Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in advocacy for each of my colleagues to come to the floor this afternoon and vote in support of Senate Resolution 65. This vital resolution makes a clear statement to Iran--both to the current regime and to Iranian citizens who wish for real and true change from the status quo--that the United States will not tolerate its development of a nuclear weapon. Additionally, Senate Resolution 65 expresses the United States' unconditional support for Israel's right to self-defense against the threat of a nuclear Iran.

These vital statements come at a time when change could happen with Iran's elections next month. But unfortunately, there is little reason to believe things will change. According to the State Department, Iran remains the most active state sponsor of terrorism. This is a statistic that must be addressed. Iran's continual material and financial support to Hezbollah and Hamas, expanding involvement in Syria, and serial deception of its nuclear program are unlikely to be different a month from now; a year from now; perhaps, a decade from now. Especially as Iran continues to reject the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency's, IAEA, regulatory authority and oversight, the United States must reiterate the plain and simple fact that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.

When looking at the bigger picture, the recent terrorist attacks and killings in Boston and Benghazi remind all Americans that our war on terrorism continues. Even as troop numbers dwindle in Afghanistan, this fight and its core focus are far from over. We must continue to combat the terrorist threat around the world and strengthen our allied relationships as this fight continues. Iran's funneling of weapons and aid to terrorist cells increases their threat beyond the neighborhood. Iran is not only a threat to Israel but to the United States as well. Senate Resolution 65 reminds us of this fact and of the long and important strategic relationship our nations have shared, one which has been built of mutual trust and strengthened through security cooperation.

I strongly support the United States' determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I strongly support this resolution as it makes our determination unequivocal. All options are on the table.

To avoid our option of last resort, armed conflict, it is important that this Congress continue to push for full implementation of sanctions against the current regime in Iran to cripple their ability to acquire a nuclear weapon. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in advocating for this--not only this administration, but for the European Union and democracies around the world to strengthen their sanctions on this rogue regime, as Iran's beliefs, rhetoric, and actions threaten every nation who calls for democracy and freedom.

Of greatest importance, this resolution makes it crystal clear that the United States stands firmly behind Israel and her right to self- defense by pledging full support should Israel take military action against the threat of Iran's nuclear program. This is not an authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war. However, it sends the right message to Iran and the rest of the world. The United States stands strong behind our allies. Even in this time of necessary financial restraint, the United States will never leave an ally to fight alone.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 948.

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

Mr. President, this is Roberts amendment No. 948. This amendment would help rein in the largest expenditure within the Department of Agriculture budget--the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, more commonly known as food stamps.

The Senate Agriculture Committee included minimal savings under food stamps--around $4 billion over the 10-year budget window. I know people have different views, but I would say that it is certainly minimal. I think we could have done more in committee last week. I introduced an amendment at that time. I withdrew it to make sure we could get this to the floor. We must do much more in a responsible manner. Look at the House Agriculture Committee, which marked up a farm bill with over $20 billion in savings from SNAP. That bill was marked up and passed with bipartisan support as of last week.

We can restore integrity to the program while providing benefits to those truly in need and save approximately an additional $30 billion. Note that I say ``while providing benefits to those truly in need.'' I am not proposing a dramatic change in the policy of nutrition programs, such as block-granting programs to States. That would represent a dramatic change. Instead, this amendment enforces the principles of good government and restores SNAP and spending to much more responsible levels.

Also, SNAP was exempted from the across-the-board cuts known as sequestration. However, it is clear there are several areas within the program that could provide significant savings that were left untouched.

First, the amendment eliminates the LIHEAP loophole. Let me be clear. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole does not affect SNAP eligibility for anyone using SNAP; it only decreases SNAP benefits for those who would not otherwise qualify for the higher SNAP benefit amounts.

But at least 17 States, with all due respect, are gaming the system by designing their Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--LIHEAP-- to exploit SNAP. Let me explain. The LIHEAP loophole works like this: Participating State agencies annually issue extremely low LIHEAP benefits to qualify otherwise ineligible households for standard utility allowances, which result in increased monthly SNAP benefits. For example, today a State agency can issue $1--only $1--annually in LIHEAP benefits to increase monthly SNAP benefits an average of $90-- that is $1,080 per year--for households that do not otherwise pay out- of-pocket utility bills.

If you completely eliminate the LIHEAP loophole, as my legislation does, it will save taxpayers a total of $12 billion--$8 billion additional compared to the current version of the farm bill.

We also tie categorical eligibility to cash assistance, eliminating a loophole that States are exploiting by offering TANF-provided informational brochures and informational 1-800 numbers to maximize SNAP enrollment and the corresponding increase in Federal food benefits.

Categorical eligibility, simply known as Cat-El, was designed to help streamline the administration of SNAP by allowing households to be certified as eligible for SNAP food benefits without evaluating household assets or gross income. 42 States are exploiting an unintended loophole of the TANF-provided informational brochures and informational 1-800 numbers to maximize SNAP enrollment and the corresponding increase in Federal food benefits and the cost. These States, with all due respect, are also gaming the system to bring otherwise ineligible SNAP participants into the program.

In an ongoing effort to streamline government programs, we should eliminate the duplicative SNAP Employment and Training Program and the SNAP Nutrition Education Grants Program. Combined, these two programs cost over $8 billion and do not represent any direct food benefits--any direct food benefits.

This amendment also ends the Department of Agriculture practice of giving $48 million in awards every year to State agencies for basically doing their job. Currently, bonuses are given to States for best program access--signing up as many people for SNAP as possible; most improved program access--how many more people signed up for SNAP compared to the previous year; and best application processing timelines--handling applications within required guidelines. The bonuses are not even required to be used for SNAP administration. A recipient State may choose to use the funding for any State priority.

Finally, the amendment terminates the ongoing stimulus, enacted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided extra funding to increase monthly SNAP food benefits. I really understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working Americans, including many Kansans. As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee some years ago, we worked very hard to save the Food Stamp Program and prevent any kinds of efforts to simply do away with it or send it back to States because of the very things I have talked about.

My goal is simple: to restore integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in a commonsense and comprehensive manner. Enacting this package of reforms will allow the Federal Government to continue to help those who truly need SNAP food benefits and assistance. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and these reforms for the benefit of all Americans.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the distinguished Presiding Officer please inform the Senator on how much time we have divided equally.

I ask unanimous consent that 2 minutes be granted.

Mr. President, this is an amendment I have worked on considerably, along with Senator Thune, Senator Johanns, others on the Agriculture Committee, and others as well. We can restore integrity to the SNAP program while providing benefits to those truly in need. Let me emphasize that--while providing benefits to those truly in need. We are not touching those while we will save an additional $31 billion; $31 billion as compared to what? Compared to $800 billion over 10 years. If we cannot at least make those kinds of savings, $31 billion to $800 billion, we have problems. I am not proposing a dramatic change in the policy of nutrition programs, such as block granting programs to States would represent; instead, this amendment would enforce the principles of good government and return SNAP spending to more responsible levels.

SNAP was exempted from across-the-board cuts known as sequestration. However, it is clear there are areas within the program that could provide significant savings that were left untouched. Enacting these reforms would allow the Federal Government to continue to help those who truly need Federal benefits and assistance but also enact needed reforms. Otherwise, food stamps and SNAP will continue to be a target. I don't want that. I think we can restore integrity to the program. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer.

No, no, no, no; we are not cutting anybody's benefits that the distinguished Senator from New York is talking about. This amendment would effectively shield over 80 percent of the farm bill from any deficit reduction and prevent the bill from addressing a serious breach in the nutrition program. The distinguished chairperson of the Agriculture Committee, the Senator from Michigan, already has included the provision in the bill. To say the chairperson is against food stamps for needy people is ridiculous.

