A resolution strongly supporting the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urging the President to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.

Madam President, I am reluctant to break up this conversation among my fellow Republican Senators because they seem to be at odds, but I do want to remind all of the Senators--and I think the Senator from Arizona has alluded to this--we were slapped around unmercifully for not passing a Senate budget resolution.

I expected that. I would say to the Senator from Arizona there were answers, and I thought good answers, but not good enough. We passed a budget resolution. The Senator was here. It passed by one vote. We stayed until early in the morning hours to get it done.

Senator Patty Murray did a masterful job in putting this together. Of course, our passing the resolution is only half of the story. The way this is supposed to work is the so-called regular order, if it differs between the Senate and the House, is we come together in a conference to work out the differences. How long have we been trying--how many weeks have we been trying?

Sixty-one days we have been begging the Republicans--we have been begging the Republicans, not all of them, to give us an opportunity to go to conference and work out our differences, if we can.

That is the regular order. And each time we have asked, as Senator Kaine of Virginia did this morning, there has been a condition to it: No, you can't sit down to try to work out your differences unless you agree ahead of time to take certain things off the table. That is not reasonable. It is not reasonable if you are serious about the deficit, if you are serious about the debt of the United States.

I could dream up a half dozen things. All right, I won't allow us to go to conference if it in any way is going to touch Social Security benefits. All right? I think I would need a lot of support for that, and we wouldn't go to conference. But at the end of the day, if we are serious about the deficit, we are supposed to sit down and work out our differences, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans. When Senator Kaine makes this unanimous consent request to go to a conference committee, he is asking for the regular order of business around here.

Yes. The Senate majority leader is on the floor, and he has said if there is to be a motion to instruct conferees on the debt ceiling, for example, then we can have a vote on the floor of the Senate. That is the regular order.

But to condition the granting of the unanimous consent request to go to conference on the concern du jour of whichever Senator comes to the floor is unproductive.

Madam President, I haven't yielded the floor as yet, and I think the Senator from Texas had a question for me.

I just checked with the majority leader to make sure my memory is correct. The Senator from Texas will learn that when we go to a conference committee, we are subjected to a possibility of a filibuster. Does that ring a note of familiarity on your side of the aisle? If we are going to face a filibuster and 60 votes, it is not going to happen.

What we are trying to do is to establish ahead of time we are going to a conference. So if we go through the so-called regular order to go to conference, we will reach the same impasse with the Republicans objecting and the Republicans potentially raising the issue of a filibuster. That is why we are trying for this unanimous consent, which I would think, from the Republican side, we would have bipartisan agreement that we move to a conference committee.

I am sorry, I am mistaken, and, thankfully, have been corrected. It is not a filibuster. It would call for using the House resolution of 50 hours of debate and another vote-arama to go through the regular order of things. It is not a filibuster. I stand corrected on that.

But the net result of it is to drag out as long, if not longer, than the earlier

debate on the Senate budget resolution. That is why the unanimous consent request has been made.

I am happy to yield.

I yielded for a question, and I will respond. Then you may ask another, if you wish.

It is the regular order of things to ask for unanimous consent, and it is the usual and customary way the Senate works so that we don't have to repeat all over again the debate on the budget resolution to take up the House version. So it is not unusual. It is the regular order.

No.

To respond to the Senator from Texas, we have been through this before. In the House of Representatives they threatened not to extend the debt ceiling of the United States and caused severe damage to our economy. Business leaders, labor leaders, families across America asked: How could the Congress do something so irresponsible as to not extend the debt ceiling of the United States? The President said he is not going to get into a political bargain over the debt ceiling of the United States. He is right. This ought to be something both parties take very seriously, as to whether we would jeopardize the full faith and credit of the United States of America, whether we----

I will in one moment, as soon as I finish replying to the Senator from Texas.

So the notion this debt ceiling is something we can casually say whether it is approved and extended makes no difference--it makes a big difference. And whether it is included in this, in terms of the budget resolution, remains to be seen. But we could have a motion to instruct the conferees relative to the debt ceiling. I think that has already been discussed.

What I am saying is: Why in the world aren't we sitting at a table this day, Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, trying to work out our differences? I think most American people would ask: Isn't that why we sent you to Washington? Yet we run into these objections to unanimous consent requests.

I yield to the Senator from Arizona for a question.

I will yield the floor, because others wish to speak, but I will say that at this point in time we have passed a Senate budget resolution. We were challenged by the Republicans to do it, and we did it. It wasn't easy. It was a close vote, but we did it. Now we want to move to the next logical step and sit down with the House, resolve our differences and move on so we can reduce the debt of this United States in a responsible and orderly way.

The objection on the other side of the aisle for 61 days should come to an end. I salute my friend from Arizona.

Madam President, I salute the Senator from Arizona for his intuitive, wise analysis of this situation. I am sorry we still have an objection from the Republican side of the aisle to go to a conference committee with Republican House Members dominating that conference on their side. Apparently, they do not have confidence those House Members can speak for them, but I think it is important we do move to this conference committee as soon as possible.

I yield the floor.

The tragedy that hit Oklahoma earlier this week--killing innocent people and children and destroying homes, businesses, and schools--just reminds us of how vulnerable we are to the forces of nature. It wasn't the first time the wind blew in Oklahoma. In fact, that same community had been victimized by a tornado years ago.

If we go back in history to the 1920s, the State of Oklahoma faced what we have now characterized as the Dust Bowl. I didn't know much about that, but I read about it. I kind of knew it destroyed lives, farms, and many people had to pick up and leave. They moved to California and other places.

I ran across an excellent book written by a man named Tim Egan. Tim is from Seattle, WA. I don't know him personally, but Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell know him. He writes for the New York Times and also writes excellent books. He wrote a book called ``The Worst Hard Time,'' which tells the story about the Dust Bowl.

What happened, as I understand it, was there was speculation on wheat during World War I. There was a scarcity of wheat because of the war in Europe. People in the United States saw the prices of wheat going high, so they started planting. They planted on fragile ground. As a consequence, they were churning up the ground to plant the wheat and were not mindful of some serious possibilities that the topsoil would blow away.

One thing led to another and it became a natural disaster--the Dust Bowl. As a consequence, many people left Oklahoma and many people saw their lives change forever. Tim Egan's book, ``The Worst Hard Time,'' tells about that in detail.

As a result of that experience in the 1920s, a couple of things happened. First, we started taking conservation seriously; for example, how to conserve the topsoil of our land so it doesn't blow away. Ultimately, this gift from God is what gives us such fertile soil.

Secondly, because we know a farmer is at the mercy of nature, we started to think of ways--under President Franklin Roosevelt--to make sure the farmers could get through hard times, such as a bad year, a bad crop, or low prices.

Starting in the 1930s with the New Deal, we started dreaming up farm programs, and there were many of them. I can recall when I was elected to Congress in 1982, I represented an agricultural district. At the time I knew little or nothing about farming. I was trying to learn as fast as I could as to the options and history of these programs. I learned some things, but I am certainly not an expert.

Over the years we have tried a lot of different ways of protecting farmers from the vagaries of nature and the market. Not that long ago-- 10 or 15 years--we had a situation where we were seeing these natural disasters--such as floods, droughts, and disease--that claimed crops. Many of the farmers affected by those came to Congress and asked for help. We were giving them disaster payments, we called them, to get them through another year.

