my colleagues the middle east will not leave america alone. look at the statement just today by our director of national intelligence who said that al-nusra, affiliate of al qaeda, is planning attacks on the united states of america. and the president said, finally let's remember that that our leadership is defined not just our defense against threats but oury nowrmous opportunities to do -- our enormous opportunities to do good and promote democracy around the globe. and no one is better positioned to take advantage of those opportunities than america.

i couldn't agree more. but when the united states is viewed by the world, particularly the middle east, as weak, withdrawing, no longer involved or trying to disengage, then i'm not sure that we can have the effects that the president outlined in his state of the union speech. i think it's very clear that a seminal moment as far as the entire middle east is concerned when the president of the united states said that because the bashar assad had crossed the red line in the use of chemical weapons, there was indisputable evidence that 1,400 men, women and children had been killed in a chemical weapons attack -- attacks and he then said that we were going to have to enact

strikes against bashar assad in syria. a few days later, our secretary of state, in one of the more incredible statements that i've ever heard, said yeah, but the strike will be -- quote -- "unbelievably small." i'm not making that up. he said the strike would be -- quote -- "unbelievably small." that must have really frightened the syrians when he heard that any military strikes would be -- quote -- "unbelievably small." and then the president of the united states, without informing our allies, specifically the saudis, according to published reports took a 45-minute walk with his chief of staff and then decided that he would go to the congress of the united states for permission or for ratification of any attack he might make. and obviously that wasn't going to happen.

now, i say to my colleagues, i travel a lot in the middle east and i can tell you -- and i would even name names but not on the record -- that at that moment, our allies lost confidence, they lost belief in the united states of america, and we are watching countries in the region openly stating, for example, the saudia arabians refusing a seat on the national security council of the united nations. they have openly stated -- it's published everywhere -- that they no longer believe in the united states of america. by the way, one of the other aspects of this -- and there are many -- there's a "washington post" story this morning "europeans are flocking to the war in syria: what happens when they come home?" the story is about a couple

people that went from england, the distress among security officials is pervasive in european capitals. and in washington, u.s. intelligence chief james r. clapper jr. told a congressional panel wednesday that the syria war had attracted about 7,000 foreign fighters from as many as 50 nations, that at least one of the main jihadist groups in syria aspires to carry out an attack in the united states. but europe is a far closer and more accessible target. the international center for the study of radicalization estimated last month that nearly 2,000 western europeans had traveled to syria to fight and that that number was rising fa fast. french officials say 700 came from france. french interior minister manuel vauls asserted this month that

returning fighters represent -- quote -- "the biggest threat that the country faces in the coming years." the anxiety has been especially acute in britain, where memories are still fresh of the july 2005 transit bombings. these attacks, which claimed 52 lives, were carried out by homegrown radicals, at least two of them had received training in pakistan. so -- quote -- "the penny hasn't dropped but syria is a game changer, richard walton, who leads counterterrorism efforts at scotland yard, told the 'evening standard' newspaper. 'we are seeing it every day. you have hundreds of people going to syria and if they don't get killed, they get radicaliz radicalized'" so we are in a situation that i think of failed leadership over the last five years and the

chickens unfortunately are beginning to come home to roost. the president of the united states in his address to the nation describes things in the middle east as he did, i think it's very, very, very unfortunate because that is not comport -- that does not comport with the actual facts on the ground. so i say to my colleagues, the american people no longer believe that our mission in iraq and afghanistan was the right thing to do. i can tell my -- my constituents that in 2008, things were very different. the surge had worked, we were gradually withdrawing from syr syria. we had the taliban in afghanistan largely under control.

in syria, bashar assad was losing. and now the terrain throughout the middle east is dramatically different. and as much as i regret to say it, it is my obligation to tell my constituents my view and that is that we have very, very, very difficult times ahead. and i do not like to predict bad things are going to happen, but right now i don't see how they can be avoided. mr. president, i yie -- mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitcamp: thank you so much. and thank you for this opportunity to talk about the number-one priority for any senator from north dakota, and that is the passage of a five-year farm bill. when i was campaigning across

north dakota, i reminded the constituents of my state that in spite of this wonderful energy renaissance that we have going on in north dakota, over 90% of all the land in my state is engaged in production agriculture. it makes this farm bill so critically important to the economy, not only my state but the economy of this country. 16 million jobs depend in this country on the passage of a farm bill that provides producers with sustainable and risk management opportunities that make their farmwork sustainabled and make their continuation in production agriculture economically possible. and so it is a good week -- it is a good week for north dakotans. today we passed the flood insurance bill, which will prohibit draconian and very dramatic increases in flood

insurance prices from affecting my state. but also we are on the cusp and terribly close to doing something that we have waited so long to do, and that is to pass a five-year farm bill. i want to talk about just in general some of the things that the farm bill does, but i want to focus my attention on two areas that i think not a lot of people have come to the floor to talk about, and that is the provisions for beginning farmers and beginning ranchers and the importance of the livestock provisions in the farm bill. but first i want to say, the farm bill achieves the goals that puts our agricultural system in a strong position to continue our role -- this country's only -- as a world leader in production agriculture. now, that is achieved through an effective farm program for groargs. livestock -- for growers. enhance crop insurance offerings, expanded agricultural