It is important to note this amendment does more than create in a State what is called the LIHEAP loophole which we don't want; this amendment also cuts crop insurance. That is the No. 1 priority of American farmers today. It is one of the great success stories. It was developed as a way to help farmers manage their own risks, have skin in the game, and head off the need for costly, inefficient, ad hoc disaster programs. These types of cuts can be difficult to absorb. When we are in the third year of drought is not the time to change them.

I also wish to add the Senator from New York has been a champion of expanding crop insurance coverage for specialty crops, organic crops in her home State. I just think that perhaps she is misinformed.

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

I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 15 minutes.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I have just introduced legislation in regards to our efforts to, once again, try to address a farm bill on behalf of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and dairy producers. We passed a farm bill in the last session. It was one of the first bills where we achieved regular order, i.e., where every Senator had an opportunity to have an amendment. Many did. We had over 300, as I recall--``we'' meaning the distinguished chairperson of the committee, Senator Stabenow, and myself as the ranking member at that particular time. Thank goodness not all 300 demanded a vote, but I think we voted 73 times, and we passed the bill by a good bipartisan margin. I hope we can get back to that. The chairperson, Senator Stabenow, is working very diligently to produce another farm bill.

I see the distinguished majority leader coming to the floor. He was very helpful in our pleas to bring a farm bill to the floor. Senator Reid actually asked me whether we could do it in 3 days as I promised, and we did it in 2\1/2\, so with cooperation we got that done. It was, as I say, the first bill we took up in the last session where we did have regular order. I hope we can keep that record. I thank the majority leader for his efforts in that regard.

Why am I bringing this up now, even before we mark up in regards to the bill I have introduced? Basically because farmers are now planting their crops despite 3 years of drought and all sorts of hardship and all sorts of uncertainty about a farm bill. We have extended the 2008 act. It is not what we wanted to do in the Senate, but that is what happened. So we hope that does not happen again.

We hope we can work again in a bipartisan way to produce a product that not only helps the farmer and rancher--we have, what, 6 billion people in the world today? We are going to go to 9 billion people in the next several decades. Everybody in the Senate should be aware of that. It is an overriding issue. We are going to have to double our agricultural production if we are going to continue our efforts to feed this country in a troubled and hungry world.

That even has national security implications. Show me a country that does not have a stable food supply, and I will show you a country that is in a lot of trouble. Just read about the Mideast and what is happening there.

What do farmers want? I mean what was the No. 1 issue we heard-- ``we'' meaning, again, Senator Stabenow and I--when we held farm hearings both in Michigan, specialty crops, and Kansas, program crops: wheat, corn, beans et cetera? Over and over the No. 1 issue was crop insurance.

We were trying to get out of the business or stay out of the business of farmers planting for the government. And ``farm subsidies,'' that always makes the headlines in the Washington Post for people who for the most part have never been west of the Missouri River.

Despite all the criticisms of the farm program, I think we consolidated and reformed 100 different programs. We saved roughly $23 or $24 billion--the first authorizing committee to do so. We also strengthened and improved crop insurance. That was the No. 1 issue for farm lenders, the No. 1 issue for farmers and ranchers, and the No. 1 issue for everybody involved in the miracle of agriculture that allows us to do this so Americans have the safest, most abundant, and cheapest food in the history of the world.

I hear time and time again from our producers and their lenders that crop insurance is the cornerstone of the farm safety net. I hear it at home in Kansas. We hear it in the Agriculture Committee. I hear it every time I speak to producers in Washington. I know the chairperson of the committee, Senator Stabenow, has heard the same. All members of the committee know the value of crop insurance. I mean all members of the distinguished Committee on Agriculture.

As we head into another round of farm bill debates, and I know the chairperson would like to get it done, would like to mark up a bill in the next 3 weeks--I don't know if that is possible; we will see. We did that in 2\1/2\ days in the last session of Congress. Whether we can do that again I am not sure--I am constantly asked for my priorities, and my priorities reflect what I have heard from farmers and ranchers at home and their bankers and their lenders and everybody who wants consistency. The No. 1 priority for the farm bill is crop insurance. If you doubt the importance of crop insurance, just look what it has provided the past 2 years. It is rather unbelievable.

Since 2011 we have faced the worst drought since the Dust Bowl in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas--and in Nebraska now. In so many cases Nebraska is worse than any other place.

Then we had the massive flooding along the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers, and hurricanes that simply devastated the Northeast as well. I don't know what we have done to Mother Nature, but she sure has not been very kind to us. In 2012 the drought worsened and spread across the Midwest to States such as Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois. Now that we are into the Midwest, now we have headlines about the drought. When we burn up almost every year out in our country, on the high plains, nobody gets any attention. But they get it in the Midwest, they get a lot of attention.

Just months after all of this, why are producers still now tuning up their equipment and preparing their fields to put seed in the ground once again? A farmer never puts any seed in the ground without hope for a crop. Hope springs eternal with regard to agriculture, and here we are, once again, having that capability. It is not because of some agriculture ad hoc disaster program that seems to appear every even- numbered year in this body or any package for farmers, through a disaster program, that would represent some kind of help. Farmers are back on their feet and producing the food that feeds a troubled and hungry world because of crop insurance. They are able to put the seed in the ground again because they managed their risk and protected their operations from Mother Nature's destruction through the purchase of crop insurance.

This is the one component of the farm safety net that requires a producer to have skin in the game. We could apply that to a lot of other things that we debate on the floor of the Senate. Don't forget, crop insurance only provides coverage if a producer actually has a loss. So a Kansas farmer might pay into the crop insurance system for years or a farmer or a producer from Wisconsin or, for that matter, anyplace that values agriculture. But if they never experience a severe loss or a natural disaster, they will never receive a penny. Simply, crop insurance allows producers a way to manage risk so they can continue to provide a stable and secure food supply and pass their operations on to their children.

If that is not a success story in the partnership between government and private industry and America's farmers, I don't know what is. But just because a program is successful doesn't

mean there is not room for improvement. That is what the bill is that I just laid at the desk.

Crop insurance is a big tent with plenty of room under it. The program already protects more than 250 million acres of cropland in the United States, more than two-thirds of the eligible acres that we farm. But there are still acres that are not protected and producers who cannot afford to purchase this kind of protection they need. The more producers under that crop insurance tent, and the more that are protected from disaster, the more stable our food supply and our rural economies will be.

We made great progress, as I said, last year in the Agriculture Committee and on the Senate floor improving crop insurance to bring even more people under the tent. Today, I am here again to continue our work to preserve and protect and strengthen our crop insurance. My legislation enhances the Crop Insurance Program by including something called a Supplemental Coverage Option. The acronym for that is SCO. It allows producers to purchase additional crop insurance coverage on an area yield and loss basis. It also amends the Federal Crop Insurance Act to make available separate enterprise units for irrigated and nonirrigated acreages of crops in counties. That is especially helpful in regard to what we are going through with another year of drought.

The bill also addresses the declining Actual Production History, that is a yield problem, by increasing the county transitional yield. So if someone did not have a yield in their farm, but they could then go to the county yield average, they would be in a lot better shape. They would be helped out in one area and not another area. This would help in that respect.

The legislation also sets budget limitations. Yes, we set budget limitations on future renegotiation of what is called the Standard Reinsurance Agreement by requiring any savings realized in the SRA renegotiations to return to the Crop Insurance Program, to return to the RMA programs. Let's not use the Crop Insurance Program where we have savings and then use it as a bank for other programs. That has happened far too often--in the Senate and in the House.

