Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think we may have someone--we want to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for the consideration of amendment No. 3201.

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

Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent to set the pending amendment aside for the consideration of amendment No. 2972.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 2972.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is something that I know will be accepted by both sides, by every Member in here. It is a request by all the associations, the veterans and all the others. It is something I wasn't familiar with until fairly recently, and that is, in July of 1862, following the Seven Days Battles, Union GEN Daniel Butterfield and bugler Oliver Wilcox Norton created ``Taps'' at Berkeley Plantation in Virginia. This is something we are all familiar with, those of us who served in the military. We know what ``Taps'' is. It is a big deal to a lot of people, but it has never had an official designation. We have an amendment now that would be a sense-of-the-Senate that would designate the bugle call commonly known as ``Taps'' to be designated as a national military song of military remembrance. The reason I think it is significant to do it is it raises the song known as ``Taps'' to a national level of significance, specifically for the military veterans as a tribute when played during military funerals and ceremonies. This is a request of various veterans organizations, and I would ask that it be adopted.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me elaborate a little bit on what the Senator from Ohio just said. I think it is important to remember that the whole idea was a Democratic idea and not a Republican idea. Some of us remember. We were not actually here at the time, but in the 1960s during the Kennedy administration--of course, the last time I checked he was a Democrat--he was the one who made this statement. I have quoted him very often. He said, We need more revenue to take care of the great society programs that he had kind of inherited and was furthering. He said, The best way to increase revenue is to decrease marginal rates. He did that. I remember the top rate went down from 90 percent to 70 percent, and during his period of time, the total amount of revenue that came from marginal rates raised from $94 billion to $153 billion. Then, a few years later, along came Ronald Reagan and the total amount of revenue that was raised for marginal rates in the year 1980 was $244 billion and in 1990 it was $466 billion, which almost doubled in the decade that had the most streamlining and reduced reduction in marginal rates in our history. So I think it is interesting to observe that this is not--it wasn't all a Republican idea, but it is something that has worked every time it has been tried.

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Ohio. I would go a little farther and say this obsession that the only way to do these things is to raise taxes, I think that flies in the face of history. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides. This is the one that originally we had several years ago concerning the Lord's Resistance Army in Africa and the showing that we have a policy in this country to bring this man down, the man called Joseph Kony. And we want to renew this so that we will have this pending again. It doesn't change anything that is going on at the present time except it keeps our policy in effect; that we are after the Lord's Resistance Army, and we will do what we have been doing in the past until it is completed. So I ask my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have been attempting to contact the primary author of amendment No. 3199, Senator Durbin. Let me first of all ask unanimous consent that I be added, if I am not already, as original cosponsor to the amendment No. 3199.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think it is interesting that this amendment is coming up at this time. It is a matter of just a couple of hours ago that we passed an amendment on this floor extending our effort and policy against the LRA, the Lord's Resistance Army, and that is Joseph Kony, the individual who for now over 20 years has been abducting young people, training them, taking them up and forcing them to go out and fight with the LRA. If they did not do it, they would have to go home and murder their own family. It has been just horrible. We are making great progress now. I spent a lot of time primarily in Uganda where this all began, and it looks now as though we are getting closer to doing that. The reason I am interested in amendment No. 3199 by Senator Durbin and am supporting it is because a very similar thing is going on right now. I happen to have spent some time in the eastern part of the Congo, where I have seen the rise of another individual, Colonel Makenga. He is very much like Joseph Kony. In fact, he is training the young people, young kids to be fighters. We all know about the effort out there with what they call the rebel leader of M23. That is very similar to what is happening up in Uganda. In fact, the Uganda effort and the LRA effort were very prominent, actually, in eastern Congo, the same place where this--and I suspected myself that there is a relationship between the two efforts. So I strongly support that. I want to say one thing, though. I have strong feelings about this, and I want to get it on the record, and I would like to have my comments placed in the Record at the time this amendment comes up for consideration. A lot of people were feeling