Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
GROWERS, AT THE EXPENSE OF OVER
600,000 EMPLOYEES IN THE FOOD
INDUSTRY AND MILLIONS OF
CONSUMERS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY.
THANK YOU,
MR. PRESIDENT.
I RISE TO SPEAK AGAINST THE PAUL
AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT 2182,
WHICH WOULD CRIPPLE THE FOOD
STAMP PROGRAM.
I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THERE'S
AN AURA OF WONDERMENT AROUND
HERE THAT SAYS LOOK, LET'S CUT
FOOD STAMPS FOR HUNGRY FAMILIES
AND FOR LITTLE CHILDREN.
WE HAVE THESE -- THING ARY
COMPANIES TO --AGRI COMPANIES
TO TAKE CARE OF, THING ARY GAYS
BISES TO MAKE SURE --
AGRIBUSINESSES TO MAKE SURE THEY
CAN FEED THEIR CHILDREN.
THE FUNDAMENTAL TEST FOR ANY
FAMILY IS TO PUT FOOD ON TABLE,
TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR CHILDREN
GET THE NUTRITION THEY NEED.
TIMES HIT,
FAMILIES CAN FIND THEMSELVES
STRUGGLING TO MEET THEIR MOST
BASIC NEEDS.
THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM WAS
CREATED SO THAT EVEN IN THE
TOUGHEST OF TIMES CHILDREN IN
THIS COUNTRY DO NOT GO TO BED
HUNGRY.
A PICTURE OF A CHILD REACHING
OUT FOR FOOD, THE OLD STORIES
ABOUT MOTTOES ON CEREAL PROGRAMS
WHERE -- TALKING ABOUT
SATISFYING THE BROTHER'S HUNGER.
IT WAS AN OLD, OLD REMARK,
REMARKABLE DISPLAY OF WHAT IT IS
THAT COMES TO THE FUNDAMENTALS.
OF TAKING CARE OF OR LETTING
FAMILIES THAT NEED HELP GET
SOME.
ESPECIALLY IN THIS AREA.
IT'S APPALLING THAT OUR
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUE FROM
KENTUCKY HAS PROPOSED AN
AMENDMENT TO CUT MORE THAN $300
BILLION FROM A PROGRAM THAT'S A
LIFE LINE FOR MANY FAMILIES.
THESE ARE HEARTLESS CUTS, WOULD
PUNISH FAMILIES THAT NEED HELP
THE MOST.
WE'RE DEBATING A BILL THAT
CONTAINS BILLIONS IN SUPPORT FOR
BIG AGRICULTURAL COMPANIES, BUT
INSTEAD OF TARGETING THE
SUBSIDIES THEY GET FROM THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FROM THE
TAXPAYERS IN THE COUNTRY,
REPUBLICANS SAY THAT WE OUGHT TO
CUT PROGRAMS FOR HUNGRY
CHILDREN.
I WONDER IF THOSE WHO WANT TO
CUT THE FOOD STAMPS PROGRAM
WOULD PARTICIPATE IN A REAL WAY
AND SAY TO THEIR LITTLE
CHILDREN, SAY TO THEIR FAMILY,
LOOK, JUST TO SHOW THAT WE'RE
TO SHOW THAT WE
REALLY CARE, LIMIT THE AMOUNT
OF FOOD THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
GIVE YOUR CHILDREN, THAT THE
AMOUNT OF FOOD YOU'RE GOING TO
GIVE THE ELDERS IN YOUR
HOUSEHOLD.
TO SAY THAT THEY'RE SERIOUS
ABOUT THIS.
HUNGRY CHILDREN DIDN'T CAUSE THE
RECESSION OR THE DEFICIT.
AND CUTTING FOOD STAMPS WILL NOT
SOLVE OUR DEBT PROBLEM.
BUT HUNGRY CHILDREN DON'T HAVE
LOBBYISTS SO PROGRAMS LIKE FOOD
STAMPS END UP ON THE REPUBLICAN
CHOPPING BLOCK.
HEROIC, MUSCULAR MEN AND WOMEN
SAY YEAH, WE WANT TO MAKE OUR
COUNTRY FISCALLY SOUND SO LET'S
TAKE THE FOOD STAMPS AWAY FROM
PEOPLE WHO COULD BE STARVING.
THE PAUL AMENDMENT WOULD CUT
SUPPORT FOR FOOD STAMPS BY
ALMOST 45% NEXT YEAR ALONE.
AND THE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE
DEVASTATING.