research, increased export promotion for agricultural products. if you look at our baffle trade, we have been -- if you look at our balance of trade, we have been buoyed by the conclusion of agricultural products and when we do on the farm. critical investments in biofuels, biofuels that help build a stronger and more vibrant, more resilient energy policy in our state. renewable of a sugar program to prevent excess imports of unfairly subsidized imported foreign sugar, and targeted conservation assistance to tackle unique challenges, particularly in my state in the red river valley and in devil's lake. but i want to kind of tell you a little story. for years i've been going to farm producer meetings. during my time as a state official in north dakota, i spent a lot of time at the farm bureau, a lot of time at the

farmer's union, corn growers, soybean growers, and just getting to know and understand agriculture, work on tax issues, work on regulatory issues. and i always felt like i was the youngest person in the room. that whole while. and i was in my 30's and 40's. i would walk into a room and feel young. and that's really been true. and i had a really wonderful experience when i was back home on this last trip. i went to something called precision agriculture, which is a special conference that farmers union hosts for north dakota ndsu extension, where they look at using different kinds of new technology, whether it is application technologies to be more efficient in how we use fertilizers and seeds, whether it is just finding an app that gives us more in fact for marketing did, you name it. the precision agriculture conference has gotten bigger and

bigger. but why i want to point that out and why i want to tell but it is i stood at the podium and i took one look and i said, i want everybody under the age of 45 to stand up. and well over half of my audience stood up. that has never before happened in the 30 years that i've been involved in public policy in north dakota. young farmers are coming back to the farm. young farmers are engagings at levels with technological developments and techniques that heretofore were not available and really weren't trusted maybe by an older generation. and so now we have this new generation of producers who are going to do one of the most important things that we do in this country, which is feed our people and literally feed the world. and they're willing to do that. they're willing to risk, make incredible investments on the farnlings whether ifarm, whethes or equipment prices or whether

it is just betting the entire farm that you're not going to get hailed out. and this farm bill is critical, first and foremost, to making sure that that risk is mitigated by a crop insurance program that works for those young farmers. but i want to outline just very briefly what those beginning farmer programs and beginning rancher programs are in this farm bill. now, i want to tell you, according to -- and this is change -- according to the department of agriculture's most recent census, the average age of american farmers is 57 years old, and a quarter of american farmers are over the age of 65. now, i can tell you in north dakota that dynamic is change, as i've just outlined to you. but the 2014 farm bill makes critical investments to ensure that this next generation of farmers has an opportunity to enter the field by overcoming the high capital constraints and low production histories that make those early years the most difficult. the program continues and funds

the beginning farmer and rancher development program, which develops and offers education, training, outreach, and mentoring programs to ensure the success of the next generation of farmers. the bill expen expands eligibilo include military veterans who wish to begin a career in agriculture. the 2008 farm bill had $75 million for this program, with five years mandatory. the 2014 bill ups that amount to $100 million, recognizing those needs that we have to create that next generation of producers. the 2014 farm bill prioritizes beginning farmers across usda programs. the department of agriculture is required to prioritize beginning farmers to ensure they have access to usda programs. the bill continues to set aside loan funds for both the beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers who struggled to find credit

someplace elimination. there are also 5% set-asides in the environmental quality incentive program and the conservation stewardship program to make sure that beginning farmers and ranchers have fair and equitable access to conservation programs. this new farm bill increases access to capital for new farmers and ranchers. the bill makes significant strides in increasing lending to beginning farmers by expanding eligibility, removing term limits on guaranteed lending, and strengthening microloan programs that serve those beginning farmers. this farm bill encourages older farmers to begin to -- to help beginning farmers through conservation. the bill reauthorizes the conservation reserve program transition incentive program, which gives two extra years of c.r.p. to retiring farmers who transition their expiring c.r.p. lands to beginning farmers. this program has seen great

success with retiring farmers who want to help the next generation get started. this new farm bill helps beginning farmers buy land. the bill reauthorized contract lands sales program which guarantees loan payments to retiring farmers who sell their cropland to beginning farmers. it also continues the down payment loan program which allows young farmers without much money to start investments/down payments on a farm or a ranch. the borrower makes a cash down payment of at least 5% of the total cost and the government provides a low-interest loan for 45% of the payment. this new farm bill invests in value-added strategies that are especially important to these new farmers. value-added grants encouraging independent producers to process raw products into marketable goods, adding valued and increasing farm bill. beginning farmers will continue to be given a hig high priorityn

this program. and it helps beginning farmers plan in the earl wil early year. it continues the individual retirement accounts which are designed to help new farmers finance their agricultural pursuits. so for that next generation who looks and says, is there opportunity in being a farmer, or do all farmers have to not own the land and work there but can they own the land and continue our rich and strong tradition of family farming? i think the answer is "yes." this is a farm program that offers them that opportunity that says "yes." the united states and its people are willing to invest in your future. finally, i want to talk about the importance of the livestock provisions, and i would be a little remiss -- livestock production is hugely important to north dakota. are we the largest livestock

producer in the united states of america? that would not be true. but for my ranchers out west, this is a critical, important program. this is a program that says to the ranchers, we recognize that not everybody who is engaged in production agriculture is engaged in producing crops or specialty crops and that those of you who herd cattle and those of you who work cattle and work as hard as any group of people i know, that you deserve some attention in this farm bill. and if there ever was an example of where we needed to do something more for our beginning ranchers, i can tell you, the senator from -thesnowstorm of 2e people literally lost their entire herd. for those of you who maybe don't have a lot of exper expertise, w is not interchangeable. many of these families over the years, through genetics and