The legislation also continues the Stacked Income Protection Plan-- that is known as STAX--for the producers who plant upland cotton. That means all or most all of the products that we produce in the organizations that represent those commodities and represent those farmers who grow the commodities are in agreement--and cotton was very helpful in the last farm bill.

Meanwhile, in order to help pay down the debt and reduce the deficit, the legislation is fully paid for by the elimination of direct payments which saves taxpayers $5 billion over 10 years. Overall, the legislation will strengthen the farm safety net while at the same time saving taxpayers billions of dollars and preventing costly ad hoc agriculture disaster programs.

There are those who don't believe in a good Crop Insurance Program. When Mother Nature doesn't behave and they get into these terribly destructive forces of nature--and it always happens. As I have said, it usually happens on an even-numbered year. If they are going to get into a disaster program and take part in it, they better darn well make sure to say: OK. I am going to help you out, but don't put your name on it. Because when it comes out to the Farm Service Agency and all the people who are supposed to implement it at the Department of Agriculture and in almost every county in the United States, it is a disaster to implement and the farmer doesn't get the kind of help he or she needs. That is not the way to do business. The cost annually is far greater than the Crop Insurance Program.

Overall, the legislation will strengthen the farm safety net while at the same time saving the taxpayers billions of dollars. It prevents ad hoc agriculture disaster programs. That is what the farmer wants. The farmer wants certainty. If he takes part in a Crop Insurance Program, he has certainty and he has protection.

There was a time in the not-so-distant past when the farm programs greatly distorted planning decisions. As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, back in the day, along with others in the Senate, we did everything we could to eliminate those distortions. Why? Because with the World Trade Organization, we could get in a lot of trouble.

I am confident this proposal is the responsible path forward for agriculture, and it will not drive planting decisions or leave farmers to plant for the government program rather than the marketplace. With this crop insurance legislation, we have the opportunity to improve on an enormously successful program and continue good farm program policies.

We have a lot of work ahead of us to pass and sign a farm bill into law. A lot of farmers and a lot of ranchers are depending on it, and there are a lot of people who benefit from it. As I said, we have the lowest cost and safest food in the history of the world, and it allows us to use our wherewithal in a humanitarian way to be of help to those in need who undergo some very difficult circumstances. As I have indicated, agriculture involves our national security.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Agriculture Committee, farmers across the country, and industry partners to enact this legislation as part of the farm bill.

Mr. President, today I have just introduced legislation in regards to our efforts to, once again, try to address a farm bill on behalf of our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and dairy producers. We passed a farm bill in the last session. It was one of the first bills where we achieved regular order, i.e., where every Senator had an opportunity to have an amendment. Many did. We had over 300, as I recall--``we'' meaning the distinguished chairperson of the committee, Senator Stabenow, and myself as the ranking member at that particular time. Thank goodness not all 300 demanded a vote, but I think we voted 73 times, and we passed the bill by a good bipartisan margin. I hope we can get back to that. The chairperson, Senator Stabenow, is working very diligently to produce another farm bill.

I see the distinguished majority leader coming to the floor. He was very helpful in our pleas to bring a farm bill to the floor. Senator Reid actually asked me whether we could do it in 3 days as I promised, and we did it in 2\1/2\, so with cooperation we got that done. It was, as I say, the first bill we took up in the last session where we did have regular order. I hope we can keep that record. I thank the majority leader for his efforts in that regard.

Why am I bringing this up now, even before we mark up in regards to the bill I have introduced? Basically because farmers are now planting their crops despite 3 years of drought and all sorts of hardship and all sorts of uncertainty about a farm bill. We have extended the 2008 act. It is not what we wanted to do in the Senate, but that is what happened. So we hope that does not happen again.

We hope we can work again in a bipartisan way to produce a product that not only helps the farmer and rancher--we have, what, 6 billion people in the world today? We are going to go to 9 billion people in the next several decades. Everybody in the Senate should be aware of that. It is an overriding issue. We are going to have to double our agricultural production if we are going to continue our efforts to feed this country in a troubled and hungry world.

That even has national security implications. Show me a country that does not have a stable food supply, and I will show you a country that is in a lot of trouble. Just read about the Mideast and what is happening there.

What do farmers want? I mean what was the No. 1 issue we heard-- ``we'' meaning, again, Senator Stabenow and I--when we held farm hearings both in Michigan, specialty crops, and Kansas, program crops: wheat, corn, beans et cetera? Over and over the No. 1 issue was crop insurance.

We were trying to get out of the business or stay out of the business of farmers planting for the government. And ``farm subsidies,'' that always makes the headlines in the Washington Post for people who for the most part have never been west of the Missouri River.

Despite all the criticisms of the farm program, I think we consolidated and reformed 100 different programs. We saved roughly $23 or $24 billion--the first authorizing committee to do so. We also strengthened and improved crop insurance. That was the No. 1 issue for farm lenders, the No. 1 issue for farmers and ranchers, and the No. 1 issue for everybody involved in the miracle of agriculture that allows us to do this so Americans have the safest, most abundant, and cheapest food in the history of the world.

I hear time and time again from our producers and their lenders that crop insurance is the cornerstone of the farm safety net. I hear it at home in Kansas. We hear it in the Agriculture Committee. I hear it every time I speak to producers in Washington. I know the chairperson of the committee, Senator Stabenow, has heard the same. All members of the committee know the value of crop insurance. I mean all members of the distinguished Committee on Agriculture.

As we head into another round of farm bill debates, and I know the chairperson would like to get it done, would like to mark up a bill in the next 3 weeks--I don't know if that is possible; we will see. We did that in 2\1/2\ days in the last session of Congress. Whether we can do that again I am not sure--I am constantly asked for my priorities, and my priorities reflect what I have heard from farmers and ranchers at home and their bankers and their lenders and everybody who wants consistency. The No. 1 priority for the farm bill is crop insurance. If you doubt the importance of crop insurance, just look what it has provided the past 2 years. It is rather unbelievable.

Since 2011 we have faced the worst drought since the Dust Bowl in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas--and in Nebraska now. In so many cases Nebraska is worse than any other place.

Then we had the massive flooding along the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers, and hurricanes that simply devastated the Northeast as well. I don't know what we have done to Mother Nature, but she sure has not been very kind to us. In 2012 the drought worsened and spread across the Midwest to States such as Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois. Now that we are into the Midwest, now we have headlines about the drought. When we burn up almost every year out in our country, on the high plains, nobody gets any attention. But they get it in the Midwest, they get a lot of attention.

Just months after all of this, why are producers still now tuning up their equipment and preparing their fields to put seed in the ground once again? A farmer never puts any seed in the ground without hope for a crop. Hope springs eternal with regard to agriculture, and here we are, once again, having that capability. It is not because of some agriculture ad hoc disaster program that seems to appear every even- numbered year in this body or any package for farmers, through a disaster program, that would represent some kind of help. Farmers are back on their feet and producing the food that feeds a troubled and hungry world because of crop insurance. They are able to put the seed in the ground again because they managed their risk and protected their operations from Mother Nature's destruction through the purchase of crop insurance.

This is the one component of the farm safety net that requires a producer to have skin in the game. We could apply that to a lot of other things that we debate on the floor of the Senate. Don't forget, crop insurance only provides coverage if a producer actually has a loss. So a Kansas farmer might pay into the crop insurance system for years or a farmer or a producer from Wisconsin or, for that matter, anyplace that values agriculture. But if they never experience a severe loss or a natural disaster, they will never receive a penny. Simply, crop insurance allows producers a way to manage risk so they can continue to provide a stable and secure food supply and pass their operations on to their children.

If that is not a success story in the partnership between government and private industry and America's farmers, I don't know what is. But just because a program is successful doesn't

mean there is not room for improvement. That is what the bill is that I just laid at the desk.

