Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. President, before I go on to that, I would note that many have come to this floor to talk about the deficit and things of that nature. I ask anybody who is decrying our deficit if they voted for a needless war in Iraq and then voted to put it on the credit card.

The war in Iraq has cost this Nation nearly $1 trillion so far, and with all the wounded who have come back from this unnecessary war, we will, beyond the lifetime of most of us, still be paying for that.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the only wars in America's history we did not have a special tax to pay for--both were put on a credit card. They were begun at a time when the last administration had inherited a large surplus from the Democratic administration before it. Since I have been old enough to vote, only Democratic administrations have left surpluses. But they took that surplus, wasted it on the war in Iraq, and because they were unwilling to pay for this war--a war that was paid for only by the men and women who served and their families; we don't have a draft--most people can say: It didn't affect me. Well, it affected those families enormously, and it will affect every single taxpayer for the rest of their lives because it will take that long to pay for a war that so many in this body and the other body voted for but then stood up and said: We cannot possibly have taxes to pay for things we are spending money on. That is one thing they voted for--for the first time in the history of this country, they voted to not pay for a war.

I urge everybody not to lose sight of the fact that a major part of our deficit was caused by the House and Senate voting for a war we never should have been in, one I voted against. In fact, everybody who actually read the intelligence material voted against it. Now our children and our grandchildren will have to pay for our mistakes.

I don't want to hear lectures about our deficit from people who voted to help create that deficit by voting for an unnecessary war.

On the subject we are on, S. 47, after more than a week of consideration, the Senate will finally vote on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. This is a good bill that makes needed changes recommended by victims and those who work with them

every day. I urge all those Senators who have opposed reauthorizing VAWA to end their opposition and join with us. Despite the predictions by some that the Republican House of Representatives will refuse to consider the Senate bill, as it did last year, I see reason for hope.

Just yesterday 17 Republican members of the House wrote to their own leadership urging immediate reauthorization of VAWA. They rejected the ideological opposition of Heritage and the Family Research Council. They recognize that VAWA is effective, efficient and successful ``in curbing domestic violence and supporting victims,'' and that ``VAWA programs save lives.'' They also note, as I have said repeatedly on this floor: ``VAWA must reach all victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking in every community in the country.''

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Republican members' letter to Speaker Boehner be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

The Senate has rejected the Republican substitute and defeated the Coburn amendment to strip the tribal jurisdiction provisions that have been included in the Senate bill for the past two years. Those amendments would have greatly narrowed VAWA's ability to prevent crime and help victims and would have undercut our commitment to all victims of rape and domestic violence. I hope Senators will continue to vote against amendments that weaken this important legislation.

This morning the Senate has the opportunity to vote for an amendment that goes in the opposite direction from the Coburn amendments by allowing us to help more victims of serious crime in the United States and around the world. This morning the Senate is to vote on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. That is another bipartisan bill that was written with the input of victims and service providers to make critical improvements to existing law. Last year, this legislation had 57 cosponsors--including 15 Republicans. In particular, I thank Senator Rubio who has been a strong cosponsor of this important measure.

Today is February 12, the day on which Abraham Lincoln was born. It was 150 years ago that he delivered the Emancipation Proclamation and it would be fitting that the Senate pass the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act on his birthday. Although the 13th amendment to our Constitution was ratified long ago, making slavery illegal, we continue to fight human trafficking, which can amount to modern day slavery. This terrible crime still occurs throughout the world--including in the United States of America. The Polaris Project estimates that there are more than 27 million victims of human trafficking worldwide today.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act will help us continue to make real progress on this issue. It is a parallel effort to our reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Our effort is to stop human trafficking at its roots by supporting both domestic and international efforts to fight against trafficking and to punish its perpetrators. We provide critical resources to help support victims as they rebuild their lives.