through selective breeding, have in fact built the herd, built the herd that's unique to their ranch. and they lost it awvmen all. and when they turned to us and said, what is there to help us? because if you get hailed out and you have crop insurance, there's help. if you have a major disaster and can't plant, this is he's help. but what's there to us? we had to say nothing because we hadn't done a farm bill on a timely basis and no help for those farmers. well, i can tell you that this farm bill is retroactive. it's going to help those farmers who not only experienced loss since 2011 and we are on our way to fulfilling the commitment that all of us made who came to the floor in october and talked about that terrible storm. the 2014 farm bill includes exactly the type of pro-rancher policies i wanted washington to produce.

not only does the bill include important livestock disaster programs, the bill also continues the widely popular and beneficial program called country-of-origin labeling that's been fought for for years. the farm bill allows usda in future years to move afford with livestock competition rules to provide transparent pricing for cow calf operators in my state. the farm bill provides targeted conservation and research programs for the support of cattle, pork, and poultry industry so that they can better assess the challenges facing livestock production. now, i get a lot of questions, even in my state, about why should anyone support the farm program? aren't things pretty good out there on the farm? and i will tell you, over 4 million acres in north dakota alone could not be planted this last crop season because of high

water. 4 million. that means the difference between a family farme farmer s? business and not staying in business. that means again we have a crop production system that feeds our country. but i tell people, let's think about things from a standpoint of value-added. what does that mean? it means that new wealth doesn't come when you go to the retail stored and buy a shirt sore a new coat. that's not new wevment you're just taking money that's been generated someplace else and circulating it in the economy. new wealth is created particularly in extractive industries like oil and gas, like coal mining, and it's created in agriculture. it is the quintessential new wealth creator. and from the hard work of those producers in america grows an entire economy that fuels the

opportunity for 16 million jobs. in my state, north dakota, i had recently talked to a plant worker who works at the case h.i. plant. who explained that his top priority for his workers was the passage of a farm bill. they said, why would you care about the passage of a farm bill? he said don't you get it? if the farmers aren't doing well, we aren't producing tractors. we aren't producing what we need to produce. and so understand this isn't a farm bill just for states like north dakota and minnesota. this is a farm bill for the entire world, to feed the entire world. but it also is a farm bill that provides that new wealth creation that encourages the growth of 16 million jobs. and i will close with one final thought. we talk about food, fiber and fuel. the three things that we talk about when we talk about agricultural products. but we know in the applied

research that we see in those great land-grant colleges, and our state has one of the best. it's called ndsu -- best fool team in the his -- best football team in the history of forever. it also has a great agriculture and great research center. they are doing amazing things in polymer research. we know advanced manufacturing is the next step we're going to make in agriculture and we're going to do everything that we can to make sure that those products are sustainable and that those products are safe to use for our people and for our animals. and so, i encourage all of my colleagues to support this farm program to make sure that we keep 16 million people working and make sure that we have that next generation of beginning farmers and beginning ranchers who are producing food for our country and food for the world.

and so madam president, i yield the floor. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: madam president, i thank the chair and would thank senator klobuchar for allowing me to go a few minutes ahead of her and would ask to be notified after ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, the chair will notify you. mr. sessions: madam president, i want to talk about recent rulings in the yucca mountain nuclear repository litigation. i'm ranking member of the environment and public works subcommittee on the -- on the clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee. i'm ranking on that subcommittee. and so this is a matter which i've followed closely, and we just had a hearing this morning with the entire nuclear regulatory commission board and its new chairman before us. so these decisions are not

simply political decisions, of course. they're legal decisions that adjudicated certain legal disputes that have been simmering for a number of years. the court's judgments were founded on law, not politics or nuclear policy. it adjudicated certain contested legal matters. but from my perspective it was an afirmation against plain law in the plain defiance of law and the court made that clear. in the case of in re aiken county rendered a position that provided nuclear proponents to nuclear energy in america. it was a victory for the rule of law and the united states taxpayer and a victory for the rightful power of congress to adjudicate and legislate on energy policy. its judgment also rendered a resounding defeat for the policies advocated by the

current administration. the majority leader of the united states senate and other politicians who have worked for years to thwart the law by refusing or blocking actions to implement the nuclear policy act, which is the law of the land. more recently, in november of 2013, the d.c. circuit issued another ruling in the case of national association of regulatory utility commissioners versus the united states department of energy. these commissioners around the united states sued the department of energy, representing our states, these commissioners did. and that court found that the current administration, the obama administration, has been ignoring the nuclear waste policy act. the d.c. circuit ordered the energy department to stop charging u.s. ratepayers $750 million a year in nuclear waste

fees until the federal government complies with the nuclear waste policy act. as a result, on january 3, just a few weeks ago, the secretary of energy was forced to formally submit a proposal to congress to reduce the nuclear waste fee to zero, to end the fee, while at the same time asking the d.c. circuit to reconsider, please, the ruling it rendered, which i don't think it will. because he's collecting the money and not using it properly. so taken together, these two rulings vindicate the concerns that many of us have raised since 2009 about the lawless actions of this administration in failing to deal with our nation's nuclear waste in the matter acquired by law. i hear all the time people wonder how in the world the president doesn't comply with the law. it amends the health care act

and does other such things that most americans are just taken aback at. they can't imagine how he's not bound by the law like everyone else. and of course he is. and then he takes an oath to ensure that the laws of the united states are faithfully carried out. so the background, over 30 kwroers -- years ago congress passed the nuclear waste policy act to require the federal government to accept nuclear waste from commercial nuclear reactors around the country with the objective of safely storing it in a single permanent geologic repository that's safe and secure. congress also created the nuclear waste fund to collect the fees that were extracted from the nuclear power electric generating companies. money is taken from them which they take from the ratepayers, and that money was to be used to cover the cost of this program.