THAN 46 MILLION
AMERICANS -- THE NUMBERS ARE
STAGGERING -- INCLUDING 800,000
PEOPLE FROM MY STATE OF NEW
JERSEY.
WE ARE A STATE THAT HAS ABOUT
NINE MILLION PEOPLE LIVING
THERE.
WE'RE SAYING 800,000 NEW
JERSEYANS ARE DEPENDENT ON FOOD
MONTH.
STAMPS TO MAKE IT THROUGH THE
HALF OF THEM
ARE CHILDREN AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THIS -- THIS PLACARD
HERE, CAN YOU IMAGINE ASKING A
MOTHER, TELLING A MOTHER THAT
SHE HAS TO TELL HER KIDS THAT
THEY HAVE TO DO MORE WITH LESS,
MORE WITH LESS FOOD SO THAT
MAYBE OTHERS -- OTHER BUSINESSES
CAN CONTINUE TO GET SUBSIDIES,
THOSE IN THE AGRIBUSINESS?
REPUBLICANS SHOULD SAY TO THESE
FAMILIES, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CUT
CORPORATE SUBSIDIES, NO, NO, WE
HAVE TO DO THAT.
WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
RICH WON'T PAY MORE IN TAXES.
SO, PLEASE, UNDERSTAND, AS WE
TAKE FOOD OFF YOUR TERRIBLE, AS
WE SAY TO OUR KIDS, EAT LESS,
GET THINNER, GET TRIMMER, GET --
LET -- STOP DOING YOUR HOMEWORK
BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO TIRED, OR
STOP COMPLAINING BECAUSE YOU
DON'T FEEL WELL WHEN THE FOOD
QUANTITY IS NOT SUFFICIENT.
ON AVERAGE, THE FOOD STAMP
PROGRAM PROVIDES ASSISTANCE OF
JUST $1.50 PER MEAL.
A BUCK AND A HALF.
THERE'S NOT MUCH THERE TO CUT.
THE REPUBLICANS, WHO ARE SO
EAGER TO CUT FOOD STAMPS FROM
CHILDREN, SHOULD TRY LIVING ON
$1.50 PER MEAL FOR THE NEXT
MONTH AND LET THEM THEN REPORT
HOW -- HOW IT FEELS, HOW THEIR
KIDS SURVIVED WITH LESS FOOD
CAN CONSUME -- THAT
THEY NEED.
THEN WE'LL SEE HOW EAGER THEY
ARE TO CUT THE FOOD STAMPS.
THE REPUBLICAN APPROACH WOULD
HURT THOSE WITH THE LEAST TO
PROTECT THOSE WITH THE MOST.
THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS COUNTRY'S
ABOUT.
TOO MANY OF AMERICA'S FAMILIES
ARE STILL STRUGGLING.
TOO MANY PARENTS ARE STILL
LOOKING FOR WORK.
TOO MANY OF OUR CHILDREN ARE
STILL HUNGRY.
THE FOOD BANKS ACROSS THE
COUNTRY ARE GETTING EVER MORE
ATTENTION AND VISITS.
HELP.
REPUBLICANS SHOULD OFFER THEM
SHOW SOME HEART.
THIS ISN'T AN ACCOUNTING
ORGANIZATION.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO JUST BALANCE
THE BOOKS.
BOOKS.
YES, WE'VE GOT TO BALANCE THE
THAT'S WHAT -- I COME FROM
BUSINESS AND I KNOW WHAT YOU GOT
TO DO.
BUT THAT MEANS THAT WE WOULDN'T
BE SERVICING OUR DEMOCRATIC
STRUCTURES, OUR -- THE PEOPLE IN
OUR SOCIETY WHO NEED HELP.
REPUBLICANS SHOULD OFFER THEM
HELP.
INSTEAD, THEY OFFER THEM DEEPER
POVERTY AND GREATER HUNGER.
MR. PRESIDENT, THE BOTTOM LINE
THIS.
AT A TIME WHEN 50% OF FOOD STAMP
RECIPIENTS ARE CHILDREN, IT
WOULD BE A MORAL STAIN ON OUR
COUNTRY'S CHARACTER TO CUT THIS
PROGRAM, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT
AMERICA'S ABOUT.
AND THAT'S WHY -- NOT WHY THOSE
OF US HERE SERVE.
THE CHILDREN WHO WOULD BE HARMED
BY RECKLESS CUTS CAN'T SPEAK FOR
THEMSELVES BUT WE SHOULDN'T NEED
TO HEAR THEIR CRYING VOICES TO
KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES, LISTEN TO
THE CONSCIENCE -- LISTEN TO
PAUL AMENDMENT.
