Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. We might have a heck of a test on it next week. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a true patriot, and fellow U.S. Marine, Col. Harold R. Van Opdorp. While some know him as ``Odie'' and others as Colonel V, we all know him as Marine. After more than 3 years of service leading the Marine Corps' Office of Legislative Affairs in the U.S. Senate, Colonel Van Opdorp has assumed the responsibilities as commanding officer of the Marine Corps' Officer Candidate School. I would like to recognize Colonel Van Opdorp's distinguished service and dedication to fostering a relationship of mutual benefit between the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Senate. With more than 2 decades of dedicated service to his country, Colonel Van Opdorp has selflessly given to the cause of freedom across the globe, from Somalia to Iran, from Norway to the South Pacific. His service leading young Marines as a platoon, company, and battalion commander, in garrison and in combat, is emblematic of the caliber of his character. His diverse service reflects the traditions of the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor that he wears and the nature of the Corps. Over the course of the last 3 years, Colonel Van Opdorp has been instrumental to facilitating the oversight responsibilities of the Senate. Known for his in-depth knowledge of legislative issues and the operational requirements of the Marine Corps, he ensured that Members of the U.S. Senate with an interest in national security were armed with timely information on Operation Enduring Freedom, humanitarian assistance in Haiti, flood relief operations in Pakistan, Marine Security Guards at our diplomatic missions around the globe, and other forward-deployed Marine forces. Colonel Van Opdorp worked hard to ensure all Senators were fully briefed of the programs which make our Corps special, programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, and the MV-22 Osprey. In 2011, I had the pleasure of working closely with Colonel Van Opdorp during our efforts to recognize the significant contributions of the Montford Point Marines, our Nation's first African American Marines, with the Congressional Gold Medal. Colonel Van Opdorp's absence will be felt in the Senate. I join many past and present Senators in my gratitude and appreciation for his outstanding leadership and unwavering support of the missions of the U.S. Marine Corps. I know my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee wholeheartedly join me in this tribute. I wish Colonel Van Opdorp and his wife, Rebecca, fair winds and following seas as he continues to serve his Nation, charged with the great responsibility of molding our future Marine Officers. ``Ooh-rah'' and Semper Fi, Marine.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas for his wonderful eulogy to a wonderful man, a teacher, a State legislator, and just a very nice individual. I thank the Senator for that excellent eulogy. We will miss him.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand that the distinguished chairperson of the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture Committee will be on the floor to lock in amendment No. 965 by Senator Sanders. I rise in opposition to that amendment. The amendment would allow States to require--let me emphasize the word, ``require''--that any food, beverage, or other product be labeled if it contains a genetically engineered ingredient. Now, that is how it is described mostly in this debate: a genetically engineered ingredient. I think it would be more accurately called modern science to feed a very troubled and hungry world. We already have policies and procedures, I would tell my colleagues, in place at the Food and Drug Administration to address labeling of foods that are derived from modern biotechnology. The U.S. standards ensure that all labels for all foods are truthful and are not misleading to the public. FDA has a scientifically based review process to evaluate all food products. The Food and Drug Administration states: FDA has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods are different from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding. The FDA reviews products and determines that they are safe. I think we need to trust the science of their review and allow this process to work. The amendment by Senator Sanders would result in additional costs to food producers, and that is going to come right back to consumers. The FDA has determined that approved biotech crops are not materially different than conventional crops and therefore do not require segregation from conventional crops. The only difference--if you have a bioengineered product, and let's say you come from Africa, one of the countries over there that continually has a very difficult time trying to feed themselves--the only difference is if you use a bioengineered product that makes that crop more resistant to heat or to rain or to a particular insect that is causing a lot of problems--you have a choice: You can have a crop or you can have no crop or you can have perhaps a crop with a pesticide or you can have a bioengineered product that is perfectly safe. Furthermore, a change in policy would place additional costs on farmers by potentially requiring them to segregate crops and change their equipment. It would also be very problematic for grain processing facilities. I know some fail to recognize--and I know many criticize-- the importance of biotechnology or criticize the safety of the product. I just say, let science be the judge. Each product goes through extensive tests to ensure safety to both human health and the environment. There are different views, of course, on farming, and some of my colleagues in the Senate believe we should focus on those that only farm a few acres--the small family farmer; somebody about 5 foot 3 inches from Vermont--and then grow organic crops and sell them to the local farmers market. There is nothing wrong with that. I encourage that. There is nothing wrong with organic farming, and there is certainly nothing wrong with regard to farmers who farm less acres. God bless them. However, if we are going to supply enough food for this growing population around the world--9 billion more people in the next several decades--we need agriculture of all types, and that includes organic and conventional and biotech crops. The more nations we can help to feed and bring economic prosperity, the more stable the world will become. That is good for our families, our Nation, and the world, and the world's stability. We can only do that through commonsense policies based on sound science that will allow our producers to do what they need to do to get the job done. My colleagues--and I see the distinguished chairperson. I will conclude in just about 30 seconds. I am glad she is here. I will just say to my colleagues in the Senate that we should not be putting on lab coats individually and taking action on this amendment. We have a clear scientifically based review process that works. If we pass this amendment, probably in Vermont, California, you will have a requirement; some other States may or may not; in Kansas we will not, and so our State legislature would have no need of putting on lab coats. At any rate, the FDA has guidance for voluntary labeling, and companies can choose to voluntarily label food and products if their customers want it, if they demand it. Let the consumer decide. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I yield back.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. 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. ROBERTS

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

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

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

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

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask unanimous consent that 2 minutes be granted.

Mr. ROBERTS. 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. ROBERTS. 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. ROBERTS

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

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

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. 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. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. 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. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. 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.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ROBERTS. 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.

Mr. ROBERTS. Perhaps a hearing problem.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. 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.

Mr. ROBERTS. 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.