so far the federal government has collected $25 billion for this fund at a rate of about $750 million a year. in 1987 congress passed and president reagan signed into law, a law that amended the nuclear waste act by officially at that point designating yucca mountain, nevada, as the nation's geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel. then in july of 2002, congress, overriding nevada's objections -- their representatives didn't like it, although i would note the area of nevada where this facility is to be in place strongly supported, and they opposed nevada leaders who oppose building it. so congress overrode the objections and passed a joint resolution that said this -- quote -- "resolved by the senate and the house of representatives

of the united states of america and congress assembled that there hereby is approved the site at yucca mountain, nevada, for a repository." close quote. so in 2008 the u.s. energy department submitted to the nuclear regulatory commission an 8,600-page application for authorization to construct the repository, discussing every possible complaint and concern that could be raised and analyze ing all the issues. so section 114 of the act states that once the application is received by the nuclear regulatory commission, it -- quote -- "shall issue a final decision approving or disproving the issuance of a construction authorization not later than the expiration of three years after the date of the submission of

such application." so this was in 2008, and they have not rendered a decision since. so this means the n.r.c. is under a clear legal duty as set out in statute, passed by congress, signed by the president to promptly commit -- complete the licensing process for yucca. regrettable in 2009 the obama administration and its allies orchestrated a complex scheme to ignore the law, to control the nuclear regulatory commission and shut down the nuclear -- the yucca mountain process. how was this done? well, here's how the federal court judge, judge raymond randolph, described the administration's scheme. this is a dramatic and crystal clear language.

it blows the whistle on one of the most significant obstructions of law that i've seen in my time in washington. it says this, this is what the judge found -- quote -- "former n.r.c. chairman gregory jzaco orchestrated a systematic campaign of noncompliance. yazko unilateral ordered commission staff to terminate the yucca review process in october of 2010, instructed staff to remove key findings from reports evaluating the yucca mountain site and ignored the will of his fellow commissioners." close quote. that's a dramatic indictment of mr. yazko's leadership. i would note parenthetically mr. yazko was the choice of

georgia leader -- of leader reid. he worked on mr. reid's staff and he insisted mr. jaczko be made chairman of the commission. beginning in 2009 now former chairman jaczko was able to effectively block any progress on yucca mountain until the d.c. circuit ruled in august of last year that those actions were in clear violation of the law which was an important victory for the rule of law and for the power of congress. in its ruling the d.c. circuit determined -- quote -- "that the n.r.c. has continued to violate the law governing the yucca mountain licensing process." close quote. the court then highlighted that the n.r.c. had gone well beyond missing statutory deadline for completing review of the licensing application, recognizing that -- quote -- "congress has not altered the

legal landscape" that is, congress has not amended the waste policy act. the court explained that the nuclear regulatory commission is -- quote -- "simply flouting the law." close quote. the court granted the request of the plaintiffs in the case for -- quote -- "a writ of mandamus against the n.r.c., a writ rarely issued that orders a governmental body to comply with the law. and held that the n.r.c. -- quote -- "must promptly continue with the legally mandated licensing process." this was important with the constitutional order of america and completing yucca has big implications for the federal budget. as a ranking member of the budget committee, we need to watch every dime we raise and spend. so we have already spent

amazingly $15 billion, according to the government accountability office, evaluating yucca and other sites and doing work at the site. we've already paid $2 billion as of january 12 for claims resulting from the government's failure to deal with the waste site. in other words, people have sued and made claims about the government for not fulfilling its obligation to build its site and we've already paid out $2 billion. it's a shame people can't be held individually responsible for obstructing the law and causing the federal taxpayers to pay out $2 billion. according to the congressional research service, the federal government's total liability for breach of contract claims from the failure to resolve the long-term waste issue could reach $50 billion.

you see, the government agreed and set up a method to receive these waste, the electric companies who use nuclear power are now being forced for decades to keep the waste on site at great expense even though they paid the billions of dollars into the fund to make sure it's taken care of at a single site. for this important court victory, we may hope and expect that the nation's nuclear waste program can be put back on track, and it's hurting right now. but the costs are are real and they fall on virtually all americans. so this issue is critical to the future of nuclear power in america. we need to get this waste repository issue settled and i believe the n.r.c. should expeditiously proceed with the yucca license proceeding in an independent manner worthy of the important task they have been assigned. and i'm hopeful that if we do

so, we may have turned a final corner. and i will note that the phefrpls the board are -- the members of the board are good people and i think the new chairman is going to try to do a much better job, chairman mcfarland. it was unbelievable how the former chairman was able to obstruct plain law. the n.r.c. should be able to proceed promptly with the licensing process, but if they fail to do so, the n.r.c. chairman or the entire commission could be held in contempt of court and appropriate sanctions could be issued by the court and should be if they fail. and that was discussed this morning at the hearing. the commission says they are going to move forward. they say they don't have as much money as they would like to have, but they haven't asked for more money. they have a duty to fix this problem and deal with it.