This measure strengthens criminal anti-trafficking statutes to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to effectively combat all forms of trafficking. It ensures better coordination among Federal agencies, between law enforcement and victim service providers, and with foreign countries to work on every facet of this complicated problem. It includes measures to encourage victims to come forward and report this terrible crime, which leads to more prosecutions and help for more victims.

We have included accountability measures to ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purposes, and we have streamlined programs to focus scarce resources on the approaches that have been the most successful. A Senator asserted yesterday that trafficking programs have been wasteful and duplicative. In fact, the programs supported by this amendment have been carefully tracked and shown to be effective. Nonetheless, the amendment reduces authorization levels by almost a third from the levels in the last reauthorization because we are determined to ensure efficiency and respond to concerns. We have made similar efforts to streamline VAWA.

The United States remains a beacon of hope for so many who face human rights abuses. We know that young women and girls often just 11, 12, or 13 years old are being bought and sold. We know that workers are being held and forced into labor against their will. I urge all Senators to join in passing the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. People in this country and millions around the world are counting on us.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters from human rights and civil rights organizations in support of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally divided.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we have had an early unanimous consent order, so following that, I ask unanimous consent that the sequence of votes outlined under the previous order now start at 11:30 a.m., and the additional 30 minutes of debate be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that following the disposition of the Coburn amendment No. 15, the Senate recess for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that at 2:15 p.m., the Senate resume the sequence of votes under the previous order; and finally, all other provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment numbered 21 be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 21, as modified.

Mr. President, I have already spoken about this, and I want to reiterate what I said earlier. Our country, justifiably so, is a beacon of hope for so many who face human rights abuses. I think of what is written on the iconic Statue of Liberty; so many people come to our shores for freedom. We also know there are many who are being held in these despicable trafficking schemes around the world. There are children who are 11, 12, 13 years old being held, and we have to speak for them.

I hope all Senators will join me in voting for this amendment. There are protections for victims of trafficking in the reauthorization act. It is a bipartisan bill written with the input of victims and service providers. It helps us to more effectively fight human trafficking, which is really modern-day slavery. Whether people are trafficked in the sex trade--especially children--or in forced labor, it is slavery. It is not isolated. There are 27 million victims worldwide today according to the Polaris Project. This amendment will help us to stop it by supporting both domestic and international efforts to fight against trafficking.

Just as important as it is to help us punish the perpetrators, the amendment will help us rebuild the lives of those caught up in it. We know funds are always limited. We put in accountability measures to ensure the Federal funds are used for their intended purposes.

Let us continue to have the United States as a beacon of hope to people around the world.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in support of amendment 21, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Let's pass this.

Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum unless somebody else seeks recognition. I see the distinguished Senator from Florida on the floor, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida yields, I appreciate the strong support of Senator Rubio. He has been the voice of reason and consistency in this area and I appreciate it.

I suggest the absence of a quorum with the time equally divided.

Mr. President, we are going to vote in a couple minutes, but I would reiterate what I said earlier. This is going to be a vote on the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. It is a bill that was written with the input of victims and service providers. Last year, we had 57 cosponsors, including 15 Republicans.

I do want to thank Senator Rubio, who was on the floor a few minutes ago speaking about it.

I could not help but think, as I said earlier, when I looked at the calendar today, February 12--the day on which Abraham Lincoln was born; and 150 years ago, he delivered the Emancipation Proclamation--wouldn't it be great if the Senate passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act on President Lincoln's birthday?

I also said earlier today that the Senate should be--often is--the conscience of the Nation. I have to imagine that the conscience of the vast majority of our 300 million Americans--whether they are Republicans or Democrats; liberals, moderates, or conservatives; Independents--their conscience would rebel against the idea of, really, slave trafficking, whether it is people trapped in the sex trade or in factories where they face the possibility, if there is a fire, they are all going to die because they are forced to be there.

Let's speak. Let's speak to the conscience of this country.

Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on my amendment?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Parliamentary inquiry: Under the previous order, we are now on amendment No. 10?