Well, the decision was made about 10 years ago that it would be better for us to deal with that unpredictability of nature and move away from disaster payments to a program which is known as the Crop Insurance Program. It speaks for itself. It is a program where a farmer can buy insurance and with that insurance protect that farm from a bad productive season or low prices in the market.

More and more farmers started looking for that protection, but they were not that happy with crop insurance as

it was too expensive. So what we did was make a calculation that if we subsidized the crop insurance premiums and if the Federal taxpayers kept them low, more farmers would buy it and we would pay less in natural disaster payments since the insurance program would take care of that exposure.

That is basically what we decided 10 years ago, and since then there has been a decrease in the cost of premiums and an increase in farmer participation and crop insurance, which is a good thing.

I might also say that during the same period of time we had some income protection for farmers in what was known as direct support payments. Unfortunately, those payments were guaranteed even in good times, and they became indefensible. We had some farmers with record profits on their farms and still getting a direct Federal support payment check.

We have the farm bill pending on the floor. Senator Stabenow of Michigan has done a remarkable job--again, for the second time--in writing a farm bill. She wrote a farm bill last year, which we sent to the House of Representatives after we passed it with a strong bipartisan vote, and they basically ignored it. They didn't want to call it so it could be considered on the floor of the House, but they could not come up with their own farm bill.

We are hoping for a better outcome this time. Once again, Senator Stabenow sat down with the agriculture committee in the Senate and produced this farm bill which is before us.

I am here today to describe an amendment which Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and I are offering. Senator Coburn, a very fiscally conservative Republican, and I have come to an agreement on an amendment which we are offering to the Senate--a Republican and a Democrat.

Here is what it comes down to: Our amendment would reduce the level of premium subsidy for crop insurance policies by 15 percentage points for farmers with an adjusted gross income of over $750,000.

Let me explain what is behind this. Crop insurance is not a real insurance program by private sector standards. In other words, the premiums being paid by the farmers do not create a reserve large enough to cover the amounts that are paid off or paid out for losses each year, so the Federal Government makes up the difference.

Currently, on average, when it comes to crop insurance policies, the Federal taxpayers--not the farmers--pay 62 percent of the premiums and the farmers pay 38 percent, so it is a heavily subsidized program. That is understandable because we want to keep the premium costs low so there is more participation, but it is also the reality. So we are dealing with a program that is important to our farmers and important to our Nation with a heavy Federal subsidy.

Last year farmers put in $4 billion in the purchase of crop insurance across America. The Federal taxpayers put in $7.1 billion in subsidies to the same Crop Insurance Program. So this is not a traditional insurance program, it is one that is heavily subsidized and heavily leveraged by the Federal Treasury.

I might also add the taxpayers are on the line for the cost of administering the program, which recently was $1.3 billion in a year, so $7.1 billion in premium subsidies and $1.3 billion in administrative expenses. We are basically saying the taxpayers, by a margin of 2 to 1, are putting more money in the crop insurance program than the farmers who are protected.

Going back to the Dust Bowl story, remember that one of the things we decided to do was to protect fragile lands from wind and water and the type of erosion that reduces their value. Over the years we had these conservation programs saying to farmers, if you have a wetland or a land that is particularly fragile or vulnerable, set it aside; don't plant on it. This bill Senator Stabenow brings to the floor makes this conservation practice a condition for buying crop insurance. I think that is a good thing, and I totally support that. And, from the viewpoint of the Federal taxpayers, I don't think it is too much to ask that the farmers participating in the crop insurance program also participate in conservation practices to protect farmland across this country. That is included.

Four percent of the most profitable farmers in America account for nearly 33 percent of all the premium support by the Federal Government. In other words, there are a lot of small farmers with crop insurance who don't have much exposure, don't pay much in premiums, but there are a lot of large operations that are quite different.

This is a GAO study that was put out in March of 2012. They analyzed the crop insurance program. Interesting reading. ``Savings would result from program changes and greater use of data mining.'' That was their conclusion, after investigating this program last year.

What they are talking about when they say ``data mining'' is taking a look at the farmers who are buying crop insurance. Who are these people? Well, they came up with some interesting examples, if I can find them. In the year 2010, according to the GAO, the average value of the premium subsidy received by participating farmers was $5,339. Thirty-seven participating farmers each received more than $500,000 in premium subsidies--that is subsidies from taxpayers--37. The participating farmer receiving the most in premium subsidies, a total of $1.8 million in Federal subsidies for one farmer--was a farming operation organized as a corporation that insured cotton, tomatoes, and wheat across two counties in one State.

There is another one here. Another of the 37 participating farmers was an individual who insured corn, forage, potatoes, soybeans, sugar beets, and wheat across 23 counties in 6 States for a total of $1.6 million in taxpayer subsidies for his crop insurance. In addition, the cost of the administrative expense subsidies the government spent on behalf of this farmer--one farmer--administrative expenses: $443,000. This is a farmer farming in 23 counties across 6 States.

The point I am trying to get to is this: When we think of farmers and the struggles they face, we shouldn't ignore the obvious. For the wealthiest 1 percent of the farmers in America, they are doing quite well. I think--and Senator Coburn agrees--the Federal subsidy in crop insurance to those farmers should be diminished some to save money for the program and to reduce the deficit. That is what our amendment is all about.

What we are suggesting, as I said at the outset, is that instead of 62 percent of the premium being paid by taxpayers for the richest farmers in America, it be 47 percent of the premium. That is still pretty generous, is it not, for someone who is getting $1.8 million in subsidies already and $400,000 plus in administrative expenses? We are helping that farmer in 23 counties over 6 States with over $2 million in Federal subsidies. I think he can afford to pay a little more. That is what this amendment says.

This farm bill is a good bill. It eliminates direct payments. I salute Senator Stabenow for doing that. Eliminating direct payments made regardless of need saves about $4.5 billion a year, $40.8 billion over 10 years. Hats off to Senator Stabenow. She is reducing the deficit with this farm bill.

I think crop insurance is a much better safety net than direct support payments and much more defensible. But Senators who are concerned about the growth of government and its costs ignore the fact that this heavily subsidized crop insurance program cost the Federal Government more than $14 billion last year. While this growth is mostly due to costs associated with drought, we have to find commonsense ways for savings in the program. That is why we have suggested that farmers with an adjusted gross income of over $750,000 pay 15 percent more when it comes to their premiums for crop insurance.

Let me add something which is not a very well-kept secret: Many of these very large farming operations divide up their farms and their income between husband and wife. So when we are saying $750,000 adjusted gross income, it is actually from a couple that is making over $1.5 million in adjusted gross income in many instances. Our amendment says if the adjusted gross income; that is, after deducting business expenses, health care costs, and other deductions, is at $750,000, premium support is reduced by 15 percentage points. The amendment is roughly estimated to impact the wealthiest 1 percent of farmers. Who is going to pay this? Who

is going to pay the extra premium? Twenty thousand farmers across America will pay the extra premium. I just described a couple of them. Twenty thousand out of two million. Twenty thousand. Well, what is it worth to those 20,000 farmers to pay 15 percent more? It is worth $1 billion over ten years; $1 billion coming into our Treasury.

When I think of the ways we are cutting spending to reduce our deficit, which include taking 70,000 children out of Head Start as an example, how can we possibly justify, for the wealthiest multimillionaire farmers in America, not asking them to pay a little more when it comes to their crop insurance premium? How can we excuse them and say, No, no, no, these very rich farmers absolutely deserve the maximum when it comes to the Federal taxpayer subsidy? I don't think that is acceptable.