if they need more money, they should ask for it. after all these years and the money spent, a contempt citation would be a colossal failure and a tremendous embarrassment, and it would be a result of a willful failure to follow the clear responsibility of law. madam president, i would ask consent to revise and extend my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: i thank the chair and would yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i change my colleague from alabama for making his remarks a bit briefer and thank him as well for accompanying me to the state of the union two nights ago. with that, i rise today to urge a vote in this senate to confirm the nominee to be minnesota's next u.s. attorney. i would also note i see my colleague and friend from iowa here, senator grassley, who has

been working hard on his good nominee as well for iowa, and we have been working on this together. when you look at the extraordinary circumstances under which the united states attorney's office for the district of minnesota has been operating, it will be clear why a vote on this nomination and getting this done is so important. for two and a half years, 883 days, minnesota has not had a full-time u.s. attorney. during those years from august, 2011, to august, 2013, b. todd jones was responsible for doing two jobs as the minnesota u.s. attorney and as acting director of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives. i would note that as senator grassley has pointed out, it's been a difficult time in the office while they continue to do good work, in part because the u.s. attorney's office in minnesota, which is great prosecutors, did not have a full-time manager during this time, pending the approval of

the a.t.f. job and during the appointment time. over the summer, the senate, as you know, madam president, confirmed todd jones as director of the a.t.f., the first permanent director in seven years. he left the minnesota u.s. attorney's position open. senator franken and i in consultation with getting a recommendation from a bipartisan u.s. attorney advisory committee, which included the former republican-appointed u.s. attorney under both the first george bush and the second george bush served on our advisory board, and we recommended andy lugar, a respected litigator and former assistant u.s. attorney to fill the position. we recommended him 191 days ago. it has been about six months, 183 days since director jones left, and we still do not have a permanent full-time u.s. attorney. minnesota needs a full-time u.s. attorney, it's a major

jurisdiction, and andy lugar has the experience and knows how necessary to do this job well. from his days fighting white-collar crime as an assistant u.s. attorney to his work with minnesota law enforcement to help improve their gang-fighting strategy, andy has earned the respect of the legal and law enforcement communities. throughout his career, he has proven to be a tireless advocate for the people of minnesota. as an assistant u.s. attorney, he successfully prosecuted organized crime, drug and wild collar cases. this included the prosecution of $150 million national real estate and investment fraud case, leading to the longest white-collar sentence in the u.s. at that time. in 2009, he was appointed by the minnesota commissioner of public safety to lead an investigation into the metro gang strike force and uncovered a series of problems with the unit, recommended that the unit be disbanded and replaced by other law enforcement efforts, and it was in fact abolished. in fact, a "star tribune"

editorial said that andy's review of the strike force made -- quote -- " smart recommendations about the twin city's next-generation gang-fighting strategy and -- quote -- that his authority included welcome measures to begin the long process of rebuilding the public's trust. andy is well respected in the law enforcement community. i can tell you after we made the recommendation to the president i got nothing but positive, positive words from police chiefs and others who are excited about him in this job. he is committed to building and maintaining strong working relationships and partnerships between federal and local law enforcement. in addition to his many years as a federal prosecutor, andy has had a distinguished career in private practice. he is currently a partner at the green-espo law firm where he is a highly skilled trial lawyer representing businesses and white-collar defense.

he has been selected as one of minnesota's top 100 super lawyers for the past ten years and as one of the best lawyers in america for the past four years. he clearly has the experience, character and drive to lead such a premiere law enforcement agency as the minnesota u.s. attorney's office. the minnesota u.s. attorney's office represents the u.s. with professionalism, high ethical standards and an unwavering commitment to the safety of our community. these prosecutors work to protect public safety by focusing on offenders who do the most harm to the community. terrorists, the worst of the worst violent criminals and drug traffickers and major financial fraudsters. they also work closely with law enforcement locally to ensure local and federal resources are used efficiently and effectively. i personally know this as having served as the chief prosecutor for minnesota's largest county, hennepin county for eight years and i worked daily with our u.s. attorney. we would discuss which office would handle cases.