that one of the problems with the M23 leaders came from Rwanda itself. At some time, they talked about President Kagame, President Paul Kagame, as if there were a relationship between this butcher over there, Colonel Makenga, and President Kagame. There is no relationship whatsoever. In fact, President Kagame rejects what this rebel leader is trying to do. I had occasion to spend some time with Louise Mushikiwabo, who is the Foreign Affairs Minister for the Republic of Rwanda. I was with her. I have her picture right here. I was with her recently, and she gave us the assurance that the President, President Paul Kagame, is just as adamant about doing away with this rebel leader, Colonel Makenga, of the M23 rebel movement. I am happy to join in with this. I wanted to make sure I have my assurance in this that there is no relationship between this rebel movement and the President of Rwanda. I yield the floor. I see the author of this amendment is on the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me compliment Senator Durbin for his concern for this activity that is going on there. I wish to clarify the record because I have had personal conversations with the President and with many members of the staff and good friends over there. Africa is a little bit different than other areas. Sometimes there can be rebel groups within a country that are doing something people attribute to a country. In this case, that isn't true with Rwanda. In the case of Rwanda, if they say that some of the Rwandan military was supporting the M23 movement, that would not be with the authority or the knowledge even of President Kagame himself and his administration. I want to make sure to clarify that. Also, I want to mention, the area of Goma that the Senator from Illinois is talking about is something that a lot of people are not-- they don't understand what that is. Goma is in the far eastern part of Congo. The capital is Kinshasa. It is further from Kinshasa to Goma than it is, of course, all the way across this country twice. So we are talking about an area where there is not much control. It happens that Robert Ruberwa, Parliamentarian Ruberwa, is the one who is responsible for that area. The way it is working there, they don't have any control over there. This is a rebel movement. The reason I say I believe, and I have always believed, that there is a relationship between the LRA and the M23 is because I was over there when the LRA had just left. We were hoping to be there at the same time. It was a matter of a couple of days before. They went north up through the Central African Republic and up through south Sudan, over to Uganda, where they originally started. That is the same area and the same motive, the same way of operating as M23. They are abducting little kids. People don't realize this. They abduct little kids and teach them how to use weapons and make them go back to their villages, murder their parents and their siblings, and if they don't do that, they cut their noses off and their ears off. We have pictures. We have seen this happen. I am pleased that we have adopted as a policy of this country to intervene. Let's keep in mind, we have a war against terrorists. These are terrorists and this has spread throughout--starting actually more in the Horn of Africa, Djibouti, and then moving down into the continent. This is the type of terrorism that comes from it. I consider this as a part of that war. But I do want to emphasize that the accusation that Rwanda and their leadership, specifically President Kagame--let's remember what happened with Paul Kagame. He was the one back during the genocide of 1994 who was able to come in and pull everybody together. A lot of the rebels went to the west out in Rwanda and went into the eastern part of Congo. We know that is right. But they have been rejected. There is no accusation that there is even a relationship there. But I hope people realize we do have some great Presidents throughout the continent of Africa, and he is one of them. It is a difficult situation there. It is one on which we need to focus our attention. By the way, I would say I don't believe it has been cleared on our side. It would be with me, but it hasn't happened yet, and we hope to work in that direction so we can take this up. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Captain Chris Bala, an Army fellow in Senator Murkowski's office, be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the Senate's debate on S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization bill.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Gary Mayo, an Army fellow in Senator Hutchison's office, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of S. 3254.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. With reference to the Udall amendment yesterday, I want to make sure our colleagues note this is not the Udall amendment. This is something different. This would mean for the first time we would be spending our DOD dollars, very scarce dollars--in this case the Department of the Navy--to build refineries or retrofit refineries. That has not been done before. As I said to the Senator from North Carolina when she was presiding: This is a function that has always been performed by the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture. In my State of Oklahoma we have several of these refineries and potential refineries and retrofits that are needed. However, we went through the proper channels, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy. So if we vote for this amendment, it will be the first time we are using our readiness dollars to do something the DOA and the DOE are supposed to be doing. That is what distinguishes the difference between the two.