The amendment may sound familiar to some of my colleagues. It was adopted before by a vote of 66 to 33 in the Senate. Of the 33 who voted against the amendment, 29 voted for a nearly identical amendment that only varied in the scope of the study. This is a study associated with our amendment.

Some may come to the floor and say that following last year's drought, we shouldn't change crop insurance at all. Last year was the worst drought in over a decade. Eighty percent of agricultural production felt it and my State of Illinois certainly did. The USDA declared 2,245 counties in 39 States disaster areas. Crop insurance worked for those covered and has allowed those producers to plant again this year without missing a beat. Our change in the law would not change that circumstance at all.

I recognize the importance of crop insurance. It is far preferable to disaster payments. But for goodness sake, if we can't say to 1 percent of farmers--the wealthiest in this country--that they are going to take a slightly diminished Federal tax subsidy for their crop insurance, then we aren't very good as budget cutters. We say to a lot of people who have a lot less to work with in life, You are going to have to face up to the reality of the deficit. Can't we say it to 1 percent of the farmers, that they are going to have to face up to the same basic reality? That is what this amendment is all about.

I asked my staff to come up with a couple of examples of farmers and the premiums they pay for the Record. One example: An Illinois corn and soybean grower received $740,000 in premium subsidies to cover the crops he planted in 18 counties in Illinois. This is no small mom-and- pop farmer; this is a big operator. And while I love my Illinois farmers, I can't justify this kind of a subsidy of $740,000 to one farmer in my State. While his exact additional costs are impossible to calculate without knowing all the circumstances, even if he is caught by this amendment and purchased the same policy, instead of a $740,000 taxpayer subsidy he would have a $639,000 Federal taxpayer subsidy.

Another example: A South Dakota corn and soybean farmer received $1.4 million in premium subsidies to cover crops in eight different counties; $1.4 million Federal taxpayer subsidy for his crop insurance. This producer would only receive $1.19 million in premium support under this amendment. Would he stop participating in the program? Of course not. If he is that large a producer he needs this program and the subsidy is still very generous.

This is an issue which I know is a little complex, but when I listen to the speeches on the floor about the deficit--and we have heard plenty of them today and we will hear plenty of them tomorrow--I have to ask myself, Will Senators on both sides of the aisle stand with Senator Coburn and myself and say the wealthiest 1 percent of farmers in America should have their Federal subsidy for crop insurance reduced by 15 percent? Not unreasonable. They will still make a lot of money and the taxpayers will see $1 billion more coming into the Treasury.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I say to my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma, if I might ask, before he proceeds on his amendment, if I could enter a unanimous consent about the vote.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment No.

960; that the time until noon be equally divided between Senators Inhofe and Stabenow or their designees; further, that no second-degree amendment be in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Madam President, before speaking on the amendment, I wish to share--and I know everyone in the Senate wishes to share--their thoughts and prayers with the people of Oklahoma.

As the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma knows, I have a strong connection with Oklahoma. My mom grew up on a farm picking cotton in Oklahoma, and we have talked before about my grandparents, until they passed away, being there. It was a wonderful trip for my family to go to Ponca City, OK, in later years to my grandparents to visit every summer. I will never forget that in the backyard my grandparents had a tornado shelter, basically. It was on a little mound of dirt. We opened the door and it was just like Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz, opening the door and going down into the cellar. A couple of times in the middle of the night we had to get up and go use the cellar, and I know how frightening it was for me as a child to experience that.

I know the storms have gotten more and more intense with more and more devastation. We all hope for the very best in the recovery for all the families involved.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate the concerns raised by the Senator, but I rise in strong opposition to block granting and cutting the food assistance program called SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, for our country.

I have always viewed, as chair of the Agriculture Committee, two programs very similarly. The first is crop insurance, which is there when there is a disaster for a farmer. The second one is SNAP or the Supplemental Food Assistance Program, which is there when there is a disaster for a family. They both go up when the disasters go up, and they go down when things get better. So when we have droughts, when we have what has been happening to our farmers over the last year and before, we see costs go up for crop insurance. We don't cap that arbitrarily saying, We don't like these droughts, we don't like these breezes, we don't like all this stuff, so even though it is real important to the farmers, we are going to cap how much we will help them. The crop insurance is there.

The same thing is true for a family. It wasn't that long ago--in fact, the beginning of 2009--when we in Michigan had the highest unemployment rate in the country. I believe it hit 15.7 percent unemployment at that time. We had an awful lot of people at that time-- and many who have continued although things are getting a lot better-- who have paid taxes all of their lives; never thought in their wildest dreams they would ever need help putting food on the table for their families, but they did. It was temporary. The average length of time someone needs help is 10 months. But I consider that to be a point of pride for our country, that we have a value system which says we are going to make sure when families are hit with hard times through no fault of their own, they are not going to starve; they are going to be able to put food on the table for their children. I think that is the best about us.

Now that things are getting better and the unemployment rate is coming down, the cost of these programs is coming down. Our farm bill shows a cut in spending not because we have decided we are only going to help some people and not other people--some children, not other children--but because people are going back to work. They didn't need the help anymore, so we are seeing those lines go down. By the way, as crop insurance goes up because disasters and weather events have gone up, we are seeing family disasters going down, which is where we want it to go.

Unfortunately, this amendment would cap the amount of help we would give on supplemental nutrition. It would cap it for 2014 at just over half of the current levels, so we would say we don't care how many families have a problem, we don't care what happens; we don't care what happens because of weather that wipes out a business and suddenly folks who have worked hard all of their lives find they need some help they never thought they would need. This would arbitrarily cap at just over half the current levels needed to maintain the current help. It would mean absolutely devastating results for millions of families who are trying to feed their children.

If we consider the fact that about 47 percent of those who get help right now are children--almost half of the food help in this country is for children--and then we add to that another 17 percent for senior citizens and the disabled, and we put that together, we find this amendment would be insufficient to even cover those individuals, let alone the other 37 percent of men and women who get help right now. Unfortunately, block granting this program would not only--and capping it and cutting it--would not only hurt families who are counting on us for temporary help but it would create a situation where we couldn't respond during an economic recession as we can right now.

Again, crop insurance means we respond. When there is a disaster, costs and spending go up. I support that. But in this area, if we are capping and block granting and sending it back to the States, there would be no ability to be able to do that.

The other thing that I think is absolutely true for many of our States--and certainly, unfortunately, I regret to say, in my own State right now; it is a fact--is that by block granting and not requiring that the dollars be used for food assistance for families, there is no guarantee it will go to food assistance. None. When we look at the pressures on budgets and other areas for critical needs or things people feel are important, we have absolutely no guarantee that this would go to food for families.

We have a very efficient program right now. It has one of the best error rates of any Federal program right now--maybe the lowest--and we are able to efficiently support families and do it in a way that guarantees they actually get the nutritious food they need.

I am deeply concerned about the amendment. I do not support it. I think it takes us in exactly the wrong direction as a country. It leaves a whole lot of families high and dry in an economic disaster, or any kind of disaster that could occur for them. At their most vulnerable point, when they are trying to figure out what to do to get back on their feet, we create a situation where they don't even have enough food for their families to be able to feed them during their economic crisis.

I strongly urge colleagues to vote no on the amendment.

I would be happy to.