during the moussoi investigation, we got the hijacker, the hijacker who learned how to down a plane and was caught, imprisoned. that came out immediately after 9/11. the office was very focused on the investigation. my office, the hennepin county attorney's office stepped in and took some major, major white-collar cases to help out. we have a tradition of working together throughout the years, and that's why this office is so important to me. examples -- the office won a conviction in a $3.65 billion ponzi scheme, the second biggest ponzi scheme in u.s. history. it has an ongoing terrorism investigation that has led to charges against 18 people for aiding the terrorist organization al-shabah, eight of whom have been convicted, some receiving sentences of up to 20 years in prison. if you can imagine this, they are conducting major terrorism

investigations and prosecutions, and we need a full-time u.s. attorney to make decisions and to be in charge. other major accomplishments include operation high life, a major drug trafficking investigation involving more than 100 local, state and federal law enforcement officers that resulted in 26 indictments, 25 guilty pleas and sentences up to 200 months in prison. operation brothers keeper was a successful investigation and prosecution of a rico case involving a regional 200-member gang which took 22 dangerous criminals off the street. operation mulverde received national attention and was the prosecution of 27 defendants associated with the mexican drug cartel, including the apprehension of the cartel's regional leader and sentences as high as 20 years in prison. the office also recently played a key role in shutting down a major synthetic drug seller in duluth. this head shop was a huge problem. the perpetrator who has been

convicted and is awaiting sentencing, they literally found over $700,000 in his bathroom hidden in small plastic bags. they went after this head shop, they prosecuted that guy, they won that case, they deserve a leader. andy lugar is the right person for this job. the judiciary committee agreed and reported out his nomination without objection on january 9, and i appreciate the service of the presiding officer as well as senator grassley who is here on our judiciary committee and i appreciate the support for his nomination. i also supported the nomination of the u.s. attorney from iowa, and we know how important that job is as well. this is a position, the u.s. attorney, the founders first regarded as so vital that they created it during the very first congress, a position so crucial that it was born in the same law as the structure of the united states supreme court, a position

so necessary that president zachary taylor filled it within two days of minnesota becoming a state. well, in our case, for a variety of reasons, a variety of reasons, we have now gone 883 days without a full-time u.s. attorney. this is our moment. we need to move ahead on this nomination. again, i appreciate senator grassley's help in moving these nominations forward. we have two u.s. attorneys, two federal marshals. can i just say that andy lugar is a dedicated public servant whose breadth of experience, strength of character and commitment to justice make him a well-qualified candidate to serve as minnesota's next u.s. attorney. i don't think there are any objections to his nomination, but i do urge my colleagues to support his confirmation and give this office the leader they deserve, as well as the district of iowa. thank you very much, madam president. i yield the floor.

mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i had a chance to listen to the senator from minnesota, and i come to speak on another subject, but i want to assure her that we will get these two nominees and others across the finish line so that the u.s. attorney for minnesota can go to work hopefully before we get many more days added to the 800 she has already talked about. the farm bill process has been very long, very hard and no doubt frustrating for all who have been involved. some of us on the senate ag committee have participated in two committee markups and two floor debates for this bill. that's over a period of two congresses. i voted for and supported the bill at every one of those junctures. i believe our country needs a

good farm policy, which means of course an adequate and yet limited safety net for farmers because so much about farming is beyond the control of the farmers, and i'm not talking just about natural disasters. without a doubt, our farmers face uncontrollable risk every year. the farm bill provides farmers then with a number of programs to mitigate risk. agriculture remains a changing industry. unbelievable technological advancements are taking place right before our eyes. farmers can now control irrigation equipment and monitor grain bins on the phone from the other side of the world. agricultural technology is progressing so quickly. five years from now when we debate the next farm bill,

autonomous trademarks may well -- tractors may well be doing a considerable amount of the fieldwork in america. farm policy has also changed over time. unfortunately, the majority of farm program benefits have started going to a concentrated number of farmers. the fact is 10% of the farmers -- and those obviously would be the wealthy farmers -- get 70% of the benefits from the farm bill. one reason for this is that the current farm policy offers farmers essentially unlimited subsidies if they hire the right lawyers. as a farmer, a citizen and a legislator, i believe it is wrong to expect or even to allow the government to give unlimited support to my farm or any farm, especially since our country has a record $17 trillion national

debt. during the first full senate farm debate in the summer of 2012, so the last congress, my payment limit reform was adopted by a vote of 75-24 here on the floor of this very body. during the first round of floor debate in the house, mr. forten berry this congress -- mr. fortenberry from nebraska -- offered the same reforms, and they were adopted there in the house by a vote of 230-194. congress has spoken then and overwhelmingly agrees in both bodies with my commonsense approach of limitations on the amount that one farming operation can get. now, wouldn't you think, wouldn't anyone think that

policy, which is widely supported in both bodies of congress and which saves taxpayers nearly $400 million would be untouchable when it comes to a conference committee? the rules of this institution, the senate, outline that. senate rule 28, if anyone would like to look it up. however, once again, behind closed doors washington decided to intentionally screw up common sense. this conference bill increases the payments available through countercyclical program now called price-loss coverage or p.l.c. for short, by 150% compared to what this congress had already agreed upon. and yet i have anyone to tell me a single legitimate reason why

that change could be made. additionally, the powers that be in this town have proven they learned nothing from the world trade organization brazil cotton case. that dispute has resulted in the u.s. paying $143 million fine per year to brazilian cotton farmers because our farm program for cotton doesn't meet the rules of international trade. now, this farm bill doubles down on the same market-disporting principles that brought -- market-distorting principles that brought us that same dispute. the original payment reforms that this congress approved also eliminated abuses through what is commonly known as -- quote, unquote -- "actively engaged loophole." to sum up this loophole, it makes it very easy for

nonfarmers to get farm subsidies, probably those that go to the extent that hire a lawyer. this results in the largest 10% of the farms, then, as i said before, getting 70% of the farm program's benefits, as i've already mentioned. yet the conference committee in another brazen act of manipulation eliminates my simple enforceable reform. because i happen to think that nonfarming managers -- i think that one nonfarming manager per entity is more than generous, and over the years it's been much violated. so we just simply say it ought to be one nonfarm manager per farm and no more. but it's been a lot worse.