I agree with the Senator from Ohio. I am perfectly willing to accept this amendment by a voice vote, and I do support it.

I am encouraged that the Senate has voted to pass the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which will let us make real progress in helping victims of human trafficking. I worked with Senator Rubio last Congress to reauthorize and improve our antitrafficking law and needed programs. We were stymied by an anonymous Republican objection. Today we achieved a breakthrough when the Senate voted to approve the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act.

I thank Senators from both sides of the aisle who have rejected the cramped view of the Heritage Foundation and joined with us to make progress on this important issue, to help victims and to help prevent human trafficking. The vote the Senate just took to approve vital antitrafficking legislation will ensure that resources and services get to trafficking victims in ways shown to work. By our action, we are improving and strengthening antitrafficking programs.

I do not wish to conflate or confuse the two issues. The Violence Against Women Act provides programs for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Trafficking is different, a unique form of abuse with separate programs designed to address it in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

When trafficking victims also experience sexual assault, they can also access programs funded through VAWA for sexual assault victims. The Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act explicitly provides that VAWA programs are to help victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. That includes trafficking victims. That language was carefully crafted with advocates for victims of those crimes.

Accordingly, I believe that amendment 10 is unnecessary. It duplicates and reiterates what the bill already provides. So long as it does not harm and does not create confusion, I support it. The Senator from Oklahoma may accuse us of providing duplicative programs, but no one is going to subject themselves to sexual assault just because they might be eligible for a VAWA program or help from a trafficking program. No individual victim is going to somehow profit at taxpayers' expense. The amendment is accepted merely as further clarification of the availability of VAWA programs to children who are both victims of trafficking and sexual assault. Sex trafficking victims are by definition also sexual assault victims.

I am not in favor of confusing program administrators or taking program funds away from victims of rape and domestic violence. I have worked hard not to pit victims against each other. Instead, I have tried to provide for the needs of all victims.

Madam President, I move to reconsider.

Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, has filed amendment No. 11, a technical fix to ensure that VAWA's tribal provisions apply to Alaska. I now offer the amendment on her behalf. I support this amendment and I ask it be added to the bill.

I ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The bipartisan Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act already reduces authorization levels and adds important accountability measures. These are careful, appropriate, and effective steps. The Coburn amendment would mandate sweeping cuts which would decimate programs. The amendment is opposed by law enforcement, including the National Association of Police Organizations, and by the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women.

Of course we all want to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. But this amendment is not the way to do it. The amendment purports to be based on findings by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO, but it misconstrues those findings. The amendment states that the GAO identified $3.9 billion in ``duplicative'' grants programs. That is simply not the case. The July 2012 GAO report states that the total amount of grants awarded by the Justice Department in fiscal year 2010 was only $3.6 billion. You cannot have $3.9 billion in duplication when the total amount of grant money awarded was less than that.

More importantly, the GAO report did not actually conclude that there was duplication. The July report said there was ``the potential risk of unnecessary duplication'' and recommended that the Justice Department conduct an assessment to determine if grant programs could be consolidated to mitigate that risk. The GAO did not recommend any funding cuts and certainly did not recommend the $780 million cut that this amendment would require. As I have noted, our bill already includes a 17-percent cut in authorizations.

The amendment offered by Senator Coburn requires the Department of Justice to gut key grant programs. It would mandate that the Department cut at least $780 million from its grant programs, many of which provide critical funding to law enforcement and victim service providers. This would have devastating effects on victims of rape and domestic violence, and I urge Senators to vote against it.

The amendment tries to sugarcoat the damage it will do by reference to untested rape kits. In fact, it is the amendment that is duplicative. We have established the Debbie Smith Act to reduce the backlog of untested rape kits and the Leahy-Crapo bill already includes measures to reduce the backlog through core VAWA programs and through the inclusion of the SAFER Act.