THEIR CONSCIOUS AND DEFEATTHEIR CONSCIENCE AND DEFEAT THE
I WANT TO CONCLUDE BY SAYING HOW
DISAPPOINTED IT IS TO SEE A
$4 BILLION REDUCTION TO THE FOOD
STAMP PROGRAM IN THE FARM BILL,
AND I'M PROUD TO JOIN SENATOR
GILLIBRAND IN INTRODUCING AN
THESE CUTS.
WE'RE --
INTRODUCING AN AMENDMENT TO
REVERSE THESE CUTS.
WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MAKE THAT
HAPPEN.
WITH THAT, I YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE
TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO AN
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ELIMINATE
THE SUGAR PROGRAM AND I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO TABLE IT AT THIS
AS WE CONTINUE
TIME.
OUR WORK ON THE FARM BILL, AS WE
DEBATE THESE AMENDMENTS, I THINK
MY COLLEAGUES SHOULD KEEP IN
MIND AT EVERY MOMENT THAT THIS
PROPOSAL CONTAINS $23 BILLION IN
CUTS THAT WAS BROUGHT TOGETHER
ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS AND THAT
TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE CUTS,
$16 BILLION, ARE ON ONLY 14% OF
THE BILL AND THAT IS THE FARM
PROGRAM.
TWO-THIRDS OF THE CUTS,
$16 BILLION ON THE FARM
PROGRAMS.
AND IT IS SUPPORTED, THIS BILL,
BY 630 CONSERVATION GROUPS, THE
NUTRITION GROUPS, A NUMBER OF
THEM.
CHANGES.
OBVIOUSLY THEY'D LIKE TO SEE
PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE THINGS
BETTER.
BUT IF WE DON'T GET THIS BILL
DONE, YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT'S
GOING TO HAPPEN TO SCHOOL HOT
LUNCHES AND THE LIKE.
NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, IN
ELIMINATING THE SUGAR PROGRAM
WOULD ACTUALLY HURT JOBS IN
AMERICA, AND I WANT TO -- I KNOW
SENATOR CONRAD WAS HERE EARLIER
PUTTING THE FACTS OUT, BUT
PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THE FACTS.
THIS IS A ZERO-COST PROGRAM THAT
SUPPORTS 142,000 JOBS AND
GENERATES NEARLY $20 BILLION IN
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.
LOOKING FOR.
THIS IS THE KIND OF VALUE WE'RE
I BELIEVE WE NEED TO BE DOING
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAINTAIN
PROGRAMS THAT ARE WORKING FOR
OUR FARMERS IN AN EFFICIENT WAY.
PROGRAMS THAT ARE SUPPORTING
JOBS AND PUTTING DOLLARS INTO
OUR ECONOMY, ESPECIALLY THOSE
PROGRAMS THAT DO NOT COST MONEY.
MOST OF US HERE CAN APPRECIATE
THE VALUE OF A STRONG FARM
SAFETY NET.
DURING OUR DISCUSSIONS IN THE
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, I WORKED
WITH CHAIRMAN STABENOW AND OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TO MAKE
SURE THAT THE BILL PROVIDED FOR
THAT SAFETY NET SO THAT THE
LIVELIHOODS OF OUR FARMERS CAN'T
BE SWEPT AWAY IN THE BLINK OF AN
EYE BY NATURAL DISASTERS AND
MARKET FAILURES.
BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT?
AS A COUNTRY DO NOT WANT TO
BE DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN FOOD
LIKE WE'RE DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN
OIL.
THE SUGAR PROGRAM HAS PLAYED ITS
OWN KEY ROLE IN SHIELDING
FARMERS BUT A DIFFERENT AND MORE
PREDICTABLE KIND OF RISK THAT
THEY FACE.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE RISK OF
COMPETING AGAINST HEAVILY
COUNTRIES.
SUBSIDIZED SUGAR FROM FOREIGN
LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY -- IF YOU
DON'T LIKE BEING DEPENDENT ON
THAT KIND OF FOREIGN OIL, YOU'RE
NOT GOING TO LOVE BEING
DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN SUGAR.
PAST U.S. TRADE AGREEMENTS HAVE
ALREADY OPENED OUR DOMESTIC
MARKET UP TO FOREIGN SUGAR.
OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS, THE
U.S. ON AVERAGE HAS BEEN THE
WORLD'S LARGEST SUGAR IMPORTER,
SUPPLYING NEARLY A THIRD OF OUR
TOTAL SUGAR NEEDS.