First, to my friend from Oklahoma, I would say the budget office has indicated it will not only not go up another 100 percent, it is going down. So they have projected about an $11.5 billion reduction which we have put into our farm bill. It is going down because the economy is getting better.

We know that with food assistance, as the unemployment rate goes up, one of the lagging indicators, the things that aren't affected as quickly in coming down, is food assistance for families. So it is now coming down. In my judgment, it is coming down the way it should come down, which is the fact that people are going back to work; that is why it is coming down.

Again, to arbitrarily cap something as basic as food going on the table for a family is something that I, with all due respect, can't support.

Here is what we are finding--and it is not my belief, it is the CBO scoring. The Congressional Budget Office, which we rely on, provides objective scoring--not my judgment--and it is telling us it is going down. The Senator is correct that it is slow to go down. As unemployment goes down, it takes a little longer before food help goes down, because we provide some help to people as they are getting back to work even if they are not at full speed back to work. So it does go down more slowly, but they have adjusted it over the next 10 years showing that, in fact, the spending on food assistance is going down because the economy is getting better. That comes from the CBO and is built into the dollars we have in the bill.

What I find objectionable is so many people lost their jobs. The reason it went up is because people were out of work. So I find that objectionable because a lot of those folks were in my State.

I have worked very hard to do everything I can to support the private sector, and the good news is that manufacturing is coming back and agriculture is strong and moving forward. So in my judgment, yes, I find it very concerning that more people needed help putting food on their table. The good news is that less of them are going to in the next decade, and that is because people are going to be getting back to work.

I believe our time has expired. I don't know if we have others who wish to speak at this point.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be considered and agreed to: Franken amendment No. 992 and Vitter amendment No. 1056.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Shaheen, I called up her amendment No. 925.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, for the information of Members, we are working to set up a vote later this afternoon on this particular amendment. I am working with Senator Cochran and his Republican colleagues in order to set up that vote.

Mr. President, as we continue debate on the Agricultural Reform, Food and Jobs Act, I want to remind my colleagues how important this bill is for our economy and for the 16 million people whose jobs rely on agriculture. When we go home at night and sit down at the dinner table, it is because those 16 million people have worked hard to make sure we had safe, affordable food on the table. They are the men and women who farmed the land. They are also the people who manufacture and sell the farm equipment, the people who ship the crops from one place to another, the people who own the farmers markets and the local food hubs, the people who work in processing and crop fertility, not to mention the researchers and the scientists who work hard every day to fight pests and diseases that threaten our food supply.

I want to talk specifically for a few moments about the work we are doing in the conservation title of the farm bill. Our farm bill improves 1.9 million acres for fish and wildlife habitat. This is about jobs as well. Healthy wildlife habitats, clean fishable waters, are not only good for our environment, but they also support hunting, fishing, and all of our other outdoor recreation that benefits our economy and creates jobs. In fact, outdoor recreation supports over 6 million jobs in our United States.

In this farm bill we are including a new historic agreement around conservation--the most powerful conservation work in decades. It is truly amazing what can happen when people actually sit down and listen to one another and work together. If farmers want to participate in title I commodity programs, including the current Direct Payments Program, they must take steps to use best conservation practices on their land when it comes to highly eroded soil and wetlands. This has been the case for many years.

Of course, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act we are debating now eliminates those subsidies.

Instead, we are strengthening crop insurance, which farmers need to purchase, and we are making market-oriented reforms to the commodity programs. But here is the issue: If we eliminate direct payment subsidies, we don't want to create unintended consequences by not having that link any longer. It is important for all of us that sensitive lands be managed in the best possible way. That is how we avoided having a dust bowl during the droughts. It is important for us to continue protecting wetlands, which help prevent flooding and are important to wildlife habitats for ducks and other waterfowl.

Commodity groups and conservation groups were on different sides of this issue for a long time. They looked at the issue from vastly different viewpoints, and they didn't agree on the best approach. They could have followed the very typical Washington playbook. They could have gone to their corners, fired off e-mails and press releases, brought the lobbyists in and demonized each other. But that is not what happened.

Like farmers and families across the country, they sat down together around a table and did something we don't do enough. They listened to each other. They listened and tried to see the other's viewpoint and they came to understand one another. It turned out their differences weren't so great after all. With a little compromise and a lot of hard work these groups were able to come together with a plan that conserves soil and water resources for generations to come and protects the safety net on which our farmers rely.

This has been called the greatest advancement in conservation in three decades. I want to underscore for my colleagues that this is an important historic agreement, and others deserve credit. As much as I certainly would like to take credit for this, or I am sure Senator Cochran would--and we certainly were very supportive in encouraging this--the agreement came about from a group of people working together.

I know a number of my colleagues are planning to talk about amendments on crop insurance. Some have already been on the floor talking about amendments. I know a number of colleagues voted for some of those amendments the last time around, but this conservation agreement puts us in a very different situation this year. For one thing, we want to make sure the biggest landowners who control the most acres are using crop insurance.

Crop insurance is voluntary. Prior to crop insurance, there were subsidies and then ad hoc disaster assistance. Now we are encouraging them to purchase crop insurance, and we want them to have it, which means now they would need to use conservation practices to preserve sensitive lands and wetlands on those largest tracts as well as small tracts.

So amendments that weaken crop insurance would reduce the number of farmers participating in crop insurance, raising premiums for family farmers and reducing the environmental impact and the environmental benefits of this historic conservation agreement. With this new agreement, the math is very simple: The more acres that are in crop insurance, the more we have environmental and conservation benefits.

My dear friend from Illinois came to the floor a while ago and said: The majority of crop insurance is with a small number of farmers. Well, that is true. The larger the farm, the more one would use crop insurance. It is just like saying anybody who buys insurance for a bigger home has more insurance than the smaller home. Bigger businesses--manufacturers--probably buy the biggest part of insurance rather than small businesses. I am not sure what the point is of saying that. Of course, we have large farmers buying more crop insurance than small farmers. We want to make sure we have the environmental and conservation benefits on those large farms just as on smaller farms.

Here is another reason my colleagues should reevaluate these amendments, and I would encourage, as they come before us, that we vote no. This chart shows the counties that were declared disaster areas last year. An awful lot of red. And 2012 was one of the worst droughts on record ever in the United States.

In the past, in situations such as this we would have passed ad hoc disaster assistance for the corn growers, the wheat growers, the soybean growers, and the other crop farmers. But we didn't have to do that because crop insurance works.

Crop insurance is not a subsidy. When people have crop insurance they get a bill to pay. We share in that cost to make sure there is a discount so they can afford the bill, but they get a bill. They do not get a check. The only farmers last year who needed disaster assistance were the ones who can't participate in crop insurance, which we fix in this farm bill.

We address permanent livestock disaster assistance. They do not have access to the same crop insurance. We address farmers, such as my cherry growers, who were wiped out when it got warm in the spring and then froze again and completely wiped out the cherries. They do not have crop insurance now. They need some extra help. In this farm bill we are giving them access to crop insurance, which is the primary risk management tool for farmers.

Producers purchase crop insurance so they are protected when there is a disaster, but if we weaken crop insurance, resulting in premium hikes of as much as 40 percent on small farmers, we are going to be going back to the days of ad hoc disaster assistance, something we cannot afford in today's tight budget climate.

Finally, we need to keep this historic agreement in place through the conference committee. We owe that to the folks who sat down and worked out this agreement. So I ask colleagues to stand with the 34 different organizations that came together--and I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the groups in the coalition that put this together.