By gutting grant programs to law enforcement and victims, the Coburn amendment does not help victims of rape, who rely on victim service providers funded with these grants and on law enforcement who count on Federal support. Mandating vast cuts in programs for victims and law enforcement at a time when those programs are already being squeezed is bad policy. These grant programs save lives. The amendment is bad for victims and bad for law enforcement. I urge Senators to oppose it.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters in opposition to amendment No. 15 to S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the farm bill and then specifically about reforming payment limits for farm programs.

As one looks back to the fall of 2011 and the failure of what was referred to as the ``supercommittee,'' we saw many committees continue on with business as usual afterwards. However, one committee's members took it upon themselves to continue efforts to tackle spending and propose meaningful cuts--the Senate Agriculture Committee.

For that matter, the House Agriculture Committee worked towards that end as well. I commend Chairman Stabenow and then Ranking Member Roberts for corralling the many ideas of the members of the committee to write a bill that cut $23 billion.

We were able to work in committee to get the bill done. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner to get the bill across the Senate floor. It is how legislation is supposed to be considered and debated in the Senate.

One of the measures in last year's farm bill was my proposal reforming payment limitations in the farm program.

Adopting reforms to payment limitations contributed to the $23 billion in savings. Beyond just being a part of saving money, these reforms help ensure farm payments go to those who they were originally intended--small and medium-size farmers.

In addition, the reforms include closing off loopholes so nonfarmers can't game the system. I will come back to my proposed reforms in a minute after I say just a few words about the overall farm bill picture.

As we all know, Congress was not able to complete work on the farm bill last year. But that is not for a lack of desire by either the Senate nor the House Agriculture Committees. There remains a desire to get a 5-year bill passed.

Supporters of the farm bill need to take a hard look at what challenges were presented last year to getting the bill done. We need to forge ahead knowing some tough decisions need to be made.

For the Senate, we need to consider whether it is realistic that we only reduce $4 billion out of the nearly $800 billion nutrition title. More can and should be done. The nutrition title comprised by far and away the largest expenditure in the bill.

There are more reforms we can make to programs such as food stamps, and they are reforms that cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse in the program but also safeguard assistance for people who need it.

There are other programs we need to take a fresh look at. Should we accept the status quo on the sugar program? How do we handle dairy policy? What policy can we implement in the commodity program that won't distort planting decisions but maintains an effective safety net?

These are some of the many issues we need to debate again and decide. I, for one, hope we are able to start soon and work together to get a 5-year bill completed this year. Our farmers and rural communities deserve to have certainty.

When we do move forward on drafting a new farm bill, I will again be pushing for the reforms to payment limitations. That is why today I am introducing the Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 with Senators Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Enzi, and Senator Brown.

The proposed legislation strikes a needed balance of recognizing the need for a farm safety net while making sure we have a defensible and responsible safety net.

In case there is any doubt, we do need a farm program safety net. For those who argue we do not need a safety net for our farmers, I argue they do not understand the danger of a nation which does not produce its own food.

Take Germany and Japan during World War II, for instance. There came a point where their soldiers had difficulty fighting because they didn't have food to eat. So today their respective governments maintain vigorous support for their farmers.

It is a matter of social cohesion as well. Without a secure source of food, we jeopardize our very way of life. Look around the world where there is hunger and you see rioting, stealing, and other acts of violence. We need our farmers to keep producing our food.

For all the advances in modern agriculture, farmers are still subject to

conditions out of their control. Just look at the drought that still grips much of the U.S.

Without an adequate safety net, some farmers would be left with no ability to make it the following year. That would mean potentially less food being produced for an ever-increasing world population. That is a scary prospect.

While farmers need a safety net, there does come a point where a farmer gets big enough and financially secure so that he can weather tough times without much assistance from the government.

Somehow, though, over the years there has developed this perverse scenario where big farmers are receiving the lion's share of farm program payments. We now have the largest 10 percent of farmers receiving nearly 70 percent of farm payments.