SINCE 1985, WE HAVE HAD 54 SUGAR
FACTORIES CLOSE DUE TO SUSTAINED
LOW PRICES.
ONCE THESE JOBS ARE GONE,
THEY'RE GONE FOREVER.
THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO CONTINUE
THE SUGAR PROGRAM IN THE 2012
FARM BILL, ONE THAT SUPPORTS
AMERICAN SUGAR BEET AND SUGAR
CANE PRODUCERS WHILE ENSURING AN
OF SUGAR FOR
CONSUMERS AND MANUFACTURERS.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE MUST CONTINUE
THIS PROGRAM.
NOW, LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENED.
THE GLOBAL RETAIL PRICE FOR
SUGAR IS 14% HIGHER THAN IT IS
IN THE U.S.
IN OTHER COUNTRIES COUNTRIES,
THE AVERAGE PRICE IS 24% HIGHER
THAN IT IS IN THE U.S.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE BLAMED FARMERS
FOR THE HIGH COST OF SUGAR FOODS
IN THE GROCERY STORE, BUT LOOK
AT THE NUMBERS.
FOR EXAMPLE, A $1 CANDY BAR HAS
ABOUT TWO CENTS WORTH OF SUGAR
IN IT.
A $3.50 CARTON OF ICE CREAM HAS
ABOUT 10 CENTS WORTH OF SUGAR.
SO ENDING THE SUGAR PROGRAM IS
NOT THE SOLUTION THAT WILL KEEP
FOOD PRICES COMPETITIVE.
IT IS THE OPPOSITE.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PROGRAM FOR
OUR COUNTRY.
I DON'T THINK THAT IF CHANGES
WANT TO BE MADE TO IT, THAT IT
SHOULDN'T BE -- THE ANSWER
SHOULD NOT BE TO ELIMINATE IT,
AND THAT'S WHY I ASK MY
COLLEAGUES TO JOIN ME IN TABLING
THIS AMENDMENT AS WE WORK
TOGETHER IN THE FUTURE TO MAKE
SURE WE PRESERVE AMERICAN JOBS.
THE SUGAR INDUSTRY SUPPLIES
AMERICAN JOBS.
JUST ASK THE PEOPLE IN THE RED
RIVER VALLEY IN MINNESOTA AND
NORTH DAKOTA.
MR. PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM WYOMING.
MR. PRESIDENT, I THANK
MY COLLEAGUE FROM MINNESOTA FOR
HER COMMENTS.
THIS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT HAS
COME UP ON A -- ON A REGULAR
BASIS.
ALWAYS STARTED FROM NEW
HAMPSHIRE.
ALWAYS DEFEATED BY THE UNITED
STATES SENATE.
AND I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
2393.
TABLE REED AMENDMENT NUMBER
THIS MEASURE'S KNOWN AS SENATOR
SHAHEEN'S AMENDMENT TO PHASE OUT
THE FEDERAL SUGAR PROGRAM.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO COMMEND
CHAIRWOMAN STABENOW AND RANKING
MEMBER ROBERTS FOR THEIR WORK ON
THE UNDERLYING BILL.
THEY PROVED THAT THE AGRICULTURE
COMMITTEE HAS -- IS ABLE TO TAKE
A SERIOUS LOOK AT THE FARM BILL
PROGRAMS AND IMPROVE WHAT WAS
WORKING WHILE CUTTING WHAT
WASN'T.
THE SUGAR PROGRAM IS AN
EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF WHAT WORKS
IN THE FARM BILL.
SINCE ITS EARLY YEARS, THE SUGAR
PROGRAM HAS EVOLVED TO ENSURE
THAT BEET AND CANE GROWERS CAN
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE UNITED
STATES WITH THE SAFE AND
RELIABLE SOURCE OF SUGAR
PRODUCTS.
I UNDERSCORE "RELIABLE" BECAUSE
SUGAR IS A UNIQUE COMMODITY.
NOT ONLY ON SUGAR CROPS
EXTREMELY LIMITED IN THEIR
SEASONS, BUT AN ADDED COMPONENT
IS THAT BOTH SUGAR BEETS AND
CANE MUST BE PROCESSED
IMMEDIATELY AFTER HARVEST.
PROCESSING INVOLVES WHAT IS
ESSENTIALLY A REFINERY.
IN WYOMING, WE HAVE THREE
FACILITIES THAT PROCESS SUGAR,
ALL OF WHICH ARE GROWER OWNED
AND OPERATED.