in my language, the language accepted by this body, reformed that. but as i've indicated a couple times, the conference committee took it out. the language in the bill now says instead of the way it passed the senate and passed the house on the floor of the house will have the opportunity to review and fix the actively engaged loophole, but only if they should choose so. in other words, the secretary of agriculture doesn't have to. now, i happen to know secretary veil sek -- vilsack is sympathetic to what i've been trying to accomplish and so maybe he'll be able to make something good out of what i think is a very bad provision in this bill that might actually make it very difficult for him to do that. now, under this provision,

u.s.d. could have fixed this problem or even under existing law, i should say, u.s.d. could fix this problem at any point since it is the result of their rule making. so giving as this compromise does the usda power they already have and claiming reform, that happens to be a true and true too often example of a washington hat trick. the conferees didn't stop at just kicking the decision over to the department, they also tied the usda's hands with unnecessary requirements that must be met before action can even be taken, and that's why i say it's going to be difficult for secretary sill vac. -- vilsack. i hope he'll find ways to accomplish what i want to accomplish. i think that's where his heart is. so i hope that secretary vilsack

and i can say the obama administration uses the authority to produce a strong, enforceable rule regarding the number of people who can be eligible for farm subsidies from taxpayers. in other words, people that are actually farming. i'm certainly going to offer them my thoughts on this issue, and maybe i should explain why i said even the obama administration beyond secretary vilsack because in this president's budget more than once and in the bush budget more than once presidents, including this president, has suggested these reforms, to save money. this year i said about $400 million. with actually according to c.b.o., $387 million. the go go release -- the government accountability office released a report in october,

2013 that clearly outlines the problems with the actively engaged loophole. one farming partnership that they highlighted was composed of 22 llc's with 20 different owners and 16 managers who got their eligibility through the actively engaged loophole. so you understand why the bill that passed the senate and the house said one manager. at least four of the managers i've referred to from that police station -- from that operation even live out of the state while several others live in cities around the state well outside of commuting distance. additionally just yesterday it was reported that a large farming operation in the state of illinois is being fined $5.75 million because they were exploiting taxpayers for farm

subsidies. in this case, the government determined their business structure was intentionally designed to evade those payment limitations that are even in existing law, with the exact fake entity structures that my provisions would have nearly eliminated. i want to quote the u.s. attorney jim lewis, who handled that case, and here's his quote "we're pleased with this favorable resolution of the government's claim of misuse of farm subsidy programs. these programs are designed to help farmers withstand market price volatility and the intrinsic risks associated with farming from year to year. any attempt to exploit the system to take more than one's fair share is an improper use of government funds that erodes the

public confidence in such programs and threatens their continued viability." end of comment of u.s. attorney jim lewis, who has won that case against these farmers, and they will be fined that $5.75 million. i wish that the u.s. attorney could have been part of the farm bill conference committee. his logic and expertise would have really helped. if a farm's business model depends on lawyers setting up complicated mickey mouse legal structures just to get more government subsidies, perhaps the owners of that entity are in the wrong business. so my provisions would have limited subsidies going to a few thousand people who are very

well off and quite frankly, don't need unlimited farm payments from the government and probably aren't even involved with dirt under their fingernails, especially since by definition they would be people, then, who don't actually work on farms. if we can't cut subsidies that go to nonfarming millionaires, how will we ever find the courage, then, to fix other great entitlement problems that we have in this country? with all that said, there are few things this bill does that are good. the dairy programs provisions have ended up more market oriented than were where we started, which i believe is a very good thing. i'm glad the crop insurance program will remain strong for farmers across the country. and the nutrition program reforms are welcome. in the end, i have to make a

judgment of the bill as a whole. every member of the senate has to. i believe this bill, sadly, is a missed opportunity. the congressional budget office has the final savings in this bill of only $16.6 billion. that's pretty small amount compared to the fact that it will spend nearly a trillion dollars. now, i think my colleagues know that i'm a person that plays by the rules. so i played by the rules with these reforms that were adopted two years ago, 75-24, not debated or voted on this year because they were part of the bill that passed the united states senate and then went to the house of representatives and were voted on there 230-194. so we played by the rules. a majority of both bodies

support these reforms. yet in the end, just a small group of people with a single-minded intent to keep unlimited farm subsidies flowing out the door proved that congress deserves its 12% approval rating. i want to be clear, i strongly support the business of agriculture. i've been involved in farming my whole life. my son, robin, operates our family farm. i understand the industry. growing wholesome fooldz to feed the world has always been one of the noblest occupations in my opinion. but if i were to vote yes on the bill, it would be an endorsement of the egregious manipulation of my payment limitation reforms behind closed doors. i cannot in good conscience do that.