There is nothing wrong with a farmer growing his operation, but the taxpayer should not be subsidizing large farming operations to grow even larger. By having reasonable caps on the amount of farm program payments any one farmer can receive, it helps ensure the program meets the intent of assisting small and medium-size farmers through tough times.

My proposed caps on payments will also help encourage the next generation of rural Americans to take up farming.

I am approached time and again about how to help young people get into farming. When large farmers are able to use farm program payments to drive up the cost of land and rental rates, our farm programs end up hurting those they are meant to help.

It is simply good policy to have a hard cap on the amount a farmer can receive in farm program payments. We will keep in place a much needed safety net for the farmers who need it most. And it will help reduce the negative impact farm payments have on land prices.

Our bill sets the overall cap at $250,000 for a married couple. In my State, many people would say this is still too high.

But I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and so this is a compromise.

Just as important to setting a hard cap on payments is closing off loopholes that have allowed nonfarmers to game the farm program.

The bill being introduced today will do this by cutting off the ability of these nonfarmers from abusing what is referred to as the ``actively engaged'' test.

In essence, the law says one has to be actively engaged in farming to qualify for farm payments. However, this has been exploited by people who have virtually nothing to do with the farming operation yet receive payments from the farm program.

Our Nation has over $16 trillion in debt. We cannot afford to simply look the other way and let people abuse the farm program.

The Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 is the same in purpose as what it states in the name. This is about increasing the integrity of the program.

My colleagues here in the Senate agreed with me last year as we included these pivotal reforms in the farm bill. I am confident these reforms will garner similar approval in the 113th Congress.

I mentioned earlier how we need to assess some of the challenging areas of farm policy as we look to pass a 5-year farm bill, and some tough decisions need to be made.

However, my proposed reforms regarding payment limits do not pose a tough decision. They are common sense and necessary reforms.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the farm bill and then specifically about reforming payment limits for farm programs.

As one looks back to the fall of 2011 and the failure of what was referred to as the ``supercommittee,'' we saw many committees continue on with business as usual afterwards. However, one committee's members took it upon themselves to continue efforts to tackle spending and propose meaningful cuts--the Senate Agriculture Committee.

For that matter, the House Agriculture Committee worked towards that end as well. I commend Chairman Stabenow and then Ranking Member Roberts for corralling the many ideas of the members of the committee to write a bill that cut $23 billion.

We were able to work in committee to get the bill done. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner to get the bill across the Senate floor. It is how legislation is supposed to be considered and debated in the Senate.

One of the measures in last year's farm bill was my proposal reforming payment limitations in the farm program.

Adopting reforms to payment limitations contributed to the $23 billion in savings. Beyond just being a part of saving money, these reforms help ensure farm payments go to those who they were originally intended--small and medium-size farmers.

In addition, the reforms include closing off loopholes so nonfarmers can't game the system. I will come back to my proposed reforms in a minute after I say just a few words about the overall farm bill picture.

As we all know, Congress was not able to complete work on the farm bill last year. But that is not for a lack of desire by either the Senate nor the House Agriculture Committees. There remains a desire to get a 5-year bill passed.

Supporters of the farm bill need to take a hard look at what challenges were presented last year to getting the bill done. We need to forge ahead knowing some tough decisions need to be made.

For the Senate, we need to consider whether it is realistic that we only reduce $4 billion out of the nearly $800 billion nutrition title. More can and should be done. The nutrition title comprised by far and away the largest expenditure in the bill.

There are more reforms we can make to programs such as food stamps, and they are reforms that cut down on waste, fraud, and abuse in the program but also safeguard assistance for people who need it.

There are other programs we need to take a fresh look at. Should we accept the status quo on the sugar program? How do we handle dairy policy? What policy can we implement in the commodity program that won't distort planting decisions but maintains an effective safety net?

These are some of the many issues we need to debate again and decide. I, for one, hope we are able to start soon and work together to get a 5-year bill completed this year. Our farmers and rural communities deserve to have certainty.