Mr. President, we need to make sure our colleagues in the House, as well as in the Senate, stand with all of these groups who worked hard to compromise and forge this very historic constructive agreement. If we want to preserve conservation wins we have in this farm bill, we

need to support the farmers, the environmentalists, and the conservationists who have made it very clear this agreement is something they stand behind. We should not be weakening crop insurance or making it harder for large producers, who have the majority of the land we want to conserve, to have less of an incentive to participate in the program.

Let me just say--and I know my colleague from Vermont is here to speak as well--that I want to thank again the 34 organizations-- everyone from the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, National Cotton Council-- and right on down the line--the National Farmers Union, Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and USA Rice Federation.

This is an incredible coalition, and it speaks very loudly both to the fact we need to keep in place the No. 1 risk management tool for our growers but that we need to also make sure they are providing the conservation practices to protect our soil and our water which is so critical for the future--for our children and grandchildren.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, the Senate begin consideration of S. Res. 65 at 3:45

p.m.; that there be 50 minutes for debate, that the Republicans control 30 minutes and the majority control 20 minutes, and that of the majority's time, Senator Menendez control 15 minutes and Senator Blumenthal control 5 minutes; that all other provisions under the previous order remain in effect; and that upon disposition of S. Res. 65 the Senate resume consideration of S. 954; that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form and the Senate immediately proceed to vote in relation to the Shaheen amendment No. 925; and that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. As a result of this agreement, if all time is used, at approximately 4:35 p.m. there will be two rollcall votes, the first on adoption of S. Res. 65, the Iran sanctions resolution, and then in relation to the Shaheen amendment on the Sugar Program.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I came here today first of all to talk about the farm bill. I am a member of the Agriculture Committee. We are very proud of this bill. It is a strong bill. As Senator Chambliss just pointed

out, it enjoys broad bipartisan support. Of particular importance to the State of Minnesota is the safety net that is in the bill; the focus on ag research, which the Presiding Officer from the State of Wisconsin, with her great universities, knows is very important; and the work we have done with dairy in trying to improve the dairy program.

The dairy farmers have been the hardest hit in our State of any of the agricultural groups. I have done some new things for new and beginning farmers.

Then, of course, there is the Sugar Program--something that has been a topic today, as some of our colleagues are trying to strip the Sugar Program out of the bill. I would argue that this is 30,000 jobs in the Red River Valley of Minnesota and North Dakota. American sugar is actually much less expensive than you see in the price on the global marketplace. The Sugar Program works. It works for workers, it works for America, and we need to continue it.

The Budget

I would like to turn to the focus of my remarks today, which is, first of all, on the budget. I thank Senator Murray for her leadership on the Budget Committee and for all her hard work in advancing a smart, balanced budget to meet our country's fiscal challenges.

This is not the first time I have come to the Senate floor in the last year or in the last several years to stress the critical need for Democrats and Republicans to come together and focus on smart solutions to reducing our debt. I think it is a good sign that both the House and the Senate have passed budgets and that the President introduced his budget last month.

I see this time as a real opportunity to come together to work through this budget process and get a deal done. That is why we must take the next step in the process, which is to move forward under regular order and have the House and Senate conference on a budget deal.

For years we have been hearing from our colleagues across the aisle about how the Senate did not have a budget. Well, the Senate passed a budget, and all we want to do is to move this into conference committee so that the House and the Senate can work together so that we can get a budget for this country.

There is growing bipartisan support for going to conference and starting the conversation so that we can come to an agreement on a long-term budget. Last night Senators McCain and Collins came to the floor and talked about how we need to return to regular order in the Senate, and regular order means going to conference to come to a budget deal.

Doing so will allow us to stop lurching from crisis to crisis and address our fiscal challenges in an open, bipartisan way. I believe this is what folks outside of Washington, especially the people I talk to in Minnesota, want; for us to put politics aside for the good of the country and come together on a budget deal that reduces our deficit in a balanced way but also lays a foundation for sustained economic growth.

In the past 2 years Congress has made some progress in reducing the deficit. We have already achieved $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, with a goal of a $4 trillion reduction in 10 years within our grasp. Last week the Congressional Budget Office reported that deficit will fall to $642 billion this year, $200 billion less than what the CBO projected just 3 months ago. The better numbers reflect good news in housing and larger than expected increases in tax revenue.

But I believe that resting on those numbers would be a mistake. If we are to get closer to reaching a new deficit agreement, it is only going to happen if we work in a bipartisan way through regular order to get a deal done. Along with addressing our fiscal challenges, working through the budget process and coming to agreement will create a stronger, more resilient framework for economic renewal.

We certainly see how we got a major bill done through the Judiciary Committee last night when we were able to get the immigration bill done. There is no reason a conference committee should not be at work right now taking the Senate budget that we have heard for years needs to be done and paring it up with the House budget and coming together. In the bigger picture, this presents an opportunity for us to reinforce our role as a world leader in innovation, entrepreneurship, exporting, education; in other words, that which we have always taken pride in. We want to be a nation that produces, that invents, that exports to the world. Part of that is showing the world we have our fiscal house in order.

I believe the Senate proposal is the right blueprint for moving us forward. On the most immediate front, it will allow us to build on the progress we are already seeing in the economy. Last month, the national unemployment rate dropped to 7.5 percent, the lowest level in 4 years. Our housing market is turning around. Consumer spending has picked up in the first months of the year as has private business investment. The unemployment rate in my State of Minnesota is at 5.4 percent.

But even with this progress, our economy remains vulnerable to headwinds. We should keep this good economic momentum going but only if we are willing to find common ground on a budget plan that also moves our economy forward.

We need to take a balanced approach to deficit reduction. You do not have to take my word for it. Nearly every commission that has offered ideas for reducing our debt has stressed the importance of balance. This includes the original Bowles-Simpson plan, the Rivlin-Domenici plan, and even the revised Bowles-Simpson plan, which calls for another $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, one-quarter of which would come from new revenue totaling $600 billion.

We do not just need a balanced budget; we need a budget that is in balance. I believe the Senate's budget achieves that goal. It includes an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue from closing loopholes and ending wasteful spending in the Tax Code. Our budget builds on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction we have already achieved in the last 2 years, with an additional $975 billion in targeted cuts and $975 billion in new revenue, surpassing the bipartisan goal of $4 trillion.

Just this morning I was at the Joint Economic Committee--I am the Senate chair of that committee--where Chairman Bernanke testified. He warned us about the negative impact--that cuts solely focused in the short term can negatively impact economic growth. He noted that policies such as sequestration are creating headwinds against short- term economic growth and that Congress needs to take a broader, long- term view toward our debt and deficit.

That is what this conference committee is about. That is what regular order is about. We have a Senate budget. We have a House budget. We have that opportunity to bring those budgets together in a conference committee. Some of the most important points in the Senate budget include the fact that it replaces the sequester with smart targeted cuts while also making critical investment in areas such as education, workforce training, and infrastructure.

It produces savings in Medicare and Medicaid by eliminating waste and fraud, promoting efficiency, and emphasizing cost alignment. Our budget also recognizes there is a massive amount of spending that takes place through the Tax Code, to the tune of over $1 trillion per year in tax expenditures. The Senate budget eliminates wasteful tax loopholes and subsidies.