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senator from New Hampshire has a time issue and she would like to have 5 minutes before my time will begin. That is acceptable. I yield 5 minutes to my friend from New Hampshire.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I hear all the time from my good friend who is involved in this. In this rare case it is true. The Senator from Colorado and I are very close friends, and he and I disagree on this issue. I think it is important for us to understand where this came from. Senator McCain and I are responsible for section 313, and I think when people understand what it is, all of these arguments I have heard against it, none of them holds weight. What we are trying to do is experiment in green energy at the expense of our ability to defend America, and our readiness. Our military is deployed in more locations around the world at a greater rate than was ever the case during the Cold War. I sometimes say, I look wistfully back on the days of the Cold War. Back then we had an enemy we could define. It was an enemy who was predictable. That is not the case anymore, and after almost two decades fighting and all of these contingencies worldwide, including four major regional conflicts with a force structure that is 40 percent smaller and equipment that is decades older than the military readiness during its decline, this is what we are faced with right now. All of this is coming at a time when the Obama administration has cut the defense budget, projecting over the 10-year period, by some $487 billion. If the Obama sequestration becomes a reality, that would be $1 trillion over this period of time coming out of our defense budget. Even the Secretary of Defense, President Obama's Secretary of Defense, said that would be devastating. He used the word ``devastating.'' But if that were not enough, the Obama administration continues to force the military to spend greater proportions of its already depleted funds on an expensive green energy agenda, to include the purchase of biofuels for operational use and construction of commercial biofuel refineries. I fully support the development and the use of alternative fuels, including biofuels, but not at the expense of the military. Secretary Mabus's primary focus must be or should be on the readiness of the Navy, not on propping up the biofuel industry. By the way, I have to remind everyone we have a bureaucracy called the Department of Energy. They are the ones who are supposed to be doing all of this experimentation we talked about. Our Navy, according to the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Jon Greenert, will see a 15- percent increase in the number of ships set to deploy, with the number of ships and attack boats deployed at any time rising from 93 today to 107 by 2016. This increased deployment rate will impact sailors and marines as well as the required maintenance of ships and aircraft. President Obama talked about pivoting to Asia from the Middle East and some of the concentrations. This is going to create another very serious problem. When every defense cut dollar degrades our military readiness, why should we want our Navy to pay four times the amount than almost any other fuel, or in some cases 100 times the amount? With a military budget that continues to decrease, where is the Navy going to get additional funding to pay its biofuel bill? What is the Navy willing to give up in order to pay this bill? What is DOD willing to give up in order to pay the higher fuel bills? They have been talking about this on the other side. However, the higher fuel bills are not what this section 313 is all about. We discussed this in the committee. I fully support the efforts that make it affordable are mixed in, but biofuels still face challenges in technologies that remain imprudent. Again, we have a Department of Energy that is supposed to be doing this. This is a 2011 RAND report, which says: There is no direct benefit to the Department of Defense and the services from using alternative fuels rather than petroleum-derived fuels. In short, the military is best served by efforts directed at using energy more efficiently in weapon systems and at military installations. That is a 2011 RAND Commission direct quote. Despite the recent assertions by biofuel lobbyists that the two biofuel provisions in S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013, do not restrict the Department of Defense from purchasing alternative fuels, including biofuels, section 313 allows the continued use of the Department of Defense funding for biofuels for testing but precludes them from using the funds authorized for readiness and training. That is what this is all about, readiness. Section 313 contained in the bill is intended to restore fiscal responsibility and accountability for defense spending at a time when our Nation simply cannot afford to waste taxpayers' funds on speculative green initiatives such as Solyndra and dozens of other companies that are foundering or bankrupt despite billions of government investment, as they call it. A recent DOD report revealed that the biofuels program will amount to an extra $1.8 billion a year in fuel costs to the Navy alone. That is just the Navy, not the Air Force, not the rest of them. This ludicrous pricetag is not surprising. Through congressional oversight efforts, we found that in 2009--now listen to this, this is significant--the Navy paid an outrageous $424 a gallon for 20,000 gallons of renewable diesel. In December of 2011, the Navy purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuels for $12 million, equaling about $27 a gallon. That is $27 a gallon we are talking about in our defense budget when we are paying for something that should cost $3, maybe $4 a gallon. The Navy is not the only service being subjected to this greening agenda. Last month the Air Force bought 11,000 gallons of alcohol to jet fuel at $59 a gallon, twice as much per gallon as what the Navy was forced to spend. So we are talking about amounts such as $400, $450, and $29 a gallon for fuel just to experiment, and this is something the Department of Energy should be doing if anyone is going to be doing it. DOD has been forced to drastically cut its personnel, the number of brigade combat teams, ships, fighters, and airlift, and it has had to eliminate or postpone critical military modernization programs. Now thanks to President Obama's defense budget cuts, DOD can't afford to do business as usual. Yet they are being coerced to spend $27 a gallon. Secretary Panetta has warned repeatedly that President Obama's deep cuts will have a devastating effect to our economy. He used the word ``devastating'' when he talked about what was going to happen if he is successful in the next step, which would be the sequestration. Knowing this, how could anyone support including another $1.8 billion from an already stretched budget? President Obama's climate chief, Heather Zichal, defended the green fleet by arguing that even a dollar rise in gasoline prices would cost DOD $30 million. I think my good friend, the Senator from Colorado, said essentially the same thing. I agree with it. If every $1 of rise in gas prices costs $30 million, a $27 increase in fuel costs due to the forced use of biofuels would add up to about $660 million. So that argument falls completely flat. Realizing that the economic angle is a political loser, the Obama administration has tried to say that it is about national security in getting off of foreign oil. That is where I want to get. I spent several years as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and several years as the ranking member. All during that time, people were saying the one thing we all agree on is we need to be off of foreign oil. We need not to be dependent upon the Middle East. Yet right now we know no one is going to refute this fact, no one in this room, no one today or in the future, that when we had the USGS reports and the other reports saying that we now are in a different position than we have been before. People are saying of the resources and the reserves in fossil fuels--and I am talking about ``oil and gas''--we are No. 1 in the world now. We didn't used to be. Two years ago we couldn't have said that. Right now we are. We have the opportunity, and we can look at the opportunity, in terms of our reserves that are usable, of being totally self-sufficient. The other thing that is so disturbing, when people talk about they don't want to be dependent on the Middle East, therefore we have to spend billions of defense dollars to experiment on biofuels when, in fact, we could be completely self-sufficient, all we have to do is do what every other nation in the world does, and what is that? Every other nation in the world depletes it. They go after their own resources. We have recoverable reserves in gas and oil to take care of this country for the next 50 and 90 years, respectively, and yet we are trying to use this as an argument to go and spend this money on experimental biofuels. I think that part of the argument has to be exposed for what it is. It is a phony argument. You know, we look, we see, and people ask from around the world, they say why is it that your country, the United States--in my position on this committee I have been asked this many times--why is it that you are the only country that won't exploit its own resources, and I say, well, it is a political thing. Right now if you want to do something about becoming energy totally sufficient--I asked the other day, because the President keeps saying, well, you know, you are wrong because if we were to develop all of our public lands and be able to get the resources off of that, it would take 10 years for that to reach the pump--I actually called up a man named Harold Hamm. He has testified before our committees up here in Washington several times. I said, let me ask you a question. I am going to be on a TV show and they are going to ask me, if this administration would lift all of the restrictions we have on public lands how long would it take for the first barrel of oil that would come from that to reach the pumps? Otherwise, you go through the refining process and all of that, because we have heard this administration say it would take 10 years. Well, in fact, it would take--his answer was--and I said: Be careful, Harold Hamm, because I am going to use your name on nationwide TV. He said: Yes, I have thought about this. It would take 70 days. Not 10 years but 70 days. So we are talking about sufficiency that we could have just in this country in a matter of days, not in a matter of years. And I only bring that up--and I know people don't think it should be part of this debate, but it is because they are using the argument that we have to use billions of defense dollars in experimenting with biofuels to wean us off fossil fuels when, in fact, we are doing that now. And we have a Department of Energy that is responsible for actually carrying that out. The argument completely falls on its face. It was the U.S. Geological Survey report that revealed that America has 26 percent of the world's recoverable conventional oil reserves-- which is more than we are using, so we could become independent--and almost 30 percent of the world's technically recoverable conventional gas resources. So with all these things in mind, the Congressional Research Service agrees and the USGS agrees we could become independent. So it all comes together. This isn't happening in a vacuum. We have a good bill here, and we need to get it done in the short period of time given us by the leadership. I think we can do it. I agree with the chairman of the committee that we can get this done. But this one amendment is one that would, probably more than any other amendment, take away our ability to spend this money on readiness--on readiness for the experimental program on green energy. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that CAPT Tony Pankuch, a defense fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this year.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, On January 22, 2011 SSG Charles Allen of Oklahoma lost his two legs and almost lost his life in an IED blast in Afghanistan in Arghandel Valley. But his will to live and the help of his wife and family have given this American Hero all the motivation he needed to win his battle for recovery. SSG Allen makes us all proud to be Americans. The following poem entitled PRAETORIANS was penned by Albert Caswell in his honor and his recovery. I ask unanimous consent that said poem be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a new bill, the Food Stamp Restoration Act. This is a bill that will completely revamp the Food Stamp program, which is something that is desperately needed. Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the number of Americans on Food Stamps has increased by 46 percent. Over 46 million Americans currently claim Food Stamp benefits, and this costs taxpayers over $80 billion per year. In 2008, just four years ago, the program cost $40 billion per year--it has more than doubled in cost under President Obama's leadership. How on earth did we get here? Many changes to the program that have ballooned its cost have been made in recent years. President Obama, in his stimulus package, pushed reforms that both made it easier to qualify for the program and increased the value of the program's benefits. When the stimulus bill passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the changes made to the Food Stamp program would increase the cost of it by to nearly $60 billion over 10 years. Worse yet, the President has pursued economic, tax, and regulatory policies that are anti-business. These policies have made the business environment uncertain, which makes it nearly impossible for firms to invest in and expand their businesses. Businesses are doing well to simply hold on to what they already have. This has kept both unemployment and food stamp enrollment higher than it should be. Since the stimulus package, there have been a few efforts to tinker with the structure and value of the Food Stamp program, but none of them have amounted to much. The Senate-passed Farm Bill reduced the cost of the program by a paltry $4 billion over 10 years, which is less than 1 percent of its total 10-year cost. That was one of the main reasons I voted against the Farm Bill. But we have moved well beyond tinkering around the edges. If we do not do anything to dramatically reform the food stamp program, it will cost Federal taxpayers nearly $800 billion over the next decade. This program needs to change. That is why I am introducing the Food Stamp Restoration Act. Today, the Food Stamp program is a mandatory program, meaning that Congress does not have to appropriate money every year for the Food Stamp program to be funded. Rather, it is funded automatically. This dramatically reduces Congressional accountability over the program, leaving few opportunities to make adjustments and improvements to the program. This needs to change. My bill tackles this problem head on. The Food Stamp Restoration Act converts the program from a mandatory program into a discretionary one. If my bill is enacted, Congress will have to decide each year how much money to spend on the Food Stamp program. My bill also removes the power of designing and running the program from the Federal Government and gives it to the states. The new Food Stamp program will be a block grant, which means that States will be given nearly limitless flexibility to design and implement their food stamp programs in the way that best serves their people. This makes sense to me. I have never thought that bureaucrats in Washington understood Oklahomans. But the people in Oklahoma City do. If my bill is enacted, each State will receive an allotment from the Food Stamp appropriation that will be proportional to the number of individuals living in the State with an income at or below the Federal poverty level. Benefits will be given to the people who need them most. States will only have to meet a few requirements to qualify for the block grant. First, their program will not be allowed to authorize benefit spending on things like alcohol and tobacco. The program should only allow benefit spending on real food. Second, all beneficiaries must submit themselves to drug testing. Finally, States must implement work requirements for the beneficiaries. This follows the general welfare reform efforts that I have been championing since first coming to the Senate. To give States flexibility during times of economic weakness, they will be able to keep their allotment of funds for up to 5 years. This will allow States to provide benefits to more people during times of higher unemployment. After 5 years, if States have unused funds, the money will return