therefore, i will oppose the agricultural act of 2014. just to kind of clarify, do you understand -- i hope everybody understands -- that we had the moral authority of a majority of the senate, the moral authority of a majority of the house of representatives, the moral majority of the people of this country who i believe would say it's a good thing to save $387 million, and yet that moral authority was avoided by conferees who thought to heck with what the majority of the senate or a voting majority of the house of representatives, 230-194, it doesn't mean anything, we can do whatever we want to do. we can waste that $387 million, we can continue to give farm payments to farmers who aren't farming or to people who aren't

farming. we can continue to let 10% of the biggest farmers get 70% of the benefits of the farm program, which in the end, then, helps subsidize big farmers getting bigger and there's nothing wrong with big farmers getting bigger but you shouldn't siebdzize -- subsidize it, drive up the price of farm land and cash rent so our young farmers can't get started farming. 123u want to preserve the family farm, that's one of the things that's very, very important. so i've said my part, and i hope that i'm around five years from now so that i can try this once again because i don't intend to give up on this process. five years from now is the next farm bill probably. maybe there will be opportunities between now and then. i intend to take advantage of those opportunities. i yield the floor.

mr. boozman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i ask i'm able to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: thank you, madam president. i'm here today as a voice for our veterans and career military service members. since i came to congress in 2001, i've served on the veterans' affairs committee both in the house and the senate. and have continuously fought to uphold the promises we have made with the men and women who served on behalf of our nation. i am continually looking for opportunities to improve their lives of our veterans. who have served honorably and have sacrificed, sometimes with their lives in support of our country. they deserve every benefit that they've earned. and what we have promised them.

but they have suffered a grave injustice in this body. late last year the senate without my support agreed to a badge budget that cut retirement benefits of our veterans reducing the cost of living adjustment. i certainly could not support this provision. veterans and the american people are rightly upset. i want to share some of the letters that i've received from our veterans and other arkansas david mullens from jonesboro wrote, "i'm a 20-year veteran of the united states army. i retired as a sergeant first class. i am currently drawing military retirement. i joined the army when i was 18 years old and i wouldn't do anything different. even though it was very hard at times, i know that was what i was supposed to be doing. less than 1% of the american population serves in the military and of those, only about 13% actually retire with

20 years or more of service. we are talking about less than .02% of the population. it is really appalling that after sacrificing my freedoms to protect those of my fellow citizens, this is how we are treated. america is out of touch." i agree with david. in a letter i sent to the armed services committee leadership in the house and senate, i equated retirement compensation cuts to reaching into these individuals' retirement accounts and taking that money from them. this is unconscionable. diane from hot springs, arkansas, said in a letter, "i am truly disgusted by the new deal that cuts military pensions but doesn't touch benefits for any of the politicians. i would have no problems if it was across-the-board cut. this is the best example of what is wrong with our government -- cut benefits for those that make

real sacrifices for their country, they take lower pay and separation from family." i agree with diane, it is not fair. our veterans shouldn't be the ones bearing the burden for irresponsible spending. we need to cut spending and put our country on the path to fiscal responsibility but it should not come at the expense of our nation's military retirees. these are the only americans who are being asked to sacrifice under the budget agreement. it's wrong to single that -- it's wrong to single out our service members for what amounts to $6 billion over 10 years representing a .02% reduction. we need to right this wrong so our military retirees and their families have one less thing to worry about. terry williamson from jacksonville, arkansas, wrote -- "i just retired from 26 years of active duty serving my country in the air force. i must say, i was shocked and

disappointed to learn that the pay of retirees are being offered up to be reduced by 1% cost-of-living as part of the budget deal. i feel that i have lived up to and beyond my part in serving my country. i have not even received my first retirement check and yesterdayetalready my governmens shortchanging me and all veterans who have served and fulfilled their end of the deal -- defending this great nation. i ask you to do what you can to not allow this to happen to a small portion of society that gave more to their country than most." terry, we're working to make sure you get the full retirement you earned. we're seeking ways to undo this cut and fully restore military pay. in january, congress took the first step towards restoring veterans' colas with the passage of the omnibus appropriations bill.

this exempted medically retired disabled veterans and survivors from the cola reductions. but there's more work to do. the good news is that we're on your side. senator ayotte introduced the keeping our promises to our military heroes act that repeals the cola reduction for all military retirees and i'm certainly proud to support that legislation. arkansans want congress to fully restore military retiree benefits as soon as possible and i'm committed to raising this priority at every possible opportunity until justice is realized for these military families. while there's been much discussion about restoring these benefits in future legislation, this should be done at the earliest opportunity in order to provide certainty for our military's retirees' financial future. to our nation's military

retirees, i'm committed to this fight. you've earned these benefits. congress must correct the wrong and restore your full retirement pay. and as always, thank you for your service to our country. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask the senate proceed to a period of morning business, senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent the senate proceed to s. res. 342. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 3 342, designating february 3-7, 2014, as national school counseling week. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that during the adjournment or recess of the senate from tuesday, january 30, through monday, february 3, the

majority and senators warner and rockefeller be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'm told that rule -- there's a bill due for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 1977, a bill to repeal section 403 of the bipartisan budget act of 2013 and so forth. the presiding officer: i now ask for a second reading in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14 but object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, february 3. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the conference report to accompany h.r. 2642 with the time until 5:30 equally

divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: the next roll call vote will be 5:30 on monday on the motion to invoke cloture on the conference report to the farm bill. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i'd ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

..

transmitted the answers to 16 additional crew members. and then subsequently been 17 more crew members were implicated by voluntary admission. and that is what gave us the number of 34 officers who were implicated in sharing of test material. again, i am recapping what we said the couple weeks ago