All told, the Senate budget cuts the deficit by approximately $2 trillion. This continues us on a downward path where our debt-to-GDP ratio will be about 70 percent by 2023. Getting the Federal budget on a sustainable path will only promote growth and stability. The American people want us to get this done. They want us to compromise. They want us to work together to get the economy on the right track.

I urge my colleagues to support moving to conference so we can begin the work of finding solutions to a very important matter.

Gas Prices

I wish to speak briefly on one other topic that is an important economic issue for families and businesses in Minnesota; that is, the recent spike in gas prices. We do have some good things in the farm bill that will help us, including the promotion of energy and biofuels, but I came to discuss the recent spike in gas prices in Minnesota,

a problem that is disrupting commerce and hurting consumers, small businesses, and farmers across the State and throughout our region.

In Minnesota, the average gas price is $4.25, 40 cents higher than 1 week ago and over 80 cents more than only 1 month ago. In fact, a few days ago it was the highest in the country, higher than Honolulu. It happened all of a sudden, in literally a 2-week period. That is a significant increase which puts family budgets under severe pressure.

I am focused on immediate relief. I am taking actions now so we can avoid similar gas price spikes in the future. With Memorial Day around the corner and the start of the summer driving season upon us, this kind of price spike is simply outrageous. To cut back on costs, some families are already putting off family trips and scaling back vacations. I have already heard from families who have canceled or scaled back their plans.

But there are some things people cannot put off, such as driving to work, such as going to the doctor's office. More money to fill the tank means less money for food, housing, and everything else families need. Families in Minnesota cannot afford an 80-cent spike in the price of a gallon of gas, neither can business owners who need to ship their goods to market or farmers who rely on diesel fuel to keep their equipment running.

We know what is causing the price increase--supply shortages resulting from the simultaneous closing of several oil refineries in the Midwest. We also know what is not causing the price increase. The price of crude oil has not moved. We are about $96 a barrel, similar to where prices were 1 month ago. In fact, the national trend in gas prices, which tracks the price of crude, has not moved much either. OPEC has not been jacking up their prices. We did not have a hurricane or even a blizzard that would affect supplies or prices. The increase has not been caused by a pipeline rupture or geopolitical threats.

Rather, the price spike has resulted largely from the combination of a number of refineries going offline for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance which serve the upper Midwest to prepare for the summer fuel blend. I understand that refineries need to adjust their blends and occasionally perform upgrades to protect worker safety and repair equipment.

But scheduled routine maintenance should not be an excuse for major gasoline shortages and price spikes. Three refineries in Indiana, Illinois, and Flint Hills, MN, currently are shut down for maintenance or upgrade. A fourth refinery in Wisconsin is currently offline as they turn their productions over to summer fuel blend. A fifth refinery in St. Paul Park, MN, remained down longer than expected, but I understand that refinery is again operational.

The result of all these closures is Minnesota and other parts of the Upper Midwest simply did not have enough refined gasoline to make it to the market right now. In this day when we have a surplus of fuel, when we are drilling record amounts in North Dakota, when we do not see a huge increase in the price of oil, this just should not be happening. That is why last Thursday I called on the Department of Energy to thoroughly review the timing of scheduled maintenance operations and to take action to address future supply problems that are preventable. I have also spoken with the Department of Energy about ways to resolve the issue quickly and prevent disruptions down the road. I am working with DOE and industry partners on legislation that addresses known scheduled closures of refineries for maintenance.

Having improved information could serve as an early warning system to protect consumers from production problems within the refinery industry. With more transparency and more lead time, fuel retailers will have the opportunity to purchase fuel at prices that better reflect the underlying cost of crude oil and better reflect supply and demand across the country.

I also believe refineries should give immediate notification of any unplanned outages. I am working to address this as well. I am also working with the Secretary of Energy to look at the potential for additional refined fuel storage capacity in our region. Minnesota has less storage capacity for refined products than other parts of the country, making us more vulnerable to the kinds of refinery outages we have experienced this year, both planned and unplanned.

If we had additional storage in place, we could better ensure fair and consistent prices for our consumers. This week I talked to all of the major oil companies that own these refineries. It looks as though additional shipments from another pipeline are helping to increase supplies. This should provide some relief.

Petroleum markets in Minnesota have reported the spot prices in the wholesale markets were down by 30 cents, but that drop has not yet reached our consumers. I believe we need an all-of-the-above plan to get serious about building a new energy agenda for America. This, of course, means less dependence on foreign oil, more domestic production of oil as we are seeing in North Dakota, natural gas, and, of course, biofuels. It also means tougher vehicle efficiency standards that help cars to go farther on a tank of gas.

But my focus is on our immediate problem. We need to get refineries up and running and get gas prices down so we can all we begin to enjoy this summer. I look forward to continuing to work with the Department of Energy and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address the recent and unnecessary spike in gas prices and prevent this from happening again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating Senators Stabenow and Cochran for their hard work on this very important piece of legislation, especially for rural States such as Vermont, but I guess for everybody who eats, which is the majority of the people in our country, I would imagine.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about some important amendments I am offering. I think one of them--the amendment I will talk about first--will be coming up for a vote either later tonight or tomorrow, and that deals with the right of States to label genetically engineered food. That is amendment No. 965.

This year, the Vermont State House of Representatives passed a bill by a vote of 99 to 42 requiring that genetically engineered food be labeled. I can tell you with absolute certainty the people of Vermont want to know what is in their food and are extremely supportive of what the State legislature has done. But this is an issue certainly not just limited to Vermont.

Yesterday, as I understand it, the Connecticut State Senate, by an overwhelming vote of 35 to 1, also passed legislation to require labeling of genetically engineered food. In California, our largest State, where the issue was on the ballot last November, 47 percent of the people there voted for labeling, despite the biotech industry spending over $47 million in a campaign in opposition to that proposition. That is an enormous sum of money, and yet 47 percent of the people voted for labeling of GMOs.

In the State of Washington, some 350,000 people signed a petition in support of initiative 522 to label genetically engineered foods in that State. In fact, according to a recent poll done earlier this year, approximately 82 percent of the American people believe labeling should take place with regard to genetically engineered ingredients.

All over this country people are increasingly concerned about the quality of the food they are ingesting and the food they are giving to their kids. People want to know what is in their food, and I believe that is a very reasonable request.

What I am proposing today--the amendment I am offering--is certainly not a radical concept. In fact, the requirement of labeling genetically modified food exists today in dozens and dozens of countries throughout the world, including our closest allies in the European Union, including Russia, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, China, New Zealand, and other countries. So this is not some kind of new and crazy idea. In fact, it exists all over the world.

At a time when many of my colleagues express their strong conviction about States rights and that States should be allowed to have increased responsibilities, this amendment should be supported by those people who, in fact, believe in States rights. The reason for that is when the State of Vermont and other States go forward in passing legislation to label genetically modified food, they have been threatened by Monsanto and other large biotech companies with costly lawsuits. So States are going forward, doing what they think is proper for their own people, and then Monsanto and other very large biotech companies are coming forward and saying: We are going to sue you.

Now, Monsanto is arguing, as one of the major grounds for their lawsuit--which I believe is absolutely incorrect--that States do not have the right to pass legislation such as this; that it is, in fact, a Federal prerogative and not something a State can legally do.

I believe very strongly that Monsanto is wrong, but that is precisely what this amendment clarifies.

Today we have an opportunity with this amendment to affirm once and for all that States do have the right to label food that contains genetically engineered ingredients.