When we do move forward on drafting a new farm bill, I will again be pushing for the reforms to payment limitations. That is why today I am introducing the Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 with Senators Johnson of South Dakota, Senator Enzi, and Senator Brown.

The proposed legislation strikes a needed balance of recognizing the need for a farm safety net while making sure we have a defensible and responsible safety net.

In case there is any doubt, we do need a farm program safety net. For those who argue we do not need a safety net for our farmers, I argue they do not understand the danger of a nation which does not produce its own food.

Take Germany and Japan during World War II, for instance. There came a point where their soldiers had difficulty fighting because they didn't have food to eat. So today their respective governments maintain vigorous support for their farmers.

It is a matter of social cohesion as well. Without a secure source of food, we jeopardize our very way of life. Look around the world where there is hunger and you see rioting, stealing, and other acts of violence. We need our farmers to keep producing our food.

For all the advances in modern agriculture, farmers are still subject to

conditions out of their control. Just look at the drought that still grips much of the U.S.

Without an adequate safety net, some farmers would be left with no ability to make it the following year. That would mean potentially less food being produced for an ever-increasing world population. That is a scary prospect.

While farmers need a safety net, there does come a point where a farmer gets big enough and financially secure so that he can weather tough times without much assistance from the government.

Somehow, though, over the years there has developed this perverse scenario where big farmers are receiving the lion's share of farm program payments. We now have the largest 10 percent of farmers receiving nearly 70 percent of farm payments.

There is nothing wrong with a farmer growing his operation, but the taxpayer should not be subsidizing large farming operations to grow even larger. By having reasonable caps on the amount of farm program payments any one farmer can receive, it helps ensure the program meets the intent of assisting small and medium-size farmers through tough times.

My proposed caps on payments will also help encourage the next generation of rural Americans to take up farming.

I am approached time and again about how to help young people get into farming. When large farmers are able to use farm program payments to drive up the cost of land and rental rates, our farm programs end up hurting those they are meant to help.

It is simply good policy to have a hard cap on the amount a farmer can receive in farm program payments. We will keep in place a much needed safety net for the farmers who need it most. And it will help reduce the negative impact farm payments have on land prices.

Our bill sets the overall cap at $250,000 for a married couple. In my State, many people would say this is still too high.

But I recognize that agriculture can look different around the country, and so this is a compromise.

Just as important to setting a hard cap on payments is closing off loopholes that have allowed nonfarmers to game the farm program.

The bill being introduced today will do this by cutting off the ability of these nonfarmers from abusing what is referred to as the ``actively engaged'' test.

In essence, the law says one has to be actively engaged in farming to qualify for farm payments. However, this has been exploited by people who have virtually nothing to do with the farming operation yet receive payments from the farm program.

Our Nation has over $16 trillion in debt. We cannot afford to simply look the other way and let people abuse the farm program.

The Farm Program Integrity Act of 2013 is the same in purpose as what it states in the name. This is about increasing the integrity of the program.

My colleagues here in the Senate agreed with me last year as we included these pivotal reforms in the farm bill. I am confident these reforms will garner similar approval in the 113th Congress.

I mentioned earlier how we need to assess some of the challenging areas of farm policy as we look to pass a 5-year farm bill, and some tough decisions need to be made.

However, my proposed reforms regarding payment limits do not pose a tough decision. They are common sense and necessary reforms.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, tonight we will welcome the President to the Capitol to deliver his State of the Union Address.

As I mentioned yesterday, Republicans will be listening with great interest to see where the President plans to take the country over the coming year. Some media outlets are already reporting we will be subjected to another litany of leftwing proposals, with plenty of red meat for the President's base. I sure hope not. The campaign is over, and the fact is that if the President plans to accomplish anything good for the country in the coming months, he is going to have to go through a Republican-controlled House.

So this morning I would like to humbly suggest once again that it is time for the President to reach out to Congress, including Republicans, and make divided government work. That is how he will actually address the issues Americans are most concerned about right now, and it is the only way.