Crop insurance is a big tent with plenty of room under it. The program already protects more than 250 million acres of cropland in the United States, more than two-thirds of the eligible acres that we farm. But there are still acres that are not protected and producers who cannot afford to purchase this kind of protection they need. The more producers under that crop insurance tent, and the more that are protected from disaster, the more stable our food supply and our rural economies will be.

We made great progress, as I said, last year in the Agriculture Committee and on the Senate floor improving crop insurance to bring even more people under the tent. Today, I am here again to continue our work to preserve and protect and strengthen our crop insurance. My legislation enhances the Crop Insurance Program by including something called a Supplemental Coverage Option. The acronym for that is SCO. It allows producers to purchase additional crop insurance coverage on an area yield and loss basis. It also amends the Federal Crop Insurance Act to make available separate enterprise units for irrigated and nonirrigated acreages of crops in counties. That is especially helpful in regard to what we are going through with another year of drought.

The bill also addresses the declining Actual Production History, that is a yield problem, by increasing the county transitional yield. So if someone did not have a yield in their farm, but they could then go to the county yield average, they would be in a lot better shape. They would be helped out in one area and not another area. This would help in that respect.

The legislation also sets budget limitations. Yes, we set budget limitations on future renegotiation of what is called the Standard Reinsurance Agreement by requiring any savings realized in the SRA renegotiations to return to the Crop Insurance Program, to return to the RMA programs. Let's not use the Crop Insurance Program where we have savings and then use it as a bank for other programs. That has happened far too often--in the Senate and in the House.

The legislation also continues the Stacked Income Protection Plan-- that is known as STAX--for the producers who plant upland cotton. That means all or most all of the products that we produce in the organizations that represent those commodities and represent those farmers who grow the commodities are in agreement--and cotton was very helpful in the last farm bill.

Meanwhile, in order to help pay down the debt and reduce the deficit, the legislation is fully paid for by the elimination of direct payments which saves taxpayers $5 billion over 10 years. Overall, the legislation will strengthen the farm safety net while at the same time saving taxpayers billions of dollars and preventing costly ad hoc agriculture disaster programs.

There are those who don't believe in a good Crop Insurance Program. When Mother Nature doesn't behave and they get into these terribly destructive forces of nature--and it always happens. As I have said, it usually happens on an even-numbered year. If they are going to get into a disaster program and take part in it, they better darn well make sure to say: OK. I am going to help you out, but don't put your name on it. Because when it comes out to the Farm Service Agency and all the people who are supposed to implement it at the Department of Agriculture and in almost every county in the United States, it is a disaster to implement and the farmer doesn't get the kind of help he or she needs. That is not the way to do business. The cost annually is far greater than the Crop Insurance Program.

Overall, the legislation will strengthen the farm safety net while at the same time saving the taxpayers billions of dollars. It prevents ad hoc agriculture disaster programs. That is what the farmer wants. The farmer wants certainty. If he takes part in a Crop Insurance Program, he has certainty and he has protection.

There was a time in the not-so-distant past when the farm programs greatly distorted planning decisions. As chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, back in the day, along with others in the Senate, we did everything we could to eliminate those distortions. Why? Because with the World Trade Organization, we could get in a lot of trouble.

I am confident this proposal is the responsible path forward for agriculture, and it will not drive planting decisions or leave farmers to plant for the government program rather than the marketplace. With this crop insurance legislation, we have the opportunity to improve on an enormously successful program and continue good farm program policies.

We have a lot of work ahead of us to pass and sign a farm bill into law. A lot of farmers and a lot of ranchers are depending on it, and there are a lot of people who benefit from it. As I said, we have the lowest cost and safest food in the history of the world, and it allows us to use our wherewithal in a humanitarian way to be of help to those in need who undergo some very difficult circumstances. As I have indicated, agriculture involves our national security.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Agriculture Committee, farmers across the country, and industry partners to enact this legislation as part of the farm bill.

Mr. President, this amendment would prohibit funds for promotional and marketing materials that promote the affordable health care act and its benefits at taxpayer expense.

According to HHS's own documents obtained by the House Ways and Means Committee, which issued the subpoena last year, HHS spent almost $52 million in behalf of the affordable health care act public relations work using outside contractors. That is just not right. When the media is reporting more and more problems, more costs, more regulations, more lost jobs, higher premiums, this is a gratuitous use of taxpayer dollars. It sets a very bad precedent for the Department of Health and Human Services stretching the truth, at best, at public expense.

This administration should not be using American taxpayer dollars to fund marketing and promotional campaigns promoting a law and regulations that a majority of Americans oppose.

No, I accept it on a voice vote. Harry Potter accepts it on a voice vote.

Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

I respectfully ask the Parliamentarian if the official Senate decibel meter indicates that the ruling by the distinguished Parliamentarian that the count--or that the vote was not accurate on the last vote.

Perhaps a hearing problem.

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the fully declared champion of fiscal responsibility, defender of hard-pressed taxpayers all across the country, doing a splendid job here as a Senator who actually asked to be on the Budget Committee to try to meet these challenges, and I credit him for his leadership and example.

I rise today to speak on my Democratic colleagues' proposed budget resolution upon which they have just been waxing poetic before the Senate. I have mixed feelings about this budget. I have mixed feelings even being here on the Senate floor in that I am bereft of charts. What on Earth am I going to do making comments about this budget

without the appropriate charts? Everybody has charts. Look at these stands around here.

My colleagues across the aisle--who have now left the Chamber since I began speaking--have displayed charts. I wonder if the Parliamentarian could inform this speaker if we could turn off the lights and I have a PowerPoint and a laser pointer?

I will not ask that.

But I don't have a chart. I just have some remarks that I would like to put together about the challenge we all face. I am pleased, everybody is pleased, finally, that the Senate has again, finally, taken up its constitutional responsibility to consider a budget in regular order--or at least some framework of regular order. However, I have the temerity to suggest that after 4 years, this budget resolution does not cut the spending muster and, from a constitutional responsibility, I fear it has indeed been very irresponsible.

At the same time, I look at this budget and I ask: Is this all we waited for these past 4 years? In the words of the famous song, ``Is That All There Is?'' Or better put, is this more than all there is? And it certainly is more.

There is an old saying that if you want to be remembered by your children, leave a lot of debt. Well, if this budget is passed and it sticks, then there are going to be a whole lot of people who vote yes who will certainly be remembered.

The solution was, indeed, to return to regular order, return to the regular process: Examine the President's budget, pass a budget resolution, and provide clear directives to the authorizing and appropriations committees to develop legislation to reflect the tough decisions made in the budget. A lot of words. None of it is very easy, but that is called regular order. That is what we should have been doing the last 4 years. We have not been doing that. We haven't been doing that at all.

Everybody knows the process around here. What happens is we have a major bill to do, we have our obligations to do, we have our constitutional responsibilities to do. We try that. We ask for amendments; we don't get amendments. We file cloture, they don't get 60 votes, and the bill fails. Or we have a continuing resolution, some giant body of legislation that is the worst way to do business--or a sequester, the same kind of thing. And people back home scratch their heads. People on that side of the aisle perhaps have an issue--not a bill, but they might have an issue. Then the blame game starts. I think the American people are tired of it.

None of it is easy. I understand that. But it works much better, much better than lurching from crisis to crisis as we have done and experienced in the last 4 years.

So I am pleased that we are slowly returning to some aspects of regular order, but I remain deeply concerned about the daunting fiscal challenges we face and the fact that we are not answering these challenges. The Federal balance sheet is now truly frightening.