YOU CAN ALWAYS TELL IT'S OCTOBER
BACK HOME WHEN THE LARGE PILES
OF SUGAR BEETS BEGIN TO APPEAR
OUTSIDE THE SUGAR PLANTS.
WORKERS RACE TO PRODUCE RAW
SUGAR BEFORE THE BEETS GO BAD.
ANY NUMBER OF COMPLICATIONS CAN
SPOIL THE CROP AND PUT THE SUGAR
REFINERIES OUT OF BUSINESS.
SUCH UNIQUE CONDITIONS PRODUCE
RISK THAT'S NOT COMMON WITH OUR
AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES,
BECAUSE MUCH OF THE YEAR'S SUGAR
IS PRODUCED IN SUCH A SMALL
WINDOW, A SUGAR PROGRAM IS
NEEDED TO STABILIZE THE PRICE OF
ENTIRE YEAR.
THIS POLICY BENEFITS THE VERY
PEOPLE THAT OPPONENTS OF THE
SUGAR PROGRAM WISH TO PROTECT.
WITH STABILITY IN THE SUGAR
MARKETS, CONFECTIONERS, FOOD
MANUFACTURERS AND BEVERAGE
MAKERS HAVE A STEADY SUPPLY OF
QUALITY SUGAR WITHOUT WILD PRICE
SWINGS.
NOT ONLY ARE U.S. SUGAR PRICES
STABLE UNDER THE PROGRAM, BUT
THE UNITED STATES OFFERS SUGAR
USERS SOME OF THE LOWEST PRICES
IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD.
I ALSO WISH TO ADD THAT THE U.S.
SUGAR PROGRAM WORKS TO ENSURE
THAT OTHER NATIONS HAVE ACCESS
TO SUGAR MARKETS.
SOME CLAIM THAT THE U.S. SUGAR
PROGRAM IS A PROTECTIONIST
POLICY.
THIS COULDN'T BE MORE FALSE.
17 OF THE LARGEST SUGAR
EXPORTING COUNTRIES IN AFRICA,
ASIA, THE CARIBBEAN, CENTRAL
AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA HAVE
ALL EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR THE
U.S. SUGAR PROGRAM.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE UNITED
STATES IS THE SECOND LARGEST NET
IMPORTER OF SUGAR BEHIND ONLY
RUSSIA.
THE PROGRAM'S OPERATED TO ENSURE
WE FULFILL OUR TRADE
OBLIGATIONS, ESPECIALLY WITHIN
THE W.T.O., AND CONTINUES TO
PROVIDE A SUGAR MARKET FOR
DEVELOPING NATIONS WISHING TO
EXPORT THEIR PRODUCT.
FINAL 8,LY, THE U.S. SUGAR PROGRAM
HAS BEEN RUN FOR THE PAST TEN
YEARS AT ZERO COST TO THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
TAXPAYER, AND THE U.S.
PREDICTS IT WILL REMAIN THAT WAY
IN ITS CURRENT FORM FOR AT LEAST
TEN MORE.
AS OTHER COLLEAGUES HAVE
MENTIONED, THIS IS ALL WHILE THE
U.S. SUGAR INDUSTRY HAS HELPED
TO GENERATE NEARLY $20 BILLION
IN ANNUAL ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN
OUR COUNTRY.
WYOMING OFFERS JUST A FEW
EXAMPLES OF HOW MUCH OF AN
ECONOMIC IMPACT THE SUGAR
INDUSTRY HAS ON RURAL
COMMUNITIES ACROSS OUR NATION.
AS I MENTIONED, THE GROWERS AND
LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN MY STATE
OWN THE PLANTS THAT REFINE THE
RAW SUGAR WE USE EVERY DAY.
THOSE PLANTS PRODUCE JOBS AND
KEEP ECONOMIC ACTIVITY LOCAL.
WITH ALL THE INHERENT RISKS IN
SUGAR PRODUCTION, THESE
COMMUNITIES ARE ABLE TO CONTINUE
PROVIDING THE UNITED STATES WITH
A SAFE AND RELIABLE SUPPLY OF
SUGAR FOR THE UNITED STATES.
THE U.S. SUGAR POLICY NOT ONLY
HELPS GROWERS BUT KEEPS PRICES
LOW FOR CONSUMERS.
SOME AMERICAN FOOD MANUFACTURERS
WILL CLAIM THAT IT'S THE PRICE
OF SUGAR CAUSING THEM TO SHED
JOBS OR MOVE OVERSEAS.
HOWEVER, SUGAR REPRESENTS ONLY A
SMALL PORTION OF THE INPUT COSTS
THAT GO INTO FOOD PRODUCTION.