The first issue many of us will be listening for tonight is the President's plan for controlling spending and replacing the Obama sequester. The record is clear that the President and his aides came up with that sequester, and they got it. It is a little puzzling to see them now trying to pass it off like a hot potato.

Republicans have been very clear about the fact that we would rather enact smarter spending cuts. House Republicans even voted on the plan-- not once but twice--to do just that. But Washington Democrats so far have failed to put forward a serious proposal of their own. They ignored the issue for more than 1 year before finally showing up to the debate last week with the usual gimmicks.

This is the President's chance to rally the American people around a real set of spending cuts and reforms. I will be interested to see what he plans to offer because what we have been hearing so far, frankly, isn't very encouraging. He needs to understand the American people will not accept attempts to replace deficit reduction both parties have already agreed to with tax hikes. We already agreed to reduce spending in the amount the sequester would reduce spending when we voted for the Budget Control Act back in August of 2011 and the President signed it.

What we expect the President will be offering are tax hikes we all know would be used to finance even more spending, when we promised the American people we would spend less. If the President does try to do that, then he shouldn't expect anyone else to go along, least of all the American people.

Many on both sides of the aisle support eliminating tax loopholes in the context of fundamental bipartisan tax simplification that lowers tax rates, and we hope to have a chance to do that in the months ahead. But it is bad policy to punish this industry or that one so Washington can fund 1 more week of government spending and cause more Americans to lose their jobs.

Remember, due to the operation of law, the President already got the tax increases he wanted back on January 1. Because the law expired, the President got the tax increases he wanted--not with any votes, but he got it by the operation of law. So we are done with that part of the equation. The tax issue is over.

If the President wants a balanced approach, now is the time to show his hand on the spending cuts and reforms he will accept. That is how compromise works. But when we hear the White House suggest the challenge of controlling spending is essentially complete or when we hear the House Democratic leader echo the President's claim that we don't have a spending problem, it is hard to know where to start after a ridiculous suggestion such as that.

Over the weekend I spent some time in Nelson County, KY, and I can assure everyone the folks I spoke with there strongly disagree with the President's assessment.

The truth is the President knows better than that himself. Deep down he knows spending is completely out of control. He knows the debt has already grown by $6 trillion over his 4 years in office. He knows that without spending reform, the national debt will increase to double the size of our economy in just a few decades. He knows something must be done now to save Medicare and Social Security before they go broke. Tonight is a chance to show it, to be straight with the American people, and to reveal what he plans to do about all this.

The good news is that many of the things we need to do to control spending and many of the things we need to

do to get the economy moving again are all one and the same. So I was pleased to read the President might pivot to jobs again. Unfortunately, we have seen that headline so many times before. We will have to wait to see how serious it actually is. I have lost count of how many times the President has made one of those pivots. He has pivoted so many times, reporters covering the White House must be getting completely dizzy.

I also hope the President doesn't call for more Washington spending tonight. Not only is that an ineffective way to create jobs, but it is also the very reason our debt continues to climb to such completely unsustainable levels.

If the President does want to do something about job creation for a change, he should leave aside the things we know haven't worked and try some things that will, such as getting the government out of the way. Not only will that help jump-start the private economy, it will help us get spending under control at the same time. It would be a twofer. Jump-start the private economy and get spending under control at the same time is the best way to inprove this economy.

I also hope the President will use the big stage he will have tonight to finally level with the American people about the consequences of ObamaCare. They deserve to know what is about to hit them--the cost increases, the premium hikes, the taxes. They deserve to know that not only may they not be able to keep the health plan they have and like but that CBO tells us there will also be fewer jobs. I know these things will not be easy for him to say, but that is what it means to be a statesman; to be honest with the people you represent, to admit when something doesn't turn out the way you said it would.