Today, almost 1,500 days since we last considered a budget resolution on this Senate floor, we are fast approaching $17 trillion in debt--and beyond. It is climbing. Our per-person share of that debt is now more than $53,000. This is why I am so frustrated, and many of our colleagues are frustrated and disappointed by the budget resolution we are about to consider.

Yes, again, we have brought this resolution through regular order. I appreciate that. But the recommendations fail. They fail to begin to meaningfully address the key fiscal issues that we are all generally agreed are sustainable.

I don't have a chart, but I think people can understand this. The numbers are startling.

Since 2009 we have added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt. Under the proposed budget resolution, despite a massive new tax hike proposal, new debt will rise--since I don't have a chart, just sort of imagine it here--$7 trillion over 10 years. I hasten to add, that is on a projection by the Congressional Budget Office, and I think it is probably low.

Spending will increase another $645 billion above the projected growth over 10 years, including $162 billion in the next year alone.

The deficit will increase in the next fiscal year by $95 billion above current forecasts.

I could have a chart with a big zero on it. It is not a soft drink. This is something pretty serious. Zero. That is right, zero--zero real deficit reduction through spending reductions. It would never and doesn't pretend to try to balance the budget--precisely what the Senator from Alabama has been pointing out. In my view, this resolution would further damage our fiscal condition over the long haul, exactly what we don't want to do.

We do not want to kick the can down the road any further. We can't do it. We have reached that point of no return. And here is the kicker for me. The budget resolution includes a proposed $1.5 trillion in new taxes. That is on top of the $600 billion tax hike that was just enacted in January. This would include a $923 billion reconciliation instruction to the Finance Committee. I am a member of that very prestigious committee. I look forward to trying to achieve tax reform, but I worry about a $923 billion reconciliation despite the negative impact this would have on critically needed progrowth tax reform.

The budget also includes about $500 billion in unspecified loophole closers to increase spending on infrastructure and to replace the current sequester.

Loopholes. Loophole closures. Boy, is that in the eyes of the beholder. I am concerned about it. No doubt the Gatling gun kind of criticisms we heard in the past campaign, singling out tax reform targets--and I always want to add, you always want to worry about what lurks under the banner of reform of whatever banner someone is waving.

Time after time I heard the President talk about fat cat corporate jets. Boy, am I tired of hearing about that. That is business aviation. That is 1 million jobs. That is a great number of aircraft that is adding to our exports. The President has said: Let's double our exports, and still we hear this pejorative of fat cat corporate jets. Also, oil and gas subsidies, two major industries of Kansas, even those are critical, successful industries with all the hallmarks we should want in an industry--good, high-tech paying jobs.

Sure I am for tax reform, and sure I want to reach the specified numbers that we could all agree on--if we could all agree on a specified number. But policy counts, and you don't want to do anything terribly counterproductive. The call for a gigantic tax hike to pay for more spending is misguided and will harm our chances for tax reform. It will do little to place our budget on any sustainable path. Not only that, this budget is a job killer.

The Tax Foundation analysis I just read today indicates the legislation in its current form will result in the loss of 800,000 jobs over 10 years. It is a job killer.

Why on Earth would we be considering a budget resolution that will result in the loss of 800,000 jobs? In Kansas, that hit would be about 10,000 jobs. That is low. I have no doubt this number understates that problem.

We all know the time is long past for us to reform our overly complex, costly, anticompetitive tax system. That is a given. We know that. I might add that the Finance Committee, under the chairmanship of Max Baucus and the ranking member's leadership, Orrin Hatch--all of us on the Finance Committee have been meeting as Republicans and Democrats together. We can do this job. Give us 6 months to do it right. Give us a flashing light at the end of the room saying ``Do No Harm,'' and we can get this done.

The current system is a drain on individual and business resources. It is one of the main causes of our sluggish economic growth.

We need to put in place a Tax Code for the 21st century, one that recognizes the nature of the international trade system in which we compete--and there is competition--and one that recognizes the changes to our domestic business environment. We also need to lower corporate rates so the United States no longer has the highest rate in the developed world.

It is critical that Congress encourage economic growth and private sector job creation by putting in place a tax system that is simpler and fairer to all taxpayers, a tax system that doesn't change every year or two, one that provides certainty. We need to provide certainty by establishing a permanent

Tax Code that will allow families to plan for their future and give businesses the confidence to expand and create jobs.

Adopting a fair and simple tax system that lowers marginal rates, encourages economic growth, promotes our competitiveness, and eases compliance--read regulatory reform, read a Katrina of regulations that now affects virtually every business endeavor in the country, read all that--that is the most powerful step we can take to improve our economy.

While I support considering a budget through regular order--thank goodness we are finally achieving that--we are presented with a profoundly disappointing document, a budget that includes a massive job-killing tax increase, increases spending, raises the deficit and debt, and all but kills prospects for tax reform--just what the doctor did not order.

After 4 years of deliberate inaction, my colleagues and I had hoped for better.

I yield the floor.

Let me say, if I might, and I appreciate the question and I have talked to the Parliamentarian, when people inadvertently leave their cell phones on, but the call is from their wife, that is all right.

At any rate, balance? If I heard it once, I heard it at least 10 or 15 times since I have been here and the distinguished Senator from Alabama has been here. Balance--it never balances in regard to the goal of actually balance the budget. We are talking about balance. But we are actually talking about redistribution. We are talking about balance, but what we are actually talking about is a certain kind of class warfare. When we are talking about balance, we are talking about means testing. We are talking about somebody in Washington on this floor defining who is rich or who is not or who is just a little better off--maybe $250,000, maybe $200,000. Guess what. These taxes are going to hit the middle class, and they do not think it is balanced. I don't think it is balanced, and I think it is out of whack.

If you are going to get something in balance, you ought to take a look to see can we get the budget of the United States headed toward balance and not use ``balance'' as a synonym for the proposed goals of social reform or whatever it is that you would like to accomplish under the banner of tax reform.

We should use tax reform for taxes, not for any political purpose or favoring one particular segment of the industry over another or, for that matter, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, et cetera. Everything has to be considered, but everything has to be considered under the auspices of when are we going to live within our means? When are we going to achieve spending reductions, quit overtaxing people, try to spur job growth? That budget resolution they are talking about on that side of the aisle--and I know they are very sincere, apparently, in their belief--doesn't feed the bulldog. It doesn't answer the problem.

I got a little excited about that, but I think I am due that in regard to all the rhetoric we have heard from the other side. I appreciate the Senator's question.

Mr. President, I rise today, in support of Senator Paul's filibuster on the nomination of John Owen Brennan, to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I have stated my opposition to Brennan's nomination from the beginning.

During my time on the Intelligence Committee and as chairman, I presided over hearings before which Mr. Brennan testified.

His inability to give a straight yes or no answer was greater than any other witness I experienced. But his approach is exactly what we see from the Obama administration today.

Senator Paul has asked a very simple question to which the President refuses to give a direct answer. The appropriate question is: Will the administration clarify any circumstance when it is acceptable to target and kill American citizens on American soil?

Senator Paul is only asking for a clear, unwavering statement that protects Americans' fifth Amendment rights as well as our national security. All Americans await the answer.

The Senate's duty is to conduct oversight and ensure our government is protecting its people and the Constitution. In that regard Senator Paul's filibuster has been true to our oversight, obligations and duties; and I congratulate him.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 15 minutes as in morning business.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my colleagues, I rise today to introduce a bill that has a long title: Improve Nutrition Program Integrity and Deficit Reduction Act of 2013. Big title, but it is a good bill.

Last June, I stood in this body, along with Chairperson Stabenow of the Agriculture Committee, to encourage my colleagues to pass bipartisan reform legislation known as the farm bill.