INSTEAD, IT'S THE COST OF LABOR,
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, AND
REGULATORY BURDENS THAT PLAY THE
BIGGEST ROLE IN WHETHER U.S.
FIRMS CAN COMPETE WITH FOOD
MARKETS OVERSEAS.
IN RECENT YEARS, U.S. CANDZY
PRODUCTIONCANDYPRODUCTION HAS ACTUALLY GONE UP
AND THE U.S. SUGAR PROGRAM HAS
PLAYED ITS ROLE BY KEEPING
PRICES STABLE.
WITH THAT, I ASK MY COLLEAGUES
TO TABLE AMENDMENT NUMBER 2393
AND KEEP THE PROGRAMS THAT WORK
IN THIS FARM BILL.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM IDAHO.
THANK YOU.
I RISE TODAY TO SUPPORT AND
UNDERSCORE THE POINTS JUST MADE
BY SENATOR ENZI WHICH SUPPORT
THE U.S. SUGAR PROGRAM, WHICH HE
INDICATED HAS OPERATED
SUCCESSFULLY AT NO COST TO THE
AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, CONSUMERS OR
FOOD MANUFACTURERS.
AS YOU KNOW, THE SUGAR BEET
INDUSTRY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO MY
STATE, IDAHO, BRINGING IN
APPROXIMATELY $1.1 BILLION IN
REVENUE EVERY YEAR.
HISTORY HAS SHOWN THAT GROCERS
AND FOOD MANUFACTURERS DO NOT
PASS THEIR SAVINGS FROM LOWER
CONSUMERS.
INGREDIENT PRICES AALONG TO
FOR EXAMPLE --
PRICES ALONG TO CONSUMERS.
FOR EXAMPLE, FROM THE SUMMER
2010 UNTIL NOW, PRODUCER PRICES
20%.
FOR SUGAR HAVE DROPPED NEARLY
IN FACT, THE U.S. SUGAR PROGRAM
REMAINS CRUCIAL BECAUSE OTHER
NATIONS ARE IMPLEMENTING TRADE
DISTORTING SUBSIDIES FOR THEIR
INDUSTRIES.
OTHERWISE UNCOMPETITIVE SUGAR
THIS WORLD SUGAR PRICE, AS IS
SOFTEN DEBATED IN THESE HALLS,
SUFFERS FROM GOVERNMENT-BACKED
DUMPING THAT PROTECTS SUGAR
PRODUCERS OVERSEAS TO THE
DETRIMENT OF AMERICAN SUGAR
PRODUCERS.
HENCE, THE NEED FOR THE U.S.
SUGAR PROGRAM.
CONSUMERS IN THE REST OF THE
FOR SUGAR.
WORLD PAY ON AVERAGE 14% MORE
IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD, 24% MORE
FOR AMERICAN -- THAN AMERICAN
CONSUMERS PAY.
IN AMERICA, SUGAR IS A READILY
AVAILABLE AND AFFORDABLE PRODUCT
PRODUCT.
CRITICS OF THE U.S. SUGAR POLICY
MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE
PROGRAM CAUSES DISASTROUS
SHORTAGES IN U.S. SUGAR SUPPLY,
REALITY.
WHICH FLIES IN THE FACE OF
U.S. FARMERS AND PRODUCERS HAVE
PROVEN THEMSELVES TIME AND AGAIN
TO BE THE MOST EFFICIENT IN THE
WORLD, BUT THEY CANNOT BE LEFT
ALONE TO FACE A TRADE MARKET
UNDERMINED BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
MANIPULATION.
NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM
THE TRUTH, AND THE LATEST
NUMBERS RELEASED BY THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
UNDERLINE THAT.
THE USDA NOW ESTIMATES THAT
THERE'S ENOUGH SUGAR SURPLUS TO
GIVE EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD
IN THIS COUNTRY NEARLY 12 POUNDS
OF SUGAR ON TOP OF WHAT THEY
ALREADY CONSUME.
THIS IS ENOUGH SURPLUS SUGAR TO
FILL THE CAPITOL DOME 55 TIMES.
MR. PRESIDENT, I STRONGLY
ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO
OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPTS AT REPEALING
THIS PROGRAM.
AT RISK WOULD BE 142,000
AMERICAN JOBS GENERATED BY THE
UNITED STATES SUGAR PRODUCING
INDUSTRY.
MANY OF THESE JOBS WOULD BE LOST
TO SUBSIDIZED FOREIGN PRODUCERS
WHO ARE GENERALLY LESS EFFICIENT
AND LESS RELIABLE AND PRODUCE
SUGAR FAR LESS SAFELY AND
RESPONSIBLY THAN AMERICAN SUGAR
PRODUCERS.