Even if we don't hear the President speak directly to the issues Americans are most concerned about tonight, I am confident the man who is set to follow him with the Republican's response will do just that. In some ways, Senator Rubio embodies the American dream. As the child of immigrants, he is uniquely positioned to speak to the aspirations of the middle class. Unlike our rather easily distracted President, Senator Rubio has never had to pivot to jobs. He has kept a laser focus on job creation and the economy ever since he got here.

I have laid out the issues the President needs to address if he is interested in working with Republicans to get some good things done for the country in the days and months ahead. I sure hope he is listening.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the importance of small businesses in the United States. It cannot be stated enough that small businesses are the economic engines of our country. Small businesses also represent the essence of the American Dream. They are creators of new jobs and innovative technologies. In fact, over the last 15 years, businesses employing less than 500 people have created 93 percent of all new jobs and employed 58.6 million workers. Businesses employing less than 20 people alone employed 21.3 million workers. In my home state of Louisiana, small businesses make up about 98 percent of businesses. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I remain focused on the needs of these small businesses. That is why I am here today to introduce a bill that I believe will help spur job creation among small businesses.

As you know, right now our country is only slowly recovering from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. This economic downturn disproportionately affected small businesses and, in turn, stifled their ability to generate growth for the country. Sadly, since November 2008, 80 percent of the job losses have come from small businesses. An estimated 2.16 million jobs were lost in the private sector from November 2008 through February 2009--nearly 40 percent from businesses with less than 50 employees. Ten jobs lost here and five jobs there add up. These are the job losses that hurt our economy, our communities and our families.

With this in mind, I was proud to lead Congressional efforts to enact the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public Law 111-240. President Obama signed this legislation into law on September 27, 2010. This legislation focused on the three ``C's'' important to small businesses: Capital, Contracting, and Counseling. Today I would like to focus on Capital and more specifically, on the Small Business Administration's 504 Loan Refinancing Program, which unfortunately expired in September 2012.

The 504 loan program is a long-term financing tool for economic development that provides small businesses with long-term, fixed-rate loans to help them acquire major fixed assets and real estate for expansion or modernization. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 allowed small businesses to use the 504 loan program to refinance certain qualifying existing debt for 2 years. While loan volumes were relatively low in the program's first year, the SBA made a number of program modifications to encourage and allow more small businesses to take advantage of the long terms and low interest rates offered by the program. In fiscal year 2012, the program's second and final year, the SBA approved over 2,400 refinancings for over $2.2 billion to small businesses.

Unfortunately, on September 27, 2012, the program expired just as it was gaining traction in the small business community. Over the past year, in my conversations with small business owners and in testimonies given in roundtables and hearings before the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have consistently heard the need to extend this portion of the 504 loan program. The bill that I am introducing today would extend for 5 years the provision allowing small business owners to use Small Business Administration, SBA, 504 loans to refinance existing commercial mortgages. Extending the 504 refinancing program is a commonsense way to help small

businesses and create jobs. By allowing small businesses to refinance qualified commercial real estate debt, this program lowers their monthly mortgage payments at no cost to taxpayers. At a time when we are still facing high unemployment, this extension is one of many things that we should be doing to put more capital in the hands of America's job creators.

I would like to reiterate that this is not a new proposal, and it has consistently received bipartisan support. In total, last year I filed this extension either as a bill or an amendment four times. The 504 refinance provision extension was originally introduced as S. 2364 by Senators Snowe, Landrieu, Isakson, and Shaheen. Title II of the SUCCESS Act, which I introduced during the 112th Congress, also included the refinance provision. On July 12, 2012, the Senate voted on the SUCCESS Act as part of Senate Amendment 2521 to S. 2237, the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act of 2012. Although the amendment came up short of the 60 votes needed to end debate, the SUCCESS Act amendment received a strong 57 bipartisan votes, including five of my Republican colleagues. Finally, I included the provision in a substitute amendment that I cosponsored to the JOBS Act of 2012 and offered the 504 refinancing language as an amendment to the Veterans Jobs Bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in support of this common-sense, cost effective program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.