The legislation we put together in the Senate Agriculture Committee would have strengthened and preserved the safety net for our farmers and ranchers while also being responsible to taxpayers by providing billions of dollars for deficit reduction. At the time we were told by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, that the farm bill passed by the Agriculture Committee, one of the first bills, by the way, that we were able to pass under regular order and in record amount of time, 2\1/2\ days--the CBO estimated at that time the farm bill that was passed by the Agriculture Committee in the Senate would save $24 billion over 10 years, including $4 billion from the nutrition title.

However, according to the latest CBO projections, a projection that has reverberated in farm country, released just last Friday, the farm bill we passed last year would now only save $13 billion and no longer represents savings in the nutrition title. We could have done more last year, and we must do more this year to rein in the largest expenditure within the Department of Agriculture budget.

No, it does not go to farmers. We are talking about specifically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, called SNAP, more commonly known as food stamps.

In the context of sequestration, SNAP was exempted from any across- the-board cuts, along with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It was in that pasture. A lot of other things were in different pastures, especially national security.

However, it is clear there are several areas within the program that could provide significant savings that were, unfortunately, left untouched. The legislation I introduce today, along with Senator Johanns and Senator Thune, builds off of several amendments previously offered in a piecemeal fashion. We have wrapped them all together. Each should be enacted, but combined in this bill they represent over $36 billion in savings.

By eliminating loopholes, duplicative programs, unnecessary bonuses, inflation adjustments, and restricting lottery winners from receiving benefits, this legislation will instill and restore integrity to SNAP while still providing benefits to those truly in need. I ought to repeat that this restores integrity to SNAP while still providing benefits to those truly in need.

I am not proposing a dramatic change in the policy of nutrition programs. Instead, this legislation enforces the principles of good government and returns SNAP spending to much more responsible levels. While saving over $36 billion, our legislation also makes commonsense and comprehensive reforms to SNAP, the Food Stamp Program, that can and should be enacted immediately.

Over one-half of the SNAP food benefits in our country are utilized by households with children, and SNAP can play, and does play, a critical role in helping people put food on the table in times of need. However, at least 17 States, I am sorry to report, 17 States are gaming the system by designing their Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--the acronym for that is

LIHEAP, a very commonly used term with regards to nutrition programs and the energy programs. But these 17 States designed their programs to exploit the Food Stamp Program. This is not right. It is not right.

The LIHEAP loophole works like this: A participating State agency annually issues extremely low LIHEAP benefits to qualify otherwise ineligible households for standard utility allowances, which then result in increased monthly food stamp benefits. For example, today a State agency can issue only $1 annually in LIHEAP benefits to increase monthly food stamp benefits on an average of $90 a month. That is $1,080 per year for households that do not otherwise pay out-of-pocket utility bills.

That is not right. Last year the Senate farm bill included a provision to tighten the LIHEAP loophole. Even though it would only reduce the loophole, it set the minimum qualifying LIHEAP benefit at $10 annually--not $1, $10. At the time it would have saved taxpayers nearly $450 million every year for a total of $4 billion over a 10-year period.

Completely eliminating the LIHEAP loophole, as my legislation does, will save taxpayers $12 billion. Let me be very clear about it. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole does not affect SNAP eligibility for anyone using the Food Stamp Program. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole would only decrease SNAP benefits for those who would not otherwise qualify for the higher SNAP benefits, the food stamp benefits.

Let me point out another area that must be reformed: States using categorical eligibility for automatic eligibility to provide food stamp benefits. Categorical eligibility is simply known as Cat-El. It was designed to help streamline the administration of SNAP by allowing households to be certified as eligible for the food stamp benefits and be certified without evaluating household assets or gross income, a previous requirement.

Now, 42 States, unfortunately--I do not like to report these kinds of things. However, 42 States are exploiting an unintended loophole of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program and simply provided informational brochures and informational 1-800 numbers to maximize the food stamp enrollment and the corresponding increase in Federal food benefits.

These States are gaming the system to bring otherwise ineligible SNAP participants into the program. My legislation ties categorical eligibility to cash assistance, thereby eliminating this loophole. That saves taxpayers $11.5 billion, a lot of money. To be clear, this represents a cut to SNAP food benefits. However, this amount represents the amount of benefits to people who would not otherwise be eligible for these benefits were it not for States gaming the system.

In an ongoing effort to streamline government programs and reduce redundancy and taxpayer spending, we should also look at the unnecessary spending in Federal employment and training programs. According to a GAO report last year, there are currently 47 such programs that annually cost $18 billion. Let me repeat that. There are 47 programs annually costing $18 billion--Federal employment and training programs.

Nobody would object to a Federal employment and training program given the problems we have with our country. But 47, according to a GAO report, $18 billion. Eliminating the duplicative SNAP employment and training programs would save more than $4 billion and would not affect SNAP food benefits. I repeat. This provision of this legislation would not cut the buying power of any food stamp household to put food in their refrigerators and also their kitchen cupboards.

What am I talking about? In addition to the base program funding that we are talking about with employment and training help, States have the option of providing their own funding to their State education and training program. Then the Department of Agriculture is required to match that.

Currently, four States receive over 80 percent of the total 50-50 match funding. Four States, 80 percent? What about the rest of the States? They include New York, California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. New York, 36, 37, percent; California, 21 percent; Pennsylvania, about 13 percent; New Jersey, about 10.

This optional 50-50 Federal match is uncapped. It can be used by States to provide reimbursement for participant expenses in regard to education and training that are deemed reasonable and necessary. But somebody has to define ``reasonable and necessary.'' The following items have come under ``reasonable and necessary,'' especially in these four States: union dues, test fees, clothing and tools required for the job, relocation expenses, licensing, bonding fees, transportation, childcare, tennis lessons. I made that up. I thought it would catch your attention, Mr. President. No, there are no tennis lessons. There might be, could be. But at least in regards to this reform, let's go to another provision of my legislation.

It ends the USDA practice of giving $48 million in awards every year to State agencies for basically doing their job to ensure proper use of the American tax dollar. Currently, bonuses are given to States for ``best program access,'' signing up as many people for food stamps as possible. ``Most improved program access.'' How many more people signed up for SNAP compared to the previous year? So if you sign up more people then you signed up last year, well, you get an award. ``Best application timeliness.'' That is handling applications within the required guidelines, and we are getting a benefit from that.

State agencies are rewarded for performing the minimum expectations for stewardship of the Food Stamp Program and also of the American tax dollar. The bonuses are not even required to be used for food stamp administration. A recipient State may choose the funding for any State priority. So we are talking about $48 million.

That goes to State agencies of these four Oscar Awards in regard to food stamps, but they can use the funding for anything, for any State priority. Eliminating these unnecessary State bonuses will save taxpayers, over 10 years, $480 million.

Another area where my legislation streamlines government programs is through the elimination of the SNAP Nutrition Education Grant Program. A number of existing nutrition education programs are delivered more equitably with a cost-benefit ratio that makes more sense, at least six Federal programs administered by the Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health and Land Grant University Extension Programs.

In practice, the SNAP Nutrition Education Program is inequitably distributed with the top four States--here we go again--receiving over 54 percent of the funding. The bottom 33 State agencies receive less than 1 percent of the total funding. That is not right.

Additionally our bill ends inflation adjustments for countable resources and for emergency food assistance, saving over $600 million.

The legislation also terminates the ongoing stimulus of several years ago enacted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided extra funding to increase monthly SNAP food benefits.

Finally, the legislation does prohibit lottery winners--Senator Stabenow insisted on this in the last farm bill and it makes a lot of sense--from receiving SNAP benefits and keeps them from receiving new benefits if they do not meet the financial requirements of SNAP.