Let me briefly tell you what is in this amendment. This amendment finds that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly reserves powers in the system of federalism to the States or to the people. This amendment finds that States have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetically engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.

Furthermore, this amendment requires that 1 year after the enactment of this act, the Commissioner of the FDA and the Secretary of Agriculture shall undertake the necessary regulations to carry out this amendment.

There is strong precedent for labeling GMOs. The FDA already required the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients and additives. If you want to know if your food contained gluten, aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, trans fats or MSG, you simply read the ingredient label. Millions of people every day look at labels: How many calories are there in the food? What are the ingredients in the food? This simply does what we have been doing as a nation for many years, only right now Americans are not afforded the same right for GE foods.

Monsanto and other companies claim there is nothing to be concerned about with genetically engineered food. Yet FDA scientists and doctors have warned us that GE foods could have new and different risks, such as hidden allergens, increased plant toxin levels, and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease.

This is a pretty simple amendment. It basically says the American people have a right to know what they are eating. This is legislation I know the people of Vermont, I gather the people of Connecticut, and I think people all over this country would like to see agreed to. I ask for its support.

There are a couple of other amendments I would like to briefly discuss, having to do with SNAP. One of them deals with the need for seniors to be better able to access SNAP. It is no secret that in our country today, millions of seniors are struggling to get by on limited incomes. The result of that is that after they pay their prescription drug costs or their rent or their utilities, they do not have enough money to spend on food. It is estimated that some 1 million seniors are going hungry in the United States of America. That is something we should be embarrassed about and an issue we should address as soon as possible.

Clearly, the toll that inadequate nutrition has for seniors impacts their overall health. My strong guess is that this amendment will end up saving us money because when seniors get good nutrition, they are less likely to fall, break their hips, end up in the emergency room, end up in the hospital.

I think from a moral perspective, from a cost perspective, we want to make sure all seniors in this country, regardless of their income, have the nutrition they need.

SNAP plays a crucial role in our country in reducing hunger. In 2011, SNAP raised nearly 5 million people out of poverty. But here is the main point I wish to make: Only 35 percent of eligible individuals over age 60 participated in SNAP in 2010. In other words, there are many seniors out there who could benefit from SNAP but for a variety of reasons, one of which I am addressing right now, they do not participate.

As you may well know, the SNAP application process can be confusing and cumbersome for many households, especially for seniors. Individuals apply

for SNAP sometimes by visiting an application center, which is a challenge for people with mobility issues. If you are a senior and not able to get out of your home, if you cannot afford transportation, getting to that center can be very difficult.

It is also challenging when dealing with an application over the telephone if you are hard of hearing--which clearly many seniors are. At the same time, the complicated interview process costs local, State, tribal, and Federal governments additional administrative dollars.

The SNAP amendment I am offering is pretty simple. It will help alleviate hunger by allowing seniors to more easily apply for and access SNAP benefits in order to reduce barriers for seniors applying for SNAP.

This amendment proposes to do the following. It allows States to deputize, which in this case means to certify nonprofit organizations and area agencies on aging that are meeting with seniors directly and helping them with their SNAP application to conduct the interview on behalf of the State. The State agency would still determine eligibility.

Further, States would have the flexibility to deputize only the agencies that have the capacity to fulfill the State's interview requirements on their behalf. This amendment does not waive any documentation requirements or ease any other requirements. Eligibility for the benefits must still be verified. What it does do is reduce duplication of effort and ease the burden on vulnerable families and seniors for whom it is a challenge to travel to a State office or wait for days at a friend's house who has a phone to make a call.

All this is doing is saying: If we want to make sure seniors stay healthy, get the nutrition they need, stay out of the emergency room, stay out of the hospital, let us make it easier for them to take advantage of the programs that are currently available. In this case, the SNAP eligibility process for seniors is pretty complicated and sometimes people who want to be in the program simply are unable to do that. I hope we could have support for that amendment.

The other SNAP amendment deals with an equally important issue of people who are wrongfully dropped from the SNAP, often due to an administrative error. The current system is inefficient. We are spending government money that should be going to help people buy food and instead we are spending it on paperwork and bureaucracy. Improvements I am proposing will help alleviate hunger as fewer people will go without the benefits they need, and State and Federal resources will be used more effectively.

My amendment requires the USDA to track information from States on the problem of churn. That is the term used when eligible people are dropped from the program and then must reapply. The USDA and advocacy groups have identified children as a key problem in the administration of SNAP benefits. Having people reapply who never should have been dropped from the benefit in the first place adds to the caseload burden.

Tracking the information is only a first step. Then we must find solutions to reduce the problem so people do not lose their benefits, whether that be improved training, clearer forms and notices or simpler recertification processes. These improvements will reduce hunger by making sure people get the benefits for which they are eligible and which they so desperately need.

The last issue I briefly wish to touch on deals with the need for the USDA to help us understand, through a study, the impact that global warming is having on agriculture. We all know we are looking at record- setting droughts in Australia, Brazil, and locations in America. U.S. cities matched or broke at least 29,000 high-temperature records last year. Ice-free Arctic summers will be with us within a couple of years. That is the reality of the moment.

The impact of global warming clearly will be felt far and wide, but farmers across the country are among those who will suffer the most. Warmer temperatures, water shortages and droughts and other extreme weather disturbances will force producers to alter practices, change crops, and spend more money to sustain their operations.

This amendment simply asks the USDA to do a study to provide us with a better understanding of how changing climate will impact agriculture across the country and help farmers plan and adapt to those changes. It will help local communities and States make critical adjustments now, and it will reduce the vulnerability of the entire agriculture sector to the damaging consequences of climate change.

We think this is an important amendment. State farmers need to have the information about what scientists believe will be happening, the work they are doing for years to come. I ask for support for that amendment.

In the past we have successfully offered an amendment on community gardens. In Vermont, now schools, communities are working on gardens all over the State. We had a national program passed last year as well. This would simply expand that program to allow schools and communities to engage with limited help from the Federal Government in community gardens, teaching kids about the foods they are eating and about agriculture. It is a very inexpensive concept, which has been working very successfully and I think needs to be expanded.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss a very important topic and one that itself is coming to the Senate floor soon. That is the problem of illegal immigration and proposals for so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Specifically, of course, the Gang of 8 bill, as it has been dubbed, is being reported out of the Judiciary Committee. We will be debating that bill, and hopefully a lot of important amendments to it soon, in June, on the floor.

Let me say at the outset, I think there are at least a couple of things we can all agree on. No. 1, I think we can all agree that the United States is an immigrant nation with a proud history of immigration--legal immigration. It is absolutely one of the core features of our Nation that makes us unique and that makes us strong. So I wish to say that upfront, very proudly, very strongly. I support that tradition, that history of being an immigrant nation. All of us are the children of immigrants--not a question of if, it is just a question of when, because that is the nature of America. That goes to the core of our strength.

No. 2, the other thing I think we can all agree with is our present immigration system is broken. In fact, it is badly broken, and we need to fix the system.

As I said a minute ago, we have a proud history of immigration, legal immigration. That is the tradition, the history we need to get back to. Unfortunately, right now we have a system of wide open illegal immigration, almost open borders in some cases and some areas, and that desperately needs to be fixed.

Having said that, I have real and fundamental concerns with the so- called Gang of 8 bill, and they fall into five or six big categories. I want to talk about each of those important categories in turn.