I SUPPORT IDAHO'S SUGAR BEET
GROWERS AS WELL AS THE SUGAR
GROWERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY,
AND I'M COMMITTED TO ENSURING
THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE
TOOLS THEY NEED TO PRODUCE
AFFORDABLE AND ABUNDANT SUGAR
SUPPLY.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS NOT ONLY IS
THIS PROGRAM NOT A COST TO THE
UNITED STATES TAXPAYER, IT
GENERATES REVENUE TO HELP US
REDUCE OUR DEFICIT.
THESE ARE THE KINDS OF PROGRAMS
WE NEED TO PROTECT AMERICAN
PRODUCERS, AND I ENCOURAGE ALL
OF MY COLLEAGUES TO OPPOSE THE
SHAHEEN AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT, AND I
FLOOR.
I NOTE THE ABSENCE OF
A QUORUM.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
MR. PRESIDENT?
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THE CALL
OF THE QUORUM BE VITIATED.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
I NOW WITHDRAW MY
MOTION TO PROCEED TO S. 1940.
THE
MOTION IS WITHDRAWN.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING
ON S. 3240, IS THAT
RIGHT, AND A MOTION TO RECOMMIT
WITH SECONDARY AMENDMENT NUMBER
2393 IS NOW PENDING, IS THAT
RIGHT?
THE
SENATOR IS CORRECT.
THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE BILL.
CALENDAR NUMBER 415,
S. 3240, A BILL TO REAUTHORIZE
AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS THROUGH
2017, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
I NOW MOVE TO TABLE
AMENDMENT NUMBERED 2393 AND I
ASK FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS ON
THAT MOTION TO TABLE.
IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
VOTE:
ARE THERE
ANY SENATORS WHO WISH TO CHANGE
THEIR VOTES OR TO VOTE?
HEARING NONE, THE AYES ARE 50,
THE NAYS ARE 46.
THE MOTION TO TABLE CARRIES.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER,
MEESE.
THE MAJORITY LEADER.
I MOVE TO TABLE
AMENDMENT NUMBERED 2392 AND ASK
FOR THE YEAS AND NAYS.
IS THERE
A SUFFICIENT SECOND?
THERE APPEARS TO BE.
THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
LEADER.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THERE BE FOUR MINUTES
EQUALLY DIVIDED OF DEBATE PRIOR
TO THE VOTE.
THE
LEADER.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THERE BE FOUR MINUTES OF
DEBATE PRIOR TO THE VOTE, TIME
CONTROLLED BY SENATOR STABENOW
AND --
IS THERE
OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, AND THERE
WILL BE ORDER.
OUR SYSTEM OF HELPING
NO ONE GOES HUNGRY
IN OUR COUNTRY IS A NOBLE ONE,
BUT WE'RE NOW ASKING TO SPEND
$750 BILLION ON FOOD STAMPS.
WHEN WE ASK THIS, WE NEED TO
REMEMBER THAT RECENTLY A WOMAN
IN CHICAGO FAKED THE BIRTH OF
TRIPLETS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE
$21,000 IN FOOD STAMPS.
WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT
MILLIONAIRES, INCLUDING LARRY
FICKE, WHO WON $2 MILLION, ARE
STILL RECEIVING FOOD STAMPS
BECAUSE HE SAYS HE HAS GOT NO
INCOME.
HE HAS GOT $2 MILLION BUT NO
INCOME.
ORDER,
PLEASE, AND RESTORE SOME OF THE
SENATOR'S TIME.
AMANDA CLAYTON WON A
MILLION DOLLARS RECENTLY IN THE
LOTTERY AND SHE WAS AGHAST THAT
SHE LOST A THIRD OF IT TO TAXES.
SHE NOW HAS TWO HOMES AND
MORTGAGE PAYMENTS.
HOW CAN SHE MAKE IT WITHOUT FOOD
STAMPS?
FOOD STAMPS.
SO WE'RE PAYING MILLIONAIRES
30% OF POLK COUNTY INMATES ARE
GETTING FOOD STAMPS.
THERE HAS TO BE SOME REASON.
SHOULD YOU BUY JUNK FOOD ON FOOD
STAMPS?
SHOULD YOU GET TO GO TO
McDONALD'S ON FOOD STAMPS?
IT'S OUT OF CONTROL.
IT'S NOT ABOUT HELPING THOSE IN
NEED.