Overall, by eliminating several duplicative programs, closing loopholes, and ending unnecessary spending, the Improve Nutrition Program Integrity and Deficit Reduction Act will save taxpayers over $36 billion, the latest score by the CBO.

I understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working Americans, including many Kansans. I know that. In 1996, when I was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, there was an effort to send the Food Stamp Program back to the States--and the Governors wanted it. They wanted the money, they didn't want the food stamps. We made an effort under a very historic farm bill at that time not only to save and reform but restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program. We have another opportunity right now. I do understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working Americans and Kansans.

My goal is very simple, again restoring integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in a commonsense and comprehensive manner. Enacting this package of reforms will allow the Federal Government to continue to help those who truly need SNAP food benefits and assistance.

Again, I thank Senators Thune and Johanns for their assistance in this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these reforms for the benefit of all Americans.

Mr. President, my colleagues, I rise today to introduce a bill that has a long title: Improve Nutrition Program Integrity and Deficit Reduction Act of 2013. Big title, but it is a good bill.

Last June, I stood in this body, along with Chairperson Stabenow of the Agriculture Committee, to encourage my colleagues to pass bipartisan reform legislation known as the farm bill.

The legislation we put together in the Senate Agriculture Committee would have strengthened and preserved the safety net for our farmers and ranchers while also being responsible to taxpayers by providing billions of dollars for deficit reduction. At the time we were told by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, that the farm bill passed by the Agriculture Committee, one of the first bills, by the way, that we were able to pass under regular order and in record amount of time, 2\1/2\ days--the CBO estimated at that time the farm bill that was passed by the Agriculture Committee in the Senate would save $24 billion over 10 years, including $4 billion from the nutrition title.

However, according to the latest CBO projections, a projection that has reverberated in farm country, released just last Friday, the farm bill we passed last year would now only save $13 billion and no longer represents savings in the nutrition title. We could have done more last year, and we must do more this year to rein in the largest expenditure within the Department of Agriculture budget.

No, it does not go to farmers. We are talking about specifically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, called SNAP, more commonly known as food stamps.

In the context of sequestration, SNAP was exempted from any across- the-board cuts, along with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It was in that pasture. A lot of other things were in different pastures, especially national security.

However, it is clear there are several areas within the program that could provide significant savings that were, unfortunately, left untouched. The legislation I introduce today, along with Senator Johanns and Senator Thune, builds off of several amendments previously offered in a piecemeal fashion. We have wrapped them all together. Each should be enacted, but combined in this bill they represent over $36 billion in savings.

By eliminating loopholes, duplicative programs, unnecessary bonuses, inflation adjustments, and restricting lottery winners from receiving benefits, this legislation will instill and restore integrity to SNAP while still providing benefits to those truly in need. I ought to repeat that this restores integrity to SNAP while still providing benefits to those truly in need.

I am not proposing a dramatic change in the policy of nutrition programs. Instead, this legislation enforces the principles of good government and returns SNAP spending to much more responsible levels. While saving over $36 billion, our legislation also makes commonsense and comprehensive reforms to SNAP, the Food Stamp Program, that can and should be enacted immediately.

Over one-half of the SNAP food benefits in our country are utilized by households with children, and SNAP can play, and does play, a critical role in helping people put food on the table in times of need. However, at least 17 States, I am sorry to report, 17 States are gaming the system by designing their Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--the acronym for that is

LIHEAP, a very commonly used term with regards to nutrition programs and the energy programs. But these 17 States designed their programs to exploit the Food Stamp Program. This is not right. It is not right.

The LIHEAP loophole works like this: A participating State agency annually issues extremely low LIHEAP benefits to qualify otherwise ineligible households for standard utility allowances, which then result in increased monthly food stamp benefits. For example, today a State agency can issue only $1 annually in LIHEAP benefits to increase monthly food stamp benefits on an average of $90 a month. That is $1,080 per year for households that do not otherwise pay out-of-pocket utility bills.

That is not right. Last year the Senate farm bill included a provision to tighten the LIHEAP loophole. Even though it would only reduce the loophole, it set the minimum qualifying LIHEAP benefit at $10 annually--not $1, $10. At the time it would have saved taxpayers nearly $450 million every year for a total of $4 billion over a 10-year period.

Completely eliminating the LIHEAP loophole, as my legislation does, will save taxpayers $12 billion. Let me be very clear about it. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole does not affect SNAP eligibility for anyone using the Food Stamp Program. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole would only decrease SNAP benefits for those who would not otherwise qualify for the higher SNAP benefits, the food stamp benefits.

Let me point out another area that must be reformed: States using categorical eligibility for automatic eligibility to provide food stamp benefits. Categorical eligibility is simply known as Cat-El. It was designed to help streamline the administration of SNAP by allowing households to be certified as eligible for the food stamp benefits and be certified without evaluating household assets or gross income, a previous requirement.

Now, 42 States, unfortunately--I do not like to report these kinds of things. However, 42 States are exploiting an unintended loophole of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program and simply provided informational brochures and informational 1-800 numbers to maximize the food stamp enrollment and the corresponding increase in Federal food benefits.

These States are gaming the system to bring otherwise ineligible SNAP participants into the program. My legislation ties categorical eligibility to cash assistance, thereby eliminating this loophole. That saves taxpayers $11.5 billion, a lot of money. To be clear, this represents a cut to SNAP food benefits. However, this amount represents the amount of benefits to people who would not otherwise be eligible for these benefits were it not for States gaming the system.

In an ongoing effort to streamline government programs and reduce redundancy and taxpayer spending, we should also look at the unnecessary spending in Federal employment and training programs. According to a GAO report last year, there are currently 47 such programs that annually cost $18 billion. Let me repeat that. There are 47 programs annually costing $18 billion--Federal employment and training programs.

Nobody would object to a Federal employment and training program given the problems we have with our country. But 47, according to a GAO report, $18 billion. Eliminating the duplicative SNAP employment and training programs would save more than $4 billion and would not affect SNAP food benefits. I repeat. This provision of this legislation would not cut the buying power of any food stamp household to put food in their refrigerators and also their kitchen cupboards.

What am I talking about? In addition to the base program funding that we are talking about with employment and training help, States have the option of providing their own funding to their State education and training program. Then the Department of Agriculture is required to match that.

Currently, four States receive over 80 percent of the total 50-50 match funding. Four States, 80 percent? What about the rest of the States? They include New York, California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. New York, 36, 37, percent; California, 21 percent; Pennsylvania, about 13 percent; New Jersey, about 10.

This optional 50-50 Federal match is uncapped. It can be used by States to provide reimbursement for participant expenses in regard to education and training that are deemed reasonable and necessary. But somebody has to define ``reasonable and necessary.'' The following items have come under ``reasonable and necessary,'' especially in these four States: union dues, test fees, clothing and tools required for the job, relocation expenses, licensing, bonding fees, transportation, childcare, tennis lessons. I made that up. I thought it would catch your attention, Mr. President. No, there are no tennis lessons. There might be, could be. But at least in regards to this reform, let's go to another provision of my legislation.

It ends the USDA practice of giving $48 million in awards every year to State agencies for basically doing their job to ensure proper use of the American tax dollar. Currently, bonuses are given to States for ``best program access,'' signing up as many people for food stamps as possible. ``Most improved program access.'' How many more people signed up for SNAP compared to the previous year? So if you sign up more people then you signed up last year, well, you get an award. ``Best application timeliness.'' That is handling applications within the required guidelines, and we are getting a benefit from that.

State agencies are rewarded for performing the minimum expectations for stewardship of the Food Stamp Program and also of the American tax dollar. The bonuses are not even required to be used for food stamp administration. A recipient State may choose the funding for any State priority. So we are talking about $48 million.