First and foremost, my biggest and my most fundamental concern, I think the so-called Gang of 8 bill repeats mistakes of the past because, at its core, it is amnesty now, enforcement later, and maybe never. We have tried that model before. We have tried it several times before, and it has never worked.

The most clear example is the 1986 immigration overhaul. That bill, at its core, was the same model, amnesty now and enforcement later, and maybe never. In fact, much of that enforcement was never. That is why it didn't work. The amnesty kicked in immediately, the millisecond the bill was signed into law. That was a powerful message to invite more and more illegal crossings across the border, more and more illegal immigrants into the country. That part of the bill, that part of the message, was heard loudly and clearly. The promises of enforcement never fully materialized. Many of them never materialized at all.

What happened when you had that combination of immediate amnesty with promises of enforcement that never materialized? Again, you attracted more illegal crossings, and you had no capability or will to do anything about them.

The promise then was we are going to have to do this once; the system will be fixed; we will never have to look back. We will never have to look in the rearview mirror. The problem will be solved.

What happened? Well, we all know the problem wasn't solved. In fact, the problem simply wasn't continued, the problem was quadrupled. What were 3 million illegal immigrants then were mostly made legal. But that number 3 million quadrupled, and now today we have 11, 12 million illegal immigrants, some think more.

That, at its core, is the Gang of 8 bill, and immediate amnesty, promises of enforcement. That is not good enough, particularly when we have decades--decades--the Federal Government, Republicans and Democrats, who have promised us before and have never ever delivered. The American people say we will trust but we want to verify. Trust but verify. We need to see this enforcement in action before we move on to anything else.

In fact, in some ways this Gang of 8 bill is worse in terms of that basic

model than previous versions such as 1986. If you look at page 70 of the bill, it actually has a period of an enforcement holiday, so 2\1/2\ years of a pure enforcement holiday. Not only is this amnesty now and enforcement later, it may never apply to folks who are in the country illegally now. They can keep coming. The message will be sent out, and they can come the day after the bill passes, the week after the bill passes, the year after the bill passes, 2 years after the bill passes, and it is part of the same amnesty. They would get the benefits of that amnesty as well. That enforcement holiday, 2\1/2\ years, makes that combination of a big amnesty now, with promises of an enforcement later, even more potentially disastrous.

The second big problem I have with the bill as it is currently put together is it doesn't enforce the law, and it doesn't enforce the border, particularly the troublesome southern border with Mexico. It doesn't enforce other enforcement provisions. It doesn't actually guarantee that those are put into place and executed in an effective way.

The proponents of the bill talk about so-called triggers in the bill before the amnesty, before the new legal status is granted. When you look hard at what the triggers are, they are triggers on a toy plastic gun, not real triggers in any meaningful sense of the term. The triggers basically narrow down to two things. First of all, the Secretary has to submit two reports, two plans. The Secretary of Homeland Security has to submit plans or reports, a so-called comprehensive ``southern border security strategy,'' so she has to submit a strategy. Great. This was promised for three decades but now she has to submit a strategy, a piece of paper and a southern border fencing strategy, so that is one trigger.

The other triggers are certification that the border strategy is ``substantially deployed'' and ``substantially operational.''

What is the problem with that? Two things. Who the heck knows what ``substantially deployed'' means and, No. 2, even more troublesome, do you know who has to certify that? The Secretary of Homeland Security, who has not been effective at enforcement to date in any way, shape, or form. Those so-called triggers are absolutely meaningless.

The bill doesn't require a fence, as is actually required under present law, so we are weakening that. We are walking away from that. It weakens current law regarding border security. Operational control is the standard now, and that is being weakened, changed to effective control. It doesn't require a biometric data system for entry and exit screening. That has been pushed by Congress since 1996. Congress started mandating this in 1996, and it was one of the prime recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, full deployment of the US-VISIT system. The 9/11 Commission said that needs to be a high priority. That is exactly how the 9/11 terrorists got into our country and overstayed their visas. It doesn't do any of that. Again, there is an enforcement holiday for 2\1/2\ years and no border security now before the amnesty kicks in.

No. 3, I am very concerned that we will continue the present status quo, which is significant benefits being available to these immigrants, which act as a magnet to incent other illegal immigrants to come into the country. The so-called Gang of 8 made all sorts of promises about certain promises not kicking in until full citizenship is granted down the road. Many benefits would kick in immediately, certainly participation in the Social Security system, certainly all those Social Security benefits, and their loopholes about these benefits. I think many illegal immigrants will clearly gain access to public benefits far sooner than any 13 years as advertised. That is another serious weakness of the bill.

Fourth, I am very concerned about the cost of this bill. Authors of this bill have been very clever. They saw that cost issue coming, and they devised the bill so the big costs of the bill are outside the 10- year budget window. Why is that important? Well, not to get into the weeds, but it is very important because CBO scores legislation primarily on its impact on taxes and spending in the first 10 years. The authors of the bill were very careful, very clever in devising a bill that would look OK in the first 10 years with regard to cost. After that first 10-year window, the costs explode and none of that will be reflected by this CBO score.

We have seen this movie before, because this is exactly the same approach to CBO scoring and costs of legislation, exactly the same approach the proponents of ObamaCare put forward. They were very clever to push many of the costs in the outyears beyond the first initial scoring window, and that is why they were able to wave CBO scores around to somehow suggest this would help lessen the deficit. It is perfectly clear now, ObamaCare is not going to make our fiscal situation better, it is going to make it far worse and far more onerous.

I believe exactly the same thing is true with this bill in terms of the costs, and I believe the proponents of the bill, quite frankly, have gamed the system in the same way to hide those costs, given the way CBO scores legislation.

In contrast to that, there is an objective study of the full costs of the bill, and that is a study by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. He went into extreme detail tracking the full costs and fiscal benefits of the bill. His conclusion was that the full costs of the bill are $6.3 trillion over the full life and the full impact of the bill, $6.3 trillion, with a T. He concluded that the bill, because of all the folks it would legalize, would kick in $9.4 trillion in benefits. There are more government benefits we are going to have to pay out, $9.4 trillion.

These folks being legalized would pay some taxes into the system, which they do not pay now, and that would be $3.1 trillion. When you subtract 3.1 from 9.4, that obviously doesn't net out to zero. That is a net increase in the deficit, increased cost to the government, to society, to the taxpayer, of $6.3 trillion net. That is a serious impact on these budget and fiscal issues we are already very concerned about.

The Robert Rector study is very credible, it is very detailed. I have seen no comparable study in terms of the detail of the analysis. I would challenge anyone who cares about this issue, wherever they are coming from, to put up any other study that can compete with the Rector study in terms of detail and analysis. I think currently that is the last and final word on costs of the bill.

Two final points. A fifth big concern I have about the bill is I believe this bill is very unfair to legal immigrants and folks who are waiting in line in the legal immigration system now. It puts some people--not everybody who would be made legal, but some people--ahead of them in line and dishonors the fact that these would-be legal immigrants are following the rules now and following the law now.

Sixth and finally--and this is no trivial matter--I am very concerned that this would depress wages in the United States for many hard- working Americans, legal immigrants, others who have followed the law who are working hard in a very tough economy now. I think it would depress the general wage situation and make that more difficult for them to deal with.

In closing, I urge all my colleagues to look carefully at these and other concerns and try to address them fully, directly, completely, on the Senate floor.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.