to the Treasury for deficit reduction or debt repayment. All told, my bill will save over $300 billion for Federal taxpayers, and it make significant improvements to the current program by giving States complete control over the design and implementation of the programs within their States. The Obama administration has dramatically increased the cost of this welfare program, making millions more Americans reliant on federal assistance than necessary. The cost has doubled in just four short years. I urge the Senate to consider my bill soon so that we can save taxpayers $300 billion over 10 years while reducing the dependency of the population on government programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a new bill, the Food Stamp Restoration Act. This is a bill that will completely revamp the Food Stamp program, which is something that is desperately needed. Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the number of Americans on Food Stamps has increased by 46 percent. Over 46 million Americans currently claim Food Stamp benefits, and this costs taxpayers over $80 billion per year. In 2008, just four years ago, the program cost $40 billion per year--it has more than doubled in cost under President Obama's leadership. How on earth did we get here? Many changes to the program that have ballooned its cost have been made in recent years. President Obama, in his stimulus package, pushed reforms that both made it easier to qualify for the program and increased the value of the program's benefits. When the stimulus bill passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the changes made to the Food Stamp program would increase the cost of it by to nearly $60 billion over 10 years. Worse yet, the President has pursued economic, tax, and regulatory policies that are anti-business. These policies have made the business environment uncertain, which makes it nearly impossible for firms to invest in and expand their businesses. Businesses are doing well to simply hold on to what they already have. This has kept both unemployment and food stamp enrollment higher than it should be. Since the stimulus package, there have been a few efforts to tinker with the structure and value of the Food Stamp program, but none of them have amounted to much. The Senate-passed Farm Bill reduced the cost of the program by a paltry $4 billion over 10 years, which is less than 1 percent of its total 10-year cost. That was one of the main reasons I voted against the Farm Bill. But we have moved well beyond tinkering around the edges. If we do not do anything to dramatically reform the food stamp program, it will cost Federal taxpayers nearly $800 billion over the next decade. This program needs to change. That is why I am introducing the Food Stamp Restoration Act. Today, the Food Stamp program is a mandatory program, meaning that Congress does not have to appropriate money every year for the Food Stamp program to be funded. Rather, it is funded automatically. This dramatically reduces Congressional accountability over the program, leaving few opportunities to make adjustments and improvements to the program. This needs to change. My bill tackles this problem head on. The Food Stamp Restoration Act converts the program from a mandatory program into a discretionary one. If my bill is enacted, Congress will have to decide each year how much money to spend on the Food Stamp program. My bill also removes the power of designing and running the program from the Federal Government and gives it to the states. The new Food Stamp program will be a block grant, which means that States will be given nearly limitless flexibility to design and implement their food stamp programs in the way that best serves their people. This makes sense to me. I have never thought that bureaucrats in Washington understood Oklahomans. But the people in Oklahoma City do. If my bill is enacted, each State will receive an allotment from the Food Stamp appropriation that will be proportional to the number of individuals living in the State with an income at or below the Federal poverty level. Benefits will be given to the people who need them most. States will only have to meet a few requirements to qualify for the block grant. First, their program will not be allowed to authorize benefit spending on things like alcohol and tobacco. The program should only allow benefit spending on real food. Second, all beneficiaries must submit themselves to drug testing. Finally, States must implement work requirements for the beneficiaries. This follows the general welfare reform efforts that I have been championing since first coming to the Senate. To give States flexibility during times of economic weakness, they will be able to keep their allotment of funds for up to 5 years. This will allow States to provide benefits to more people during times of higher unemployment. After 5 years, if States have unused funds, the money will return to the Treasury for deficit reduction or debt repayment. All told, my bill will save over $300 billion for Federal taxpayers, and it make significant improvements to the current program by giving States complete control over the design and implementation of the programs within their States. The Obama administration has dramatically increased the cost of this welfare program, making millions more Americans reliant on federal assistance than necessary. The cost has doubled in just four short years. I urge the Senate to consider my bill soon so that we can save taxpayers $300 billion over 10 years while reducing the dependency of the population on government programs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.