That goes to State agencies of these four Oscar Awards in regard to food stamps, but they can use the funding for anything, for any State priority. Eliminating these unnecessary State bonuses will save taxpayers, over 10 years, $480 million.

Another area where my legislation streamlines government programs is through the elimination of the SNAP Nutrition Education Grant Program. A number of existing nutrition education programs are delivered more equitably with a cost-benefit ratio that makes more sense, at least six Federal programs administered by the Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health and Land Grant University Extension Programs.

In practice, the SNAP Nutrition Education Program is inequitably distributed with the top four States--here we go again--receiving over 54 percent of the funding. The bottom 33 State agencies receive less than 1 percent of the total funding. That is not right.

Additionally our bill ends inflation adjustments for countable resources and for emergency food assistance, saving over $600 million.

The legislation also terminates the ongoing stimulus of several years ago enacted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided extra funding to increase monthly SNAP food benefits.

Finally, the legislation does prohibit lottery winners--Senator Stabenow insisted on this in the last farm bill and it makes a lot of sense--from receiving SNAP benefits and keeps them from receiving new benefits if they do not meet the financial requirements of SNAP.

Overall, by eliminating several duplicative programs, closing loopholes, and ending unnecessary spending, the Improve Nutrition Program Integrity and Deficit Reduction Act will save taxpayers over $36 billion, the latest score by the CBO.

I understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working Americans, including many Kansans. I know that. In 1996, when I was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, there was an effort to send the Food Stamp Program back to the States--and the Governors wanted it. They wanted the money, they didn't want the food stamps. We made an effort under a very historic farm bill at that time not only to save and reform but restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program. We have another opportunity right now. I do understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working Americans and Kansans.

My goal is very simple, again restoring integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in a commonsense and comprehensive manner. Enacting this package of reforms will allow the Federal Government to continue to help those who truly need SNAP food benefits and assistance.

Again, I thank Senators Thune and Johanns for their assistance in this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these reforms for the benefit of all Americans.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business for such time as I may consume.

Mr. President, I rise to commemorate--along with my distinguished friend and colleague Senator Jerry Moran--the 150th anniversary of Kansas State University--home of the ever-optimistic Wildcats.

Since its beginning--even before Kansas joined the union as a free State--all the way up to today, Kansas State University continues to provide a first-rate education for thousands and thousands of students.

To quote the K-State alma mater lyrics: ``I know a spot that I love full well.'' I--along with more than 200,000 alumni--am proud to call Kansas State University my alma mater, as did my father and also my son.

The year was back in 1858, when Kansas was only a territory--not even a State--that a group of local settlers founded Bluemont Central College. Then, in 1863, only 2 years into statehood, the State legislature and Governor became some of the first to accept the terms and conditions of the Morrill Act, thus creating the land grant system of colleges and universities.

On February 16, 1863, the Kansas State Agriculture College, formally known today as Kansas State University, received a land grant charter and became the first operational land grant institution in the United States. Over the past 150 years, Kansas State University has progressed and expanded to accommodate the students and the people living in the State of Kansas--the people it has served so well.

Today, Kansas State University is comprised of nine academic colleges ranging from liberal arts to veterinary medicine. The university expanded its campus in Manhattan to include an aviation and technology school in Salina and an innovation campus in Olathe, KS. Also, Kansas State University Research and Extension has a presence in every county in Kansas--all 105. These offices are a source of vital information to every farmer and rancher in our State. We are staying true to our land grant roots.

Back in 1863, Kansas State University's first enrollment totaled a mere 14 students. This school year Kansas State University reached a record enrollment of more than 24,000 students. These students hail from all 50 States and over 90 countries. Out of this diverse population, the university has produced industry leaders, heads of States, humanitarians, generals, gifted scientists, and a few public servants.

Kansas State University has received national recognition for the exceptional education it provides students year after year. Kansas State continues to have college programs ranked the best in the Nation. The university has been recognized as a leader among public universities in total number of Rhodes, Truman, Marshall, Udall, and Goldwater Scholars.

I cannot talk about my alma mater without mentioning Kansas State University's athletic program, especially over the recent years. Since its first football game way back in 1883, dedicated fans have been coming to the sports arenas to support our athletes and our team. This intercollegiate athletic program has complemented the education provided by the university and has been a great source of purple pride for both alumni and Kansas.

As Kansas State University looks toward the future, it sets new goals for the institution and for its students. Launched by president Kirk Schulz in 2010, K-State 2025, the university's strategic plan, strives to make Kansas State University a top 50 public research institution within 15 years. Thanks to the work that has been done throughout the past 150 years and the research that continues, I have no doubt Kansas State University is on track to achieve this very important goal.

Throughout this week and weekend, students, staff, alumni, and friends of the university will gather in Manhattan, KS--the ``little apple''--to celebrate the history of Kansas State University.

On behalf of the Senate, it is my honor to congratulate Kansas State

University on its accomplishments over the past 150 years. As the alma mater song says, it is truly ``a spot that I love full well.'' Every man a Wildcat.

I yield to my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Moran.

Mr. President, I thank my dear friend and colleague more especially for highlighting what K State is all about, and that is family. If one chooses to attend Kansas State, as many do--many come from small town America, and many come from big cities, but I think they are all struck by the family atmosphere.

The thing I think is rather remarkable, even in having the privilege of talking to some of K State's football team and some of the athletes, both basketball and football--all sports at K State--I am always able to tell the thousands and thousands of fans from K State who know their history, know where they are coming from, and always support them regardless of the outcome. So K State is a family.

K State's legendary coach Bill Snyder, who has achieved miracles on the football field with team after team, always stresses family and togetherness and the proper role of athletics in education.

My son David went to K State, and he fell in love with K State. He didn't have much of a choice as far as I was concerned, but he did really enjoy himself at K State. Basically, I am struck by the fact that many of his friends who are graduates--when that day comes when you graduate or when you leave K State, those generations really stick together, and they are friends for life. It is in that vein that I think the Senator's remarks are certainly right on target.

I would be happy to yield.

Mr. President, we have a double privilege here today in that we obviously are celebrating Kansas State University being 150, representing 150 years of outstanding academic service to our people, but also Emporia State University is 150 years old at the same time--a rather remarkable achievement. I know we would like to congratulate Emporia State on its 150th anniversary.

Emporia State University is in the beautiful Flint Hills of Kansas, and it is also very dear to my family. My mother attended Emporia State and studied education. She went on to become a teacher. Emporia State is a teacher's university, second to none. But she, in her day and time, spent a lot of time educating Kansas children up in Atchison, KS, and was very much like the other proud and accomplished alumni from Emporia State.

If a person wants to know about education, all they would have to do--as

well as teacher involvement and teacher progress and some of the very serious challenges we face today in education--is stop by Emporia State. They have many fine programs and nothing but the best in terms of graduates who do such a great job.

Throughout the past 150 years, Emporia State has grown to accommodate the needs of the State and the 6,500 students it currently serves. What was once the Kansas State Teaching College, Emporia State has now expanded greatly, offering a wide range of academic programs.

In true Kansas fashion, the university has faced challenges head-on from its earliest days. Adversity is not uncommon. In fact, our State motto is ``to the stars through difficulty.'' But the outstanding faculty and staff have persevered on behalf of their students to provide a quality education, and that continues today with teachers who also provide a quality education. We can't do any better than that. It is with great pride as a Kansan and as a son of an Emporia State graduate that I recognize and congratulate Emporia State University on its 150th anniversary.

I am more than happy to yield to my friend and colleague, Senator Moran.

I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to proceed as in morning business.