IT'S ABOUT BEING WISE WITH THE
TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND NOT GIVING
PEOPLE $20,000 A YEAR IN FOOD
STAMPS.
WE NEED TO GIVE IT TO ONLY THOSE
WHO CAN'T WORK, THOSE WHO ARE
INFIRM, THOSE WHO HAVE DISEASE
AND ARE NOT ABLE-BODIED, BUT
WE'RE GIVING IT TO MILLIONAIRES.
WE'RE GIVING IT FOR JUNK FOOD,
AND WE'RE GIVING IT TO GO TO
McDONALD'S, AND IT'S GOT TO
STOP.
IT'S DOUBLED IN THE LAST TEN
YEARS.
OF MONEY.
WE DO NOT HAVE AN ENDLESS SUPPLY
THE
SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER.
THE SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY.
I THINK THAT AMERICANS
WOULD BE JUST FLABBERGASTED AT
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND SOME OF
THESE PROGRAMS ARE DUPLICATIVE,
SO PEOPLE GETTING FOOD STAMPS
FOR A MEAL ARE ALSO GETTING A
FREE LUNCH AT SCHOOL.
SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS WE'RE
ACTUALLY ADVERTISING FOR
APPLICANTS.
IN MY HOMETOWN, THEY ADVERTISE
TO TRY TO PROMOTE TO GET PEOPLE
TO COME IN AND EAT THE FREE
LUNCH DURING THE SUMMERTIME.
NOT THAT WE WON'T HELP
PEOPLE.
WE JUST NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS OF
HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAVE AND CAN
WE HELP ONLY THOSE WHO CANNOT
HELP THEMSELVES.
WHAT I WOULD ASK IS FOR SOME
IS --
REASON THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
THE
SENATOR'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
I RECOMMEND THAT WE
VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THANK YOU.
THE
SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN.
FIRST OF ALL, I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT,
URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE TO
TABLE IT.
I WOULD AGREE WITH THE SENATOR
FROM KENTUCKY, NOBODY WHO WINS
THE LOTTERY SHOULD GET FOOD
ASSISTANCE, AND WE OUTRIGHT BAN
IT IN THIS BILL.
WE OUTRIGHT BAN A NUMBER OF
AREAS WHERE THERE HAS BEEN
WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE.
THIS BILL DOES MORE ON
ACCOUNTABILITY, ON FOOD
ASSISTANCE THAN WE HAVE SEEN IN
MANY, MANY YEARS.
BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T DO WHAT THIS
AMENDMENT DOES, WHICH IS BLOCK
GRANT FUNDING, CUT IT, SEND IT
BACK TO THE STATES WITH NO
REQUIREMENT IT BE USED FOR
PEOPLE WHO TRULY NEED IT.
I CAN TELL YOU COMING FROM
MICHIGAN, I HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
NEVER BEFORE IN THEIR LIVES
ASSISTANCE.
NEEDED HELP WITH FOOD
THEY ARE MORTIFIED.
THEY PAID TAXES THEIR WHOLE
LIFE.
THEY HAVE NEVER ASKED FOR HELP.
AND NOW THE PLANT CLOSED AND
THEY NEED SOME TEMPORARY HELP.
THOSE FOLKS ARE ON AVERAGE
GETTING HELP FOR TEN MONTHS OR
LESS, AND THEY DESERVE EVERY
DOLLAR THAT WE CAN HELP THEM
WITH, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE
EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR GOES WHERE
IT SHOULD GO.
WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE, WE
TACKLE, BUT FOR SOMEBODY IN THIS
GREAT COUNTRY WHO HAS PAID TAXES
ALL THEIR LIVES AND WORKED ALL
THEIR LIVES AND NOW NEEDS HELP
TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE FOR THE
BALANCE OF THE MONTH, THEY NEED
TO KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF
TEMPORARY HELP.
AMENDMENT IS OUTRAGEOUS AND
WOULD GO COMPLETELY AGAINST THE
COMMITMENT WE AS A COUNTRY HAVE
MADE TO HELP THOSE WHO TRULY
NEED IT.
WE VOTE YES TO
TABLE THIS AMENDMENT.
THE YEAS
AND NAYS HAVE BEEN ORDERED.
THE CLERK WILL -- THE CLERK WILL
CALL THE ROLL.
VOTE:
VOTE:
SPROEUP ARE THERE ANY --
ARE
THERE ANY SENATORS WISHING TO
VOTE OR CHANGE THEIR VOTE?
HEARING NONE, THE AYES ARE 65.
THE NAYS ARE 33.